Showing posts with label Baath. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Baath. Show all posts

Monday, May 25, 2015

ISIS AND PALMYRA, ETC.




THE ABSURD TIMES


More on Iraq
by
Kiev Mudyna

Illustration:  Carlos Latuff as appeared in the Middle East Monitor
As usual, Carlos says it all in a single drawing.  Here is a bit more:

Now listen here!  Idiots who talk about the Iraqi army.  Do you remember the fourth most powerful army in the world?  Well, we took care of that.  Georgie and his "BeBathification" left Iraq without any infrastructure or people who knew what they were doing.  What we left there is what we put there.  So shut up already?

For those of you who have remembered the "servants" of our country:  Instead of throwing murdered flowers on the dirt where the dead ones are buried, why not carry out your pre-announced responsibility to take care of them once they leave the "service"?  If you are thinking of signing up, well, you have never been a reader of this publication and probably never will again.  Just remember what happens to you once you are not longer considered "Government Property".

Those we threw out were expert military leaders.  They buried their uniforms in the desert and then dug them up once Daesh or ISIS, OR ISIL, OR IS, or religious maniacs started advancing.  They are the reason they were so successful at first.  Now they have had it with the nuts and more or less quit the whole nonsense.

We have heard a lot of blundering attempts to answer the question asked of Republican candidates: "If you knew then, what we know now, would you still have invaded Iraq?"  They can't answer it.  A better question would be "IF YOU KNEW THEN WHAT READERS OF THE ABSURD TIMES KNEW THEN WOULD YOU STILL HAVE INVADED?"  Or "if you knew now what Bush and Cheney knew then, would you still have invaded?" 

They wonder why there is such a low turnout for elections here.

Well, here is an interview on Palmyra:
THURSDAY, MAY 21, 2015

Expanding Foothold, Islamic State Captures Syria’s Ancient Palmyra After Fall of Iraq’s Ramadi

The self-described Islamic State has seized control of the ancient city of Palmyra in central Syria. Palmyra is home to some of the world’s most renowned historic structures and is classified as a World Heritage Site. There are fears it could see the same fate as other cities where ISIL has destroyed ancient cultural sites and artifacts. With Palmyra’s capture, ISIL now reportedly controls more than half of Syrian territory. The seizing of Palmyra in Syria comes as the U.S. has launched airstrikes and expedited weapons shipments for the campaign to dislodge ISIL from the Iraqi city of Ramadi. ISIL seized Ramadi on Sunday, leaving hundreds dead and forcing thousands to flee. Iranian-backed Shiite militias are staging a counteroffensive to retake the city. We are joined by Charles Glass, former ABC News chief Middle East correspondent and author of "Syria Burning: ISIS and the Death of the Arab Spring."
Image Credit: Reuters

