~ Dismantling the propaganda matrix. ~
~ Empowering a community of social, economic and political justice. ~


Google
 
RSS - Circle of 13

Saturday, December 01, 2007

"Don't make me a saint"

Dorothy Day's anarcho-Catholicism: The way of love

28 Nov 2007

By Joshua Snyder 

 
November 29th marks the anniversary of the passing of Dorothy Day, the foundress of the Catholic Worker Movement. Mark the date on your calendar, because this radical pacifist who had been a member of the I.W.W., met Leon Trotsky, had an abortion, and raised a daughter as a divorced single mother may be the next American canonized a saint in the Catholic Church.

Born in Brooklyn in 1897, she became a Greenwich Village Bohemian by the late 1910s and '20s, and was active in the radical socialist politics of the day, promoting women's rights, free love, and birth control along with the rights of the workingman. After two failed common-law marriages and an abortion, the birth of her daughter Tamar Teresa and the desire to have her baptized led her to formally embrace Catholicism. She converted in 1927.

In 1933, she founded
the Catholic Worker movement with the itinerant French illegal immigrant Peter Maurin, a sort of modern Holy Fool in the mode of Saint Francis of Assisi. The Catholic Worker, which still costs one cent, adopted a neutral, pacifist, and anarchist stance as the world's leaders drifted toward war in the 1930s.

By US entry into World War II, there were more than thirty Catholic Worker communities, "houses of hospitality" in cities and communal farms in the countryside. But Miss Day's uncompromising pacifism and opposition to the draft during the war cost her a lot of support as even Americans sympathetic to the work she was doing were caught up in wartime hysteria and jingoism. Subscriptions to the newspaper and support for the communities fell drastically.

By the 1960s, Miss Day was again a figure with whom to be reckoned. Abbie Hoffman called her "the first hippie," a title she gladly accepted. (Another title she never accepted: "Don't make me a saint. I don't want to be dismissed that easily.") She welcomed the antiwar, civil rights, and social justice movements of that decade, but never embraced the sexual revolution, having survived one herself in the 1920s, the period she wrote about in her autobiography,
The Long Loneliness.

However politically heterodox
Dorothy Day was, she was always religiously orthodox, saying, "When it comes to labor and politics, I am inclined to be sympathetic to the left, but when it comes to the Catholic Church, then I am far to the right." She also said, "If the Chancery ordered me to stop publishing The Catholic Worker tomorrow, I would."

That day never came, not even in 1949 when she clashed with Cardinal Francis Spellman of New York City over the strike by unionized grave diggers of
Calvary Cemetery. She, of course, publicly sided with the workers and took up their cause. But this only earned the Cardinal's respect for the politically radical but theologically traditionalist rabble-rouser. (One is reminded of the pope's decree during the Papal States period that other states could wage war against him but remain in good faith, since they would be waging war with him as a temporal, not spiritual leader.)

In fact, she was embraced by the Church hierarchy up to the Vicar of Christ himself. Pope Paul VI honored her with the Pacem in Terris ("Peace on Earth") Award in 1972. Dorothy Day was never a fringe figure on the Catholic left. The conservative aristocratic English novelist and fellow Catholic convert Evelyn Waugh made it a point of seeking an audience with her on a visit to America. But not all were impressed; William F. Buckley spoke of the "anti-Catholic doctrines of this goodhearted woman," strange coming from a man whose heretical "Mater Si, Magister No" (mother yes, teacher no) statement about the Church paved the way for a generation of neo-conservative Catholics to ignore
Catholic Social Teaching.

By the time of Dorothy Day's death in 1980, the Catholic Worker Movement was global, and there are now over 100 communities worldwide (including one in the author's Archdiocese of Taegu, South Korea, which provides for the Filipino migrant laborer community). In 1983, the
Claretian Missionaries proposed that she be sainted, and in 2000, Pope John Paul II gave Archbishop John O'Connor of New York City permission to open her cause. Along with Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen, her cause was opened and she received the title Servant of God. She is now on her way to veneration, beatification, and eventual canonization.

