Gilad Atzmon

Most solidarity activists in this country would agree that the PSC (Palestine Solidarity Campaign) is potentially an invaluable institution. Yet, the National Office, under its current leadership, has made some serious mistakes.

The PSC’s task is not easy. We all operate in a Zionised environment and we’re subject to constant pressure and abuse. Moreover, it’s not always clear what we should do for Palestine. It is obvious that Palestinian resistance is more than just single political perception or a vision of conflict resolution. Palestine is basically a dynamic discourse of negation with Palestinians themselves divided on different issues to do with their struggle and their fate. Consequently, Palestinian solidarity is also far from being a rigid or monolithic discourse. Furthermore, the enemy also is far from being any obviously singular identity or monolithic political discourse. The Jewish national project is a varied discourse, driven by many conflicting thoughts such as Zionism, Israeli patriotism, Israeli escapism, Jewishness, Jewish messianic militancy, pseudo-peaceful propaganda, pre-traumatic stress and so on. So it makes sense that Palestinian solidarity must encompass many voices reflecting the immense complexity of the conflict and its possible resolution.

Initially, the PSC was an attempt provide an umbrella for diverse intellectual and political thoughts, ideas and tactics. However, because of internal political struggles and a relentless internal Jewish campaign, its national office has become a policing operation, engaged mainly in restricting the discourse and stifling freedom of speech, thought and expression. The organisation that was founded to fight for the rights of the expelled Palestinians, has itself, started to expel and abuse its most notable and dedicated activists and thinkers.

Stephen Lendman

A BIG LIFT Key Wall Street stock indexes rose 4 percent
or more after the central banks acted, but skeptics remained.

On November 30, the Fed, ECB, Bank of England, Bank of Japan, Bank of Canada and Swiss National Bank acted together to cut the rate on dollar liquidity swap arrangements by 50 basis points. Markets surged. Irrationally trumped reason.

What, in fact, was accomplished? Swap lines were always available. From 2007 - 2009, they were initiated or expanded globally four times.

Lowering the price modestly was done to ease pressure on troubled Eurozone countries. However, funding isn't the problem. It's solvency. Nonetheless, the ECB perhaps agreed to be lender of last resort, at least to some degree.

Expanding its balance sheet may lower sovereign debt yields. At issue is the ECB's ability and willingness to tackle a $6 trillion debt problem when serious restructuring is needed. Kicking the can further down the road won't work.

Fundamental problems remain. Adding more to unsustainable levels compounds crisis conditions. Radical monetary surgery is wrongheaded. At best, short-term gains will cause far greater trouble ahead. Analyst Yves Smith asked, “Does Anybody Who Gets It Believe Central Banks Did All That Much Yesterday.” Comments below followed:

Economist Paul Krugman commented, saying:

The November 30 announcement "looks to me like a non-event. Yet markets went wild. Are they taking this as a signal that substantive action - like the ECB finally doing what has to be done - is just around the corner? Are they misunderstanding the policy? Was this cheap talk that nonetheless moved us to good equilibrium?" If so, it's not enough. Italian bonds still top 7%.

Pimco's Tony Crescenzi believes

"liquidity is no substitute for other actions that Europe must take to solve its current woes. The world continues to wait on European actions on fiscal rules, discipline, and enforcement, as well as use of the balance sheet that matters most in the current situation: the European Central Bank."

Smith also wondered why markets reacted so positively to what little, in fact, was done. He also focused on two underreported issues, including acute withdrawal of dollar funding from Eurobanks.

Stephen Lendman

Partnering with America has a price. Pakistan has paid dearly. Post-9/11, it has been harmed economically, politically, and strategically. Has its military now had enough and want out? More on that below.

At issue is the latest incident involving NATO forces killing 24 Pakistani soldiers and injuring 13 others in two remote posts along Afghanistan's border.

Army spokesman General Athar Abbas called the attack "unprovoked and indiscriminate. There was no reason for it. Map references of all our border posts have been passed to NATO a number of time."

General Ishfaq Nadeem called them unprovoked blatant aggression, adding that attacking border checkposts deliberately violates coordination procedures.

Internal calls for investigating these type incidents usually follow. Not this time, except, of course, by NATO to whitewash its responsibility.

Abbas said NATO strikes killed 72 Pakistani troops since 2009. Another 250 were injured. Calling them accidental doesn't wash. Pakistan's Inter Services Public Relations (ISPR) denied NATO's claim about responding to live fire on Pakistan's side of the border.

NATO's attack lasted two hours. Senior officers in Peshawar regional headquarters and GHQ Rawalpindi were informed when it started. They immediately asked NATO to stop, saying army troops were targeted. The request was denied.

Following the attack, rage gripped Pakistan. Thousands protested outside Washington's Karachi consulate. People shouted "Down with America." Effigies of Obama were burned. So were US flags.

Abdel Aziz Aluwaisheg

American Muslims have long complained about being singled out for negative profiling and unjustified surveillance by law enforcement agencies in the United States. Last week, one source for this mistreatment was revealed during a routine three-hour-long Senate hearing.

On Nov. 8, 2011, the Senate Committee on the Judiciary conducted a hearing on “Oversight of the US Department of Justice.” The main witness was Attorney General Eric Holder.

Way down in the third hour, Sen. Richard Durbin of Illinois expressed concern about how FBI training manuals negatively portrayed Islam and Muslims. He pointed out that agents receiving counterterrorism training were taught stereotypes of Islam and Muslim Americans, such as, “Islam is a highly violent, radical religion,” “Mainstream Muslim Americans are likely to be terrorist sympathizers,” “The Arabic mind is swayed more by ideas than by fact.”

Durbin also mentioned how training manuals referred to wearing traditional Muslim attire, growing facial hair, and frequenting mosques as indicators of extremism. He then questioned the apparently unjustified, widespread surveillance of mosques and innocent Muslim Americans.

As expected, Holder distanced himself from such explicit bigotry, although he admitted that the statements were in fact part of an FBI training program. He said they were flat out wrong and did not reflect the views of the Justice Department or the FBI. Holder said the person who prepared the guidelines was no longer with the department and that a review of the material was underway to ensure that such misinformation was not in the guidelines.