TRANSCRIPT

This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.
NERMEEN SHAIKH: Fighters from the self-described Islamic State now control more than half of Syria, according to the Britain-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights. The announcement was made after the Islamic State seized control of both the ancient and modern cities of Palmyra in central Syria. Palmyra is home to some of the world’s most renowned historic sites, including the Temple of Ba’al, an ancient theater and a 2,000-year-old colonnade. The fall of Palmyra comes just days after fighters from the Islamic State seized control of the Iraqi city of Ramadi, 70 miles west of Baghdad. The Islamic State attacked the city by sending in a wave of 30 suicide car bombs. Ten of the vehicles were packed with enough bomb-making materials to carry out explosions the size of the blast of the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing.
AMY GOODMAN: Iranian-backed Shiite militias are now staging a counteroffensive to retake Ramadi. The United States has begun carrying out aerial bombings to support the effort. Former State Department official Ramzy Mardini told the Military Times, quote, "The U.S. has effectively changed its position, coming to the realization that Shiite militias are a necessary evil in the fight against ISIS." The United States has also expedited shipment of 1,000 additional AT4 anti-tank weapons for Iraqi forces.
Joining us now is Charles Glass, former ABC News chief Middle East correspondent. His latest book is titled Syria Burning: ISIS and the Death of the Arab Spring.
Charles, first address this latest news that the self-proclaimed Islamic State has moved from Ramadi and has now taken over the ancient city of Palmyra in Syria, and that ISIS now controls more than half of Syria.
CHARLES GLASS: Well, it hasn’t moved from Ramadi. The Islamic State is fighting a two-front war, one in the east against the Iraqi army and the peshmerga of the Kurdish Regional Government, and then in the west against the Syrian army. They have substantial forces on both sides so that they’re able to attack in both places and, as now we’ve seen with Palmyra and Ramadi falling, successfully to fight this two-front war. The fact that they can do this means that they’re—they have not given up, they have not retreated. There were hopes in Iraq that there would be an attempt to retake Mosul—obviously, that is going to wait—while Baghdad itself is protected, because Ramadi is so close to Baghdad. And in Syria, taking Palmyra or the town of Tadmur next to Palmyra, where there was a notorious prison where there were many Islamist prisoners, is a major coup for them. But when we say that half of Syria is now under ISIS control, what that means is that half the territories, but three-quarters of the population is still under government control.
NERMEEN SHAIKH: And, Charlie Glass, could you talk about the significance of Palmyra? I mean, not only is it the site of these ancient ruins, but it is also close to the oil and gas fields, which the Syrian government uses to generate electricity for a part of the country.
CHARLES GLASS: Well, ISIS had already last year taken oil and gas fields near Raqqa, which is its—the capital of the Islamic caliphate. So this is simply expanding their access to more crude oil, which they are selling extremely cheaply on the world market through Turkey.
NERMEEN SHAIKH: And do you think—there’s been some concern expressed thatISIS will gain revenue, possibly, from the illegal trafficking of the antiquities that are there in Palmyra?
CHARLES GLASS: Well, ISIS and the other extreme Islamic group, the Nusra Front, have been selling antiquities from northern Syria for the past couple of years. It’s nothing new. Traders are coming down from Turkey to buy the most valuable artifacts and then sell them in Turkey and in Europe. This will simply increase the plunder. So what they don’t sell, they will destroy, saying that they’re destroying idols. And they particularly would like to destroy pre-Islamic Roman structures that are in Palmyra. Palmyra is in the middle of the desert; it’s not really easily accessible from anywhere. But it is a most beautiful ancient city, which, if they behave the way they behaved in ancient cities in Iraq, won’t be there anymore.
AMY GOODMAN: The Syrian antiquities chief said hundreds of statues had been moved from the historic, ancient city of Palmyra to locations safe from Islamic State militants, who managed to take control of areas today. He called on the international community to help protect the ancient site.
MAAMOUN ABDULKARIM: [translated] It is an international battle. If IS succeeds, it will not be a victory against only the Syrian people, but one against America, China, France, Britain and Russia and all the permanent members in the Security Council, as well as the international community. They must at least prevent the advance of any reinforcement to the groups that have already crept into the city.
AMY GOODMAN: The city is called Palmyra, or Palmyra, by some. But talk about what this means even beyond Palmyra in Syria. You wrote a book on this, Charles Glass, that’s just been published, Syria Burning: ISIS and the Death of the Arab Spring.
CHARLES GLASS: The military conflict between the Syrian government and its Islamist opponents, this is part of the seesaw that’s been going on since the war began. The regime makes gains in certain areas, and the Islamists retreat, then the Islamists make gains. And this is a measure of the inability of either side to defeat the other. So, the fall of Palmyra militarily doesn’t mean very much. From there, there aren’t many places to strike out. However, psychologically, it means a lot because it’s an important part of Syrian and human civilization. But militarily, the struggle will go on. This war could go on for years as each side takes and loses territory, conquers and loses control of populations, and drives—and particularly with the Islamists, drives populations out of their homes.
NERMEEN SHAIKH: And what do you say, Charlie Glass, to the fact that the antiquities chief also asked for more international help to help protect Palmyra? Do you feel that there should be a more robust international military intervention now to prevent the self-proclaimed Islamic State’s military successes?
CHARLES GLASS: I’m not sure what the antiquities chief in Syria meant when he said that there should be intervention, if he means military intervention or if he means UNESCO should act to rescue those—the things that can be moved and taken to a safe place, in safer parts of Syria or outside Syria, until the war is over. I’m not sure. It would be, I think, very demoralizing for Syrian people to see an international military intervention to protect ruins, but not to protect the 50,000 people who live around those ruins in the city of Tadmur. It would be saying—it would be a way of saying to the Syrian people, "Your lives are not important, but these stones are." And that would probably reinforce the Islamic Front’s propaganda that the world doesn’t really care about you, but we do.
AMY GOODMAN: So, Charles Glass, talk about what is happening now in Syria. What is happening with Assad, who is still the ruler? What are the different alliances that are forming, and then the role of the West, like the United States?
CHARLES GLASS: Well, the alliances in Syria haven’t changed much. I mean, the Iranians and the Russians still back the Assad regime, and the United States, indirectly, France, Britain, Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Turkey are supporting the opposition. The United States says it’s supporting a mythical moderate, non-Islamist opposition. But the weapons that it gives to those people end up in the hands of ISISor the Nusra Front, anyway, as soon as they cross the border. The balance of forces, in that sense, have not changed for the last two years.
I think that one of the problems that the United States has is it has two different policies in this war. It is confronting actively IS in Iraq, because the United States supports the regime in Baghdad, but is allowing its client states—Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Qatar—to support that same IS against a regime in Damascus that it doesn’t like because of its alliance with Iran and Russia.
AMY GOODMAN: What is the role of Saudi Arabia here?
CHARLES GLASS: Saudi Arabia’s role has been consistent from the beginning. It wanted to see Assad thrown out, and it would—it was giving funding and arms to anyone who would do that. And because of its own particular Wahhabist ideological bent, it gave the bulk of those supplies to people like that. And those were the people who formed the major—the two major Islamist groups in Syria, the Islamic State and the Nusra Front.