Dorothy Day's mission was simple: to perform the
Corporal Works of Mercy as commanded by her Lord as articulated by her Church. And she went about doing this without government aid, support, or even permission. In this remarkable statement, she explains why her movement never registered with the Internal Revenue Service for non-profit tax-exempt status:

Christ commanded His followers to perform what Christians have come to call the Works of Mercy: feeding the hungry, giving drink to the thirsty, clothing the naked, sheltering the harborless, visiting the sick and prisoner, and burying the dead. Surely a simple program for direct action, and one enjoined on all of us. Not just for impersonal "poverty programs," government-funded agencies, but help given from the heart at a personal sacrifice.

On another level there is a principle laid down, much in line with common sense and with the original American ideal, that governments should never do what small bodies can accomplish: unions, credit unions, cooperatives, St. Vincent de Paul Societies.
Peter Maurin's anarchism was on one level based on this principle of subsidiarity, and on a higher level on that scene at the Last Supper where Christ washed the feet of His Apostles. He came to serve, to show the new Way, the way of the powerless. In the face of Empire, the Way of Love.

We believe also that the government has no right to legislate as to who can or who are to perform the Works of Mercy. Only accredited agencies have the status of tax-exempt institutions. After their application has been filed, and after investigation and long delays, clarifications, intercession, and urgings by lawyers - often an expensive and long-drawn-out procedure - this tax-exempt status is granted.

No, the Catholic Worker knows the dangers of becoming a State-sanctioned faith-based organization. It has been said that America did not establish a State church; she established thousands of them. She did so through the IRS. And while many on the Left worry about Church influence over State, Dorothy Day knew the dangers when the State exerts its muscle on the Church.

Her
Christian Anarchism was born out of her exposure to Wobbly anarcho-syndicalism and her reading of Peter Kropotkin, and, above all, Leo Tolstoy's non-fiction magnum opus, The Kingdom of God Is Within You. Anarchy need not mean a descent into chaos and violence, a nightmare world where the strong prey off the weak. To prevent this, institutions providing moral clarity and "mutual aid" were needed.

Dorothy Day understood the importance of the "voluntary associations"
Alexis de Tocqueville found in America, the "unions, credit unions, cooperatives, St. Vincent de Paul Societies" that she mentions. These corps intermédiares range from the most immediate, the family and community groups, to the most universal and transnational, such as the Geneva Conventions or the Catholic Church. Local or global, they serve as a buffer between the individual and absolute Statist power. State Socialism and State Corporatism both destroy these by atomizing society, leaving individuals defenseless against Tyranny.

Thus, Dorothy Day took issue with the New Deal not because she was against helping the poor ─ this was her life's work, after all ─ but because she knew that once the State took on the functions of the family and the other corps intermédiares, these, not the State as Karl Marx asserted, would "wither away."

There was a time when conservatives wrote books with titles like
Our Enemy, the State. But conservatives ignored Karl Hess, Barry Goldwater's speechwriter who later worked to bring toward unity between the Old Right and the New Left, who said, "Vietnam should remind all conservatives that whenever you put your faith in big government, for any reason, sooner or later you wind up an apologist for mass murder." Now that conservatives have added the "neo-" suffix, big government is the order of the day, fromNo Child Left Behind to the USA PATRIOT Act to The Global War on Terrorism.

As we head into the 2008 presidential race, the candidates in both parties (a.k.a.
The War Party) are giving us promises of what the State will do for us (and the world, whether they like or not). Each of the major Republicrat wing candidates leans toward one end of what Murray N. Rothbard called the Welfare-Warfare State. All are talking about expanding the role of the State, with the notable exception of Dr. Ron Paul.

"There is no political solution," begins
Spirits in the Material World by The Police, a song released in the year after Dorothy Day's death. Wherever we find ourselves on the political spectrum, we would be wise to look to one of America's great "spirits in the material world" and, instead of seeking a "political solution" from the State, follow her example: "In the face of Empire, the Way of Love."

Servant of God Dorothy Day, pray for us.

An American Catholic son-in-law of Korea, Joshua Snyder lives with his wife and two children in Pohang, where he serves as an assistant visiting professor of English at a science and technology university. He blogs at The Western Confucian.
 

Nader: 'The Lost Art of Family Traditions'

by Ralph Nader

They are free, valuable, personal and too often not mentioned or used. I speak of the insights, wisdom and experiences of families over several generations.

Now that Thanksgiving weekend is over, how many families recounted some of their traditions for their children and grandchildren to absorb and enjoy? It is highly probable that electronic toys, music and videos received more than a little attention over those four days.

