June
2005
Disengagement, Life, Freedom of Expression, Exchange
with Seyla Benhabib, Survey
on Israeli Arabs, Iran Elections, Preserving Our Planet, Darfur, US Congress Votes To Curb Patriot Act, Terri Schiavo, Carnegie
Endowment Website, Film, Photos
Disengagement
The settlers' anti-disengagement campaign seems to
be effective. Recent public polls show that the support for the Plan is
declining quite rapidly. According to Professor Yaar's Peace Index 57.5% of the Jewish public support the
unilateral-disengagement plan, 35.5% oppose it, and 7% do not know (last month
the rates of support and opposition stood at 56.1% and 38.0%). At the same
time, the majority—52%—prefers the position that Israel should try to
coordinate the disengagement with the Palestinian side so as to reduce the chances
of implementing the plan under fire while transferring control of the
territories to the Authority as smoothly as possible. Only 38% agree with the
contrary view that, since the Palestinian side can promise neither an
evacuation without fire nor a smooth transfer of control in Gaza, there is no
point in devoting efforts to coordination with it.
It was not only the effective campaign of "A
Jew does not throw out a Jew" that brought about the decline of support
for the disengagement plan. Cynically, the relative tranquility makes people
forget how bad the situation was, and how bad it can be. People tend to develop
short memory and do not understand that the tranquility is misleading, because
the crux of the matter is the occupation. As long as the occupation continues,
the Palestinians will obviously suffer, and we are also doom to suffer. Gaza is
the first step to end the occupation, as explained many times in the past when
I outlined the Gaza First Plan. In addition, demography is a threat not to be
ignored. This does not mean that Israel should not secure its borders and see
that terrorism becomes obsolete. Of course we have every right to defend
ourselves, and do any effort to fight down terrorism. But fighting down
terrorism should not be done by continuing the occupation. Quite the opposite.
Yesterday, 29 June 2005, there was escalation in
the activities. Supporters of Gush Katif who oppose Gaza First closed almost
the entire country, blocking major roads and having violent confrontations with
the police that tried to clear the roads for traffic. The day before yesterday
the major newspapers in Israel warned about the blockage and suggested people
to stay at their homes. Many took the advice. The settlers disrupt our lives,
and things are going from bad to worse. The government should understand,
sooner rather than later, that it could always get worse, if no deterrent
measures are taken. The cynical thing is that the settlers – to mitigate what
they are doing – also provide drivers in traffic jams cakes, ice cream and
drinks. I am touched by their concern.
Yesterday
security officials met to discuss a proposal to bar the entrance of Israelis
into the Gaza Strip, to prevent far-right extremists from carrying out violent
protests against disengagement. The Israel Defense Forces is increasingly
supportive of the move, even though it would mean alerting large amounts of
troops to block all the entrances to Gaza, to prevent pullout opponents from
reaching the Gush Katif bloc of settlements. As said in the past,
common sense does prevail. Sometimes it hesitates but eventually people reach
the right conclusions. You may recall that I suggested this in my April
Newsletter.
Life
Abu-Mazen's strategy is simple: fight the
occupation, not Israel per se. I do not believe that behind the missiles
is only the Hamas, without Abu-Mazen's tacit blessing. The Kassams will
continue, the fighting will continue as long as Israel does not change its
strategy and see the territories as part of Israel. More and more pressure is
mounting in Israel internationally. I feel it when I travel around the globe
and meet with people, listening to their minds. The ban on Israeli academia is
one sign of it. We may win some battles but we will not succeed in the long
run, as long as the occupation continues.
Like Old Cato I reiterate: Stop the Occupation!!
(Marcus Porcius Cato was a Roman statesman,
orator, writer, and defender of conservative Roman Republican ideas who lived
between 234 and 149 BC. He was born into a wealthy family of Roman landholders
during the early Republican period on a farm in the city of Tusculum, southeast
of present–day Rome. His early farm upbringing resulted in a lifelong interest
in agriculture and the writing of his De Agri Cultura in 160 BC which is the
oldest Latin literary encyclopedia in existence today. His conservative views
of traditional Roman Republican culture and the importance of the development
of Latin literature and its survival as a written language resulted in his fear
and dislike of the increasing Greek influence on the Romans. Cato helped insure
the survival of Latin by being the first to write an encyclopedic history of
Rome in Latin called Origines, of which only small fragments survive.
Cato
was born Marcus Porcius Priscus but, due to his abilities as a skillful orator,
he became known as Marcus Porcius Cato. The Romans called an experienced or
skillful man Catus. The Latin word catus means sharp intellect.
Cato
was also known as Cato the Censor for his monitoring of the behavior of public
officials and his desire to extricate any Greek influence or capitalist ideas
and to return to conservative Roman conduct and morality.
Cato’s
historical writings were considered didactic and presented forcefully in
“unadorned directness”, rather than with graceful form. His disdain of the
indulgent aristocracy led to his suppressing of the names of the generals, thus
denying the powerful and influential families their rightful glory and pride. See
http://www.geocities.com/~kashalinka/cato_bio.html)
Life in Gush Katif, in the Gaza Strip, are
difficult. Missiles on a daily basis causing a lot of destruction but luckily
almost no life. Life inside Israel continue to be tranquil. The impact is
immediate. People at the tourism industry told me that the past two months were
heaven for them. The hotels are full, or almost full. Many people are coming
from all over the world. June is a conference time in Israel and I attended
some, most of them included guests from abroad. I had personal guests on a weekly
basis, sometimes more than one each week. It is always a joy to see you. You
are always welcome to my humble home.