NERMEEN SHAIKH: But what do you think accounts for the fact that U.S. policy is different in Iraq than it is from Syria?
CHARLES GLASS: As I said, they want the regime in Damascus to fall because of its relationship with Iran, its support for Hezbollah in Lebanon and its alliance with Russia. They want that regime to go. In Baghdad, they want the regime, since they set it up after the invasion of 2003—they want that regime to stay. But the problem is, these two regimes, in Baghdad and Damascus, are the forces opposed to the Islamic Front, and it’s the Islamic Front that wants to overthrow both of them. So, until there’s a coordination of forces—the Syrian army in the west, the Iraqi army and the Kurds in east—to have a coherent strategy to squeeze the Islamists in the middle, the war will go on and on.
AMY GOODMAN: The significance of the U.S. announcing that special forces had conducted a rare raid against a senior Islamic State figure at his residence in Omar, in Syria’s oil-rich southeast, commandos killing Abu Sayyaf, a Tunisian jihadi described as a manager of the Islamic State’s oil and gas operations, which has been a significant source of income for the organization?
CHARLES GLASS: Well, I’m not sure what your question is. I don’t—you just—
AMY GOODMAN: The significance of them killing him in this rare raid on his home?
CHARLES GLASS: Well, if it’s true, then it’s an attempt to cut off some of their supply of money, because they’re using that to fight the Iraqi army and have successes like the one they’ve just had in Ramadi, if—that’s if it’s true. I mean, a lot of these reports that come out, they’re impossible to verify, because there’s only one source for that—for that story.
NERMEEN SHAIKH: Well, I also wanted to ask about Iraq. On Wednesday, State Department spokesperson Jeff Rathke acknowledged the loss of Ramadi was a setback, but pledged continued U.S. support.
JEFF RATHKE: We’ve always known that the fight would be long and difficult, especially in Anbar province. And so there’s no denying that this is a setback, but there’s also no denying that the United States will help the Iraqis take back Ramadi. As of today, we are supporting the Iraqi security forces and the government of Iraq with precision airstrikes and advice to the Iraqi forces. Our aircraft are in the air searching forISIL targets, and they will continue to do so until Ramadi is retaken
NERMEEN SHAIKH: The fall of Ramadi came despite weeks of U.S. airstrikes and is considered one of ISIL’s biggest victories since it seized territory across Iraq last June. Speaking Tuesday, Secretary of State John Kerry said he expects the Islamic State’s gains to be reversed.
SECRETARY OF STATE JOHN KERRY: In addition, their communications have been reduced, their funding and financial mechanisms have been reduced, and their movements, by and large, in—most certainly where there are air patrols and other capacities, have been reduced. But that’s not everywhere. And so, it is possible to have the kind of attack we’ve seen in Ramadi. But I am absolutely confident, in the days ahead, that will be reversed.
NERMEEN SHAIKH: Charlie Glass, that was John Kerry speaking on Tuesday. So could you talk about this question of whether the U.S. should now engage—I mean, even the Iraqi government has said that they need more military assistance to be able to fight the Islamic State. And because, as you pointed out, the U.S. is supporting the Iraqi government, whereas of course it’s not doing so with the Assad regime in Syria, do you think that the U.S. should now consider perhaps troops in Iraq?
CHARLES GLASS: It seems to me obvious that the first measure should be to deprive the Islamic State of its arms and money from—coming through Turkey. Turkey is a NATO ally of the United States. It can close that border. It has not closed that border. The United States has not forced it to close that border. Until that border is closed, it has free and easy access to supplies and to funding and to places for its fighters to receive medical treatment and to get rest when they need it. Without that, they’re going to find themselves surrounded by the Syrian army, the Iraqi army and the Kurds, with no lines for outside—no lines of communication for outside support. I would think that if the United States wants to stay out of another war in the Middle East, which I think most of the public does want, that the correct strategy would be to cut off the supplies and the funding through Turkey.
AMY GOODMAN: Charles Glass, you’re in France, and on June 2nd, ministers from members of the coalition fighting the Islamic State will meet in Paris to devise strategies to reverse recent losses. What do you think needs to happen, as we look from Iraq to Syria?
CHARLES GLASS: Well, first, as I said, to cut—to close the border. Second, there has to be coordination among the Syrians, the Iranians, the Iraqis, the Americans, who are all actively involved in opposing the Islamic State. Without that kind of coordination, it’s not going to work, because the—as we see, that the Islamic State can effectively pick which side it’s going to fight at which time and then go after the other side when it suits it. At the moment, it’s setting the agenda. I think that this coordination is vital. I think also it’s vital to bring an end to the war in Syria through discussions between the United States and the Russians. So, the United States supporting the opposition, the Russians supporting the regime, if they can come to an agreement between themselves, that would be a huge step forward, that they want—if they do indeed want to bring peace to Syria rather than simply force their own agenda at the expense of the Syrian people.
NERMEEN SHAIKH: And, Charlie Glass, you mentioned the question of funding and cutting off funding and closing the border. In your book, you conclude your book,Syria Burning, by citing an Arab diplomat in Damascus who said about support for the Islamic State, "It’s like the lion tamer. He feeds and trains the lion, but the lion might kill him at the right moment." So, given this concern, is it your view that countries like Turkey, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, etc., have now relinquished funding, military and financial, to the Islamic State?
CHARLES GLASS: No, clearly, they haven’t stopped funding and supplying them. The Turks are still allowing fighters to go through their border and to take part in fighting in Syria and Iraq. No, that simply hasn’t happened. It probably should happen. I think one of the fears that all of the backers of these two big Islamic groups have is that if the fighting in Syria stops, that they’ll come home and make problems for them at home. In a way, the Saudis, by encouraging these people to fight in Syria against what they see as an idolatrous, Alawite, non-Muslim regime is a way of making sure they don’t come back and make problems in Saudi Arabia itself. And the Turks also would be very worried if some of these fighters decide to go after Turkey and try to set up an Islamic State in Turkey, or indeed any of the countries that have supported IS.
AMY GOODMAN: I want to finally turn to the comments made by former Florida governor, Republican presidential hopeful and first brother Jeb Bush. Speaking Wednesday, he suggested the Obama administration’s policies led to the creation of the Islamic State.
JEB BUSH: ISIS didn’t exist when my brother was president. Al-Qaeda in Iraq was wiped out when my brother was president. There were mistakes made in Iraq, for sure, but the surge created a fragile, but stable, Iraq that the president could have built on, and it would have not allowed a ISIS, or ISIL.
AMY GOODMAN: Charles Glass, your final comment to Jeb Bush?
CHARLES GLASS: Well, he is right that President Obama did allow the Islamic Front to be created during his term of office, but he’s also minimizing the role that al-Qaeda in Iraq played in being the nucleus of IS and of the Nusra Front, both. While they did go underground during the surge, they didn’t disappear. And by the way, they did not exist before the American invasion under Bush’s brother took place in 2003. They didn’t exist at all. They are a function of that invasion.
AMY GOODMAN: Charles Glass, we want to thank you for being with us, formerABC News chief Middle East correspondent. His latest book is titled Syria Burning:ISIS and the Death of the Arab Spring.