That is a problem. Many youngsters are spending about 50 hours a week watching screens-television, video and computer-for the most part as spectators or engaged in trivial pursuits such as endless text messaging or fiddling with their Facebook profile.

Yet in the overall picture of family upbringing, it is what families do together, participate with one another and their friends or relatives in their neighborhood that significantly shape character and personality.

Earlier this year, I wrote a book called THE SEVENTEEN TRADITIONS about how my mother and father raised their four children in a small factory town in Connecticut during the Thirties, Forties and Fifties.

The seventeen traditions marked the ways we were raised-learning to listen, how to think independently, how to learn from history and from our siblings, how to work, care for our community, respect our parents and relish simple enjoyments needing our engagement, for example.

The reaction to this book from around the country was uniformly positive, making this the only book I have written that everyone loves.

Why? Besides the helpful sayings and problem-solving ways of my parents (such as getting us to eat right) the book was well received because these pages often resonated with their own family memories and made people more aware of their great-grandparents, grandparents and parents at their best.

Sadly, the transmission of these best sayings, insights and experiences are not being set down, notwithstanding the plethora of recording equipment. Pictures galore, yes. But my sense in speaking with hundreds of people, during my book tour is that recognition of these family gems is not often accompanied by their being written or recorded for transmission to the next generations.

It is too easy to procrastinate and then, suddenly it is too late for granny or grandpa and this priceless inheritance is lost forever to the children and grandchildren.

Coming from the forebears or ancestors, these traditions mean a great deal for these youngsters and even more when they grow older. The same wisdom, song, poetry, proverb (my parents disciplined us with proverbs, not believing in corporal punishment) coming from other sources is just not as memorable, repeatable or meaningful.

Mother and father raised two girls and two boys who enjoyed civic activity. They taught us the tradition of civics and how to form our civic personality of resilience and critical thinking by the force of their own example. They regularly participated in community activities enhancing justice, safety (eg. from floods) and charity.

Today, the commercialization of childhood by hundreds of companies saturating children directly with advertisements for things and programs which are generally not good for them-junk food, violent and salacious programming and so forth-has undermined parental authority and taken advantage of the days when parents are away commuting to and from work.

Yet, it is the family structure which is indispensable to a strong, self-confident people that relates to community and work with a resourcefulness that places important civic values over the relentless drive for profits or commercial values.

Every major religion many centuries ago warned its adherents not to give too much power to the merchant classes. The stomping on other societal values by powerful greed caught the attention of the early prophets more through daily observation than through revelation.

For some months, we have asked families all over the country to send us a tradition or two-an insight or experience-to get the ball rolling for preserving their own family collection. The website for such examples is Seventeentraditions.Com.

Jo wrote us recalling that during the 1960s and 1970s, she and her husband had a rule for their daughter that “she could not have anything she had seen advertised on TV, because the price of an advertised product would be inflated to pay for the advertising that made her want it in the first place…. The lesson was one of both cost-consciousness and awareness of advertising manipulation.”

As a teaching prod and a discussion starter, this tradition of Joy’s family came filled with thought-provoking, peer group resistant, health advancing benefits. The vast majority of products advertised for children on television are easily avoidable or replaceable once critically appraised.

So, send us a “best practice” or a penetrating insight from your family history for placement on Seventeentraditions.Com. Have this holiday season be the occasion for starting up these wonderful and helpful recollections to enrich and protect the family from the corrosive and damaging predatory forces which surround families from so many directions.

In the book, I recount one day when, at age ten, I came home from classes and my father asked me: “Well, Ralph, what did you learn in school today, did you learn how to believe or did you learn how to think?”

Need more be said?

Ralph Nader is a consumer advocate, lawyer, and author. His most recent book is The Seventeen Traditions.

http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/11/27/5461/

Public sentiment for impeachment expands

By John Kaminski and Gary Higginbottom, Brunswick Times Record, Brunswick, Maine

The percentage of Americans favoring impeachment of President Bush and Vice President Cheney is approaching the percentage who favored impeachment of President Nixon in 1973-74.

Public opinion has reached this high level even before Congress has started any impeachment investigation of the Bush-Cheney administration. The public is way ahead of Congress, suggesting that it is time for the U.S. House of Representatives to move forward with the impeachment process.

In October 1973, a Gallup Poll results showed only 28 percent favored Nixon's impeachment and removal from office. That was after a summer of well-publicized Senate Watergate Committee hearings.

