Stephen Lendman

On October 13, 2001 New York Times writers Robin Toner and Neil Lewis headlined, "A NATION CHALLENGED: CONGRESS; House Passes Terrorism Bill Much Like Senate's, but With 5-Year Limit," saying:

The House gave "the government broad new powers for the wiretapping, surveillance and investigation of terrorism suspects. But in recognition of many lawmakers' fears of the potential for government overreaching and abuse, the House also included a five-year limit after which many of those powers would expire."

On October 26, George Bush signed it into law, prompting Center for Constitutional Rights senior litigation attorney Nancy Chang to ask, "What's So Patriotic About Trampling on the Bill of Rights?" saying:

"Over vigorous objections from civil liberties organizations on both ends of the political spectrum, Congress overwhelmingly approved the Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act, better known by its acronym, the USA PATRIOT Act."

In fact, the legislative process capitalized on a window of hysteria to grant unchecked executive powers. In the process, however, key Bill of Rights protections were lost or seriously eroded for the sake of security.

David Walsh
WSWS

The arrest May 14 in New York City of Dominique Strauss-Kahn, managing director of the International Monetary Fund and a leading French and global political figure, on sexual assault charges has triggered a significant chain of events. Strauss-Kahn, at first denied bail, was pressured into resigning as head of the IMF May 18, and any hope he had of becoming president of France in the 2012 election is presumably dead.

No one knows what went on in the Sofitel Hotel a week ago Saturday. The sexual assault charges against Strauss-Kahn are extremely serious ones, and if proven guilty, he deserves to be held accountable.

However, as is the case in all such affairs, little of the media uproar has anything to do with objectively setting out the facts of the case, delineating the personalities and issues involved or generally encouraging the emergence of the truth.

The American media has set about poisoning the atmosphere against Strauss-Kahn. The New York Times, the liberal newspaper of record, has been at the front of the pack, treating the French politician’s guilt as an accomplished fact.

Public opinion is formed quickly in such matters, and Times executive editor Bill Keller knows perfectly well what he is doing, helping to contaminate the pool from which Strauss-Kahn’s jury will eventually be selected. One of the Times’ most recent contributions was the May 20 piece, “At I.M.F., Men on Prowl and Women on Guard,” which described the institution as “a sharp-elbowed place ruled by alpha male economists.”

From the point of view of the American media, the affair has become the latest opportunity to divert attention from the social calamity at home and neocolonial wars abroad. Characterizations of the IMF “big shot” as a bestial, serial “rapist,” with their anti-French and anti-Semitic subtext, are aimed at whipping up the basest sentiments in the population.

Stephen Lendman

Protesters react as Spanish prime minister, José Luis Rodríguez
Zapatero arrives to vote in regional elections. (J. Juinen/Getty)

Since mid-May, Spain's M-15 movement began protesting for "Real Democracy Now," drawing large numbers of students, activists, unemployed workers, and other "los indignados" (the outraged ones) on streets throughout the country, defying a ban ahead of May 22 municipal and regional elections.

Tens of thousands said "No nos moveran" (We shall not be moved), opposing government imposed austerity to repay bankers at their expense.

Experiencing its worse economic crisis in decades, official figures show around 45% of Spanish youths unemployed, a crisis affecting all workers facing worsening, not improving conditions, some of the worst in Europe.

In response to growing needs, Jose Luis Zapartero's Socialist Workers Party (PSOE) government proposed 5% or more public worker pay and pension cuts, halting cost of living adjustments, raising the retirement age from 65 to 67, ending payments for births or adopting children, and more ahead, including reforming labor protections and pensions, not stimulus when it's most needed.

As a result, the populist "Real Democracy Now" manifesto states:

"We are ordinary people. We are like you: people who get up every morning to study, work or find a job, people who have family and friends. People who work hard every day to provide a better future for those around us," calling for "an ethical revolution" for change.

The same crisis affects other countries throughout Europe, notably Greece, Ireland, Portugal, Italy, Latvia, Iceland, Hungary, Romania, Ukraine, and elsewhere, what Michael Hudson calls a specter haunting Europe, showing no signs of letup under crushing debt burdens counterproductively dealt with by neoliberal austerity.