On June 13, Israel celebrated Shavuot, the Feast of the Weeks, is the
Jewish holiday celebrating the harvest season in Israel. Shavuot, which means
"weeks", refers to the timing of the festival which is held exactly 7
weeks after Passover. Shavuot also commemorates the
anniversary of the giving of the Ten Commandments to Moses and the Israelites
at Mount Sinai. During the past weeks the atmosphere during the festivals was somewhat
relaxed. This year, Shavuot was booming. Festivals everywhere. People went out
to celebrate in many kibbutzim, moshavim and local municipalities. Festivals of
food, wine, music, dance from north to south. This is the Shavuot spirit.
Freedom of Expression
The colour of Gush Katif, in the Gaza Strip, is
orange. During the past year we became very much aware of this as all their
activities were coloured with orange. Residents of Jerusalem even more so as
most of their protests, parades and demonstrations were on Government Hill in
Jerusalem. The demonstrators are usually dressed with orange T-Shirts, orange
flags, orange banners, orange cars, orange oranges. You got the point.
A few months ago, the action headquarters of the
settlers decided to colour the entire country with orange. The method was
simple: orange ribbons on cars. Those of you who visited Israel recently and
wondered about the significance of those ribbons now have the answer. All those
who oppose Gaza First tie orange ribbons to their cars' antennas, mirrors, etc.
As the campaign progressed, and the public became more divided, more cars are
seen carrying the orange ribbons. It is like the reversed yellow Magen David.
There is a sense of unified ideological pride among those who put the orange
ribbons, as if they are saying: "We belong to one cherished camp; you are
excluded". The ribbons became a dividing mechanism, and those who "do
not belong" to the so-called Jewish-national camp look at this with growing
unease. Don't get me wrong. Those with the orange ribbons are still minority,
and hopefully remain a minority. As the polls clearly show, the majority
supports the Gaza First Plan, and not all those who don't support necessarily
put on the ribbons. Still, the ribbons are quite vivid and noticeable.
I believe in free expression, and undoubtedly those
who oppose the Gaza First plan have every right to protest, as long they do
this in peaceful ways. But like many I am more and more troubled by those ribbons
that divide the country. The majority is quite, too quite to my taste, leaving
the arena to the opposition. My proposal is simple: Let us all put ribbons on
our cars, ribbons of all colours but orange: white, blue, blue and white, red,
yellow, green. Let us make this country colourful and cheerful. Let us make a
celebration of colours. We should not leave the stage to one point of view, one
colour that dominates the country. Israel is comprised of many people, with
different points of view. We all cherish freedom of expression, so let's be
active. We have a red ribbon on our car. Let's make orange one of the colours
on the streets, not the only dominating colour.
A colleague at the University of Haifa suggested:
Instead of ribbons of any color, which may confuse people, I recommended blue.
To avoid a confusing plethora of colors and unify the message, I'm hoping
you'll join the blue ribbon campaign. Many colors might mean many
policies: neutrality, general patriotism, a vague wish for unity . . . anything.
The message of the blue ribbons is clear: Yes to the evacuation of settlements.
To which I answered: The
settlers wish to divide the nation: We with orange. You with nothing. We are
unified around one colour. You are on the "other camp". Adding one
more colour will only increase the divide. It will now be "we are orange;
you are blue" and vice versa. I wish to break this divide. Instead of two
colours, let us have a celebration of colours, then orange will be one of the
playing colours, and will lost its significance.
Exchange with Seyla Benhabib
Recently I
attended a conference with Professor Seyla Benhabib,
of Yale University (http://www.yale.edu/polisci/people/sbenhabib.html). In her
lecture she attacked Israel for its policy on guest workers. After the opening
of the terror attack on Israel by Arafat in late 2000, many Palestinians who
used to work inside the Green Line were refused to enter the country. This
resulted in opening the borders for workers from all over the globe who are
coming to work in hard manual jobs that Israelis conceive with disfavour,
mainly construction (Turkey, Poland, Romania, Bulgaria, Thailand, China,
Portugal, to name a few countries of origin), agriculture (mainly Thailand),
nursing (Philippines), cleaning and home keeping (Ukraine, Russia, Bulgaria,
Nigeria, Ghana, other English-speaking African countries) (well, also
prostitution). Israel tries to monitor the numbers and after a few years cancel
work permits and order the workers to return to their home countries. People,
who live here for a number of years, establish families, learn the language,
send their kids to Israeli schools, are ordered to pack and live. This unjust
policy is in violation of basic human rights and I oppose and criticize it. So
does Benhabib in a very strong language, calling upon Israel to change its
policy.
Listening to her I wondered
whether Benhabib is aware of the rational behind this discriminatory and brute
behaviour, namely keeping the Jewish character of the State of Israel, and not
opening a precedent that could later be stretched also to Palestinians from the
occupied territories to become citizens, and by this potentially change the
demography of Israel. During question time I asked her what does she think of
Israel's efforts to maintain a Jewish State. Her answer was revealing. Benhabib
believes there is no need to maintain a Jewish majority in Israel, that Israel
could strive to keep its Jewish symbols, its culture, tradition, literature,
poetry, identity, but there is no need to insist on being the majority. Thus,
Israel should behave like European countries: opening its borders to people of
different nationalities and religions and transform itself from a
Jewish-Democracy to a universalistic liberal-democracy.