Just nine months later, the day before Nixon resigned, nearly two-thirds of Americans believed there was enough evidence for an impeachment trial, and 55 percent thought Nixon should be removed from office.

That is how drastically opinion shifted once Congress acted and revealed the full extent of Nixon's abuses of power.

Now, without any impeachment investigation by Congress, we already see the public's desire for impeachment action approaching the level that led to Nixon's departure from office.

Now, 55 percent of Americans believe that "President Bush has abused his powers as president, which rise to the level of impeachable offenses under the Constitution," and 34 percent believe he should be removed from office.

For Vice President Cheney, 52 percent believe he committed impeachable offenses, and 43 percent believe he should be removed.

Perhaps most telling is that 64 percent of Americans believe that President Bush has abused his powers, and 70 percent believe that Cheney has done so. Polling was conducted by American Research Group Inc., on Nov. 9-12.

Maine people feel much the same way. According to a recent poll by Critical Insights Inc., 40 percent of Maine adults say they favor "the U.S. House of Representatives beginning impeachment proceedings against Vice President Cheney," and 38 percent against President Bush.

Not surprisingly, Maine Republicans and Democrats differ substantially on this matter. Among Maine Democrats, 58 percent favor impeachment proceedings against Cheney, and 54 percent against Bush.

One in six Maine Republicans favors impeachment proceedings against Cheney, and one in eight against Bush.

Maine independents are about evenly split on the impeachment of both Bush and Cheney.

By any historic gauge, the nation clearly believes that we have a major problem with our president and vice president, although the Democrats in control of Congress have refused to even start an impeachment investigation. They are dismissing the sizable portion of citizens calling for Congress to act as the Constitution directed to keep presidential power under control.

The Constitution gives Tom Allen, Mike Michaud and Congress the tool of impeachment to address the problem that a majority of Americans now recognize. This impeachment tool is designed to keep our rulers' power in check — to prevent drifting into a situation of absolute power by an individual or a small controlling group.

Impeachment is the tool being demanded by 43 percent of Americans who not only recognize the problem, but even call for the drastic action of removing Cheney from office.

House Democratic leadership is acting in a timid and irresponsibly political fashion. Likely, they want to keep the Republican executives in power and all Republican politicians "on the ropes" until the 2008 elections. Or perhaps they misguidedly believe that there are more important activities for Congress than heeding this historically strong demand to address these obvious abuses.

Whatever the motivation, Democratic congressional leaders continue to shirk their oaths of office by allowing the executive branch to ignore laws and plan expanded warfare without congressional authorization.

Public opinion and Constitutional responsibility are commanding congressional Democrats Tom Allen and Mike Michaud as strongly as in Nixon's day.

Will they recognize the strength of public sentiment and the dire condition of our nation and take the required corrective action of impeachment investigation? Or will they choose to ignore the call and allow present and future presidents to control the people and their representatives — an authoritarian power that the Constitution directed Congress to prohibit?

John Kaminski is a Topsham resident and chairman of Maine Lawyers for Democracy. Gary Higginbottom is one of the founders of the Maine Campaign to Impeach.

http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/?q=node/29053

Friday, November 30, 2007

bargain: 164 euros per day to lease Armoured Infantry Fighting Vehicles

" ... Greece plans to sign a 60-month lease of more than a hundred German-made tanks to replace ageing armoured vehicles

YES, and it’s only 164 euros a day. No, this is not an ad for the newest super-luxury SUV, although it could be. And what an SUV it would be too!

The price quoted refers to the price offered to the Hellenic Army for leasing more than a hundred Marder 1A3 Armoured Infantry Fighting Vehicles (AIFV) for 60 months. The offer comes from leading Germany-based weapon system manufacturer Rheinmetall.

Even though leasing is well-established in civilian industries throughout the world, it has never before been adapted for weapon systems.

A recent example is the German army’s NH90 transport helicopter pilots’ training centre.

Based on this experience, the Rheinmetall Defence Group of Companies is officially announcing the submission of a leasing proposal for 164 Fully Operational Armour Infantry Fighting Vehicles MARDER 1A3s to the Greek government.