Mehdi Hasan
New Statesman

"Israel", the most used word in the american congress

The US Congress is so in thrall to the American Israel lobby AIPAC that it more of a hindrance to the peace process than the Knesset itself.

"I had 700 days of 'no' in Northern Ireland, and one 'yes'," remarked George Mitchell in May 2010. A year on, and having spent more than 800 days in the Middle East with no sign of a "yes" on the horizon in Ramallah or Tel Aviv, the frustrated former senator announced his resignation as President Obama's peace envoy to the region.

Cue much hand-wringing about the future of the "peace process". But there is nothing new about the Obama administration's failure to get Israelis and Palestinians back to the negotiating table; peace talks have been on hold since 2008. As the mild-mannered Palestinian president, Mahmoud Abbas, a long-time ally of the US, noted in a recent interview: "It was Obama who suggested a full settlement freeze. I said OK, I accept. We both went up the tree. After that, he came down with a ladder and he removed the ladder and said to me, jump."

Obama, however, like George W Bush before him, is a distraction. When it comes to the US's Middle East policy, true power and influence lies elsewhere. Pronouncements from the executive branch of the US government attract much of the attention of foreign governments and the world's media; few outside (or, for that matter, inside) the US pay attention to the behaviour of the country's legislature when it comes to Israel and the Palestinians.

It is Congress that passes resolution after resolution backing Israel and condemning the Palestinians; it is Congress that approves arms sales to Israel and grants Tel Aviv billions of dollars in aid. Presidents, secretaries of state and special envoys come and go; meanwhile, Congress, whether Republican- or Democrat-controlled, always stands four-square behind Israel's occupation of the West Bank.

Stephen Lendman

After Obama's May 18 speech called for establishing a Palestinian state within 1967 borders, world headlines suggested a rift with Netanyahu, misinterpreting what he meant. More on that below.

On May 17, in fact, New York Times writers Mark Landler and Helene Cooper headlined, "As Uprisings Transform Mideast, Obama Aims to Reshape the Peace Debate," saying [that] ahead of his speech, White House press secretary Jay Carney said he'd offer "some specific new ideas about US policy toward the region."

Unidentified officials also suggested he might endorse a Palestinian state within 1967 borders. Doing so, however, would represent "less of a policy shift than a signal" that Washington wants Israel to make concessions to restart peace talks - a gesture, whether or not substantive with teeth.

On May 17, after meeting with Jordan's King Abdullah, Obama said:

"Despite the many changes, or perhaps because of the many changes that are taking place in the region, it's more vital than ever that both Israelis and Palestinians find a way to get back to the table and begin negotiating a process whereby they can create two states that are living side by side in peace and security."

Moreover, his May 22 AIPAC speech affirmed his unwavering support for a "strong and secure Israel."

Stephen Lendman

On February 9, London Guardian writer Chris McGreal headlined, "Egypt's army 'involved in detentions and torture,' " saying:

Military forces "secretly detained hundreds and possibly thousands of suspected government opponents since mass (anti-Mubarak) protests began, (and) at least some of these detainees have been tortured, according to testimony gathered by the Guardian."

Moreover, Human Rights Watch (HRW) and other human rights organizations cited years of army involvement in disappearances and torture. Former detainees confirmed "extensive beatings and other abuses at the hands of the military in what appears to be an organized campaign of intimidation." Electric shocks, Taser guns, threatened rapes, beatings, disappearances, and killings left families grieving for loved ones.

Under Mubarak, Egypt's military wasn't neutral. It's no different now, cracking down hard to keep power and deny change, policies Washington endorses, funds and practices at home and abroad.

On February 17, even New York Times writer Liam Stack headlined, "Among Egypt's Missing, Tales of Torture and Prison," saying:

Trademark Mubarak practices continue under military rule, "human rights groups say(ing) the military's continuing role in such abuses raises new questions about its ability to midwife Egyptian democracy."

"We joined the protests to liberate the country and end the problems of the regime," said a man identified as Rabie. "After 18 days, the regime is gone but the same injustices remain." Indeed so without letup.