This suggestion is not new.
It is common nowadays in Israel among post-Zionists, and Palestinians. The wide
majority in Israel, however, is wishing to maintain the Jewish character of the
state also by keeping Jews as the majority. To what extent it is democratic to
impose on people, in the name of liberalism, "universalism" they do
not want? What guarantees do we have, from Benhabib and others who endorse the
end of Jewish Israel, that our security will be protected? Who could vouch that
the new majority, in Benhabib's vision, will adopt liberalism and maintain
civil and political rights to all people, notwithstanding their religions and
ethnic origins?
The problem with many
liberals is that they think all people are like them. In my writings I speak of
the "catch of democracy", that the principles that underlie democracy
might open the gates for its destruction.
I do not endorse Benhabib's vision for Israel. Instead, I propose less
radical solutions: Citizenship to people who see their future in Israel, who
tie their lives with Israel and its destiny. Quotas for immigrants will be set
like other European countries. Israel should remain the only Jewish state in
this planet. Jews after the Holocaust cannot afford the elimination of Israel
as a Jewish State.
Benhabib also raised the
issue of Israel's discriminatory policy vis-à-vis Palestinians in the occupied
territories who wish to marry Palestinians inside the Green Line. Israel has a
temporary law that is extended from time to time that in effect does not
recognize marriage as justification for citizenship. Thus, Palestinians from
the occupied territories who wish to marry Israeli spouses need special
permission and authorization to become citizens. Again, this is a
discriminatory law that should be changed. I do not accept its sweeping
language and its resulting discriminatory outcome. So does Benhabib but again
we differ on the remedy. While she says that this policy reminds her of the
Nuremberg Laws, equating Israel in this respect to Nazi Germany and to South
Africa under the apartheid, I wondered to what an extent Benhabib is aware of
the rationale behind the law. I told her that Israeli intelligence is raising
an alarm in this regard, pointing to real incidents in which people who were
allowed to marry in the past, and became Israeli citizens, were later involved
in terrorist attacks against Israel. Benhabib was not impressed. Security does
not override basic human rights. This, for me, is a too easy answer. People who
speak like this can afford this tone and language because they do not take
responsibility. They have the privilege of criticizing from their ivory tower.
Just think of the person who is making the decisions, allowing a certain
Palestinian to marry and reside in Israel, and later this same person is
becoming a terrorist responsible for the murder of a dozen Israelis. Would he
then sleep well at night as a true liberal acting upon the best of motives?
Again, instead of endorsing sweeping policies – of Israel and of Benhabib – I
opt for refined policy: examine marriage requests case-by-case; investigate the
backgrounds of those who seek citizenship through marriage, their histories, and
their families. Decide to what extent they can be trusted with Israeli IDs. You
cannot ignore security in Israel. This is a luxury we cannot afford. Jewish
Liberals at Yale can.
Benhabib also made some
interesting observations on different policies in Europe regarding immigrants.
Various forms of citizenship are conferred with different voting rights: some
are allowed to vote on the local level; some also on the municipal level.
Europe tends to be more restrictive on voting on the national level. So the
concept of "citizenship" is now different than it used to be some
thirty years ago. In addition, the concept is also stretching out of boundaries
as it outreaches the continental level: Many are citizens of Europe, and more
and more countries want to become part of the European Union and community.
Maybe Israel one day.
Survey
finds Israeli Arabs accept Jewish, not Zionist, nature of state
Yoav Stern of Haaretz
newspaper reported that (June
20, 2005) the vast majority of Israeli Arabs accept the definition
of Israel as a Jewish and democratic state, but reject the description of it as
a Zionist state. These were the findings of a survey conducted by Prof. Sami
Smooha and funded by the Jewish-Arab Center at the University of Haifa and the
the Citizens' Accord Forum.
Around 70 percent of the Arabs who participated in the survey
agreed with the statement that "Israel, within the Green Line, has the
right to exist as a Jewish and democratic state in which Jews and Arabs
coexist." However, according to the study, the vast majority of Israeli
Arabs believe that Zionism equals racism, and reject all of the state's Zionist
goals.
The survey also found that most of the Jewish population wants
Arab citizens to accept Israel as a Zionist state, as it is accepted by the
international community, even though these Zionist ideals are often at the
expense of Arab citizens.
The results of the survey appear in
"The Arab-Jewish Index 2004." The survey was conducted in late 2004,
and includes personal interviews with a representative sample of 700 Israeli
Arabs aged over 18, and telephone interviews with 700 Jewish citizens.
According to the results, while 70 percent of Israeli Arabs are able to accept
Israel as a Jewish, democratic state, only 13.8 percent agree to the concept of
Israel as a Zionist state. Over 72 percent believe that "Israel as a
Zionist state, in which Jews and Arab live together, is racist."
Given the prevailing assumption that most of the Arab citizens of Israel reject
the Jewish nature of the state, the results of the survey are rather
surprising. According to my colleague, Prof. Smooha, Israeli Arabs
differentiate between Israel's Jewish character and its Zionist nature. Israeli
Arabs believe that a Jewish state is a state in which most of the citizens are
Jewish, whereas a Zionist state is a state for the Jewish people from around
the world.
"For Zionists, one of the goals Israel should set itself is maintaining
its Jewish majority at all costs," says Smooha. "That is a Zionist
goal, and includes settlement in the Jewish sense and the ingathering of exiles
by means of the Law of Return. But the Arabs are not willing to accept this
situation in perpetuity."