According to the company, “the vehicles are fully operational, immediately available (Turn Key) to the Hellenic Army and may be used either within the Greek territory or outside the Greek borders, whenever the Greek government desires, without any political, operational, functional or legal restrictions whatsoever.” ... "

http://cyprustribune.com/politics/the-goverment-is-renting-tanks/

Thursday, November 29, 2007

'Impeachment as a remedy'

Impeachment Must Happen

"...Elections will not prevent a president Clinton from declaring you an enemy combatant and shipping you off to Guantanamo. They won't prevent a president Obama from sweeping up Americans and holding them indefinitely on his word alone. They won't prevent a president Guiliani from illegally and immorally murdering millions of Iranians for no legitimate reason. They won't prevent a president Romney from seizing your home and assets because he alleges you are impeding operations in Iraq. It won't prevent a president Thompson from exempting himself, his entire administration and his political supporters from the rule of law. It won't prevent any president from leaving the nation unprotected by ignoring or rewriting the intelligence to suit his or her political agenda. Elections won't guarantee that anyone you elect to lead or represent you has to tell you, the congress or the judiciary the truth.

Under the Constitution, we have the right to know if our elected leaders are doing their jobs or abusing the power of their office.
When serious allegations are made, it is our right to have public investigations that are immune to state secrets and executive privilege. We have a responsibility as citizens to act on that information.

There is no more important work for congress to do. You cannot build anything on a weak foundation. Unscrupulous men and women have damaged the very foundation of our nation; the Constitution which is the very bedrock upon which the order and legality of our nation rests. These same people have suspended the rule of law by which we govern ourselves. They assert that the government is theirs to do with as they wish. We cannot let that stand.

The genius of the Constitution is that it contains the remedy for its own healing, it's own restoration. That remedy is impeachment. Not elections. Impeachment..."

~ read full post ~

 

'Ex-PLO bomber visits Belfast to explain how he turned to peace'

27 Nov 2007
By Victoria O'Hara

An ex-PLO terrorist turned peacemaker last night travelled to Belfast to reveal how he transformed his life of violence.

Walid Shoebat (47), who was brought up in Bethlehem as a Muslim, became a member of the Palestinian Liberation Organisation (PLO) as a teenager and was involved acts of terror and violence against Israel.

Walid, who yesterday visited a synagogue in north Belfast, said he was raised to hate Jews - but now is the founder of an organisation that seeks to combat anti-semitism and promote peace in the Middle East.

Following this change in ideology he has received death threats from his own family.

"I was very much anti-Israel growing up," he said.

"I never understood the plight of the Jewish people, never understood the Holocaust.

"When I grew up, every aspect of my life, the social, the religious, education, music and arts was very anti-semitic.

"So that in itself produces a terrorist."

During his youth he was involved in the attempted lynching of an Israeli soldier and was later imprisoned in the Russian Compound, Jerusalem's central prison after he was caught during a botched bombing attempt.

After his release, he continued his life of violence and rioting.

However the course of Walid's life changed when his parents sent him to the United States to get a better education.

"I've seen members of my family killed and I've seen blood on both sides.

"I decided in 1993 to put an end to it.

"My wife was a great influence as she sparked the things that I needed to think about when I tried to convert her to Islam - she was a Mexican American.

"She asked me to show her what the problems are in the Bible, because she asked me why should she leave her basic Christian heritage.

"I said I don't know what the problems are, I've never read the Bible.

"She asked me, 'Do you always criticise things before reading it?'"

"That sentence sparked the idea of me reading it and finding the problem.

"But by the time I finished reading it I found my problem.

" That was a revelation for myself."

However his decision to convert to Christianity led to Walid being disowned by his family.

" I got threats from my family," he said.

"My brother called my wife he told her, 'Tell your husband we know what you are doing against Islam and we know where you live'."

Despite the threats and loss of family Walid says he has not changed his beliefs.

" You'll never wash away the struggle that you go through, you can't put a closure to it, because my family are still living and I love them," he said.

"And I love the Palestinian people.

"A lot of people would think that if somebody changes the way they think they hate their own past. That's not true."

Walid added that he believes in order for peace to be achieved speaking the truth is vital.

"But I believe in the truth, and everything that I've said since '93."

 

'Omelettes into eggs' by Uri Avnery

As the well-known saying has it, one can make an omelette from eggs, but not eggs from an omelette. Banal, perhaps, but how very true

I was awakened from deep sleep by the noise. There was a commotion outside, which was getting louder by the minute. The shout of excited people. An eruption of joy. I stuck my nose outside the door of my Haifa hotel room. I was told enthusiastically that the United Nations General Assembly had just decided to partition the country. I went back into my room and closed the door behind me. I had no desire to join the celebrations.

