Mn-prog-events Mailing List: Progressive Calendar 01.03.06

[David Shove (shove001]

            P R O G R E S S I V E   C A L E N D A R     01.03.06

1. IRV on KFAI        1.03 11am
2. WalMart sucks/film 1.03 6:30pm
3. Conspiracies/CTV   1.03 8pm

4. Haiti talk         1.04 12:45pm
5. MPD accountability 1.04 1:30pm
6. MNSOAWatch         1.04 6pm
7. NWSub N4Peace      1.04 7pm

8. Eagan peace vigil  1.05 4:30pm
9. Small is beautiful 1.05 5pm
10. MidClass demise   1.05 6:30pm Northfield
11. Torture           1.05 7pm Stillwater

12. Howard Zinn    - After this war
13. James Petras   - Israel's war with Iran: MidEast conflagration
14. Green Party US - For Palestinian rights, for divestment from Israel
15. ed             - Texas Hold 'Em Up (poem)

--------1 of 15--------

From: Lydia Howell <lhowell [at] visi.com>
Subject: IRV on KFAI 1.03 11am

Tues Jan 3, 11am: IRV on KFAI

Tune in to hear a conversation with two organizers with the Better Ballots
Campaign, working on IRV(Instant Runoff Voting) JEANNE MASSEY and DAVID
BRAUER. They'll take a look at how to expand the elctoral system to
include far more choices on "Catalyst;politics & culture"
Tues. 11am hosted by Lydia Howell, on KFAI RADIO: 90.1 fm Mpls 106.7 fm St
Paul All shows archived for 2 weeks after broadcast at www.kfai.org


--------2 of 15--------

From: Patty Guerrero <pattypax [at] earthlink.net>
Subject: WalMart sucks/film 1.03 6:30pm

The salon for Tuesday, Jan. 3, 2006, will be the film Wal-Mart: the high
price of low cost, by Robert Greenwold.  I had sent it out in error for
last week.

Salons are held (unless otherwise noted in advance):
Tuesdays, 6:30 to 8:30 pm.
Mad Hatter's Tea House,
943 W 7th, St Paul, MN

Salons are free but donations encouraged for program and treats.
Call 651-227-3228 or 651-227-2511 for information.


--------3 of 15--------

From: leslie reindl <alteravista [at] earthlink.net>
Subject: Conspiracies/CTV 1.03 8pm

Tues Jan 3, 8 pm:  Altera Vista plays in Minneapolis on cable channel 16
at 8 pm every Tuesday.  For the next three weeks it is presenting a series
on "Conspiracy Theories:  JFK, 9-11, and Wellstone," plus a wrapup.  (JFK
played last week, but will be repeated eventually.)  Don't miss this series
of talks by Prof. James Fetzer, Uof M-Duluth, long-time assassination
researcher.  Also visit his website at www.assassinationscience.com.


--------4 of 15--------

From: Lydia Howell <lhowell [at] visi.com>
Subject: Haiti talk 1.04 12:45pm

Grandmothers for Peace
January 4, 12:45
Edina Library

HAITI
April Knutson will share on Haiti: A brief history, the 2004 coup against
Aristide, and the current situation. April has taught many courses on the
French West Indies with a focus on literature of resistance by Caribbean
women. Join us for what should be an eye-opening presentation.

Joan Schaefer JoanSchaefer [at] msn.com Rebecca Cramer


--------5 of 15--------

From: Michelle Gross <mgresist [at] minn.net>
Subject: MPD accountability 1.04 1:30pm

Minneapolis City Council's Public Safety & Regulatory Services Committee
Hearing on Police Hiring and Diversity

January 4
1:30pm
Minneapolis City Hall
350 S. 5th Street, City Council Chambers

The community has just plain gotten disgusted that the last several new
hires to the Minneapolis police department have been white men, despite
specific provisions in the Federal mediation agreement directing the city
to engage in hiring practices that would diversify the force.  The
community is organizing to send a message to the NEW (post-election) PS&RS
committee that their continued failure to diversify the force is not
acceptable.  Be there to see the sparks fly!

---
Reply-To: Guy Gambill <gambillgt1 [at] yahoo.com>
Subject: JAN 4:Demand MPD Accountability

Many of you will recall that a little over 2 months ago, we organized
and attended a meeting of the Public Safety and Regulatory Services
Committee of the Minneapolis City Council. We were able to fill the
chambers and, subsequently, force the issue of non-compliance with the
Federal Mediation Agreement to center stage during the course of the
Mayoral election. Many of us were hopeful that this action might prompt a
higher level of participation on the part of the MPD and the City of
Minneapolis with the PCRC (Police-Community Relations Council). Charges of
electioneering were leveled, the Mayor insisted that the Agreement had
been over 80% implemented - an assertion which no one on the UCT
(Unity-Community Team) shared. The Police Federation under John Delmonico,
moreover, has weighed in on the side of the community on some of the
points revolving around the neglect of the Mediation Agreement.