The survey also found that 75 percent of the Jewish respondents agreed with the
statement, "Israeli Arabs have the right to live here as equal citizens
with full rights." Some 80 percent of the Jewish respondents, however, said
that an Israel Arab who defines himself as "a Palestinian Arab in Israel
cannot be loyal to the state and its laws."
According to Smooha's analysis of the findings, Jewish respondents believe that
Israeli Arabs' right to be full and equal citizens of Israel is conditional on
them renouncing any nationalistic inspirations of their own and recognizing the
Jewish people's national and exclusive rights to the State of Israel. This
stems from the fact that Jews appear to believe that Israeli Arabs need to fulfill
their right to self-determination in a Palestinian state, rather than at the
expense of the Jewish state.
Iran Elections
Democracy
Digest commented on the Iranian elections by saying: Iran's president-elect
Mahmood Ahmadinejad should not expect the international community to "go
soft" on Tehran's nuclear policy, British Prime Minister Tony Blair said.
"It would be a serious mistake if he thought that we are going
to go soft on them, because we are not," Blair insisted.
In elections
marred by disqualification of candidates, polling
irregularities and intimidation by Revolutionary Guards, many poorer
voters were clearly motivated by a blend of class and ideology to vote against
the corruption personified by Ahmadinejad's rival, former president Akbar
Hashemi Rafsanjani. Jack Straw, the UK foreign secretary, complained of
"serious deficiencies" in "an already flawed" electoral
process. The European Union criticized
the election, expressing regret that candidates were excluded and
reaffirming "the importance of free expression and assembly in terms of a
free and just election process."
Ahmadinejad's
victory is the first time in the 26-years of the Islamic Republic that a
secular candidate beat a mullah in a high profile electoral contest, notes
Iranian observer Amir Taheri. His win also confirms supreme leader Ayatollah
Ali Khamenei's decision to "abandon any idea of Western-style
reforms to please the restive middle classes." Instead, the
regime will mobilize its "real base", Taheri suggests, "the
Revolutionary Guard and its reservists, the so-called Baseej or 'mobilization
of the dispossessed' movement, the various organizations of families of
'martyrs', the occult Hezbollah (Party of God) networks and, in broader terms,
the masses of the poor."
The election
represents both an obituary for the reformist movement and the culmination of
Ayatollah Ali Khamenei's long-term strategy to consolidate power around a fresh
cadre of radicals and revive an Islamic revolution that had fallen into
disrepute through association with corruption and other abuses of power.
Ahmadinejad, and such allies as Majlis chairman Gholam-Ali Haddad-Adel, are
members of the "middle"
generation of the Islamic Revolution, "faithful to the
revolution's values, and who grew up in the establishment apparatuses" but
with the political advantage of not being clerics, now widely despised across
Iranian society. Yet the West knows little about Iran's new foreign policy
protagonists, including the younger security service operatives and
Revolutionary Guards. "Many of those Iranian
conservatives have little time for Westerners," notes
Brookings' Daniel Byman, "but we must take the time to know them -- their
agendas, hierarchies, and ideological subtleties."
By mobilizing
this new generation of conservatives, Khamenei has removed the "competing
centers of power, says Ray Takeyh, a senior fellow at the US-based Council on
Foreign Relations. He has ended the perennial struggle between elected and
unelected institutions" that characterized the non-democratic but
pluralist Islamic Republic and "gradually translated his constitutional
powers into actual institutional dominance." "A supreme leader widely
contemptuous of democratic accountability and confident of his mandate from
heaven has finally consolidated his rule," says Takeyh, " ending one of
the most vibrant reform movements in the history of the modern
Middle East."
Reflecting the
prevalent sentiment of the new generation, Ahmadinejad openly expresses his disdain for
liberal democracy. "We did not have a revolution in order to
have democracy," he said last week. With his populist appeal,
anti-democratic sentiment and success in exploiting resentments towards ruling
elites, Ahmadinejad has already been compared to another authoritarian.
"The obvious comparison is (President) Hugo Chavez
in Venezuela," said an observer with experience of both oil-producing
countries.
Reformists
accepted blame for Ahmadinejad's victory, conceding that eight years of
President Mohammad Khatami's incremental approach had yielded little real progress.
"The vote for Ahmadinejad was a vote against reformist
inefficiency," wrote the editor of the liberal Sharq daily. But
former vice-president Mohammad Ali Abtahi, an ally of the hapless Khatami,
blamed fellow reformists for splitting their vote by fielding three candidates
in the first round and for neglecting economic issues. "We focused our
attention on the elite and forgot the
ordinary people who are trying to get their daily bread."
Some Iranian
exiles welcomed a more conservative regime, hoping it would prompt greater
assistance for the regime's opponents. Others believed Ahmadinejad's victory
was not so significant given the conservatives' de facto control of other state
institutions and would at least reveal the true nature of the regime. "You
don't want to have a smiley face
covering up the true face of the regime," said Pooya Dayanim of
the Iranian Jewish Public Affairs Committee. "This is just going to
highlight how out of step Iran is with the international community and
pro-democracy trends in the Middle East."