The original content of this program is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States License. Please attribute legal copies of this work to democracynow.org. Some of the work(s) that this program incorporates, however, may be separately licensed. For further information or additional permissions, contact us.

-->

Monday, June 23, 2014

Isis, Egypt, Press, Iraq, Sryria -- and so on.



THE  ABSURD TIMES




 Illustration: Carlos Latuff's view of Iraq Today.



John Kerry, the defender of freedom everywhere, made a surprise visit to Egypt to talk to Sisi.  No details of the conversation were given, but after he left, the Egyptian court sentenced 20 journalists to 7 to 10 years in prison.  Only 3 were stupid enough to still be in the country.  Why do these journalists think they are supposed to report anyway.  They talk a lot about freedom of the press, but do not realize that "We report, you decide, and we tell you what to decide."  This is the American tradition.  Besides, everyone knows that Al-Jazeera is a terrorist organization with "close ties" to the Bin Laden crowd.  Why do you think the great patriot George Bush had to bomb their headquarters in Iraq, anyway?  Now Kerry has moved to Iraq to ensure freedom and the American way.

After we supplied ISIS with weapons to overthrow the evil Assad in Syria, financed by the Gulf States, these people invaded Iraq.  Of course, we won't mention it on our mainstream media, our corporate media, oh what the hell, what are you going to do about it anyway, the Ba'ath party took over, more or less, and they have pretty much sealed off the borders and encircled Baghdad.  Karry will fix this by talking to the leader we set up there, Maliki, and make him more inclusive.  He will be effective, of course, as you can see how he straightened things out in Egypt.

Remember Israel?  Of course you do.  While all this diversion has been going on, Israel has been continuing its systematic campaign of slaughtering and displacing of the indigenous population, the Palestinians.  See, they signed a "Peace Treaty," but then they get to interpret what it means and if you don't like it, you are Anti-Semitic, you horrible people, you.  Remember the Holocaust?  Six million.  Yeah, sure, there were between 28 and 30 million Russians killed at the same time, but they were Russians.  No one ever knew that the Russians are the "Chosen People."  Only the Jews are.  So, what happens?  The Presbyterians go and divest their stock in companies that help Israel.  Now, I'm not sure how investing in the stock market and separation of church and state fits into all of this, but what the hell -- we're talking God here, so shut up and listen, will ya?  Remember, I talk and you decide (what I tell you to decide).  How else are we ever going to have peace?

We have interviews on all three topics, below: 


MONDAY, JUNE 23, 2014

"Journalism in Egypt is a Crime": Global Outcry After 3 Al Jazeera Reporters Sentenced to 7-10 Years

An Egyptian court has sentenced three Al Jazeera journalists to between seven and 10 years in prison on terrorism charges, including "spreading false news" in support of the Muslim Brotherhood, deemed by the government a "terrorist group." Peter Greste, Mohamed Fahmy and Baher Mohamed have been jailed since December in a case that’s stoked international outrage. The sentence came down one day after U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry visited Cairo to meet with Egypt’s new president, the former army general Abdul Fattah el-Sisi. Amnesty International decried the jail sentences as "a dark day for media freedom in Egypt," while Al Jazeera said the verdict defied "logic, sense, and any semblance of justice." We go to Cairo to speak with Mohamed Fahmy’s brother Adel Fahmy, as well as Democracy Now! correspondent Sharif Abdel Kouddous, who warns: "What this ruling means is that in Egypt journalism is a crime."

