Abonneer je nu voor nieuwe artikelen op deze website!
Laatste reacties
    Laatste artikelen

    Max Pam en Theodor Holman worden hier mooi genomen. Het schijnt dat Max Pam in het radioprogramma Oba Live loog over Dries van Agt.


    Hier wordt Thierry Baudet een beetje genomen.


    Gazan Youth’s Manifesto for Change

    By Gaza Youth Break Out (GYBO)

    December 30, 2010

    Fuck Hamas. Fuck Israel. Fuck Fatah. Fuck UN. Fuck UNWRA. Fuck USA! We, the youth in Gaza, are so fed up with Israel, Hamas, the occupation, the violations of human rights and the indifference of the international community! We want to scream and break this wall of silence, injustice and indifference like the Israeli F16’s breaking the wall of sound; scream with all the power in our souls in order to release this immense frustration that consumes us because of this fucking situation we live in; we are like lice between two nails living a nightmare inside a nightmare, no room for hope, no space for freedom. We are sick of being caught in this political struggle; sick of coal dark nights with airplanes circling above our homes; sick of innocent farmers getting shot in the buffer zone because they are taking care of their lands; sick of bearded guys walking around with their guns abusing their power, beating up or incarcerating young people demonstrating for what they believe in; sick of the wall of shame that separates us from the rest of our country and keeps us imprisoned in a stamp-sized piece of land; sick of being portrayed as terrorists, homemade fanatics with explosives in our pockets and evil in our eyes; sick of the indifference we meet from the international community, the so-called experts in expressing concerns and drafting resolutions but cowards in enforcing anything they agree on; we are sick and tired of living a shitty life, being kept in jail by Israel, beaten up by Hamas and completely ignored by the rest of the world.

    There is a revolution growing inside of us, an immense dissatisfaction and frustration that will destroy us unless we find a way of canalizing this energy into something that can challenge the status quo and give us some kind of hope. The final drop that made our hearts tremble with frustration and hopelessness happened 30th November, when Hamas’ officers came to Sharek Youth Forum, a leading youth organization ( with their guns, lies and aggressiveness, throwing everybody outside, incarcerating some and prohibiting Sharek from working. A few days later, demonstrators in front of Sharek were beaten and some incarcerated. We are really living a nightmare inside a nightmare. It is difficult to find words for the pressure we are under. We barely survived the Operation Cast Lead, where Israel very effectively bombed the shit out of us, destroying thousands of homes and even more lives and dreams. They did not get rid of Hamas, as they intended, but they sure scared us forever and distributed post traumatic stress syndrome to everybody, as there was nowhere to run.

    We are youth with heavy hearts. We carry in ourselves a heaviness so immense that it makes it difficult to us to enjoy the sunset. How to enjoy it when dark clouds paint the horizon and bleak memories run past our eyes every time we close them? We smile in order to hide the pain. We laugh in order to forget the war. We hope in order not to commit suicide here and now. During the war we got the unmistakable feeling that Israel wanted to erase us from the face of the earth. During the last years Hamas has been doing all they can to control our thoughts, behaviour and aspirations. We are a generation of young people used to face missiles, carrying what seems to be a impossible mission of living a normal and healthy life, and only barely tolerated by a massive organization that has spread in our society as a malicious cancer disease, causing mayhem and effectively killing all living cells, thoughts and dreams on its way as well as paralyzing people with its terror regime. Not to mention the prison we live in, a prison sustained by a so-called democratic country.

    History is repeating itself in its most cruel way and nobody seems to care. We are scared. Here in Gaza we are scared of being incarcerated, interrogated, hit, tortured, bombed, killed. We are afraid of living, because every single step we take has to be considered and well-thought, there are limitations everywhere, we cannot move as we want, say what we want, do what we want, sometimes we even cant think what we want because the occupation has occupied our brains and hearts so terrible that it hurts and it makes us want to shed endless tears of frustration and rage!

    We do not want to hate, we do not want to feel all of this feelings, we do not want to be victims anymore. ENOUGH! Enough pain, enough tears, enough suffering, enough control, limitations, unjust justifications, terror, torture, excuses, bombings, sleepless nights, dead civilians, black memories, bleak future, heart aching present, disturbed politics, fanatic politicians, religious bullshit, enough incarceration! WE SAY STOP! This is not the future we want!