But some feared
the result would play into the hands of regime change
proponents eager to promote civil
disobedience and other direct action tactics. "In some perverse
way, there may be people who think that this can now result in some bloody
upheaval in Iran," says one exile. "I don't think most people here
share that desire." Others look to alternative means of cementing a common front
of dissidents based on mobilization to demand an internationally
monitored referendum for a new constitution founded on universal
human rights.
Ahmadinejad's
election presents the US with a dilemma, says one observer: "to come to
terms with the Islamic regime and pursue a course of understanding and
reconciliation, or opt for a policy of confrontation that could prove very
costly for all sides." It is here that the European
Union might play a useful bridging role to avoid conflict,"
argues Amin Saikal. Yet the West's approach has already been criticized as too
lax on Iran's human rights
abuses.
The extensive
economic interests, patronage networks and corruption of the theocracy cast
doubt on Ahmadinejad's ability and inclination to deliver the qualitative
improvements in living standards his campaign promised. And in ending the
ersatz pluralism and monopolizing power, the regime can no longer deflect
responsibility or blame for its failures. "What is both worrying and
hopeful," says one observer, "is that this consolidation of power has
a last-ditch
aspect about it. Khamenei has increased control, but the regime has
lost flexibility and much of whatever legitimacy remained."
Source:
DEMOCRACY
DIGEST, The Bulletin of the Transatlantic Democracy Network, Volume 2, Number 7
(June 28, 2005), www.demdigest.net
Preserving
Our Planet
I
wonder when the world will wake up. I hope soon rather than later. Human
tendency is to postpone things until they are on the verge of destruction. We
are destroying our planet, leaving our children and grand children a much less
pleasant and safe planet, letting them crack their heads to find solutions to
problems we create. Very little thinking on the long run. Below some
information on the way we behave, and moderate steps that are taken to redeem
the situation. This is not enough. We should put the issues on the table, evoke
awareness, change. Europe is much more conscious regarding this issue. North
America has other interests. Oil. Geopolitics. Michael Jackson. Sports, now
NBA.
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/science_technology/story.jsp?story=645071
The Independent (UK)
G8 scientists tell Bush: Act now - or else...
An unprecedented warning as global warming worsens
By Steve Connor, Science Editor
08 June 2005
An unprecedented joint statement issued by the leading scientific
academies of the world has called on the G8 governments to take urgent action
to avert a global catastrophe caused by climate change.
The national academies of science for all the G8 countries, along with
those of Brazil, India and China, have warned that governments must no longer
procrastinate on what is widely seen as the greatest danger facing humanity.
The statement, which has taken months to finalise, is all the more important as
it is signed by Bruce Alberts, president of the US National Academy of
Sciences, which has warned George Bush about the dangers of ignoring the threat
posed by global warming.
It was released on the day that Tony Blair met Mr Bush in Washington,
where the American President was expected to reaffirm his opposition to joining
the Kyoto treat to limit greenhouse gas emissions. Over dinner at the White
House last night, Mr Blair appeared to make little progress on one of his main
priorities for Britain's year chairing the G8 - a new international effort to
combat climate change. The Prime Minister is trying to draw the US, China and
India into the discussion, but there is little sign that the Bush
administration will accept the growing scientific evidence about the problem.
Lord May of Oxford, the president of the Royal Society, Britain's
national academy of sciences, lambasted President Bush yesterday for ignoring
his own scientists by withdrawing from the Kyoto treaty.
"The current US policy on climate change is misguided. The Bush
administration has consistently refused to accept advice of the US National
Academy of Sciences ... Getting the US on board is critical because of the
sheer amount of greenhouse gas emissions they are responsible for," Lord
May said.
Between 1990 and 2002, the carbon dioxide emissions of the US increased
by 13 per cent, which on their own were greater than the combined cut in
emissions that will be achieved if all Kyoto countries hit their targets, he
said.
"President Bush has an opportunity at Gleneagles to signal that his
administration will no longer ignore the scientific evidence and act to cut
emissions," Lord May said. "The G8 summit is an unprecedented moment
in human history. Our leaders face a stark choice - act now to tackle climate
change or let future generations face the price of their inaction.
"Never before have we faced such a global threat. And if we do not
begin effective action now it will be much harder to stop the runaway train as
it continues to gather momentum," he added.
The joint statement by the national science academies of the 11
countries does not mention Kyoto but it does refer repeatedly to the United
Nations Framework on Climate Change that spawned the 1995 protocol to limit
future greenhouse gas emissions, which the US has signed up to.
Climate change is real, global warming is occurring and there is strong
evidence that man-made greenhouse gases are implicated in a potentially
catastrophic increase in global temperatures, the statement says. "It is
likely that most of the warming in recent decades can be attributed to human
activities. This warming has already led to changes in the Earth's
climate."
Human activities are causing levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere
to rise to a point not reached for at least 420,000 years.
Meanwhile average global temperatures rose by 0.6C in the 20th century
and are projected to increase by between 1.4C and 5.8C by 2100.
"The scientific understanding of climate change is now sufficiently
clear to justify nations taking prompt action. It is vital that all nations
identify cost-effective steps that they can take now to contribute to
substantial and long-term reduction in net global greenhouse gas
emissions," the statement says.
In a veiled reference to President Bush's reluctance to accept climate
change by claiming that the science is unclear, the academies emphasise that
action is needed now to reduce the build-up of greenhouse gases.
"A lack of full scientific certainty about some aspects of climate
change is not a reason for delaying an immediate response that will, at a
reasonable cost, prevent dangerous anthropogenic [man-made] interference with
the climate system," the statement says.