Bill Van Auken
WSWS

“The Israel policy is to take more and more land day after day and at the end of the day, we’ll say that it is impossible, we already have the land and we cannot create the [Palestinian] state.” - Tzipi Livni (2007)

Wrapping up a week largely devoted to US policy towards the Middle East, President Barack Obama spoke Sunday before the right-wing Zionist lobby, the American Israeli Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), recommitting Washington to the unconditional defense of Israel.

Obama’s appearance before AIPAC came just three days after he delivered his so-called “Arab Spring” speech and two days after his White House meeting with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

Taken together, these three events have only served to confirm that, in the face of the historic popular upheavals that have toppled two decades-old dictatorships in Tunisia and Egypt and brought masses into the streets throughout much of the Arab world, Washington remains committed to a counterrevolutionary policy in the region anchored in its strategic alliance with Israel.

Media coverage of Obama’s speech and Netanyahu’s contemptuous reaction to it were both centered on one phrase uttered by the US president: “We believe the borders of Israel and Palestine should be based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps…”

Netanyahu publicly rebuffed Obama, declaring at the White House that any return to such “lines” would leave Israel “indefensible.” The administration’s Republican opponents accused Obama of “throwing Israeli under the bus,” or stabbing it in the back.

William Whitlow
WSWS

NASA has just announced that Einstein’s theory of gravity, also known as the General Theory of Relativity, has been verified in two ways by its Gravity Probe-B (GP-B) with astonishing accuracy [1]. The experiment was begun in 2004 when a satellite containing four specially developed gyroscopes was put into orbit around the earth, passing over the North and South poles.

GP-B measures two predictions of Einstein’s theory known as the geodetic effect and the frame dragging effect. The geodetic effect is the amount that space and time is “warped” by the gravitational mass of the Earth, well known in non-technical explanations of the theory. The frame dragging effect is less well known, though it was predicted by the Austrian physicists Josef Lens and Hans Thirring in 1918 only two years after Einstein first published his General Theory. This effect results in local space and time being pulled by the rotation of the Earth.

The frame dragging effect is analogous to the way in which a rotating electric charge produces magnetism and is sometimes referred to as the “gravitomagnetic effect” and is even regarded as producing a new force of nature, the gravimagnetic force.

As the leading scientist of the GP-B team, Francis Everitt of Stanford University, graphically explained, “Imagine the Earth as if it were immersed in honey. As the planet rotates, the honey around it would swirl, and it’s the same with space and time.”

The gyroscopes in GP-B are attached to a telescope that is pointed at a distant star, so that if space and time were unaffected by the Earth they would remain spinning in the same direction. Instead Einstein’s theory predicts they tilt by a very tiny amount because of the Earth’s gravity. The measurement of this tilt in GP-B is compared with the theoretical predictions of Einstein’s theory.

Gilad Atzmon
Gilad Atzmon's Blog

He’s usually seen behind a saxophone or clarinet, but the
multi-instrumentalist Gilad Atzmon was playing accordion
for Sarah Gillespie at her recent Lichfield Arts gig at Lich-
field Guildhall.

Below you will find an embarrassing 'call for action' circulated (selectively) by Naomi Wimborne-Idrissi, a prominent UK Jewish ‘anti Zionist’ and one of the founders of 'J- Big', an exclusive Jewish cell, advocating the boycott of Israeli goods.

Wimborne-Idrissi's intentions are ambitious: she wants to from an 'Anti Atzmon party' or, in her words “We are organising a meeting to discuss this developing situation (Atzmon’s popularity), and to arrive we hope at an agreed strategy for countering it.” You may as well notice that this Judeo-centric sectarian attempt is taking place at the time Palestinians seem to be united.

Wimborne-Idrissi’s argument is staggering -- on the one hand she is criticising me for suggesting that "Jewishness is a tendency towards segregation" -- and yet, her call for action ends with the following sentence: “this invitation is not intended for wider circulation.” It is obviously clear that instead of a ‘wider and open Palestinian solidarity discourse’, the Jewish ethnic campaigner actually prefers to operate within small segregated cells as I suggested above.