    We want three things. We want to be free. We want to be able to live a normal life. We want peace. Is that too much to ask? We are a peace movement consistent of young people in Gaza and supporters elsewhere that will not rest until the truth about Gaza is known by everybody in this whole world and in such a degree that no more silent consent or loud indifference will be accepted.

    This is the Gazan youth’s manifesto for change!

    We will start by destroying the occupation that surrounds ourselves, we will break free from this mental incarceration and regain our dignity and self respect. We will carry our heads high even though we will face resistance. We will work day and night in order to change these miserable conditions we are living under. We will build dreams where we meet walls.

    We only hope that you – yes, you reading this statement right now! – can support us. In order to find out how, please write on our wall or contact us directly:

    We want to be free, we want to live, we want peace.

    Lees meer...

    Israel High Court rullings about occupation

    “14. The  Judea and  Samaria  areas are  held  by the  State  of Israel  in  belligerent occupation.  The long arm of the state in the area is the military commander.  He is not the sovereign in the territory held in belligerent occupation (see The Beit Sourik Case, at p.  832).  His power is granted him by public international law regarding belligerent occupation.  The legal meaning of this view is twofold: first, Israeli law does not apply in these areas.  They have not been "annexed" to Israel. Second, the legal regime which applies in these areas is determined by public international law regarding belligerent occupation (see HCJ 1661/05 The Gaza Coast Regional Council v.  The Knesset et al.  (yet unpublished, paragraph 3 of the opinion of the Court; hereinafter – The Gaza Coast Regional Council Case).  In the center of this public international law stand the Regulations Concerning the Laws and Customs of War on Land, The Hague, 18 October 1907 (hereinafter – The Hague Regulations).  These regulations are a reflection of customary international law. The law of belligerent occupation is also laid out in IV Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War 1949 (hereinafter – the Fourth Geneva Convention). The State of Israel has declared that it practices the humanitarian parts of this convention.  In light of that declaration on the part of the government of Israel, we see no need to reexamine the government's position.”, Israel High Court Ruling Docket H.C.J. 7957/04, Mara’abe v. The Prime Minister of Israel,  21 juni, 2005
    “27. We accept that the military commander cannot order the construction of the Separation Fence if his reasons are political. The Separation Fence cannot be motivated by a desire to “annex” territories to the state of Israel. The purpose of the Separation Fence cannot be to draw a political border. In Duikat, at 17, this Court discussed whether it is possible to seize land in order to build a Jewish civilian town, when the purpose of the building of the town is not the security needs and defense of the area (as it was in Ayoob), but rather based upon a Zionist perspective of settling the entire land of Israel. This question was answered by this Court in the negative.  The Vice-President of this Court, Justice Landau, quoted the Prime Minister (the late Mr. Menachem Begin), regarding the right of the Jewish people to settle in Judea and Samaria. In his judgment, Justice Landau stated:

    The view regarding the right of the Jewish people, expressed in these words, is built upon Zionist ideology.  However, the question before this Court is whether this ideology justifies the taking of the property of the individual in an area under control of the military administration. The answer to that depends upon the interpretation of article 52 of the Hague Regulations.  It is my opinion that the needs of the army mentioned in that article cannot include, by way of any reasonable interpretation, national security needs in broad meaning of the term.

    In the same spirit I wrote, in Jam’iyat Ascan, at 794, that

    The military commander is not permitted to take the national, economic, or social interests of his own country into account . . . even the needs of the army are the army’s military needs and not the national security interest in the broad meaning of the term.