"We urge all nations... to take prompt action to reduce the causes
of climate change, adapt to its impacts and ensure that the issue is included
in all relevant national and international strategies."
The national academies warn that even if greenhouse gas emissions can be
stabilised at existing levels, the climate would continue to change as it
slowly responds to the extra carbon dioxide added to the atmosphere.
"Further changes in climate are therefore unavoidable.
Nations must prepare for them," the statement says.
CO2 on the increase
1958: A US scientist, Charles Keeling, begins measuring the atmospheric
concentration of carbon dioxide (CO2 ) on an extinct volcano in Hawaii. It
stands at 315 parts per million (ppm).
1968: The US spacecraft 'Apollo 8' takes the first pictures of Earth
from a distance, beautiful but fragile - which help start modern
environmentalism. The C02 level has reached 323ppm.
1972: The UN Conference on the Human Environment in Stockholm - the
moment when the world first recognises environmental threats to the Earth as a
whole. CO2 now at 327ppm.
1988: The world wakes up to the danger of climate change, with an
outspoken warning from scientists, and a speech by Margaret Thatcher.
CO2 level stands at 351ppm.
1992: The Earth Summit at Rio de Janeiro sees more than 100 countries
sign the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, the first global warming
treaty. CO2 now at 356ppm.
1995: The Kyoto protocol to the UN's climate treaty is signed in Japan,
binding countries, including the US, to make cuts in their CO2 emissions. The
CO2 level has now reached 360ppm.
2000: Obvious that the 1990s were the hottest decade in the global
temperature record, with 1998 the hottest year in the northern hemisphere for
1,000 years. CO2 is 369ppm.
2001: George Bush withdraws the US, the world's biggest CO2 emitter,
from Kyoto, alleging it will damage America's economy - jeopardising the whole
process. CO2 level now at 371ppm.
2003: First two weeks of August are the hottest period ever recorded in
western Europe: 35,000 people die. New record high temperature for Britain. CO2
now at 375ppm.
2004: After much dithering, Russia ratifies Kyoto, enabling the protocol
to enter into force despite the desertion of the United States. But that
doesn't stop the CO2 level rising to 377ppm.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,12374,1501659,00.html
US scientists pile on pressure over climate change
David Adam, science correspondent
Wednesday June 8, 2005
The Guardian (UK)
US scientists have increased the pressure on George Bush and other world
leaders to tackle climate change by signing a joint statement calling on G8
nations to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
The statement, from the science academies of the G8 countries, says the
scientific evidence on climate change is now clear enough to compel their
leaders to take action.
It says: "There is now strong evidence that significant global
warming is occurring. It is likely that most of the warming in recent decades
can be attributed to human activities...
"The scientific understanding of climate change is now sufficiently
clear to justify nations taking prompt action. It is vital that all nations
identify cost-effective steps that they can take now, to contribute to substantial
and long-term reduction in net global greenhouse gas emissions."
The statement has been issued ahead of the G8 summit in Gleneagles in
July. It follows months of negotiations between the UK's Royal Society, which
published it yesterday, and the other academies.
One source close to the negotiations called the support of the US
National Academy of Sciences "unprecedented".
In 2001 the US academy declined to sign a similar joint statement
because it was preparing its own report on the issue for the Bush
administration.
In a separate 1992 report it concluded: "Despite the great
uncertainties, greenhouse warming is a potential threat sufficient to justify
action now," but until now it has stopped short of making specific policy
recommendations.
President Bush has consistently stressed the uncertainties of climate
science but the new statement makes it more difficult for him to dispute the
scientific consensus.
The statement calls on G8 nations to "recognise that delayed action
will increase the risk of adverse environmental effects and will likely incur a
greater cost."
It was released as Tony Blair was meeting Mr Bush in Washington. Mr
Blair has made action on climate change and aid to Africa his priorities for
the G8 summit.
Lord May, president of the Royal Society, said current US policy on
climate change was "misguided".
He said: "Getting the US on board is critical because of the sheer
amount of greenhouse gas emissions they are responsible for.
President Bush has an opportunity at Gleneagles to signal that his
administration will no longer ignore the scientific evidence and act to cut
emissions."
Vicki Arroyo, director of policy analysis at the Pew Centre on Global
Climate Change, a US thinktank in Virginia, said the statement "makes it
harder for the [Bush] administration to do what it generally does, which is to
focus on the uncertainty."
Along with the Royal Society and the US National Academy of Sciences,
the statement is signed by the G8 science academies of France, Russia, Germany,
Japan, Italy and Canada, along with those of Brazil, China and India - among
the largest emitters of greenhouse gases in the developing world.
Lord May said: "It is clear that developed countries must lead the
way in cutting emissions but developing countries must also contribute. The
scientific evidence forcefully points to a need for a truly international
effort. Make no mistake, we have to act now."
Levels of carbon dioxide - the most common greenhouse gas in the
atmosphere produced by burning fossil fuels - have increased from 280 parts per
million in 1750 to over 375ppm today. Scientists say this warmed the Earth's
surface by about 0.6C during the 20th century. The statement says this warming
has already led to climate changes.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change predicts that average
temperatures will rise further by 2100, to between 1.4C and 5.8C above 1990
levels.
Catherine Pearce, climate campaigner with Friends of the Earth, said:
"The national science academies are right to call for prompt action
on climate change. But this document lacks targets or a timetable for urgent
action.
