Santa's Ghetto - 2007
- Details
- Written by Peter Miller Peter Miller
- Published: 21 December 2007 21 December 2007
- Hits: 5187 5187
Bethlehem is one of the most contentious places on earth.
Perchedat the edge of the Judaen desert at the intersection of Europe, Asiaand Africa in the state of Palestine it was governed by the Britishfollowing the collapse of the Ottoman Empire. After World War II theUnited Nations voted to partition the region into two states - oneJewish, one Arab and there’s been fighting ever since.
It’sobviously not the job of a loose collection of idiot doodlers to tellyou what’s right or wrong about this situation, so you’re advised to dofurther reading yourself (this month’s National Geographic has anexcellent article all about Bethlehem).
We would liketo make it very clear Santa’s Ghetto is not allied to ANY race, creed,religion, political organization or lobby group. As an organisation theonly thing we’ll say on behalf of our artists is that we don’t speak onbehalf of our artists. This show simply offers the ink-stained hand offriendship to ordinary people in an extraordinary situation.
Everyshekel made in the store will be used on local projects for childrenand young people. Not one cent will go to any political groups,governmental institutions or, in fact, any grown-ups at all.
Salaam.
Police, Protesters Clash in New Orleans
- Details
- Written by CAIN BURDEAU, Associated Press Writer CAIN BURDEAU, Associated Press Writer
- Published: 20 December 2007 20 December 2007
- Hits: 4984 4984
NEW ORLEANS (AP) - Police used chemical spray and stun devices Thursday as dozens of protesters seeking to halt the demolition of public housing in New Orleans tried to force their way through an iron gate at City Hall.
Some were arrested as officers tried to establish order and an ambulance arrived on the scene. It was unclear whether there were injuries or the ambulance was a precautionary measure.
The council chambers seat less than 300. Once capacity was reached, people who were not permitted into chambers marched and chanted outside, calling for the council to reject plans by the Department of Housing and Urban development to demolish the housing projects.
Using bullhorns, leaders cried ``No Justice, No Peace.''
House Democrats cave in to Bush and support the War: House Approves $70 Billion More for War
- Details
- Written by ANDREW TAYLOR, Associated Press Writer ANDREW TAYLOR, Associated Press Writer
- Published: 19 December 2007 19 December 2007
- Hits: 4834 4834
The House's 272-142 vote also sent the president a $555 billion catchall spending bill that combines the war money with money for 14 Cabinet departments.
Bush and his Senate GOP allies forced the Iraq money upon anti-war Democrats as the price for permitting the year-end budget deal to pass and be signed. But other Democrats were eager to avoid being seen as not supporting troops who are in harm's way - and avoid weeks of bashing by Bush for failing to provide that money.
``This is a blank check,'' complained Rep. Jim McGovern, D-Mass. ``The new money in this bill represents one cave-in too many. It is an endorsement of George Bush's policy of endless war.''
The vote reflected the reluctance by each party to deny money to troops in the field. At the same time, anti-war Democrats had found their position weakened by the decline in violence in Iraq.
War spending aside, Bush's GOP allies were divided over whether the overall spending bill was a victory for their party in the monthslong fight with Democrats over agency budgets.
Conservatives and outside groups such as the Club for Growth, which seeks to elect lawmakers opposed to tax and spending increases, criticized the bill for having about $28 billion in domestic spending that topped Bush's budget and was paid for by a combination of ``emergency'' spending, transfers from the defense budget and other maneuvers.
Republican leaders acknowledged some excesses. But they said the measure could have cost a lot more if the GOP and the White House not stood firm against more than $20 billion in additional domestic spending included in Democratic spending bills that passed last summer.
``The fact is we got the number down to the baseline,'' said House Minority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio.
Boehner supported moves that effectively broke Bush's budget cap to provide record budget increases for veterans and to build a fence and provide additional security along the U.S.-Mexico border.
While disappointed on the Iraq money, Democrats said the spending bill smoothed the rough edges of the president's February budget plan. That proposal had sought below-inflation increases for most domestic programs and contained numerous cuts and program eliminations.
For Democrats, just finishing the budget ended up as the driving goal. They wanted to avoid the humiliation of failing to enact the spending bills after criticizing then-majority Republicans for not doing so last year.