Last week the PCRC met and the members of the UCT and the Police
Federation entered a vote of "no-confidence" in the hiring process portion
of the Agreement. The final vote was 8-7 and the motion carried. Neither
Mayor Rybak, Assistant Chief Dolan, or Chief McManus bothered to attend
this meeting. It was left up to Deputy Chief Harris and Compliance Lt.
Doyle to take the heat for the City of Minneapolis. Personally, I have no
problem identifying where the hold-up is with the implementation - and it
ain't Deputy Chief Harris.

On 1\4\2006, the Public Safety & Regulatory Services Committee will meet
for the first time under the New Council. Apparently, Don Samuels will now
head up that Committee. With a wistful indifference to protests from the
Community, the City officials encharged with our trust to move ahead and
heal the widening gulf between segments of our community, seem to think
that the matter will just go away. Many of us want to send a clear "No!"
to this persistent disregard for the citizens of Minneapolis.

Therefore on 1\4\2006 at 1:30 we will be organizing - AGAIN - to send a
message - AGAIN - that it just plain NOT ok to discriminate against those
whose skin is not white, whose religion is not christianity, whose sexual
preference may not be heterosexual, who speak a language other than
English. Nearly 40 years after the death of Mr. Luther King, I personally
find it repugnant that we continue with the same set of issues. So, let's
turn out on the 4th of a new year and send a solid message that the days
of neglect of the community are over and will no longer be tolerated.

I am tired of hearing - from various people - that this issue is
'ancillary' to this or that perspective. This is the bedrock of any
semblance of our fundamental Civil Rights. If anyone doubts this, let's
have coffee and go over the factual basis that has prompted this action.
Time for all of us to quit napping and get miffed.

If anyone would like a digital copy of the Mediation Agreemnent, please
contact me Guy Gambill <gambillgt1 [at] yahoo.com> and I will send you one.


--------6 of 15--------

From: Charles Underwood <charleyunderwood [at] hotmail.com>
Subject: MNSOAWatch 1.04 6pm

Wednesday, 1/4, 6 pm, monthly meeting of MN School of the Americas Watch,
Holy Trinity Lutheran Church, 2730 E. 31st St, Mpls.  www.circlevision.org


--------7 of 15--------

From: carydberg <carydberg [at] comcast.net>
Subject: NWSub N4Peace 1.04 7pm

January 4:
Northwest Suburban Citizens for Peace will be meeting at 7 PM at the
Rockford Road Library, near Douglas Drive in Crystal.  All are welcome.

Carole Rydberg, 763-546-5368


--------8 of 16--------

From: Greg and Sue Skog <skograce [at] mtn.org>
Subject: Eagan peace vigil 1.05 4:30pm

CANDLELIGHT PEACE VIGIL EVERY THURSDAY from 4:30-5:30pm on the Northwest
corner of Pilot Knob Road and Yankee Doodle Road in Eagan. We have signs
and candles. Say "NO to war!" The weekly vigil is sponsored by: Friends
south of the river speaking out against war.


--------9 of 15--------

From: Jesse Mortenson <jmortenson [at] Macalester.edu>
Subject: Small is beautiful 1.05 5pm

1.05 5pm
Cahoots coffeehouse
Selby 1/2 block east of Snelling in StPaul

Limit bigboxes, chain stores, TIF, corporate welfare, billboards; promote
small business and co-ops, local production & self-sufficiency.

http://www.gpsp.org/goodbusiness


--------10 of 15--------

From: Janet & Bill McGrath <mcgrath1 [at] rconnect.com>
Subject: MidClass demise 1.05 6:30pm Northfield

The demise of the middle class will be explored at 6:30pm. Thursday, Jan
5, at the public library in downtown Northfield.

This talk, presented by Northfield business owner Bill McGrath, looks at
tax cuts, outsourcing of jobs, the effects of lobbyists and many other
forces within the U.S. House of Representatives. A lively discussion,
including suggestions for possible remedies, always emerges after one of
Bill's talks. More information is available from (507) 645-7660.


--------11 of 15--------

From: scot b <earthmannow [at] comcast.net>
Subject: Torture 1.05 7pm Stillwater

We are exceedingly fortunate to have Sigrid Bachman as our speaker for
Thursday evening January 5th at 7:00 PM at the Ascension Episcopal Church
in Stillwater.
214 North 3rd St, 3rd building North of postoffice

Sigrid is a retired pediatrician who volunteers at the Center for Victims
of Torture. She will share with us the nature and extent of the torture
problem, the work they do at the center and volunteer opportunities. She
will also speak on changes in regard to torture that have taken place in
the Justice Department, problems with the administrations position
regarding torture and the importance and methods of taking a stand against
the problem. Sigrid spent the first half of her life in Germany and the
second half here in the US. She can share with us some of the parallels
she sees between what happened in Germany and what is currently happening
in America.