Wimborne-Idrissi is devastated by the success of our May 3rd Panel Event, "Zionism, Jewishness and Israel". While our panel discussion was a public event, open to all, Wimborne-Idrissi and her half a dozen Jewish ‘comrades’ seem to prefer to operate 'underground', in a clandestine mode.

John J. Mearsheimer
Move Over AIPAC

Barack Obama gave a major speech on the Middle East [on May 19th] and it is clear from the subsequent commentary that he impressed few people. The main reason is that he did not say much new or indicate that there would be any serious changes in US policy in the region. It was essentially more of the same with the some tweaking here and there. Nevertheless, he did manage to anger some people. For example, Israel’s hard-line supporters were outraged that he said, “Palestine should be based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps.” For them, the 1967 borders are “Auschwitz borders” and thus can never serve as a basis for negotiations.

Many Palestinians, on the other hand, did not like Obama’s assertion that it made little sense for them to go to the UN General Assembly this September and win recognition for a Palestinian state based on the 1967 borders. Surely they also noticed that shortly after saying that “every state has the right to self-defense, and Israel must be able to defend itself,” the president said that the Palestinians would have to be content with “a sovereign non-militarized state,” which means that they will not be able to defend themselves against Israel or any other state for that matter. Hypocrisy appears to be wired into the DNA of American foreign-policy makers.

Charles E. Carlson
WHTT

Judeo-Christians were Zionists Before Israel was a State

Harold Camping is the latest in a long line of Pastors who have made themselves prosperous and famous by predicting the end of the world. He says, based on his own numerology studies, that God will commence the physical destruction of Earth on May 21, 2011, at about 6:00 PM, brought on, as I understand it, by world wide earthquakes. He has a well-funded national campaign to sell this idea.

Camping is not an ignorant nor insignificant person, being founder and de facto owner of The Family Radio Network. According to research done by the UK Independent, the 89-year old Camping has built a tax-free "religious broadcasting organization funded entirely by donations from listeners, and with assets totaling $120 million, owning 65 radio stations." This is at least the third time he has predicted the end of planet earth.

While many Americans, who are self-professing Judeo-Christians, might not be ready to quit their jobs and stop paying their mortgage while waiting for the apocalypse of May 21, 2011, most of some 70 million share various end time shades of beliefs not so different from Camping's. Together they make up the most powerful and coveted voting bloc in America, recently referred to as "Christian Zionists. This author's repeatedly theme is supported by ongoing research by the Pew Foundation and its many polls on religious life.

The question that demands an answer is: why do millions, many of them otherwise logical, thinking Americans continue to follow men like Camping, who are not only illogical but who refute and alter the traditional Christian interpretation of the New Testament of Jesus Christ? Why do they adhere to a neo-religion that was unheard of 200 years ago and that has been proven to be wrong by failed prophets including Pat Robertson, Hal Lindsay, "Left Behind" Tim LaHaye, and the late Jerry Falwell and may more?

Because it is very profitable for Judeo-Christians leaders, who enjoys enormous Jewish and Israeli Zionist support because Christian Zionism is the glue that keeps present day state of Israel alive on the US taxpayer's dole.

Stephen Lendman

Perhaps one way to view Obama's speech is saying you can please all the people some of the time, some of them all the time, but not all of them all the time. World reactions were indeed mixed, though policies, not posturing, are key.

Obama's, in fact, have no ambiguity, including imperial wars and rock-solid support for Israel. However, not everyone believes it, including the Zionist Organization of America, the oldest American one, founded in 1897.

On May 19, its press release headlined, "ZOA: AIPAC Should Rescind Invitation for Obama to Speak," saying:

ZOA "strongly condemned President Obama's Mideast speech (favoring) the establishment of a Hamas/Fatah/Iran state on the Auschwitz 1967 indefensible armistice lines. This would almost surely become a Hamas/Iran terror state threatening Israel and further destabilizing the Mideast. President Obama has dealt Israel a severe diplomatic blow, which harms all those who care about peace and fighting terrorism."

The statement's bigoted absurdity requires no comment. Its contempt for truth and justice is self-explanatory.