November 29, 1947 — a day that changed our lives forever.

At this historic moment, how could I feel lonely, alienated and most of all — sad?

I was sad because I love all of this country — Nablus and Hebron no less than Tel-Aviv and Rosh-Pina. I was sad because I knew that blood, much blood, would be shed. But it was mainly a question of my political outlook.I was 24 years old. Two years before, I and a group of friends had set up a political-ideological group that aroused intense anger in the Yishuv (the Hebrew population in Palestine). Our ideas, which provoked a very strong reaction, were regarded as a dangerous heresy.

The “Young Palestine Circle” (“Eretz-Yisrael Hatz’ira” in Hebrew) published occasional issues of a magazine called “ba-Ma’avak” (“In the Struggle”), and was therefore generally known as “the ba-Ma’avak Group”) advocating a revolutionary new ideology, whose main points were:



* We, the young generation that had grown up in this country, were a new nation. Our language and culture meant we should be called the Hebrew Nation.

* Zionism gave birth to this nation, and had thereby fulfilled its mission. From here on, Zionism has no further role to play.

* The new Hebrew nation is indeed a part of the Jewish people — as the new Australian nation, for example, is a part of the Anglo-Saxon people — but has a separate identity, its own interests and a new culture.

* The Hebrew nation belongs to the country, and is a natural ally of the Arab national movement. Both national movements are rooted in the country and its history, from the ancient Semitic civilization to the present.

* The new Hebrew nation does not belong to Europe and the “West”, but to awakening Asia and the Semitic Region — a term we invented in order to distance ourselves from the European-colonial term “Middle East”.

* The new Hebrew nation must integrate itself in the region, as a full and equal partner.



With this world view, we naturally opposed the partition of the country.

Two months before the UN partition resolution, in September 1947, I published a pamphlet called “War or Peace in the Semitic Region”, in which I proposed a completely different plan: that the Hebrew national movement and the Palestinian-Arab national movement combine into one single national movement and establish a joint state in the whole of Palestine, based on the love of the country (patriotism, in the real sense).

This was far from the “bi-national” idea, which had important adherents in those days. I never believed in this. Our vision was based on the creation of a new, joint nation, with a Hebrew and an Arab component.

The moment the UN resolution was adopted, it was clear that our world had changed completely, that an era had come to an end and a new epoch had begun, both in the life of the country and also in the life of every one of us.

I am proud of my ability to adapt rapidly to extreme changes. The first time I had to do this was when Adolf Hitler came to power in Germany and my life changed abruptly and completely. I was then nine years old, and everything that had happened before was dead for me. I started a new life in Palestine. On November 29, 1947, it was happening again — to me and to all of us.

As the well-known saying has it, one can make an omelette from eggs, but not eggs from an omelette. Banal, perhaps, but how very true.

The moment the Hebrew-Arab war started, the possibility that the two nations would live together in one state expired. Wars change reality.

I joined the “Haganah Battalions”, the forerunner of the IDF. As a soldier in the special commando unit that was later called “Samson’s Foxes”, I saw the war as it was — bitter, cruel, inhuman. First we faced the Palestinian fighters, later the fighters of the wider Arab world. I passed through dozens of Arab villages, many abandoned in the storm of battle, many others whose inhabitants were driven out after being occupied.

It was an ethnic war. In the first months, no Arabs were left behind our lines, no Jews were left behind the Arab lines. Both sides committed many atrocities. In the beginning of the war, we saw the pictures of the heads of our comrades paraded on stakes through the Old City of Jerusalem. We saw the massacre committed by the Irgun and the Stern Group in Deir Yassin. We knew that if we were captured, we would be slaughtered, and the Arab fighters knew they could expect the same.

The longer the war dragged on, the more I became convinced of the reality of the Palestinian nation, with which we must make peace at the end of the war, a peace based on partnership between the two peoples.

While the war was still going on, I expressed this view in a number of articles that were published at the time in Haaretz. Immediately after the fighting was over, when I was still in uniform convalescing from my wounds, I started meeting with two young Arabs (both of whom were later elected to the Knesset) in order to plan a common path. I could not have imagined that 60 years later this effort would still not be over.

