A. Loewenstein Online Newsletter

NOVANEWS

Tony Judt on the kind of Judaism we should admire

Posted: 19 Sep 2011

The death last year of British historian Tony Judt was a deep loss for those of us who crave intelligent debate of world affairs and especially the Middle East.

The Atlantic has just published his last interview and Judt is shown, despite his last years being afflicted with a horrible disease, with a clarity of thought about Zionism and what Judaism has become:

You advocated for a binational state. What does your binational state look like? How does it work?

I don’t know. What I do know is that since I wrote that in 2003, everyone from Moshe Arens through Barak to Olmert has admitted that Israel is on the way to a single state with a potential Arab majority in Bantustans unless something happens fast. That’s all that I said in my essay.

But ok, since it looks as though Israel is determined to give itself this future, what will it look like? Hell. But what could it look like? Well, there could be a federal state of two autonomous communities — on the Swiss or Belgian model (don’t tell me the latter doesn’t work — it works very well but is opposed by Flemings led by people very much like [Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin] Netanyahu and [Foreign Minister Avigdor] Lieberman). This could have crossover privileges and rights for both communities, but each would be autonomous. I think this would work better than a mixed single-state, and it would allow each community to set certain sorts of religious and other regulations according to its taste.

If it could look so good, why would it be hell?

Because it would start from a very bad place. It would begin with Jews running the place in the name of a Jewish state, defined by Orthodox Rabbis and controlled by an army whose officer core is increasingly permeated by religious and settler communities. No Arab would feel remotely safe, much less equal or a citizen in such a “single state”. The Arabs’ lack of property, rights, status and prospects would either make them a sullen and potentially violent underclass or else the best of them would try to leave. This is no good basis for integration, though it is of course what some of Israel’s present leaders privately desire. And then there would be Gaza…

…

Can you see or understand why Israelis are afraid?

Yes, but only in the sense that someone who has been brought up to fear and hate his neighbors will have good reason to be frightened at the thought of living in the same house with them. Israelis have created a generation of young Palestinians who hate them and will never forgive them and that does make a real problem for any future agreement, single- or two-state.

But Israel should be much, much more afraid of the Israel it’s creating for itself: a semi-democratic, demagogic, far-right warrior state dominated by racist Russians and crazed rabbis. In this perspective, an internationally policed and guaranteed federal state of Israel, with the same rights and resources for Jews and Arabs, looks a lot less frightening to me.

Can you see why American Jews are fearful as well of that?

No. This is the fear of the paranoid hysteric – like the man at the dinner table in the story I wrote in the New York Review who had never been to Israel but thought I should stop criticizing it because “We Jews might need it sometime.” American Jews — most of whom know nothing of Jewish history, Jewish languages or Jewish religion — feel “Jewish” by identifying unthinkingly with Auschwitz as the source of their special victim status and “Israel” as their insurance policy and macho other. I find this contemptible — they are quite happy to see Arabs killed in their name, so long as other Jews do it. That’s not fear, that is something between surrogate nationalism and moral indifference.

…

After your binational state proposal, many felt the need to publicly denounce you, even famous liberals. How hard was this for you?

Not at all. Since people took to calling me “Belgian” as a synonym for “anti-Semitic European,” or “Self-Hating Jew,” I assumed that they had nothing very interesting to say. Since liberals would often say one thing to me in private but something different in public for fear of being thought “anti-Semitic”, I never much cared about their criticisms either.

On the whole I don’t mind taking a minority view: I’ve always done this. And many of the people who slapped me down for my criticisms of Israel were enthusiastic supporters of the Iraq war. So I suspect I was on the right side twice-over. The only criticisms I took seriously came from Israel, from reasonable people who had good grounds for disagreement. I suspect ground is starting to open up in America, as people gently put their heads above the parapet and risk criticizing Israel without getting shot.

In recent writing and interviews, you relate a lot to your unique sense of a limited future. How has this changed the way you see history and current politics?

I don’t think it’s changed it at all, though it may have shifted the balance of my writings and interests. I don’t think I have altered my views on history or politics, though of course given my circumstances I have to ration my contributions and try to focus on the things that either matter most or that I have the best chance of influencing.

Britain’s capitulation to Israeli desires to remain above the law

Posted: 19 Sep 2011

The Gaza-based Palestinian Centre for Human Rights releases a timely statement that reminds the world that justice for Israeli crimes won’t be forgotten:

On Thursday, 15 September 2011, the United Kingdom modified its universal jurisdiction legislation as a direct result of political pressure exerted by the Government of Israel, following the issue of arrest warrants for Doron Almog in 2005, and Tzipi Livni in 2009. The legislative change grants the Director of Public Prosecutions the power to veto the issue of arrest warrants for universal jurisdiction offences. This is a purely political move designed to block the arrest of war criminals from ‘friendly’ countries.