In contrast, the Anti-Defamation League, no paragon of virtue, applauded Obama's Israeli support, saying:

The ADL "commended (Obama) for his statement of US priorities in the Middle East, his strong affirmation of the deep and 'unshakeable' relationship between the United States and Israel, and expressed support for his vision of a negotiated Israeli-Palestinian settlement with strong security provisions for Israel and a non-militarized Palestinian state."

On May 22, Obama will address AIPAC at its annual Washington conference, affirming America's commitment to Israel, as will other top US officials. They include Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, House Speaker John Boehner, and other congressional members, genuflecting to the Israeli Lobby's power in their annual pilgrimage to AIPAC.

Tom Carter
WSWS

This ruling enhances the arbitrary powers of the police and makes the security and privacy of the home even more dependent on the subjective whims of individual police officers.

A decision Monday by the US Supreme Court represents a further major step in abolishing the basic civil liberties protections in the Bill of Rights and enhancing the arbitrary powers of the police. The decision permits police to conduct searches of private homes without a warrant under a mundane pretext.

The issue in the case, Kentucky v. King, decided 8-1, was whether the police should have obtained a search warrant before they kicked in the door of Hollis Deshaun King’s apartment, conducted a search, and found marijuana. King was sentenced to 11 years in prison.

The Fourth Amendment to the US Constitution, enacted in 1791 in the aftermath of the American Revolution, guarantees to the people “[t]he right … to be secure in their houses… against unreasonable searches and seizures.” The Fourth Amendment also requires that police seek the authorization of a neutral judge, in the form of a warrant, before undertaking a search or seizure. To obtain the warrant, the police are required to demonstrate “probable cause.”

The Fourth Amendment, together with the Third Amendment, which prohibits the government from quartering soldiers in private homes, arose out of a profound hatred and resentment towards arbitrary government intrusions into the home, as well as an understanding that protection of the privacy of the home is necessary to political freedom.

The US Supreme Court Justice Robert H. Jackson wrote in 1948 that the Fourth Amendment requirement that the government obtain a warrant to conduct a search is among the “fundamental distinctions between our form of government, where officers are under the law, and the police-state where they are the law.”

Anayat Durrani
Al-Ahram Weekly

Anayat Durrani interviews jazz musician extraordinaire Gilad Atzmon, discovering a secret weapon that Palestinians have in their struggle for freedom

World-renowned Israeli-born jazz saxophonist Gilad Atzmon brought his ensemble to the United States on his third annual North America Jazz tour 4-15 May, crisscrossing the country from New York, to Chicago, Dallas and San Francisco, finishing up in Colorado. The concerts' theme was "Music for Palestinians' Resistance", and the tour was used to raise awareness and fundraise for various humanitarian causes concerning Palestine.

Atzmon described his multi-city tour as giving him an opportunity to "talk about Israel, Palestine and the power of beauty". His tour included a stop in Oakland to attend a benefit for the Bay Area's flotilla passengers set to embark on the US-flagged Audacity of Hope in June to break Israel's illegal naval blockade of Gaza. The novelist, political activist and writer, who now makes his home in England, said he began visiting the US four years ago and comes once a year for two weeks. He said he has a lot of fans in the US and believes the exchange of ideas is crucial.

"I visit as many cities as I can, I meet a lot of people, I give interviews. I believe that true spiritual and intellectual exchange can lead towards a shift of consciousness. It is crucial for me to unveil the spirit and ideology that drives the Jewish state and Zionists around the world," Atzmon told Al-Ahram Weekly. "I believe that we are dealing with a unique ideology and practice and I am also aware that due to self censorship, not many people can discuss openly some of the topics I touch on, such as the fact that Zionism is a continuation of Jewish ideology."

Atzmon, who was born in Tel Aviv and served as a paramedic in the Israeli Defence Forces, is known for his no holds barred criticism of Israeli policies. He has a master's degree in philosophy and is a writer of both fiction and nonfiction, and speaker on Israel and Palestine. He is particularly outspoken on human rights denied the occupied Palestinian people.

"For me the support of the Palestinian cause was a lesson in humanity. Through Palestinian suffering I grasped the supremacy that was inherent in my culture," said Atzmon. "I confronted the tribal and 'chosen' in me. I searched for a new meaning of universalism, humanism and empathy."