The spending legislation affects virtually every part of the government other than the Defense Department's core programs. It would pay for food and toy safety inspections, NASA, the FBI, the Coast Guard, education, health research and national park operations.
It also contains about 9,000 pet projects sought by lawmakers, at a cost of more than $7 billion, according to Taxpayers for Common Sense, a Washington-based group that fights such projects.
The bill would raise the pay of federal civilian workers by 3.5 percent, extend farm subsidies the food stamp program until March 15 and eliminated money for a next generation nuclear warhead. It also would keep banks from entering the real estate business.
But the White House succeeded in using veto threats to rid the bill of more contentious items such as ending a ban on U.S. aid to overseas family planning groups that perform abortions and easing financing of agricultural and medical sales to Cuba.
Israel considers new settlement
- Details
- Written by BBC News BBC News
- Published: 19 December 2007 19 December 2007
- Hits: 4557 4557
Housing minister Zeev Boim said it was a preliminary look at possible housing development in the Atarot area.
He played down its significance, saying such checks were done year round on areas with building potential.
Palestinians say the Har Homa expansion announced this month threatened to derail re-launched peace negotiations.
"This is a preliminary examination of an initial construction plan. Such feasibility checks are done all year round on all areas with building potential in Jerusalem," Mr Boim said in a statement.
"The ministry has to offer a solution to the housing problem in Jerusalem."
Senior Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat said such plans would destroy the peace process and must be stopped.
"We consider these steps as threatening the beginning of the final negotiations between the two sides."
The status of the area, occupied by Israeli forces along with the West Bank and Gaza Strip, the Golan and Sinai, during the 1967 war, is meant to be determined in bilateral talks.
But Israel considers East Jerusalem outside the debate, as it annexed the area soon after the war, although the move has not been recognised internationally.
The Palestinians want it as the capital of their future state, whose formation is the goal of the nascent peace talks.
Separately, the Israeli transport minister suggested that Israel might be willing to talk to the Palestinian militant group which controls Gaza, Hamas, through a third party.
Shaul Mofaz said such mediation would be aimed at halting Palestinian rocket fire from the Gaza Strip.
Israel says the move is in response to an offer made on Israeli TV by Hamas leader Ismail Haniya, although Hamas has since denied that it intends opening negotiations with the Israelis.
Hamas refuses to recognise Israel, and the Israelis have sealed off the Gaza Strip since it seized control there in June.
____________
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/middle_east/7151845.stm
Published: 2007/12/19 13:25:35 GMT
© BBC MMVII
A PALESTINIAN VIEW: The demographic argument is inherently racist
- Details
- Written by bitterlemons, an interview with Hanan Ashrawi bitterlemons, an interview with Hanan Ashrawi
- Published: 19 December 2007 19 December 2007
- Hits: 3193 3193
A PALESTINIAN VIEW
The demographic argument is inherently racist
an interview with Hanan Ashrawi
bitterlemons: Israel's demand to be recognized as a "Jewish state" at
Annapolis caused an uproar among Palestinians. This doesn't seem like a
new demand, so why the uproar?
Ashrawi: It is new in a sense. It is new as a prerequisite for
negotiations. The demand has always been the recognition of Israel.
Then Israel added the recognition of Israel's "right to exist", and
then the recognition of it's right to exist as a "Jewish state". But
when the PLO recognized Israel in 1993 there was an assumption that
that was it, in the context of a two-state solution and international
law and UN General Assembly Resolution 181 and Security Council
Resolution 242.
This issue of the Jewishness of the state came up recently mainly
because of the so-called demographic issue--which to me is an
inherently racist issue--which became the central motivation for the
two-state solution among the Israeli right, including Ariel Sharon. The
fear of the demographic balance, projections for the birthrate and so
on, led people to this position, and now Israel wants to ensure that
there is always a Jewish majority.
bitterlemons: Why is this position unacceptable to the Palestinians?