"G8 countries must accept their historic responsibility in creating
the problem, and show genuine leadership through annual reductions in
emissions."
Darfur
On June 6, 2005 the
International Criminal Court launched a formal investigation into suspected war
crimes in Sudan's Darfur region, where tens of thousands of people have died
since a rebel uprising began in early 2003. "The investigation will be
impartial and independent, focusing on the individuals who bear the greatest
criminal responsibility for crimes committed in Darfur," the ICC said in a
statement, but did not name any suspects.
Here are some key
facts about the conflict in Darfur:
* Rebels rose up
against the government in February 2003 saying Khartoum discriminated against
non-Arab farmers in Darfur in favour of Arab tribes. More than 2 million
Darfuris, mainly subsistence farmers from a wide variety of ethnic groups, have
fled their homes.
* Arab militias
known as the Janjaweed drove farmers from their land in a campaign rights
groups said amounted to ethnic cleansing and the United States has called
genocide.
* The government
admits arming some militias to quell the rebellion but denies links to the
Janjaweed. It has vowed to disarm them, but the United Nations says Sudan has
done very little to neutralise the militias.
* The U.N.
estimates at least 180,000 people have died in Darfur from disease and hunger.
There are no official tolls of those killed in violence.
* The African Union has about 2,300 troops in Darfur with a mandate to
monitor a shaky ceasefire agreed in April 2004 and limited power to protect
those displaced in the camps.
US Congress Votes
To Curb Patriot Act
"House
Votes To Curb Patriot Act", By Mike Allen, Washington Post,
Thursday, June 16, 2005; A01
The
House handed President Bush the first defeat in his effort to preserve the
broad powers of the USA Patriot Act, voting yesterday to curtail the FBI's
ability to seize library and bookstore records for terrorism investigations.
Bush
has threatened to veto any measure that weakens those powers. The surprise 238
to 187 rebuke to the White House was produced when a handful of conservative
Republicans, worried about government intrusion, joined with Democrats who are
concerned about personal privacy.
One
provision of the Patriot Act makes it possible for the FBI to obtain a wide
variety of personal records about a suspected terrorist -- including library
transactions -- with an order from a secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance
Court, where the government must meet a lower threshold of proof than in
criminal courts.
Under
the House change, officials would have to get search warrants from a judge or
subpoenas from a grand jury to seize records about a suspect's reading habits.
Some
libraries have said they are disposing of patrons' records more quickly because
of the provision, which opponents view as a license for fishing expeditions.
House
Administration Committee Chairman Robert W. Ney (Ohio), one of three House
Republicans who opposed the Patriot Act when it was enacted in 2001, voted
yesterday to curtail agents' power to seize the records.
"Everybody's
against terrorism, but there has to be reason in the way that we fight
it," Ney said. "The government doesn't need to be sifting through
library records. I talked to my libraries, and they felt very strongly about
this."
The
Justice Department said in a letter to Congress this week that the provision
has been used only 35 times and has never been used to obtain bookstore,
library, medical or gun-sale records. It has been used to obtain records of
hotel stays, driver's licenses, apartment leases and credit cards, the letter
said.
"Bookstores
and libraries should not be carved out as safe havens for terrorists and spies,
who have, in fact, used public libraries to do research and communicate with
their co-conspirators," Assistant Attorney General William E. Moschella
said in the letter.
The
vote -- on an amendment to limit spending in a huge bill covering
appropriations for science as well as the departments of Justice, State and
Commerce -- came as Bush is traveling the country to build support for
reauthorizing 15 provisions of the Patriot Act that are scheduled to expire at
year's end.
House
Republican leadership aides said they plan to have the provision removed when a
conference committee meets to work out differences between the House and Senate
versions of the bill. "The administration has threatened to veto the bill
over this extraneous rider, and there are too many important initiatives in the
bill for that to happen," said Appropriations Committee spokesman John
Scofield.
Last
year, the House leadership barely staved off the amendment with a 210 to 210
tie, engineered by holding the vote open to pressure some Republicans to switch
their votes.
Democrats
contend that the reversal is the first sign of growing wariness about some of
the more intrusive elements of the Patriot Act, which was passed just weeks
after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. The American Civil Liberties Union
called the vote a rare victory for civil liberties.
Rep.
Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.), a leader in the drive to curtail the act's reach, said
in an interview that the original measure had passed "in an atmosphere of
panic" and that a wide spectrum of lawmakers is beginning to conclude it
went too far.
"If
some terrorist checks out a book about how to make an atomic bomb, that might
be legitimate for the government to know, and they can get a search warrant or
a subpoena the way we've done it throughout American history," Nadler
said. "Otherwise, what you're reading is none of the government's
business."
House
Republican leaders are not accustomed to losing, and they did not hide their
anger about the result. One aide to a House leader referred to the victorious
coalition as "the crazies on the left and the crazies on the right,
meeting in the middle."
Justice
Department spokesman Kevin Madden issued a statement reiterating the
administration's insistence that the provision is vital. The statement said the
section "provides national security investigators with an important tool
for investigating and intercepting terrorism while at the same time
establishing robust safeguards to protect law-abiding Americans."
The
measure was supported by 38 Republicans and opposed by 186. Among the
Republicans who voted for it were Reps. Jack Kingston (Ga.), Ron Paul (Tex.),
C.L. "Butch" Otter (Idaho) and Ray LaHood (Ill.).