Nowadays, the idea appears here and there of turning the omelette back into the egg, of dismantling the State of Israel and the State-of-Palestine-to-be, and establishing a single state, as we sang at that time: “from the sea to the desert”.

This is presented as a fresh new idea, but it is actually an attempt to turn the wheel back and to bring back to life an idea that is irrevocably obsolete. In human history, that just does not happen. What has been forged in blood and fire in wars and intifadas, — the State of Israel and the Palestinian national movement — will not just disappear. After a war, states can achieve peace and partnership, like Germany and France, but they do not merge into one state.

The ideas of the “Ba-Ma’avak group” were indeed revolutionary and bold — but could they have been put into practice? Looking back, it is clear to me that the “Joint State” idea was already unrealistic when we brought it up. Perhaps it would have been possible one or two generations earlier. But by the middle of the 40s, the situation of the two peoples had changed decisively. There was no escaping from the partition of the country.

I believe that we were right in our historical approach: that we must identify with the region we are living in, cooperate with the Arab national movement and enter into a partnership with the Palestinian nation. As long as we see ourselves as a part of Europe and/or the USA, we are not able to achieve peace. And certainly not if we consider ourselves soldiers in a crusade against the Islamic civilisation and the Arab peoples. As we said then, before the partition resolution: the Palestinian people exists. Even after 60 years, in which they have suffered catastrophes which few other peoples have ever experienced, the Palestinian people clings to its country with unparalleled fortitude. True, the dream of living together in one state is dead, and will not come to life again. But I have no doubt that after the Palestinian state comes into being, the two states will find ways to live together in close partnership. The walls will be thrown down, the fences will be dismantled, the border will be opened, and the reality of the common country will overcome all obstacles. The flags of the country — the two flags of the two states — will indeed wave side by side.

The UN resolution of November 29, 1947, was one of the most intelligent in the annals of that organisation. As one who strenuously opposed it, I recognise its wisdom.

Uri Avnery is an Israeli peace activist who has advocated the setting up of a Palestinian state alongside Israel. He served three terms in the Israeli parliament (Knesset), and is the founder of Gush Shalom (Peace Bloc)
 
~ from Pakistan's Daily Times ~

Paul Craig Roberts on the 'Impending Destruction of the US Economy'