Stephen Lendman

Bipartisan support endorses ending vital social benefits incrementally, principally Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, healthcare for those who can't afford it, and public pensions.

Notably, deep Medicare cuts were made. Much more is planned, including slashing Medicaid. Now federal pensions are being targeted. Civilian federal employees receive benefits under the Federal Employees Retirement System (FERS), consisting of three components:

● a FERS annuity defined benefit plan;
● mandatory Social Security participation; however most Civil Service Retirement System (CSRS) employees aren't part of Social Security unless they qualify separately from additional private sector employment; and
● the Thrift Savings Plan (TSP), a 401(k) type defined contribution plan.

On March 19, Senators Tom Coburn (R. OK) and Richard Burr (R. NC) introduced S. 644: Public-Private Employee Retirement Parity Act to prohibit federal annuities for employees hired after 2012. In other words, beginning January 1, 2013, they want defined pensions for newly hired federal workers ended, eventually eliminating unfunded ones altogether.

Although the other two FERS components are maintained, S. 644 is another step toward halting all federal obligations to working Americans to provide more funds for imperial wars, corporate handouts, and greater tax benefits for America's super-rich. But don't expect Congress, Obama, or major media reports to explain.

Franklin Lamb on the Lebanon-Palestine border

Demonstrators took cover along the Lebanese-Israeli border
as Israeli soldiers fired directly at them. (A. Hashisho/Reuters)

Maroun al Ras is a beautiful hillside Lebanese village on the border with Palestine. 63 years ago today its villagers lifted their lights to welcome ethnically cleansed Palestinians, who were part of the approximately 129,000 from 531 Zionist pillaged and destroyed villages who sought temporary refuge in Lebanon. A similar number of Palestinian expellees entered Syria a few miles to the West and another half million were forced into Jordan and Gaza.

On Sunday May 15, 2011, in observance of Nakba (Catastrophe) Day, Maroun al Ras welcomed approximately 27% of all the Palestinian refugees in Lebanon, this time coming from the opposite direction heading back toward their homes in Palestine. Palestinians in Lebanon now number approximately 248,000, approximately half of whom live in 12 squalid camps (and as many so-called, unofficial “gatherings”), although 423,000 remain registered with UNWRA.

The discrepancy in numbers is explained by the fact that Lebanon’s Palestinian refugees, without any of the most elementary civil rights, in gross violation of international Law, Lebanon’s Constitution, and bi-lateral and multilateral agreements, tend to leave Lebanon to seek work, decent housing, and a better life whenever they are able to secure a visa to Europe or elsewhere.

For a majority of the more than 72,000 (some estimates this morning exceed 100,000 because many refugees and supporters traveled south independently and did not register or use provided transportation) arriving from all the camps and corners of Lebanon, in more than 1200 buses & vans, and many on foot, it was their first sighting of their country. Lebanon law has long prevented Palestinians from coming anywhere near the blue line to even look towards their stolen homes and lands or to cross the Litani River north of Tyre. This year, for one day only, the Lebanese authorities reluctantly decided not to interfere with this human rights project.

For the teen-agers on the crowded bus I rode on from Shatila Camp, the stories and descriptions of Palestine told by their parents and grandparents was what they talked about.

Stephen Lendman

Since taking office in January 2009, Obama broke every major campaign promise, including relevant ones to his May 19 Middle East speech; namely:

● "hope;"
● "change;"
● peace;
● democratic values;
● closing Guantanamo in one year;
● ending torture, illegal spying, and detention without trial;
● "a new era of openness;"
● willingness to meet individually with Iranian, Syrian, Venezuelan, Cuban, and North Korean leaders;
● supporting Israeli and Palestinian efforts to "fulfill their national goals: two states living side by side in peace and security;" and
● on Afghanistan saying (October 27, 2007): "I will promise you this, that if we have not gotten our troops out by the time I am president, it is the first thing I will do. I will get our troops home. We will bring an end to this (and the Iraq) war(s). You can take that to the bank," and by implication not begin new ones.

Instead, his rhetoric belied his policy, spurning democracy, civil liberties, human rights, and rule of law principles.