    In Jam’iyat Ascan, we discussed whether the military commander is authorized to expand a road passing through the area. In this context I wrote, at 795:

    The military administration is not permitted to plan and execute a system of roads in an area held in belligerent occupation, if the objective is only to construct a ”service road” for his own country. The planning and execution of a system of roads in an occupied territory can be done for military reasons . . . the planning and execution of a system of roads can be done for reasons of the welfare of the local population.  This planning and execution cannot be done in order to serve the occupying country.”, Israel High Court Ruling Docket HCJ 2056/04, Beit Sourik Village Council v. The Government of Israel
    Lees meer...
    Dick Cheney's Fantasy World

    Despite the facts, the vice-president still insists that Saddam Hussein could have produced weapons of mass destruction

    By Scott Ritter

    December 18, 2008 "The Guardian" -In yet another attempt at revisionist history by the outgoing Bush administration, vice-president Dick Cheney, in an exclusive interview with ABC News, took exception to former presidential adviser Karl Rove's contention that the US would not have gone to war if available intelligence before the invasion had shown Iraq not to possess weapons of mass destruction. Cheney noted that the only thing the US got wrong on Iraq was that there were no stockpiles of WMD at the time of the 2003 invasion. "What they found was that Saddam Hussein still had the capability to produce weapons of mass destruction. He had the technology, he had the people, he had the basic feed stock."

    The vice-president should re-check both his history and his facts. Just prior to President Bush's decision to invade Iraq, the UN had teams of weapons inspectors operating inside Iraq, blanketing the totality of Iraq's industrial infrastructure. They found no evidence of either retained WMD, or efforts undertaken by Iraq to reconstitute a WMD manufacturing capability. Whatever dual-use industrial capability that did exist (so-called because the industrial processes involved to produce legitimate civilian or military items could, if modified, be used to produce materials associated with WMD) had been so degraded as a result of economic sanctions and war that any meaningful WMD production was almost moot. To say that Saddam had the capability or the technology to produce WMD at the time of the US invasion is a gross misrepresentation of the facts.

    While one can make the argument that Saddam had the people, insofar as the scientists who had participated in the WMD programmes of the 1980s were still in Iraq and, in many cases, still employed by the government, these human resources were irrelevant without either the industrial infrastructure, the economic base or the political direction needed to produce WMD. None of these existed. The argument Cheney makes on feed stock is even more ludicrous. Precursor chemicals used in the lawful manufacture of chemical pesticides were present in Iraq at the time of the invasion, but these were unable to be used in manufacturing the sarin, tabun or VX chemical nerve agents the Bush administration claimed existed inside Iraq in stockpile quantities prior to the invasion.

    The same can be said about Iraqi biological capability. The discovery after the invasion of a few vials of botulinum toxin suitable for botox treatments, but unusable for any weapons purposes, does not constitute a feed stock. And as for the smoking gun that the Bush administration did not want to come in the form of a mushroom cloud, there was no nuclear weapons programme in Iraq in any way shape or form, nor had there been since it was dismantled in 1991. Cheney's dissimilation of the facts surrounding Iraqi WMD serves as a distraction from the reality of the situation. Not only did the entire Bush administration know that the intelligence data about Iraqi WMD was fundamentally flawed prior to the invasion, but they also knew that it did not matter in the end. Bush was going to invade Iraq no matter what the facts proved.

    Cheney defended the invasion and subsequent removal of Saddam from power by noting that "this was a bad actor and the country's better off, the world's better off with Saddam gone". This is the argument of the intellectually feeble. It would be very difficult for anyone to articulate that life today is better in Baghdad, Mosul, Basra or any non-Kurdish city than it was under Saddam. Ask the average Iraqi adult female if she is better off today than she was under Saddam, and outside of a few select areas in Kurdistan, the answer will be a resounding "no".

    The occupation of Iraq by the United States is far more brutal, bloody and destructive than anything Saddam ever did during his reign. When one examines the record of the US military in Iraq in terms of private homes brutally invaded, families torn apart and civilians falsely imprisoned (the prison population in Iraq during the US occupation dwarfs that of Saddam's regime), what is clear is that the only difference between the reign of terror inflicted on the Iraqi people today and under Saddam is that the US has been far less selective in applying terror than Saddam ever was.

    At a time when the US and the world struggle with a resurgent Iran, the Iranian-dominated Dawa party of Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki governs Iraq today in name only. The stability enjoyed by Iraq today has been bought with the presence of 150,000 US troops who have overseen the ethnic cleansing of entire neighbourhoods in cities around Iraq, and who have struck temporary alliances with Shia and Sunni alike which cannot be sustained once these forces leave (as they are scheduled to do by 2011).