TRANSCRIPT

This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.
AMY GOODMAN: An Egyptian court has sentenced three Al Jazeera journalists to between seven and 10 years in prison. Peter Greste, Mohamed Fahmy and Baher Mohamed were convicted on terrorism charges including "spreading false news" in support of the Muslim Brotherhood, deemed by the government a "terrorist group." The three have been jailed since December in a case that’s stoked international outrage. The hashtag #FreeAlJazeeraStaff is trending worldwide.
The sentence came down one day after U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry met with Egypt’s new president, the army chief, General Abdel Fattah el-Sisi. Peter Greste’s brother Mike Greste was in the Egyptian courtroom when the sentence came down.
MIKE GRESTE: Wrong verdict. It’s—I don’t—I don’t know how the judge came to that decision. I’d be very interested to hear his reasons for giving that verdict. It doesn’t make any sense.
AMY GOODMAN: Amnesty International decried the jail sentences, saying it was, quote, "a dark day for media freedom in Egypt." The Australian foreign minister, Julie Bishop, also condemned the sentencing.
JULIE BISHOP: Peter Greste is a well-respected Australian journalist. He was in Egypt to report on the political situation. He was not there to support the Muslim Brotherhood. We respect the outcome of the recent elections in Egypt, and we will now initiate contact at the highest levels in the new Egyptian government to see whether we can gain some kind of intervention from the new government and find out whether intervention is indeed possible at this stage. I have spoken at length with Peter Greste’s parents. They are considering their legal options, including appeal options. We do not know how long an appeal process would take. But in the meantime, we will provide whatever consular assistance we can to Mr. Greste and, of course, to his family.
We understand that Egypt has been through some very difficult times and there has been a great deal of turmoil in Egypt, but this kind of verdict does nothing to support Egypt’s claim to be on a transition to democracy, and the Australian government urges the new government of Egypt to reflect on what message is being sent to the world about the situation in Egypt. Freedom and freedom of the press is fundamental to a democracy. And we are deeply concerned that this verdict is part of a broader attempt to muzzle the media freedom that upholds democracies around the world.
AMY GOODMAN: Australian Foreign Minister Julie Bishop condemning Egypt for sentencing three Al Jazeera journalists—Peter Greste, Mohamed Fahmy and Baher Mohamed—to between seven and 10 years in prison.
We go directly to Cairo, Egypt, now, where we’re joined by Adel Fahmy. He’s the brother of journalist Mohamed Fahmy, an Egyptian-Canadian journalist who was Al Jazeera’s acting Cairo bureau chief at the time of his arrest. And we’re joined byDemocracy Now! video stream by Democracy Now! correspondent Sharif Abdel Kouddous, who was in the courtroom today, as well.
Adel Fahmy, can you respond to the verdict of the court?
ADEL FAHMY: Yes. So, that was an absolute shock for all of us. We totally expected the opposite. Leading up to this day, we had a politicians gave us reason to be optimistic, or at least cautiously optimistic. And then, the experience was extremely traumatic to all of us. I can’t even calm down my—I’m still trying to calm down my parents. We have to—we have to start now of the coming steps, but it’s very sad what the judicial system has given as a verdict. It’s a disgrace, and it shows that the judicial system—
AMY GOODMAN: I think we just lost Adel. We will try to get him back. Sharif, you were there with the families, with the packed courtroom. Tell us what happened today.
SHARIF ABDEL KOUDDOUS: Well, what this ruling means is that in Egypt journalism is a crime. The court found these three journalists guilty, giving Mohamed Fahmy and Peter Greste seven years in prison, and Baher Mohamed, as well, and adding a three-year prison sentence onto Baher Mohamed for possessing an empty shell casing of a bullet, which he said was a souvenir, and so he has 10 years in prison.
It was a really difficult time in the court today when the verdicts were read out. The family members were weeping. Fellow colleagues, journalists, were weeping. Mohamed Fahmy was pulled away, had to be hauled away by the police in the court, as he was trying to shout to journalists and respond to this outrageous verdict. Peter Greste said nothing; he simply held up a closed fist in the air. And Baher Mohamed was shaking his head.
You know, this is—the little margin of freedom of expression and freedom of the press, that has been continually shrinking in Egypt, took a very heavy blow today. They are accused of—the prosecution has accused these three journalists of tarnishing Egypt’s image abroad by portraying false scenes, as Egypt undergoing a civil war, to help a terrorist organization, which is the Muslim Brotherhood, which has been designated that. And the prosecution, throughout the trial, did not show a shred of evidence of anything that comes close to that. Some of the evidence it showed even included stuff that had nothing to do at all with Egypt, including footage from Peter Greste in Somalia and Kenya, you know, even shots of their parents and so forth. And so, essentially, the court put journalism itself on trial. Many of the journalists today could have faced these same charges, because they did nothing more than do their jobs. And Peter Greste himself was only in Egypt for a couple of weeks. And lawyers—defense lawyers throughout the trial have asked the prosecution and the judge whether simply airing the views of an opposing voice is a crime in Egypt, and this sentence has, you know, put freedom of the press really a large step back in the country.
And if you also—part of the prosecution’s case rested on this technical report by, you know, three experts that went through all of the footage that was seized in the arrest of these three journalists. And during the trial, these expert witnesses denied they had any authority to judge whether these journalists endangered national security, and that contradicted the initial claims made in—you know, to the prosecutor on which the entire case rests. So it’s a very, very weak, weak case. You know, the Amnesty International observer blasted this case and said it will have a very negative effect on freedom of the press in Egypt.
AMY GOODMAN: This is Mohamed Fahmy, from the cage in the courtroom, condemning the proceedings.
MOHAMED FAHMY: Today’s proceedings show that there is—it seems like all the witnesses have some amnesia or something, Alzheimer’s. There is a lot of discrepancies in the documents and what they are saying themselves. The prosecutor has a lot to answer for, for allowing the four engineers from the Maspero state TV to have exactly the same copy/paste testimony, that we have seen in our video.
AMY GOODMAN: That’s Mohamed Fahmy speaking from the cage. As the sentence was read, Mohamed Fahmy also yelled out, "Where is John Kerry?"—again, a reference to secretary of state’s surprise visit to Egypt just the day before, just this weekend. Adel Fahmy is back with us. The significance of Secretary of State Kerry talking about the renewal of all aid to—military aid to Egypt, as your brother and the other journalists have been convicted and sentenced to seven to 10 years in prison, Adel?