For more information call Wayne at 651 439 6414 or scot at 651 430 9111 e@
earthmannow [at] comcast.net


--------12 of 15--------

ZNet Commentary
After This War
By Howard Zinn
January 03, 2006
http://www.zmag.org/sustainers/content/2006-01/03zinn.cfm

The war against Iraq, the assault on its people, the occupation of its
cities, will come to an end, sooner or later. The process has already
begun. The first signs of mutiny are appearing in Congress The first
editorials calling from withdrawal from Iraq are beginning to appear in
the press. The anti-war movement has been growing, slowly but
persistently, all over the country.

Public opinion polls now show the country decisively against the war and
the Bush administration. The harsh realities have become visible. The
troops will have to come home.

And while we work with increased determination to make this happen, should
we not think beyond this war? Should we begin to think, even before this
shameful war is over, about ending our addiction to massive violence, and
using the enormous wealth of our country for human needs? That is, should
we begin to speak about ending war - not just this war or that war - but
war itself? Perhaps the time has come to bring an end to war, and turn the
human race onto a path of health and healing.

A group of internationally known figures, celebrated both for their talent
and their dedication to human rights - Gino Strada, Paul Farmer, Kurt
Vonnegut, Nadine Gordimer, Eduardo Galeano and others - will soon launch a
world-wide campaign to enlist tens of millions of people in a movement for
the renunciation of war, hoping to reach the point where governments,
facing popular resistance, will find it difficult or impossible to wage
war. It may be an idea whose time has come.

There is a persistent argument against such a possibility, which I have
heard from people on all parts of the political spectrum: we will never do
away with war because it comes out of human nature. The most compelling
counter to that claim is in history: we don't find people spontaneously
rushing to make war on others. What we find instead is that governments
must make the most strenuous efforts to mobilize populations for war.

[Governments here act for the ruling class/establishment/super-rich, who
LOVE wars, because they profit so much from them. If there's a war,
there's a ruling class that started it and keeps it going. Ruling classes
could care less how many die, so long as they get rich. So long as there
are ruling classes, there will be wars.  If we want to end wars, we have
to end ruling classes. -ed]

They must entice soldiers with promises of money, education, must hold out
to young people whose chances in life look very poor that here is an
opportunity to attain respect and status. And if those enticements don't
work, governments must use coercion - they must conscript young people,
force them into military service, threaten them with prison if they do not
comply.

Furthermore, the government must persuade young people and their families
that though the soldier may die, though he or she may lose arms or legs,
or become blind, that it is all for a noble cause, for God, for country.
When you look at the endless series of wars of this century you do not
find a public demanding war, but rather resisting it, until they are
bombarded with exhortations that appeal, not to a killer instinct, but to
a desire to do good, to spread democracy or liberty or overthrow a tyrant.

Woodrow Wilson found a citizenry so reluctant to enter the slaughterhouse
of the first World War that in his presidential campaign of 1916 he
promised to stay out: "There is such a thing as a nation being too proud
to fight." But after he was elected, he asked for, and received from
Congress a declaration of war. The onslaught of patriotic slogans began,
laws were passed to imprison dissenters, and the United States joined the
slaughter going on in Europe.

In the second World War, there was indeed a strong moral imperative which
still resonates among most people in this country and which maintains the
reputation of World War II as "the good war". There was a need to defeat
the monstrosity of Fascism. It was that belief that drove me to enlist in
the Air Force and fly bombing missions over Europe.

Only after the war did I begin to question the purity of the moral
crusade. Dropping bombs from five miles high, I had seen no human beings,
heard no screams, seen no children dismembered, But now I had to think
about Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and the fire bombings of Tokyo, and Dresden,
the deaths of 600,000 civilians in Japan, and a similar number in Germany.

I came to a conclusion about the psychology of myself and other warriors:
once we decided, at the start, that our side was the good side and the
other side was evil, once we had made that simple and simplistic
calculation, we did not have to think any more. Then we could commit
unspeakable crimes and it was all right.

I began to think about the motives of the Western powers and Stalinist
Russia and wondered if they cared as much about Fascism as about retaining
their own empires, their own power, and if that was why they had military
priorities higher than bombing the rail lines leading to Auschwitz.

Of the six million Jews killed in the death camps (allowed to be killed?)
60,000 were saved by the war - one percent. A gunner on another crew, a
reader of history with whom I had become friends, had said to me one day:
"You know this is an imperialist war. The Fascists are evil. But our side
is not much better." I could not accept his statement at the time, but it
stuck with me.