    Invading Iraq and removing Saddam, the glue that held that nation together as a secular entity, was the worst action the US could have undertaken for the people of Iraq, the Middle East as a whole and indeed the entire world. For Cheney to articulate otherwise, regardless of his fundamentally flawed argument on WMD, only demonstrates the level to which fantasy has intruded into the mind of the vice-president.

    Lees meer...   (1 reactie)


    Canadian resource companies are under fire in Peru. On October 21, Cesar Zuniga, the president of the Achuar indigenous group FENAP, told a local radio: "We, as indigenous people, reject the Canadian company Talisman. We do not want them working in our territory. We want the Peruvian state to respect us, and the armed forces to stop helping the company."

    The indigenous communities believe oil development causes ecological harm and leads to social conflict. "We do not want our forests, rivers and earth polluted, because this is our natural market... We have proof that pollution already exists, damage to nature and to indigenous people in the communities where petroleum activities are developed. For 37 years in the Achuar brother communities of the Corrientes River, petroleum has not brought any development to them; on the contrary they are sick and poverty stricken."

    The Achuar say they will physically remove Talisman if the company does not stop working on their lands by November 15. "If they do not want to leave we will force them out." Reuters reported that the Calgary-based company "said it had no plans to pull out of Peru."

    Already this year Canadian resource companies in Peru have been responsible for a number of socially damaging events; an oil and gas company entered an area inhabited by a nomadic tribe that has refused contact with the outside world; a mine destroyed pre-Columbian carvings; the government declared a state of emergency over fears that arsenic, lead and cadmium from a mine near Lima could pollute the capital's main water supply. And in recent years Toronto-based Barrick Gold's operations in the country have been engulfed in a number of violent protests, one of which left a couple of protesters dead.

    "In Peru," notes McGill professor Daviken Stuenicki Gizbert, "40% of conflicts involving local communities are over mining. The majority of the mining sector in Peru is Canadian."

    Before 1990, no Canadian mining company operated in Peru. Now, Canadian corporations dominate the country's mining sector with a hundred mines. As an illustration of the size of Canadian mining investment in Peru, in late 2006 Scotia Bank announced plans to expand its banking in the country to do more business with mining clients. Driven by resource companies, Canadian direct investment in Peru is worth billions of dollars.

    The most high profile mining conflict in Peru took place earlier this decade at Vancouver-based Manhattan minerals $US 240 million project in Tambo Grande, a small town in the north of the country. This open pit gold mine, financed by Export Development Canada, would have forced half of the town's 16,000 residents to relocate while creating only a few hundred jobs. Godofredo Garcia Baca, a leader of the anti-mining opposition movement, was shot and killed under suspicious circumstances.

    A community referendum was held with the question: "Do you agree with the development of mining activities in the urban area; urban expansion area; agricultural zone and agricultural expansion zones in the district of Tambogrande?" More than 93% of 27,015 residents participated in the referendum and over 73% of the population responded "no" to the question.

    The overwhelming success of the nonbinding referendum forced the company to put the project on hold. Still, Francisco Ojeda Irofrio, the president of the Front in Defense of Tambo Grande and Mayor of the municipal government of Tambo Grande, explains: "The company continues trying to buy us or scare us. They follow us, they record us, they infiltrate our meetings. They have a man there who worked for ten years with [disgraced former president Alberto] Fujimori, and before that was a leftist, burning cars and confronting the army, making a big mess. Now, in Tambo Grande, he hires local people to confront us."

    Manhattan Minerals obtained its concession in Tambo Grande six months after participating in a Department of Natural Resources trade mission to Peru. Ottawa has supported many individual mining projects in the country. The federal government has also worked to provide the industry with a profitable investment climate.

    In 2002, the Canadian International Development Agency [CIDA] began a $9.6 million Mineral Resources Reform Project, which provides technical assistance and technological support to the country's Ministry of Energy and Mines. The official goal of the Mineral Resources Reform Project is "development of activities oriented to the consolidation of the institutional capacity of the sector, which means the services provided by the Ministry of Mines and Energy, and to contribute to the generation of greater confidence in the Ministry and its regional offices."