28 Nov 2007
 
Hubris and arrogance are too ensconced in Washington for policymakers to be aware of the economic policy trap in which they have placed the US economy.  If the subprime mortgage meltdown is half as bad as predicted, low US interest rates will be required in order to contain the crisis.  But if the dollar’s plight is half as bad as predicted, high US  interest rates will be required if foreigners are to continue to hold dollars and to finance US budget and trade deficits. 
Which will Washington sacrifice, the domestic financial system and over-extended homeowners or its ability to finance deficits? 
The answer seems obvious.  Everything will be sacrificed in order to protect Washington’s ability to borrow abroad.  Without the ability to borrow abroad, Washington cannot conduct its wars of aggression, and Americans cannot continue to consume $800 billion dollars more each year than the economy produces.
A few years ago the euro was worth 85 cents.  Today it is worth $1.48.  This is an enormous decline in the exchange value of the US dollar.  Foreigners who finance the US budget and trade deficits have experienced a huge drop in the value of their dollar holdings.  The interest rate on US Treasury bonds does not come close to compensating foreigners for the decline in the value of the dollar against other traded currencies.  Investment returns from real estate and equities do not offset the losses from the decline in the dollar’s value.
China holds over one trillion dollars, and Japan almost one trillion, in dollar-denominated assets.  Other countries have lesser but still substantial amounts. As the US dollar is the reserve currency, the entire world’s investment portfolio is over-weighted in dollars.
No country wants to hold a depreciating asset, and no country wants to acquire more depreciating assets.  In order to reassure itself, Wall Street claims that foreign countries are locked into accumulating dollars in order to protect the value of their existing dollar holdings.  But this is utter nonsense.  The US dollar has lost 60% of its value during the current administration.  Obviously, countries are not locked into accumulating dollars.
The reason the dollar has not completely collapsed is that there is no clear alternative as reserve currency.  The euro is a currency without a country.  It is the monetary unit of the European Union, but the countries of Europe have not surrendered their sovereignty to the EU.  Moreover, the UK, a member of the EU, retains the British pound.  The fact that a currency as politically exposed as the euro can rise in value so rapidly against the US dollar is powerful evidence of the weakness of the US dollar.
Japan and China have willingly accumulated dollars as the counterpart of their penetration and capture of US domestic markets.  Japan and China have viewed the productive capacity and wealth created in their domestic economies by the success of their exports as compensation for the decline in the value of their dollar holdings. However, both countries have seen the writing on the wall, ignored by Washington and American economists:  By offshoring production for US markets, the US has no prospect of closing its trade deficit.  The offshored production of US firms counts as imports when it returns to the US to be marketed. The more US production moves abroad, the less there is to export and the higher imports rise. 
Japan and China, indeed, the entire world, realize that they cannot continue forever to give Americans real goods and services in exchange for depreciating paper dollars.  China is endeavoring to turn its development inward and to rely on its potentially huge domestic market.  Japan is pinning hopes on participating in Asia’s economic development.
The dollar’s decline has resulted from foreigners accumulating new dollars at a lower rate.  They still accumulate dollars, but fewer.  As new dollars are still being produced at high rates, their value has dropped.
If foreigners were to stop accumulating new dollars, the dollar’s value would plummet.  If foreigners were to reduce their existing holdings of dollars, superpower America would instantly disappear.
Foreigners have continued to accumulate dollars in the expectation that sooner or later Washington would address its trade and budget deficits.  However, now these deficits seem to have passed the point of no return. 
The sharp decline in the dollar has not closed the trade deficit by increasing exports and decreasing imports.  Offshoring prevents the possibility of exports reducing the trade deficit, and Americans are now dependent on imports (including offshored production) for which there are no longer any domestically produced alternatives.  The US trade deficit will close when foreigners cease to finance it.
The budget deficit cannot be closed by taxation without driving up unemployment and poverty.  American median family incomes have experienced no real increase during the 21st century.  Moreover, if the huge bonuses paid to CEOs for offshoring their corporations’ production and to Wall Street for marketing subprime derivatives are removed from the income figures, Americans have experienced a decline in real income.  Some studies, such as the Economic Mobility Project, find long-term declines in the real median incomes of some US population groups and a decline in upward mobility.
The situation may be even more dire.  Recent work by Susan Houseman concludes that  US statistical data systems, which were set in place prior to the development of offshoring, are counting some foreign production as part of US productivity and GDP growth, thus overstating the actual performance of the US economy.
The falling dollar has pushed oil to $100 a barrel, which in turn will drive up other prices. The falling dollar means that the imports and offshored production on which Americans are dependent will rise in price.  This is not a formula to produce a rise in US real incomes.
In the 21st century, the US economy has been driven by consumers going deeper in debt.  Consumption fueled by increases in indebtedness received its greatest boost from Fed chairman Alan Greenspan’s low interest rate policy.  Greenspan covered up the adverse effects of offshoring on the US economy by engineering a housing boom.  The boom created employment in construction and financial firms and pushed up home prices, thus creating equity for consumers to spend to keep consumer demand growing.
This source of US economic growth is exhausted and imploding.  The full consequences of the housing bust remain to be realized.  American consumers lack discretionary income and can pay higher taxes only by reducing their consumption.  The service industries, which have provided the only source of new jobs in the 21st century, are already experiencing falling demand.  A tax increase would cause widespread distress.
As John Maynard Keynes and his followers made clear, a tax increase on a recessionary economy is a recipe for falling tax revenues as well as economic hardship.
Superpower America is a ship of fools in denial of their plight.  While offshoring kills American economic prospects, “free market economists” sing its praises.  While war imposes enormous costs on a bankrupt country, neoconservatives call for more war, and Republicans and Democrats appropriate war funds which can only be obtained by borrowing abroad. 
By focusing America on war in the Middle East, the purpose of which is to guarantee Israel’s territorial expansion, the executive and legislative branches, along with the media, have let slip the last opportunities the US had to put its financial house in order.  We have arrived at the point where it is no longer bold to say that nothing now can be done.  Unless the rest of the world decides to underwrite our economic rescue, the chips will fall where they may.
Dr. Roberts was Assistant Secretary of the US Treasury for Economic Policy in the Reagan administration.  He is credited with curing stagflation and eliminating “Phillips curve” trade-offs between employment and inflation, an achievement now on the verge of being lost by the worst economic mismanagement in US history.