The Palestinian Centre for Human Rights (PCHR) affirms that this effort intends to grant impunity under the veil of law. Rather than fulfilling its obligation to pursue accountability, the United Kingdom has enacted legislation establishing an effective ‘safe-haven’ for war criminals.

States’ obligation to prosecute suspected perpetrators of international crimes – such as war crimes, crimes against humanity, torture, and genocide – is a norm of customary international law. It is also a direct obligation arising from Article 146 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, to which the United Kingdom is a High Contracting Party.

Universal jurisdiction exists to ensure that those suspected of committing international crimes do not escape accountability. It grants States the jurisdiction to prosecute such individuals, regardless of where the crime was committed. Universal jurisdiction aims precisely to ensure that there can be no safe havens for suspected international criminals.

In changing the law, the United Kingdom has chosen to pursue impunity and protectionism, not accountability. The U.K. is subject to a duty to apply the criminal law uniformly: the amendment could breach both that obligation, and the UK’s legal obligations arising from the ratification of, inter alia, the Geneva Conventions of 1949, and the UN Convention against Torture.

PCHR notes that this move evidences a blatant double standard and hypocrisy on the part of the Government of the United Kingdom. The U.K. recently voted to refer the situation in Libya to the International Criminal Court, ensuring that Qadaffi and members of his regime are held to account. The Government has repeatedly issued public statements highlighting its commitment to justice, the rule of law, and the spirit of the Arab spring.

However, at the same time, they have chosen to disregard the rule of law with respect to ‘friendly’ States. The United Kingdom has chosen to place Israel, and individual Israelis suspected of committing international crimes, beyond the reach of the law. Such actions are an insult to innocent victims around the world who rely on international law for protection, and justice in the event of a violation.

In condemning the United Kingdom’s actions, PCHR Director Raji Sourani stated that “the U.K. has violated its obligation to uphold the rule of law and voted for the rule of the jungle. This hypocritical action shows a clear double standard. The UK has chosen to reward the criminal and ignore the victim.”

Anyone can make a revolution (or can they?)

Posted: 19 Sep 2011

The upcoming Festival of Dangerous Ideas is taking place at the Sydney Opera House in October. Feel threatened.

I’m involved in the following event on 2 October at 6pm:

In Egypt and Tunisia we have seen ordinary people come together to claim democracy and human rights in the face of oppressive regimes, with Twitter and Facebook the other heroes of the revolution. Are social media and Al Jazeera instrumental in what happened, or are they just the latest communication tools? Can anyone with a mobile phone foment revolution or do the punitive regimes in Syria, Bahrain and Libya show that it takes a whole lot more?

Join our panel: Mona Eltahawy, columnist; Simon Sheikh, international public speaker and national director of the community advocacy group GetUp!; and Salil Shetty, Secretary General of Amnesty International.

Salil Shetty appears with the support of Amnesty International.

Chaired by Antony Loewenstein;

We may speak about this, this, this, this or this.

Talking about the role of Serco negatively affecting public freedom

Posted: 18 Sep 2011

It’s a discussion that rarely occurs in Western countries where Serco (and other corporations) are increasingly intruding on our lives. As citizens we are meant to silently accept the influence of these unaccountable firms. Privatisation will set us free, apparently.

Resistance is most certainly not futile. Take this recent piece by Zoe Williams in the Guardian:

One Society has produced some data on pay differentials, called A Third of a Percent (this is the pay of a UK low-paid worker compared to their chief executives). They found that private firms whose main income came from the public sector paid CEOs far more than the highest paid public sector employee. So, for instance, “Serco, which receives over 90% of its business from the public sector, paid Christopher Hyman an estimated £3,149,950 in 2010. This is six times more than the highest paid UK public servant and 11 times more than the highest-paid UK local authority CEO.”

It’s hard to compare Hyman to the lowest paid Serco employee, since the bottom figure visible on the collective bargaining records is for a Docklands Light Railway passenger service agent, at £35,000. But that almost certainly doesn’t represent the bottom of the pay spine – for the period from 1 April 2009 electricians in Serco’s Integrated Services bargaining unit were subject to a pay deal with a minimum rate equivalent to £10,358 a year.