ADEL FAHMY: I think Egypt has to rethink how their [inaudible] in different parts of the world. I think everyone now is going to lobby—different governments are going to lobby together against this appalling verdict—and the U.S., as well, I’m sure. I heard that Mr. Kerry discussed this mistrial with President Sisi yesterday, but I don’t know how that—what resulted from that or if there was time for any corrective action to be taken. But now I think this case really requires a strong diplomatic intervention by all governments and to make a firm stand against this ridiculous justice system in Egypt.
AMY GOODMAN: Adel, could you tell us about Mohamed? He—tell us how he ended up in Egypt, his life as a journalist.
ADEL FAHMY: Yeah, Mohamed worked in several countries prior to returning to Egypt. Of course, he lived in Canada for a big portion of his life. Then he worked in Dubai for awhile with TV, in Al Hurra TV. Then he went—he worked with the Red Cross in Lebanon. And then he also worked in the L.A. Times covering the Iraq War and worked with the BBC and then CNN when the revolution was [inaudible] to be in Egypt, January 25 revolution, 2011. And after CNN, he joined Al Jazeera English only—and I emphasize on that—only since September 2013. So he was just only three months in his job. And—but that’s another point that we stressed in our defense, that, you know, he’s a professional journalist who was only sent to his job for three months and was [inaudible] very objectively and professionally. So—and he got arrested, of course, as you know, on December 29th.
AMY GOODMAN: Now, Sharif, it is not only these three journalists, although they are in prison and, according to the court, will be for the next seven to 10 years, but a whole group of other Al Jazeera reporters have been sentenced to up to 10 years in absentia.
SHARIF ABDEL KOUDDOUS: Right. The case named 20 defendants. There were five students who were charged in the case, which, you know, seemingly had no connection whatsoever to Al Jazeera. And the first time that the three journalists—Mohamed Fahmy, Peter Greste and Baher Mohamed—ever saw them was in the defendants’ cage. Four of those students were sentenced to seven years in prison. One of them, Anas el-Beltagy, who’s actually the son of the Muslim Brotherhood leader, Mohamed el-Beltagy, was acquitted. Then a further 11 people were sentencedin absentia to 10 years in prison. Al Jazeera has said nine of the 20 named in the case have a connection to the network. So there’s some people in the case that are—you know, they’re not all journalists. But one of the people named met with Mohamed Fahmy in the Marriott just for half an hour for tea. She’s a Dutch journalist, and she found out that she was, you know, on the charge sheet and had to be—had to hide in the Dutch Embassy and flee the country.
So, really just a haphazard list of charges. The prosecution, again, really provided no evidence that showed that these journalists had done anything other than very basic journalism. The prosecutor accused Al Jazeera of, quote-unquote, "forming a devilish pact," that Qatar formed a devilish pact to bring down governments in Syria and Yemen and Egypt. And Mohamed Fahmy himself, in the last court session before this verdict, held up George Bush’s autobiography, Decision Points, and said, "To say that journalists can bring down a state like Iraq brings shame on all the media martyrs that died covering that war," and Mohamed Fahmy himself covered that war, and he said it was George Bush that destroyed Iraq, not Al Jazeera.
So, this case is going to have reverberations, I think, around the world. We saw a heavy diplomatic presence in the courtroom today with ambassadors from Canada, from Australia, from the Netherlands and from Latvia there. Both the Canadian and Australian ambassadors said that none of the evidence provided in the trial—they didn’t understand how the judge came to this verdict. So, we’ll have to see what happens going forward. They do have the right to appeal, of course, in this case. President Sisi does have the right to pardon them or provide amnesty.
But again, as you mentioned, this came a day after John Kerry, the secretary of state, visited—for the first time, a high-level meeting between secretary of state and the newly inaugurated president—and he voiced what appeared to be strong U.S. support for Egypt, for this new government, saying that, you know, the aid will be brought back to its previous levels, that he was confident that 10 Apache helicopters would be delivered to Egypt soon. So—and then, you know, the next day we have this really abominable verdict come down. So, we’ll have to see what—how the State Department responds after that.
AMY GOODMAN: I was watching Sue Turton, who is one of the Al Jazeera reporters who’s been sentenced in absentia. She was in the Al Jazeera studios in Doha earlier today, right after the sentence, saying, while she was much more concerned about the jailed journalists, of course, that this means, as journalists, it’s very difficult for them to travel, because any countries that Egypt has agreements with could have her extradited, or the other journalists convicted in absentia, because she has been convicted in an Egyptian court. I also wanted to ask Adel Mohamed—rather, Adel Fahmy, about his Mohamed’s condition. He had dislocated his shoulder?
ADEL FAHMY: Yeah, he sustained this injury shortly before he was arrested back in December. And due to the negligence inside and the harsh condition and denying him to get an early diagnosis and treatment, it deteriorated substantially to become a permanent disability. So, as if this was not punishment enough, we get the verdict today. He has—his right arm, and it got reconfirmed with a recent second MRI last Tuesday to confirm that he will never have 100 percent functionality of his right arm again, [inaudible] of motion and considerable pain. So, even [inaudible] intervention, which he was trying to do right away, after his acquittal, can only be proved for things [inaudible].
AMY GOODMAN: And the significance of countries speaking out and the kind of worldwide outrage that’s been expressed? Does it matter at all? We just heard the foreign minister of Australia, Julie Bishop. What role has Canada played in putting pressure on the Egyptian government? And what difference does it make when people speak out around the world? Does it make any difference for—for your brother Mohamed, for Peter, in prison?
ADEL FAHMY: Yes, it’s extremely important, in my opinion. The governments have to step up now and express how appalled they are by this, and Egypt will realize that they cannot defy the whole world. You know, this is—it’s already been—I mean, they’re very grateful for the journalists constantly covering this and keeping the story alive. And now it’s time for, you know, the diplomats to start getting into this, as well, and pressure has to continue.
AMY GOODMAN: I want to thank you both for being with us.
ADEL FAHMY: This is the only way we can get results.
AMY GOODMAN: Adel Fahmy, of course, we’ll continue to cover the case of Mohamed Fahmy, Baher Mohamed and Peter Greste in prison in Egypt, as well as everything that’s happening there. Thanks so much to Democracy Now!’s Sharif Abdel Kouddous, speaking to us from Cairo, Egypt.
When we come back, we’ll go to where Secretary of State John Kerry went after his surprise visit to Cairo, Egypt, and that’s to Iraq. We’ll be speaking with Patrick Cockburn. Stay with us.