[The US ruling class today is not much different than the Nazi ruling
class, and has many historical ties to it, eg thru the Bush family. -ed]

War, I decided, creates, insidiously, a common morality for all sides. .
It poisons everyone who is engaged in it, however different they are in
many ways, turns them into killers and torturers, as we are seeing now. It
pretends to be concerned with toppling tyrants, and may in fact do so, but
the people it kills are the victims of the tyrants. It appears to cleanse
the world of evil, but that does not last, because its very nature spawns
more evil. War, like violence in general, I concluded, is a drug. It gives
a quick high, the thrill of victory, but that wears off and then comes
despair.

Whatever can be said about World War II, understanding its complexity, the
situations that followed - Korea, Vietnam - were so far from the kind of
threat that Germany and Japan had posed to the world that those wars could
only be justified by drawing on the glow of "the good war." A hysteria
about Communism led to McCarthyism at home and military interventions in
Asia and Latin America - overt and covert - justified by a "Soviet threat"
which was exaggerated just enough to mobilize the people for war.

Vietnam however, proved to be a sobering experience, in which the American
public, over a period of several years, began to see through the lies that
had been told to justify all that bloodshed. The United States was forced
to withdraw from Vietnam, and the world didn't come to an end. One half of
one tiny country in Southeast Asia was now joined to its Communist other
half, and 58,000 American lives and millions of Vietnamese lives had been
expended to prevent that. A majority of Americans had come to oppose that
war, which had provoked the largest anti-war movement in the nations'
history.

The war in Vietnam ended with a public fed up with war. I believe that the
American people, once the fog of propaganda had dissipated, had come back
to a more natural state. Public opinion polls showed that people in the
United States were opposed to send troops anywhere in the world, for any
reason. The Establishment was alarmed. The government set out deliberately
to overcome what it called "the Vietnam syndrome". Opposition to military
interventions abroad was a sickness, to be cured. And so they would wean
the American public away from its unhealthy attitude, by tighter control
of information, by avoiding a draft, and by engaging in short, swift wars
over weak opponents (Grenada, Panama, Iraq) not giving the public time to
develop an anti-war movement.

I would argue that the end of the Vietnam war enabled the people of the
United States to shake the "war syndrome", a disease not natural to the
human body. They could be infected once again, and September 11 gave the
government that opportunity. Terrorism became the justification for war.
Terrorism remains a frightening phenomenon all over the world. But war
cannot stop terrorism, because war is itself terrorism, breeding rage and
hate, as we are seeing now. War is a substitute for getting at the roots
of terrorism, and the United States has turned to it, because to deal with
fundamentals rather than symptoms would require radical changes in policy.

The war in Iraq has exposed the hypocrisy of the "war on terrorism". I
don't believe that our government will be able to do once more what it
did, after Vietnam - prepare the population for still another plunge into
violence and dishonor. It seems to me that when the war in Iraq ends, and
the war syndrome healed, that there will be a great opportunity to make
that healing permanent, My hope is that the memory of death and disgrace
will be so intense that the people of the United States will be able to
listen to a message that the rest of the world, sobered by wars without
end, can also understand.

We may be on the verge of a world-wide understanding, that war, defined as
the indiscriminate killing of huge numbers of people (acknowledging the
possibility of humanitarian intervention to prevent atrocities) can no
longer be accepted, for whatever reason, because the technology of war has
reached the point where inevitably, 90% of its victims are civilians, and
many of those are children, so that any war, whatever words are used to
justify it, is a war against children.

The government of the United States, indeed governments everywhere, are
becoming exposed as untrustworthy, that is, not to be entrusted with the
safety of human beings, or the safety of the planet, or the guarding of
its air, its water, its natural wealth, or the curing of the poverty, the
sickness, the alarming growth of natural disasters that plague so many of
the six billion people on earth.

True, it is the governments that have the power, that monopolize the
wealth, that control the information. But this power, overwhelming as it
can be, is also fragile. It depends on the subservience, the obedience of
the people. When that obedience is withdrawn the most powerful entities,
armed governments, wealthy corporations, cannot carry on their wars or
their business. Strikes, boycotts, non-cooperation can make the most
arrogant of institutions helpless.

The most powerful government on earth, the United States, had to withdraw
from Vietnam when it could no longer count on the loyalty of its military
or the support of its citizens. There is a power greater than guns and
wealth. Occasionally, in history, it has come into view to stop wars, to
overthrow tyrannies. Perhaps the time has come to bring an end to war, and
turn the human race onto a path of health and healing.

I have quoted Einstein, who, reacting to attempts to "humanize" the rules
of war, said: "War cannot be humanized, it can only be abolished."
Powerful truths must be reiterated, until they fasten ineradicably in our
minds, until the words spread to others, until they become a mantra
repeated all over the world, until the sound of those words become
deafening, until they finally drown out the noise of guns, rockets,
planes.