…

Not wishing to pick on Serco, since the situations in A4e, Capita and G4S are similar, these companies do, when they have a profit glitch, behave like any other big four with a stranglehold on the money supply: they squeeze suppliers. Last year, worried about local authority cuts (which of course hadn’t happened at this point), Serco sent out a letter to suppliers demanding a 2.5% reduction in costs, on the basis that, “Like the government, we are looking to determine who our real partners are that we can rely upon. Your response will no doubt indicate your commitment to our partnership”. They rescinded this after widespread outrage, but the message will have been easily recognised by anyone who’s ever objected to the working strategy of a major supermarket: we’re your conduit to the public cash cow, and you’ll do as we say.

Meanwhile in Australia, Serco operates with government backing (though public opposition, such as this Facebook pageSerco Watch, is growing):

A lucrative IT contract for the new Fiona Stanley Hospital has been awarded to a British company in what has been touted by the state opposition as a continued disregard of keeping local jobs in Western Australia.

The decision follows the opposition’s outcry about the need to protect locally resourced jobs after BlueScope Steel axed more than 1000 staff in Victoria and New South Wales because it could no longer compete in the exportmarket.

Now controversial hospital operator Serco, which is primarily a British company, has awarded British Telecommunications the IT services contract as part of a “boys looking after boys” deal, according to opposition spokesperson for IT strategy Andrew Waddell.

Duty to hold Sri Lanka to account for war crimes but Australia embraces the thugs

Posted: 18 Sep 2011

In some countries, such as Britain, there is continued public pressure on Colombo to hold those accused of war crimes to account. And rightly so.

The Australian government has a rather different view:

Several of the Tamil asylum seekers caught trying to flee Sri Lanka for Australia this week are being held in detention camps without charge under draconian anti-terror laws.

Australia has praised Sri Lanka for intercepting a boat carrying 44 asylum seekers, including two children, with high commissioner Kathy Klugman applauding the Sri Lankan security forces’ work.

But refugee advocates have criticised Australia’s uncritical support for Sri Lanka and accused the government of ignoring war crimes allegations stemming from Colombo’s brutal civil war with the Tamil Tigers.

The Australian high commissioner in Colombo, Kathy Klugman, has displayed appalling judgment in praising the Sri Lankan navy and police after the interception of a boat carrying 44 people, apparently bound for Australia. What we know of this particular case is limited: the 44 Tamils, including two children, were picked up in rough seas off the east of the country on Sunday as they attempted to flee. The children are now in the care of their grandparents, 36 others hauled before a magistrate and remanded in custody. The remaining six have disappeared into a detention camp in the country’s south, accused of being former fighters with the Tamil Tigers.

We know much more about the broader context. Sri Lanka stands accused of vicious abuses in the civil war – abuses that were certainly committed by both sides, but a military victory does not absolve the government of its moral culpability. Prime Minister Julia Gillard has acknowledged the conflict was a major factor in the increased number of people seeking haven in Australia in recent years. The United Nations has recognised more than 140,000 refugees from Sri Lanka.

Yet Australia’s representative has blithely ignored the cloud hanging over Sri Lanka’s security forces in what appears an effort to preserve official ties and warn of the dangers of a 5500-kilometre sea passage to Australia. Of course the journey is treacherous. But it is a sour look that damages Australia’s reputation to applaud the ring fence around Sri Lanka and pre-judge the merits of people seeking to escape.

#Occupy Wall Street

Posted: 18 Sep 2011

Hiring private thugs in Afghanistan and hoping for the best

Posted: 18 Sep 2011

It’s so hard to see why the Western-led war in Afghanistan is failing miserably:

An Afghan-owned security company accused of operating an illicit protection racket received “a slap on the wrist” from the Defense Department despite ample evidence of wrongdoing, according to a senior House Democrat critical of the military’s efforts to combat corruption in Afghanistan.

The complaint from Rep. John Tierney, D-Mass., detailed in a Sept. 13 letter to Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, sets the stage for a contentious congressional hearing scheduled for Thursday on how aggressively the Pentagon is holding contractors working in war zones accountable for fraud and bribery.

In the letter, Tierney summarizes the findings of “Warlord, Inc.,” an investigation he led last year which concluded that Ahmad and Rashid Popal, the owners of the Watan Group, and Haji Ruhullah, a former assistant manager for the company, bribed local Afghan officials and used heavy weapons prohibited by the $2.16 billion Army transportation contract they were working under. They all denied funneling money to the Taliban, Tierney said, but evidence gathered by his staff “raised doubts about those claims.”

Based on the findings of Warlord Inc., Army officials in December proposed barring Watan’s security arm, Watan Risk Management, and Ruhullah from doing business with the U.S. government. Armed with American attorneys, the Popals and Ruhullah separately challenged the actions. Ruhullah won. The Army cited his status as a subordinate at Watan and said his inability to speak English meant he could not understand the terms of the contract or the investigators from Tierney’s staff who interviewed him.