Ashrawi: Once you start raising this issue it means that you want to
eliminate the Palestinian refugees' right of return because they happen
not to be Jewish. Israel sees the return of Palestinian refugees as a
demographic way of destroying the state of Israel. Hence it has become
a main prerequisite for qualification for the "good housekeeping seal":
if you are a Palestinian who adheres to the right of return you are not
qualified for negotiations or as an interlocutor because you want to
destroy Israeli demographically.
It is also unacceptable to the Palestinian citizens of Israel. These
are the people saying Israel should be a state for all its citizens.
The irony is that this is seen as something entirely unacceptable by
Israel. But every state should be a state for all its citizens. It
cannot be a state for a select number of citizens depending on
ethnicity or religious affiliation. So in a sense, Israel also wants
the Palestinians to negate the right of Palestinian citizens of Israel
and ensure that they remain second or third class citizens.
Finally, there is a question of principle. People recognize states.
They do not recognize the right of any state to exist. The moment you
recognize a state you recognize its right to exist. But you don't
recognize the nature of the regime or form of governance. I don't only
recognize the US as long as it is maintains a democratic, presidential
system, France as long as it is a secular republic or Iran as long as
it is an Islamic state. It is ironic that at a time when we as
Palestinians are struggling to have a state that's pluralistic,
democratic, open, inclusive and tolerant and are fighting internally
against absolutist and exclusionary ideologies, we are asked by Israel
to accept their form of exclusionary ideology.
bitterlemons: Israel claims that upholding the right of return would be
the end of a two-state solution because two Palestinian states would
essentially be created. Is this a fair position?
Ashrawi: A right is a right and it cannot be negotiated. You do not
enter negotiations having relinquished a right and violated
international law. You have to uphold international law, recognize
rights and then negotiate their implementation.
It is Israel that is destroying the two-state solution with its
settlements and by refusing to accept a viable democratic state on the
1967 borders. There are now voices increasingly calling for a one-state
solution and democracy as the answer, with one voice and one vote.
To me, the demographic argument is by definition racist. I think
Palestinians have the right to independence, statehood and
self-determination as a legal and political imperative. It is not an
issue that has to become a threat or that we formulate in response to
somebody else's position.
bitterlemons: Israel says the idea of two states for two peoples is
embodied by UNGA Resolution 181. Is this your interpretation?
Ashrawi: The language used was a "Jewish state" and an "Arab state". If
they want to accept 181, then let us take all of it. Then we go back to
the whole partition plan. We have agreed to give them 78 percent of
historic Palestine. If they want to use 181, then they can have 54
percent of Palestine and then they can say they have a "Jewish state".
bitterlemons: But is that your understanding of 181? Does it call for this kind of ethnic division?
Ashrawi: No it doesn't. But it describes the state as Jewish and that's
why Israel wants to use it. 181 was a response to the Jewish Question.
It was decided to give part of Palestine to Jews for as long as it
would not endanger the rights of the indigenous Palestinian population.
Now Jews have a state. But does this mean that this state can be
exclusionary and discriminatory? Does it mean that this is the language
that should be used in twenty-first century? If they want to use 181,
let's take it in its totality.
bitterlemons: In view of the apparent US endorsement of the Israeli demand, what can Palestinians do?
Ashrawi: We don't have to accept the Israeli demand. If anyone came up
and said the US should be legitimate only as a Christian state there
would be an outcry. But the fact that the US took their cue from the
Israelis and adopted Israeli language is not new. It doesn't mean we
have to accept it.
bitterlemons: But how significant is it?
Ashrawi: It depends on how you pursue it. It's significant in the sense
that the US adopted the Israeli position, but this is not new. But will
it be translated into concrete steps when it comes to refugees, or the
suggestion by some Israeli racists of a land swap based on demography?
Would the US endorse such racist solutions? Would they accept the
negation of the rights of Palestinians? That's the issue.
bitterlemons: Do the Americans understand that this is the issue?
Ashrawi: If they don't, they have no business mediating. The
implications of these words are enormous. The Palestinians see this as
a way of forcing them to accept the Israeli narrative and therefore
negate the Palestinian narrative and Palestinian legitimacy. If you
want a peace process you have to incorporate the legitimacy of the
Palestinian narrative.- Published 17/12/2007 © bitterlemons.org
Hanan Ashrawi is a Palestinian legislator and a member of the Third Way party.