[Governments here act for the ruling class/establishment/super-rich, who
LOVE wars, because they profit so much from them. If there's a war,
there's a ruling class that started it and keeps it going. Ruling classes
could care less how many die, so long as they get rich. So long as there
are ruling classes, there will be wars.  If we want to end wars, we have
to end ruling classes. -ed]


--------13 of 15--------

Israel's War with Iran: The Coming Mid East Conflagration
Or Israel Bombs Iran: The US Suffers the Consequences
by James Petras
Rebelion.org - Dec 15, 2005
http://www.rebelion.org/autores.php?id=11

Introduction:

Israel's political and military leadership have repeatedly and openly
declared their preparation to militarily attack Iran in the immediate
future. Their influential supporters in the US have made Israel's war
policy the number one priority in their efforts to secure Presidential and
Congressional backing. The arguments put forth by the Israeli government
and echoed by their followers in the US regarding Iran's nuclear threat
are without substance or fact and have aroused opposition and misgivings
throughout the world, among European governments, international agencies,
among most US military leaders and the public, the world oil industry and
even among sectors of the Bush Administration.

An Israeli air and commando attack on Iran will have catastrophic military
consequences for US forces and severe loss of human life in Iraq, most
likely ignite political and military violence against pro-US Arab-Muslim
regimes, such as Saudi Arabia and Egypt, perhaps leading to their
overthrow.

Without a doubt Israeli war preparations are the greatest immediate threat
to world peace and political stability.

Israel's War Preparations

Never has an imminent war been so loudly and publicly advertised as
Israel's forthcoming military attack against Iran. When the Israeli
Military Chief of Staff, Daniel Halutz, was asked how far Israel was ready
to go to stop Iran's nuclear energy program, he said "Two thousand
kilometers" - the distance of an air assault (Financial Times (FT) Dec 12,
2005). More specifically Israeli military sources reveal that Israel's
current and probably next Prime Minister Ariel Sharon ordered Israel's
armed forces to prepare for air strikes on uranium enrichment sites in
Iran (Times (London), Dec 11, 2005). According to the London Times the
order to prepare for attack went through the Israeli defense ministry to
the Chief of Staff. During the first week in December, "sources inside
the special forces command confirmed that 'G' readiness - the highest
state - for an operation was announced" (Times, Dec. 11, 2005).

On December 9, Israeli Minister of Defense, Shaul Mofaz, affirmed that in
view of Teheran's nuclear plans, Tel Aviv should "not count on diplomatic
negotiations but prepare other solutions." (La Jornada, Dec. 10, 2005) In
early December, Ahron Zoevi Farkash, the Israeli military intelligence
chief told the Israeli parliament (Knesset) that "if by the end of March,
the international community is unable to refer the Iranian issue to the
United Nations Security Council, then we can say that the international
effort has run its course" (Times, Dec. 11, 2005).

In plain Hebrew, if international diplomatic negotiations fail to comply
with Israel's timetable, Israel will unilaterally, militarily attack Iran.
Benjamin Netanyahu, leader of the Likud Party and candidate for Prime
Minister stated that if Sharon did not act against Iran, "then when I form
the new Israeli government (after the March 2006 elections) we'll do what
we did in the past against Saddam's reactor." (Times Dec 11, 2005). In
June 1981 Israel bombed the Osirak nuclear reactor in Iraq. Even the
pro-Labor newspaper, Haaretz, while disagreeing with the time and place of
Netanyahu's pronouncements, agreed with its substance. Haaretz criticized
"(those who) publicly recommend an Israeli military option" because it
"presents Israel as pushing (via powerful pro-Israel organizations in the
US) the United States into a major war." However, Haaretz adds "Israel
must go about making its preparations quietly and securely - not at
election rallies." (Haaretz, Dec 6, 2005) Haaretz's position, like that of
the Labor Party, is that Israel not advocate war against Iran before
multi-lateral negotiations are over and the International Atomic Energy
Agency makes a decision.

In other words, the Israeli "debate" among the elite is not over whether
to go to war but over the place to discuss war plans and the timing to
launch war. Implicitly Haaretz recognizes the role played by pro-Israeli
organizations in "pushing the US into the Iraq war", perhaps a word of
caution, resulting from increased US opposition to the activities of the
Israel First campaigners in Congress (see below).

Israeli public opinion apparently does not share the political elite's
plans for a military strike against Iran's nuclear program. A survey in
the Israeli newspaper Yedioth Ahronoth, reported by Reuters (Dec. 16,
2005) shows that 58% of the Israelis polled believed the dispute over
Iran's nuclear program should be handled diplomatically while only 36%
said its reactors should be destroyed in a military strike.