Terri Schiavo
Unsurprisingly,
an exhaustive autopsy found that Terri Schiavo's brain had withered to half the
normal size since her collapse in 1990 and that no treatment could have
remotely improved her condition, medical examiners said on June 15, 2005.
"Schiavo
Autopsy Says Brain Was Untreatable",
NY
Times, June 16, 2005
The autopsy results, released almost three
months after Ms. Schiavo died after the court-ordered removal of her feeding
tube, effectively quashed allegations by her parents that she had been abused
by her husband. Yet the findings also questioned the prevailing theory that an
eating disorder had prompted Ms. Schiavo's collapse, stating there was not
enough hard evidence.
The report generally supported the
contention of Ms. Schiavo's husband, Michael, accepted by judges in six courts
over the years, that she was unaware and incapable of recovering. And it
countered arguments by her family, who badly wanted to win custody of Ms.
Schiavo, that she was responsive and could improve with therapy.
But the autopsy left unresolved the mystery,
which haunted not just her husband and parents but ultimately much of the
nation, of why Ms. Schiavo's heart stopped beating late one night when she was
26. The ensuing brain damage left her able to breathe on her own but not, most
doctors said, to think or to have emotions.
"The only diagnosis that I know for
sure is that her brain went without oxygen," said Dr. Jon R. Thogmartin,
the medical examiner who led the autopsy in Pinellas County, where Ms. Schiavo
had spent her final years in a hospice. "Why? That is undetermined."
The autopsy also found that the brain
deterioration had left her blind. That finding, along with the determination
that the brain damage was irreversible, caused some Republicans in Washington,
who had pushed so hard for federal intervention in her case, to have second
thoughts. And Democrats cited the autopsy results as proof that critics of the
federal intervention had been vindicated.
Ms. Schiavo had lost more than 100 pounds
between her teenage years and the time of her collapse, and some doctors had
theorized that her heart had stopped due to bulimia. Her husband even won a
malpractice lawsuit on that premise, persuading a jury to award $1 million in
damages on the grounds that Ms. Schiavo's obstetrician had failed to diagnose
bulimia.
I have dealt with PCU patients in my The Right to Die with Dignity: An Argument
in Ethics, Medicine, and Law (Piscataway,
NJ.: Rutgers University Press, 2001). My research showed it was quite
meaningless to prolong Schiavo's life to the extent the doctors did. For people
in her condition I recommended a grave period of two years. After this period
the likelihood of returning to any cognition is almost nil. The problem is that
usually PCU patients in the USA do not receive this grace period. Schiavo is a very
exceptional case.
Carnegie Endowment Website
The Carnegie Endowment has launched a
comprehensive, easy-to-navigate online resource with baseline data and
information about Arab political systems and the reforms being implemented in
various countries. These country studies provide factual, up-to-date
information on state institutions, human rights, political forces, election
results, constitutional revision, corruption, and ratification of international
conventions—with links to official documents and websites.
The resource was developed jointly with FRIDE
(Fundación para Relaciones Internacionales y el Dialógo Exterior) in Madrid.
Access it at www.carnegieendowment.org/arabpoliticalsystems.
The database currently covers Algeria, Egypt,
Jordan, Morocco, and Saudi Arabia, with more country studies already being
prepared. All major countries will be covered by the end of 2005. Carnegie and
FRIDE researchers will regularly update entries as reforms take place or come
under discussion.
Film
Hotel Rwanda is a very strong and moving film. We all
should see it. We need to know what is happening in our world in the name of
ulterior motives, be it "cultural differences", "heritage"
or "history". We need to know about atrocities that are taking place,
to exert pressure on the UN and governments to stop them, and to hand
humanitarian aid to people in need. Hotel Rwanda makes you appreciate
the power of the word, realizing how instrumental and influential was the radio
station in inciting the mass murders. I read about it, and the film depicts its
influence vividly.
Indeed, Radio
Television Libre de Mille Collines (RTLM) became the
most widely reported symbol of "hate radio" throughout the world. Its
broadcasts, disseminating hate propaganda and inciting to murder Tutsis and
opponents to the regime, began on July 8, 1993, and greatly contributed to the
1994 genocide of hundreds of thousands. RTLM, aided by the staff and facilities
of Radio Rwanda, the government-owned station, called on the Hutu majority to
destroy the Tutsi minority. The programmes were relayed to all parts of the
country via a network of transmitters owned and operated by Radio Rwanda. See Jon Silverman, "Rwanda's 'hate media'
on trial,"
BBC News (29 June, 2002), http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/2075183.stm.
See also http://www.rnw.nl/realradio/dossiers/html/rwanda-h.html,
and C. Edwin Baker, "Genocide,
Press Freedom, and the Case of Hassan Ngeze," University of Pennsylvania
Law School, Public
Law Working Paper No. 46
(June 17, 2004).
We are living in a crude world, where colour matters, geography
matters, culture matters. Sometimes they matter in a horrifying way.
Photos
Enjoy!
With my very best
wishes, as ever,
Rafi
My last communications are available on http://almagor.blogspot.com
Earlier posts at my home page: http://lib-stu.haifa.ac.il/staff/rcohen-Almagor
Books
archived at http://almagor.fetchauthor.info
Center
for Democratic Studies http://hcc.haifa.ac.il/~rca/center/
Those wishing to subscribe this monthly Newsletter are welcome to contact Raphael Cohen-Almagor at ralmagor@soc.haifa.ac.il