    CIDA's push to improve the prospects for Canadian miners through the Mineral Resources Reform Project warranted a visit earlier this year by the Conservative's Minister of International Cooperation. "Ms. [Bev Oda]," Embassy Magazine reported in January, "arrived in Peru meeting with the Latin American nation's energy and mines minister, as well as Canadian and Peruvian mining companies and NGOs to discuss mining sector reform."

    Five months later the federal government signed a trade agreement with Peru largely designed to improve the prospects for Canadian investors. According to Foreign Affairs, "an investment chapter in the Canada-Peru FTA [free-trade agreement] locks in market access for Canadian investors in Peru and provides greater stability, transparency and protection for their investments."

    In truth the FTA - with environmental and labor safeguards that are "even weaker than NAFTA's" - subverts meaningful democracy. "The FTA with Peru," notes mining critic Dawn Paley, "eliminates the possibility that Peru would enact such a thing as the recent 'Mining Mandate' passed in Ecuador by the Constituent Assembly, which suspends all large scale mining activity (exploration) in Ecuador for 180 days while a new Mining Law is written." Above all else Ottawa wants to remove any future Peruvian government's ability to raise taxes, change mining regulations or expropriate properties.

    It's time we challenge Ottawa's support for predatory resource companies in Peru.

    Yves Engler is currently finishing a book on Canadian foreign policy tentatively titled Uncle Sam's Nephew: Tales of Canadian Imperialism. He is the author of two books: Canada in Haiti: Waging War on the Poor Majority (with Anthony Fenton) and Playing Left Wing: From Rink Rat to Student Radical.

    Lees meer...   (2 reacties)

    Economists with Guns

    Authoritarian Development and U.S. Indonesian Relations, 1960-1968

    By Bradley R. Simpson; Stanford University Press, 2008, 376 pp.

    In 1965, following a coup by General Suharto, the Indonesian military massacred upwards of 800,000 people and imprisoned an estimated million more in an attempt to liquidate the Communist Party (PKI). The United States government gave both moral encouragement and logistical support to the mass killings, including weaponry and lists of suspected PKI members to be targeted for assassination. Mainstream newspapers like the New York Times wrote laudatory pieces in praise of the genocidal Suharto government, referring to it as a "gleaming light in Asia" because of its fervent anticommunism and openness towards foreign investment and free trade. C.L Sulzberger added, in the crude racism of the day, that "the killing had attained a volume impressive even in violent Asia, where life is cheap."

    Lees meer...

    Finally, the Story of the Whistleblower Who Tried to Prevent the Iraq War

    Sep 29, 2008 By Norman Solomon

    Of course Katharine Gun was free to have a conscience, as long as it didn't interfere with her work at a British intelligence agency. To the authorities, practically speaking, a conscience was apt to be less tangible than a pixel on a computer screen. But suddenly -- one routine morning, while she was scrolling through e-mail at her desk -- conscience struck. It changed Katharine Gun's life, and it changed history.

    Lees meer...

    US generals planning for resource wars

    Mon, Sep 22, 2008

    ANALYSIS:The US military sees the next 30 to 40 years as involving a state of continuous war against ideologically-motivated terrorists and competing with Russia and China for natural resources and markets, writes Tom Clonan

    Lees meer...

    Olmert: There's no such thing as 'Greater Israel' anymore

    By Barak Ravid, Haaretz Correspondent and Reuters

    Prime Minister Ehud Olmert on Sunday reiterated his position that the vision of Israel holding onto the West Bank and Gaza Strip as part of its sovereign territory was finished.

    "Greater Israel is over. There is no such thing. Anyone who talks that way is deluding themselves," Olmert told the cabinet during its weekly meeting.

    He added, though, that this had not always been his stance: "During Camp David I thought that [then prime minister] Ehud Barak's concessions were too much, and I told him as much.

    "I thought that land from the Jordan River through to the sea was all ours, but ultimately, after a long and tortured process, I arrived at the conclusion that we must share with those we live with, if we don't want to be a bi-national state."

    Lees meer...
    Domeinregistratie en hosting via