Israel's War Deadline

All top Israeli officials have pronounced the end of March as the deadline
for launching a military assault on Iran. The thinking behind this date is
to heighten the pressure on the US to force the sanctions issue in the
Security Council. The tactic is to blackmail Washington with the "war or
else" threat, into pressuring Europe (namely Great Britain, France,
Germany and Russia) into approving sanctions. Israel knows that its acts
of war will endanger thousands of American soldiers in Iraq, and it knows
that Washington (and Europe) cannot afford a third war at this time. The
end of March date also coincides with the IAEA report to the UN on Iran's
nuclear energy program. Israeli policymakers believe that their threats
may influence the report, or at least force the kind of ambiguities, which
can be exploited by its overseas supporters to promote Security Council
sanctions or justify Israeli military action. Fixing a March date also
intensifies the political activities of the pro-Israel organizations in
the United States. The major pro-Israel lobbies have lined up a majority
in the US Congress and Senate to push for the UN Security Council to
implement economic sanctions against Iran or, failing that, endorse
Israeli "defensive" action. Thousands of pro-Israel national, local and
community groups and individuals have been mobilized to promote the
Israeli agenda via the mass media and visits to US Congressional
representatives. The war agenda also plays on exploiting the tactical
disputes among the civilian militarists within the White House, between
Cheney, Bolton and Abrams on one side and Rice and Rumsfeld on the other.
The Cheney line has always supported an Israeli military attack, while
Rice promotes the tactic of "forced failure" of the European diplomatic
route before taking decisive action. Rumsfeld, under tremendous pressure
from practically all of the top professional military officials, fears
that an Israeli war will further accelerate US military losses. The
pro-Israel lobby would like to replace the ultra-militarist Rumsfeld with
the ultra-militarist Senator Joseph Lieberman, an unconditional Israel
First Zealot.

US-Israeli Disagreements on an Iran War

As Israel marches inexorably toward war with Iran, disputes with
Washington have surfaced. The conflicts and mutual attacks extend
throughout the state institutions, and into the public discourse.
Supporters and opponents of Israel's war policy represent powerful
segments of state institutions and civil society. On the side of the
Israeli war policy are practically all the major and most influential
Jewish organizations, the pro-Israeli lobbies, their political action
committees, a sector of the White House, a majority of subsidized
Congressional representatives and state, local and party leaders. On the
other side are sectors of the Pentagon, State Department, a minority of
Congressional members, a majority of public opinion, a minority of
American Jews (Union of Reform Judaism) and the majority of active and
retired military commanders who have served or are serving in Iraq.

Most of the discussion and debate in the US on Israel's war agenda has
been dominated by the pro-Israeli organizations that transmit the Israeli
state positions. The Jewish weekly newspaper, Forward , has reported a
number of Israeli attacks on the Bush Administration for not acting more
aggressively on behalf of Israel's policy. According to the Forward ,
"Jerusalem is increasingly concerned that the Bush Administration is not
doing enough to block Teheran from acquiring nuclear weapons" (Dec. 9,
2005).  Further stark differences occurred during the semi-annual
strategic dialog between Israeli and US security officials, in which the
Israelis opposed a US push for regime change in Syria, fearing a possible,
more radical Islamic regime. The Israeli officials also criticized the US
for forcing Israel to agree to open the Rafah border crossing and
upsetting their stranglehold on the economy in Gaza.

Predictably the biggest Jewish organization in the US, the Conference of
Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations (CPMAJO) immediately
echoed the Israeli state line as it has since its founding. Malcolm
Hoenlan, President of the CPMAJO lambasted Washington for a "failure of
leadership on Iran" and "contracting the issue to Europe" (Forward, Dec.
9, 2005). He went on to attack the Bush Administration for not following
Israel's demands by delaying referring Iran to the UN Security Council for
sanction. The leader of the CPMAJO then turned on French, German and
British negotiators accusing them of "appeasement and weakness", and of
not having a "game plan for decisive action" - presumably for not
following Israel's 'sanction or bomb them' game plan.

The role of AIPAC, the CPMAJO and other pro-Israeli organizations as
transmission belts for Israel's bellicose war plans was evident in their
November 28, 2005 condemnation of the Bush Administration agreement to
give Russia a chance to negotiate a plan under which Iran would be allowed
to enrich uranium under international supervision to ensure that its
enriched uranium would not be used for military purposes. AIPAC's
rejection of negotiations and demands for an immediate confrontation were
based on the specious argument that it would "facilitate Iran's quest for
nuclear weapons" - an argument which flies in the face of all known
intelligence data (including Israel's) which says Iran is at least 3 to 10
years away from even approaching nuclear weaponry. AIPAC's unconditional
and uncritical transmission of Israeli demands and criticism is usually
clothed in the rhetoric of US interests or security in order to manipulate
US policy. AIPAC chastised the Bush regime for endangering US security. By
relying on negotiations, AIPAC accused the Bush Administration of "giving
Iran yet another chance to manipulate (sic) the international community"
and "pose a severe danger to the United States" (Forward, Dec. 9, 2005).