Creative Commons LicenseThe original content of this program is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States License. Please attribute legal copies of this work to democracynow.org. Some of the work(s) that this program incorporates, however, may be separately licensed. For further information or additional permissions, contact us.

MONDAY, JUNE 23, 2014

"Baghdad is a Frightened City": As ISIS Gains Ground, Iraqi Capital Gripped by Fear & Uncertainty

Secretary of State John Kerry made a surprise trip to Baghdad today to meet with Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki. Ahead of his arrival, Kerry signaled the Obama administration is prepared to drop support for Maliki, calling for leadership "prepared to represent all of Iraq." Kerry’s visit comes as Sunni militants with the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria have captured more territory. Over the weekend, ISISmilitants seized three border crossings with Syria and Jordan, as well as four nearby towns. An Iraqi government airstrike, meanwhile, has reportedly killed at least seven civilians and wounded 12 others in the ISIS-held Tikrit. Residents say army helicopters fired on civilian cars lined up at a gas station. The Iraqi government is claiming it only killed insurgents. We go now to Baghdad to speak with Patrick Cockburn, Middle East correspondent for The Independent.

TRANSCRIPT

This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.
AMY GOODMAN: U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry made a surprise trip to Baghdad today to meet with Iraq’s prime minister, Nouri al-Maliki. Ahead of his arrival, Kerry signaled the Obama administration is prepared to drop support for Maliki, calling for leadership, quote, "prepared to represent all of Iraq." Kerry’s visit to Baghdad comes as Sunni militants with the Islamic State of Iraq in Syria, ISIS, have captured more territory. Over the weekend, ISIS militants seized three border crossings with Syria and Jordan, as well as four nearby towns. An Iraqi government airstrike, meanwhile, has reportedly killed at least seven civilians and wounded 12 others in the ISIS-held Tikrit. Residents say army helicopters fired on civilian cars lined up at a gas station. The Iraqi government is claiming it only killed insurgents.
We go directly to Baghdad, where we’re joined by Patrick Cockburn, Middle East correspondent for The Independent. One of his recent headlined articles is "In Baghdad, a City Gripped by Fear, News is Priceless—But ISIS Is Winning the Propaganda War."
Patrick, talk about what you’re experiencing right now in Baghdad.
PATRICK COCKBURN: Well, Baghdad is a very frightened city. Nobody quite knows what’s going to happen. You know, news keeps coming in of further gains byISIS, or DAIISH, as it’s always called here. The whole of Anbar province, this enormous province to the west, has fallen. And they’re only—ISIS is only about an hour’s drive to the north. Of course, Baghdad is a big, enormous city, six or seven million people. The majority are Shia. So people say, "Well, they’ll never break through because of all these armed Shia." But, you know, the fact remains that since the fall of Mosul, the government hasn’t won any victories, and the—and ISIS has gone on taking more cities. You see militiamen in the streets of Baghdad. Prices of everything have gone up. A lot of people have got out of the city, big queues outside the passport office. So there’s is an atmosphere of barely suppressed panic.
AMY GOODMAN: And the significance of Kerry being in Baghdad right now, and what message he is sending to Nouri al-Maliki, the prime minister?
PATRICK COCKBURN: Well, the message is clearly, you know: "Leave. Go. We need a new prime minister, and we need a new political leadership." And that will probably happen. The sense I get with all these diplomatic maneuvers, with Kerry, with the Iranians, with the Iraqi government, are all in slow time, but the advance ofISIS and the extreme Sunni Islamists, you know, is much faster than that. They’re really dictating the pace. So, you know, there’s no doubt that Maliki has been a disastrous prime minister. Nobody else could have spent that amount of money and had that size an army and just seen it dissolve. But to get somebody better and to get things up and running is going to take time, and the time isn’t really there.
AMY GOODMAN: What is the message that Kerry is sending? I want to turn to comments of the secretary of state. This is the secretary of state speaking in Cairo a day before the big verdict came down today on the Al Jazeera reporters who have now been convicted and sentenced to seven to 10 years in prison. This is what he said in Cairo.
SECRETARY OF STATE JOHN KERRY: We will help Iraqis to complete this transition if they choose it. If they want, they have an opportunity to choose leadership that can represent all of Iraq, a unity government that brings people together and focus on ISIL. And I am convinced that they will do so, not just with our help, but with the help of almost every country in the region, as well as others in the world who will always stand up against the tyranny of this kind of terrorist activity.
AMY GOODMAN: So, the role of the United States in whether Maliki will retain power, and also, Patrick Cockburn, the role of Iran?
PATRICK COCKBURN: Well, you know, listening to Kerry, I get the sort of feeling that he hasn’t quite got a grip on the situation. I mean, the people who have taken Mosul and taken most of northern and western Iraq really aren’t interested in a unity government. What they’ve been doing is killing Shia in large numbers. Shia villagers, just out of Kirkuk, were driven out of their homes—I think it was yesterday—and machine-gunned. Twenty-one tribal chiefs from the same area were reported executed. You know, that’s what ISIS, the Islamic State, is all about.
So, you know, we could—the idea is, you could have a government which will include Sunni and Kurds, which we sort of have already in Baghdad, but this would be more representative, and then the main leaders of the Sunni community, apart from ISISand some of the Baathists, would so rally to the government. But it’s by no means clear that would happen, because the situation has changed, because these towns are now under the control of ISIS, and it will be very difficult to get them out. So, I think there’s a certain amount of—quite a lot of wish fulfillment and fantasy in what Kerry is saying.
You asked about Iran. The Iranians, one, they want to protect this government. They want to protect Baghdad. They want to—but at the same time, they don’t want to see a new government installed, which, in their eyes, would see Maliki, who’s sort of pro-Iranian or under Iranian influence, by a prime minister who’s under American influence. You know, this has not been good news for the Iranians, what has happened. The government that they supported, you know, is very clearly a dysfunctional and disastrous government. So they’re arguing, "Well, we’ll keep it in—the first thing is to deal with this attack from ISIS, and then we’ll think about changing the government." But, of course, if that attack is dealt with, the government won’t change. And if the government doesn’t change, then it’s very unlikely there’s going to be much progress in the war.
AMY GOODMAN: Let’s turn to voices of Baghdad residents. Ahmed is opposed to U.S. military intervention in Iraq.
AHMED: [translated] It cannot be solved through military intervention. It has to be solved through diplomatic and political channels. This is our message to Obama. We say to him that we do not want him to send reinforcements or an aircraft carrier. This cannot help us. The situation in Iraq is very critical, and it needs quick solutions.
QASSIM HASHIM: [translated] We hoped for such a stand. It is the American forces’ duty to protect the Iraqi people and its institutions, as stipulated in the Strategic Framework Agreement.
AMY GOODMAN: And I want to turn to comments made in protests in the United States. There have been protests against any kind of U.S. intervention in Iraq. This is antiwar protesters gathering outside the White House this weekend. Mara Verheyden-Hilliard was one of them.
MARA VERHEYDEN-HILLIARD: We’re here today to stand in opposition to any new war in Iraq. The U.S. government, the Obama administration, has said that they are sending 300 advisers into Iraq. He said that he will consider bombing as he determines whether there are appropriate targets. And the simple fact is, what we’re seeing in Iraq today is purely the result of U.S. militarism and U.S. intervention. This is a country that before the shock-and-awe invasion, the people of Iraq were not divided along sectarian or religious lines.
AMY GOODMAN: Another group of protesters stood next to the antiwar protesters holding Iraqi flags. Some of them called on U.S. President Obama to intervene in the crisis unfolding in Iraq, like David Barrows. I thought we had that clip, but let’s turn back to Patrick Cockburn, who is in Baghdad right now, hearing these different voices both in Iraq and in the United States. Patrick?
PATRICK COCKBURN: Yeah, I mean, I can see the arguments on both sides. But, you know, there’s no question that ISIS is closing in on Baghdad. But the people of Baghdad, who are mostly Shia, will fight, because they think they’ll be massacred if they don’t. You know, who is responsible for this? Well, you know, Maliki was put in, made prime minister by the United States, by the American ambassador. Later, then Washington regarded him as becoming—coming under the influence of Iran. So, in a way, it has been the fact that Iraqi leaders have been determined by outside powers which has led to the present disastrous situation. There simply haven’t been leaders here who have sufficient support. And—
AMY GOODMAN: Patrick? We may have just lost Patrick Cockburn. We’ll go to a break and see if we can get him back on. Patrick Cockburn is the Middle East correspondent for The Independent who’s been reporting from Baghdad. One of his recent pieces is headlined, "In Baghdad, a City Gripped by Fear, News is Priceless—But ISIS Is Winning the Propaganda War." As we attempt to get him back on, we’re going to go to another clip. This is a clip that is of David Barrows, a peace protester who was in the White House—outside, this weekend.
DAVID BARROWS: Well, I’m here because I don’t want another war to start. I don’t want bombing. I’m sick of these bombings. They do absolutely no good. You know, we’re bombing in Yemen. We’re bombing all over the place. We’re killing women and children and men who have nothing to do with war. It really makes me sick. I mean, I was born in this country. I just wonder what’s going on with the American people? Wake up, America! You’ve got to stop doing this terrorism. That’s what we’re doing. We’re becoming a people of terrorism.
AMY GOODMAN: That was David Barrows, a peace protester outside the White House this weekend. Let’s go to break and see if we can get Patrick Cockburn back on. Sounds like we just got him. Patrick, we’ve been hearing voices of people who are for and against U.S. intervention. Can you talk about the military advisers, as President Obama is calling them, the 300 or so advisers that are being sent to Iraq? Patrick, are you with us?
PATRICK COCKBURN: Yeah, I suppose that one of their main objectives would be to find out what the real situation is on the ground. You know, for such an enormous government with—well, you know, there’s meant to be 350,000 men in the Iraqi army. They’ve spent $41-$42 billion in the last three years. But this army seems to have disappeared, hasn’t really fought for the last two weeks. So I guess they’ll want to find out why.
I think one must understand there are limitations to what the United States can do here. A lot of the debate in the U.S., looked at from abroad, seems to assume that the U.S. has sort of powers to wholly change things on the ground here, which I sincerely doubt. But, you know, so will they change anything? Well, they’ll probably give some—a little bit more confidence to the Iraqi army. If there was airstrikes, I suppose the Iraqi army would like it. But remember, you know, that five or six years ago, there was enormous, enormous U.S. Army here, there were plenty of airstrikes, and it really didn’t get anywhere. So, I wonder how much effect it will really have now.
AMY GOODMAN: Patrick Cockburn, I want to thank you for being with us, Middle East correspondent for The Independent. We will link to your articles in The Independent at democracynow.org. We’ll go to break now and hear about the decision of the Presbyterian Church to divest from three companies doing business with Israel. Stay with us.