Mike Gravel
Move Over AIPAC

"Until Israel's leadership and policies change, we will not see regional peace. Unless American leaders acquire a more balanced approach, and become more supportive of Palestinian aspirations for freedom, the United States will not be able to act as a fair broker for peace."

My concern for the Israeli-Arab conflict is a personal one. I was raised in a Jewish neighborhood -- three synagogues within three blocks of our home in Springfield, Mass. -- which sensitized me to Jewish culture and history. As a young student of world affairs, I closely followed the history of the Holocaust and Israel's birth in Palestine.

On the other hand, I also had a close boyhood friend whose family had roots in Syria and Lebanon; they exposed me to the local Lebanese community. The Middle East conflict was part of my global political awakening

During my 12 years in the U.S. Senate I enjoyed the support of a number of Jewish organizations, most notably the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), the preeminent "pro-Israel" lobbying organization. For a time, I had a perfect voting record in support of Israel.

On several trips to Israel and the Middle East, I developed contacts at the highest levels of the Israeli government and the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO). These trips were discouraging; the possibility of peace seemed unattainable -- until the courageous leadership of Egyptian President Anwar Sadat emerged.

William T. Hathaway

From the Book RADICAL PEACE: People Refusing War by William T. Hathaway. Published by Trine Day 2010.

A young Buddhist novice contributed this account, which we then revised together. To protect the people who have protected him, he wishes to be nameless.

Back in high school I'd been good at languages but couldn't afford to go to college, so I joined the navy for the language training. They have a program where if you pass an aptitude test, they'll send you to the Defense Language Institute in Monterey, California, for an intensive course that's worth almost a year of college credit. Plus they have an active-duty education program that offers college courses. I figured after my discharge I could finish my education on the GI Bill, and with my language skills, I could get a job in international business.

The other military branches offer programs like this too, but the navy seemed the best way to stay out of the fighting. I was hoping for a major language like Chinese, Russian, or Spanish, but they assigned me to Pashto, which is spoken in Afghanistan and Pakistan. After training, I'd be stationed on a ship in the Arabian Sea monitoring phone calls and radio broadcasts, listening for key words that might give a clue about where the Taliban were, so the planes from the aircraft carriers could bomb them. I didn't think about this last part, though. I was focused on my future.

The study itself was a real grind ― drills, exercises, and vocabulary all day long and a couple of hours at night. But no classes on weekends, so we could take off.

I couldn't afford weekends in San Francisco, but in a bookstore in Monterey I saw a poster for a two-day retreat at a Zen Buddhist center nearby. It sounded weird enough to be a good break from the military, and the price was right, so I signed up for the first of a two-weekend introductory course.

David North & David Walsh
WSWS

The arrest of French financier and politician Dominique Strauss-Kahn in New York City on sexual assault charges and his continued imprisonment is a disturbing event with far-reaching implications.

Strauss-Kahn is the managing director of the International Monetary Fund (IMF), perhaps the most powerful global capitalist financial institution, and a prominent figure in the French Socialist Party, one of that country’s leading big business parties. He was expected to announce soon his candidacy for the presidency in 2012, and polls in France had him leading his rivals, President Nicolas Sarkozy and extreme right-winger Marine Le Pen of the National Front.

In his class position, privilege and social outlook, Strauss-Kahn stands for everything the World Socialist Web Site opposes. But he is also a human being who is entitled to democratic rights, which include legal due process and the presumption of innocence until proven guilty. Judging from the treatment of Strauss-Kahn since his arrest and the coverage of this event in the American media, this presumption does not exist.

Neither we nor anyone else—outside the accused and the accuser (and, perhaps, other interested and unnamed parties)—know exactly what went on in Strauss-Kahn’s suite at the Sofitel Hotel in Manhattan on Sunday. Whatever information the public possesses has emerged courtesy of the New York City Police Department, the alleged victim’s lawyer, and the mass media. None of these can be considered reliable sources.

As of yet, no one has heard Mr. Strauss-Kahn’s side of the story. Rather, he has been subjected to a calculated process of humiliation and dehumanization—such as the disgusting “perp walk”—whose obvious purpose is to convict the accused in the public’s mind even before an indictment has been handed down.