Leading US spokesmen for Israel opposed President Bush's instructing his
Ambassador to Iraq, Zalmay Khaklilzad, to open a dialog with Iran's
Ambassador to Iraq. In addition, Israel's official 'restrained' reaction
to Russia's sale to Teheran of more than a billion dollars worth of
defensive anti-aircraft missiles, which might protect Iran from an Israeli
air strike, was predictably echoed by the major Jewish organizations in
the US. No doubt an important reason for Israel's setting an early
deadline for its military assault on Iran is to act before Iran
establishes a new satellite surveillance system and installs its new
missile defense system.

Pushing the US into a confrontation with Iran, via economic sanctions and
military attack has been a top priority for Israel and its supporters in
the US for more than a decade (Jewish Times/ Jewish Telegraph Agency, Dec.
6, 2005). The AIPAC believes the Islamic Republic poses a grave threat to
Israel's supremacy in the Middle East. In line with its policy of forcing
a US confrontation with Iran, AIPAC, the Israeli PACs (political action
committees) and the CPMAJO have successfully lined up a majority of
Congress people to challenge what they describe as the "appeasement" of
Iran. According to the Jewish Times (12/6/05), "If it comes down to a
political battle, signs are that AIPAC could muster strong support in
Congress to press the White House to demand sanctions on Iran."
Representative Illeana Ros-Lehtinen (R-Florida), who has the dubious
distinction of being a collaborator with Cuban exile terrorist groups and
unconditional backer of Israel's war policy, is chairwoman of the highly
influential US House of Representative Middle East subcommittee. From that
platform she has echoed the CPMAJO line about "European appeasement and
arming the terrorist regime in Teheran" (Jewish Times 12/6/05). The
Cuban-American Zionist boasted that her Iran sanctions bill has the
support of 75% of the members of Congress and that she is lining up
additional so-sponsors.

The pro-Israel lobby's power, which includes AIPAC, the Conference of
Presidents, the PACs and hundreds of local formal and informal
organizations, is magnified by their influence and hegemony over Congress,
the mass media, financial institutions, pension funds and fundamentalist
Christian organizations. Within the executive branch their influence in
these institutions amplifies their power far beyond their number and
direct control and representation in strategic public and private
institutions (which itself is formidable). AIPAC's "Progress and Policy
Report for 2005"- published on its website - lists, among its
accomplishments, getting Congress to approve 100 pro-Israel legislative
initiatives, $3 billion in direct aid and more than $10 billion in
guaranteed loans, transfer of the most advanced military technology to
Israel's multi-billion dollar arms export corporations, and the lining up
by a 410 to 1 vote in the House of Representative committing the US to
Israel's security - as it is defined by Israel.

The conflict between the Israeli elite and the Bush Administration has to
be located in a broader context. Despite pro-Israeli attacks on US policy
for its 'weakness' on Iran, Washington has moved as aggressively as
circumstances permit. Facing European opposition to an immediate
confrontation (as AIPAC and Israeli politicians demand) Washington
supports European negotiations but imposes extremely limiting conditions,
namely a rejection of the Non-Proliferation Treaty, which allows uranium
enrichment for peaceful purposes. The European "compromise" of forcing
Iran to turn over the enrichment process to a foreign country (Russia), is
not only a violation of its sovereignty, but is a policy that no other
country using nuclear energy practices. Given this transparently
unacceptable "mandate", it is clear that Washington's 'support for
negotiations' is a propaganda devise to provoke an Iranian rejection, and
a means of securing Europe's support for a Security Council referral for
international sanctions. Washington has absolutely no precedent to object
to Russia's sale of defensive ground to air missiles to Iran, since it is
standard in the arms export business. As for as the Ambassadorial meetings
in Iraq, the US has had great success in securing Iranian co-operation on
stabilizing its Iraqi Shiite client regime. Iran has recognized the
regime, has signed trade agreements, supported the dubious elections and
provided the US with intelligence against the Sunni resistance. Given
their common interests in the region, it was logical for Washington to
seek to bend Iran into further co-operation via diplomatic discussions. In
other words, as the US seeks to withdraw its troops from a losing war in
Iraq (largely supported by AIPAC and its organizational partners),
pro-Israel organizations are pushing hard to put the US into a new war
with Iran. It is no surprise that the Zionist Organization of America
(ZOA) invited the most bellicose of US Middle East warmongers, UN
Ambassador to the United Nations, John Bolton, to be its keynote speaker
at its annual awards dinner (ZOA Press Release, Dec. 11, 2005). The ZOA
has loyally followed all the zigzags of Israeli policy since the
foundation of the State.