Creative Commons LicenseThe original content of this program is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States License. Please attribute legal copies of this work to democracynow.org. Some of the work(s) that this program incorporates, however, may be separately licensed. For further information or additional permissions, contact us.

MONDAY, JUNE 23, 2014

Pressuring Israel, Presbyterian Church Divests from Firms Tied to Occupation of Palestinian Land

In what is being hailed as a major milestone for the global campaign to boycott and divest from Israel over its treatment of Palestinians, the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) voted to divest from three companies that it says supply Israel with equipment used in the occupation of Palestinian territory. According to the church, the three firms — Motorola Solutions, Caterpillar and Hewlett-Packard — profit from the Israeli occupation of Palestinian land by selling bulldozers, surveillance technology and other similar products. The decision passed by seven votes, 310 to 303, making the Presbyterian Church the largest religious group to vote for divestment. We are joined by two guests: Dr. Nahida Gordon, a Palestinian-American professor who is a member of the steering committee of the Israel/Palestine Mission Network in the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.); and Rabbi Alissa Wise, director of organizing at Jewish Voice for Peace.
Image Credit: justforeignpolicy.org/images/presby-divest

TRANSCRIPT

This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.
AMY GOODMAN: We turn now to a discussion on what’s being hailed as a major milestone for the global campaign to boycott and divest from Israel over its treatment of Palestinians. At its general convention in Detroit Friday, the Presbyterian Church of the U.S. voted to divest from three companies that it says supply Israel with equipment used in the occupation of Palestinian territory. The companies are Motorola Solutions, Caterpillar and Hewlett-Packard. The value of Presbyterian holdings in the companies is about $21 million. According to the church, the companies profit from Israeli occupation of Palestinian land by selling bulldozers, surveillance technology and other similar products. The decision by the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) to divest passed by seven votes, 310 to 303, making it the largest religious group to vote for divestment. Two years ago, the assembly rejected a similar divestment proposal by two votes. The vote also supported interfaith cooperation, the right of Israel to exist and a two-state solution.
To talk about the vote’s significance, we’re joined by two guests. In Cleveland, Ohio, Dr. Nahida Gordon is with us, professor emeritus—emerita at Case Western Reserve University. She’s a Palestinian American who was born in Jerusalem before 1948. She’s a Presbyterian, a member of the steering committee of the Israel/Palestine Mission Network in the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.). In San Francisco, Rabbi Alissa Wise is with us, director of organizing at Jewish Voice for Peace. Her group supported the Presbyterian Church’s divestment decision.
We welcome you both to Democracy Now! I want to begin in Cleveland. Let’s begin with Dr. Nahida Gordon. Explain what happened this time. What made this vote different from the vote before, when this was defeated?
NAHIDA GORDON: I think, with time, more people in the Presbyterian Church, particularly the commissioners who were on the floor of the General Assembly, are beginning to know more of what is really going on in the West Bank, in East Jerusalem and Gaza. Thanks to the news and news sources on the Internet, they’re beginning to see more and more of what is going on in Palestine and the terrible conditions under which the Palestinians are living. And I think we built from the last General Assembly to this assembly, and so we know more, we understand more. And we had some people on the floor who said some wonderful things to explain what is going on. And we organized. We worked very hard for this decision. And we succeeded, and we’re very gratified that we succeeded.
AMY GOODMAN: Can you talk about the companies that the Presbyterian Church will divest from?
NAHIDA GORDON: Yes. We feel that the church would be complicit in the occupation if we remain divested in these three companies. Caterpillar, I don’t know—most people have seen these very huge D9 bulldozers, which are weaponized—they have machine guns on them, and I believe some of them are electrified—destroy houses with just one simple swipe. We’ve seen them uproot olive trees. On May 19th, they used bulldozers to destroy, we believe, between 1,500 and 2,000 fruit trees at the Tent of Nations farm. They build the roads into the West Bank, which are for Israelis only. They have been used in building the separation wall, which goes deep into the West Bank into Palestinian territory. And they help build the settlements.
Now, Motorola Solutions produces fuses for bombs that the Israelis use against the Palestinians. As you well know, they bomb Gaza almost regularly. They also produce surveillance equipment for illegal settlements. These are illegal under international law, and they’re throughout the West Bank.
And Hewlett-Packard produces biometric—amongst other things, produces biometric scanners, which the Israelis use in checkpoints, which are throughout and inside the West Bank. There are—a few of them are on the border between Israel and the West Bank, but the majority, the large majority, are checkpoints within the West Bank.
AMY GOODMAN: Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu criticized the decision by the Presbyterian Church to divest from U.S. companies that operate in the Israeli-occupied territories. He spoke on Meet the Press on Sunday.
PRIME MINISTER BENJAMIN NETANYAHU: It should trouble all people of conscience and morality, because it’s so disgraceful. You know, you look at what’s happening in the Middle East—and I think most Americans understand this—they see this enormous area riveted by religious hatred, by savagery of unimaginable proportions. Then you come to Israel, and you see the one democracy that upholds basic human rights, that guards the rights of all minorities, that protects Christians. Christians are persecuted throughout the Middle East. So, most Americans understand that Israel is a beacon of civilization and moderation.
AMY GOODMAN: We’re bringing in Rabbi Alissa Wise now, director of organizing at Jewish Voice for Peace. Can you respond to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu?
RABBI ALISSA WISE: Sure. Thank you for having me on this morning. You know, I’m concerned about Prime Minister Netanyahu’s framing of, you know, what Israel is, because, quite certainly, as Dr. Nahida Gordon just described, there are really urgent and critical human rights issues that need to be addressed both within the West Bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem, and also there’s a critical issue around lack of basic equal rights for Palestinian citizens of Israel. These are the reasons behind, you know, this Presbyterian call for divestment and the reasons so many around the world are urging divestment as a way to remedy the urgent human rights abuses going on on the ground.
AMY GOODMAN: And what is your role as a rabbi in arguing for this in the Presbyterian Church?
RABBI ALISSA WISE: Well, I just spent the last week in Detroit at the Presbyterian General Assembly. And part of my role was, you know, I was invited there by the Israel/Palestine Mission Network and other friends within the Presbyterian community to serve as a witness and a support to the Presbyterian process. You know, there is—you know, as we like to say in the Jewish community, "Ask two Jews a question, get three opinions." So, there’s quite a bit of diversity within the Jewish community around these questions around, you know, what to do about what is now a 47-year-old occupation, and how do we—how do we stop these urgent human rights abuses against Palestinians. So, in part, it is to be a strong interfaith partner and support to our friends in the Presbyterian Church, which involves interfaith—strong interfaith partnerships involve kind of staying at the table, even in moments of deep disagreement.
And it is my sincere hope that those in the Jewish community and other faith communities, who might be—you know, disagree with this decision, will stay at the table and, not only that, will actually dig deep to actually hear the message of their Presbyterian brothers and sisters. And, you know, one of the things most frustrating that I find from those others in the Jewish community that oppose the divestment bills is that they have no real practical solution to what to do to end these human rights abuses. You never get to hear their ideas about what will stop settlement construction, what will stop the daily humiliation of Palestinians at checkpoints, what will stop, you know, the bulldozing of olive trees and the demolition of homes. That’s never the conversation at the table. And it’s my sincerest hope that this action by the Presbyterians will push all of us to kind of ask those critical questions.
AMY GOODMAN: I’d like to turn to comments made by the Rabbi Rick Jacobs, the president of the Union for Reform Judaism. He was speaking to CNN in response to the vote.
RABBI RICK JACOBS: I represent the overwhelming majority of the American Jewish community, literally millions, and we are all united. We’re not united about everything, but on this, we are completely united, that this act of divestment, which is—whatever the language says, it is an affirmation of the global BDS, the boycott, divestment and sanctions movement. The global BDS has already claimed this as a great victory. This is a very hurtful act that causes the entire Jewish community not only pain, but a sense of betrayal from the Presbyterian Church.
AMY GOODMAN: Rabbi Alissa Wise, your response?
RABBI ALISSA WISE: Yes, I actually did have the opportunity to speak with Rabbi Jacobs myself when I was in Detroit briefly. We spoke about this very issue. You know, I think that because of the intense muzzling that exists within the Jewish community around these issues—there are severe restrictions that we’ve seen in the past year through the Open Hillel movement, Jewish students on college campus challenging what are truly McCarthyite restrictions on the way that debate and dialogue can happen around Israel and on college campuses—we actually don’t know exactly, you know, how many Jews are supportive of these—this Israel right or wrong idea, or those that are really—want to speak out for justice and feel kind of silenced by the policies of the Jewish community.
Beyond that, I think that, you know, Rabbi Jacobs at the Presbyterian General Assembly made a last-ditch effort to strong-arm the Presbyterians to vote against divestment by offering a last-minute meeting with Netanyahu, which, by all accounts, you know, backfired, because it was seen as a manipulation. And it’s clear that, you know, as I said before, there’s not consensus in the Jewish community on any issue, most certainly on this issue. And I think it does a disservice to the entire Jewish community and, most certainly, to our interfaith partners to misrepresent that.
AMY GOODMAN: How many rabbis signed on to the open letter to the Presbyterian Church, Rabbi Wise?
RABBI ALISSA WISE: You mean the open letter from Jewish Voice for Peace?
AMY GOODMAN: Yes, the—
RABBI ALISSA WISE: Or the open letter from—
AMY GOODMAN: From Jewish Voice for Peace.
RABBI ALISSA WISE: I don’t know the exact number. The truth is that it’s not a numbers game, right? Because of this, you know, there are many rabbis that are supportive of these policies that simply cannot come out of the woodwork, for fear of losing their jobs. Right? So I think that what’s most important is that, you know, Jewish Voice for Peace is an organization that is small and growing and being able to kind of create a space for those in the Jewish community that wish to express these values of a hope for equality, justice and self-determination for Palestinians to really come to light and to bear fruit.
AMY GOODMAN: Finally, Dr. Nahida Gordon, where does the Presbyterian Church go from here?
NAHIDA GORDON: Well, technically, we will now not invest in these three companies. And where we go from here? We need to continue to work for the human rights of Palestinians. We are very much concerned with partners in Palestine, as well as with Israel. What we would like to do—we’re not against the Israeli people. What we would like to do is to see that the government of Israel starts treating the Palestinians better. We would like to see the end of the occupation. We’d like to see Palestinians have their human rights, have freedom. Basically, that’s it. We need to see that the Palestinians have their freedom.
AMY GOODMAN: Dr. Nahida Gordon, I want to thank you very much for being with us, professor emerita at Case Western Reserve University, a Palestinian American born in Jerusalem before 1948, member of the steering committee of the Israel/Palestine Mission Network in the Presbyterian Church. And thanks so much to Rabbi Alissa Wise of Jewish Voice for Peace.
That does it for today’s broadcast. Democracy Now! is hiring a seasoned Linux systems administrator. Visit democracynow.org for more information.

Creative Commons LicenseThe original content of this program is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States License. Please attribute legal copies of this work to democracynow.org. Some of the work(s) that this program incorporates, however, may be separately licensed. For further information or additional permissions, contact us.