Despite the near unanimous support and widespread influence of the major
Jewish organizations, 20% of American Jews do not support Israel in its
conflict with the Palestinians. Even more significantly, 61% of Jews
almost never talk about Israel or defend Israel in conversation with Goyim
(non-Jews) (Jerusalem Post, Dec 1, 2005). Only 29% of Jews are active
promoters of Israel. In other words, it is important to note that the
Israel First crowd represents less than a third of the Jewish community
and hence their claim to speak for 'all' US Jews is false and a
misrepresentation. In fact, there is more opposition to Israel among Jews
than there is in the US Congress. Having said that, however, most Jewish
critics of Israel are not influential in the big Jewish organizations and
the Israel lobby, excluded from the mass media and mostly intimidated from
speaking out, especially on Israel's war preparations against Iran. The
minority Jewish critics cannot match the five to eight million dollars
spent in buying Congressional votes each year by the pro-Israel lobbies.

The Myth of the Iranian Nuclear Threat

The Israeli Defense Forces Chief of Staff, Daniel Halutz, has
categorically denied that Iran represents an immediate nuclear threat to
Israel, let along the United States. According to Haaretz (12/14/05),
Halutz stated that it would take Iran time to be able to produce a nuclear
bomb - which he estimated might happen between 2008 and 2015.

Israel's Labor Party officials do not believe that Iran represents an
immediate nuclear threat and that the Sharon government and the Likud war
propaganda is an electoral ploy. According to Haaretz, "Labor Party
officials" accused Preme Minister Ariel Sharon, Defense Minister Shaul
Mofaz and other defense officials of using the Iran issue in their
election campaigns in an effort to divert public debate from social
issues" (Dec. 14, 2005). In a message directed at the Israeli Right but
equally applicable to AIPAC and the 'Presidents of the Major Jewish
Organizations in the US, Labor member of the Knesset, Benjamin Ben-Eliezer
rejected electoral warmongering: "I hope the upcoming elections won't
motivate the prime minister and defense minister to stray from government
policy and place Israel on the frontlines of confrontation with Iran. The
nuclear issue is an international issue and there is no reason for Israel
to play a major role in it" (Haaretz, Dec. 14, 2005). Unfortunately the
Israel lobby is making it a US issue and putting Washington on the
frontlines.

Iran's Nuclear Threat Fabrication

Israeli intelligence has determined that Iran has neither the enriched
uranium nor the capability to produce an atomic weapon now or in the
immediate future, in contrast to the hysterical claims publicized by the
US pro-Israel lobbies. Mohammed El Baradei, head of the United Nations
International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), which has inspected Iran for
several years, has pointed out that the IAEA has found no proof that Iran
is trying to construct nuclear weapons. He criticized Israeli and US war
plans indirectly by warning that a "military solution would be completely
un-productive" (Financial Times, Dec. 10/11, 2005).

More recently, Iran, in a clear move to clarify the issue of the future
use of enriched uranium, "opened the door for US help in building a
nuclear power plant" (USA Today, Dec. 11, 2005). Iranian Foreign Ministry
spokesman, Hamid Reza Asefi, speaking at a press conference, stated
"America can take part in the international bidding for the construction
of Iran's nuclear power plant if they observe the basic standards and
quality" (USA Today, Dec. 11, 2005). Iran also plans to build several
other nuclear power plants with foreign help. The Iranian call for foreign
assistance is hardly the strategy of a country trying to conduct a covert
atomic bomb program, especially one directed at involving one of its
principal accusers.

The Iranians are at an elementary stage in the processing of uranium, not
even reaching the point of uranium enrichment, which in turn will take
still a number of years, and overcoming many complex technical problems
before it can build a bomb. There is no factual basis for arguing that
Iran represents a nuclear threat to Israel or to the US forces in the
Middle East.

Israel's war preparations and AIPAC's efforts to push the US in the same
direction based on falsified data is reminiscent of the fabricated
evidence which was channeled to the White House through the Pentagon's
Office of Special Plans led by Abram Shumsky and directed by Douglas Feith
and Paul Wolfowitz, both long-time supporters of the Likud Party. Israel's
war preparations are not over any present or future Iranian nuclear
threat.  The issue is over future enrichment of uranium, which is legal
under the Non-Proliferation Treaty as is its use in producing electrical
power.  Iran currently is only in a uranium conversion phase, which is
prior to enrichment. Scores of countries with nuclear reactors by
necessity use enriched uranium. The Iranian decision to advance to
processing enriched uranium is its sovereign right as it is for all
countries, which possess nuclear reactors in Europe, Asia and North
America.

Israel and AIPAC's resort to the vague formulation of Iran's potential
nuclear capacity is so open-ended that it could apply to scores of
countries with a minimum scientific infrastructure.

The European Quartet has raised a bogus issue by evading the issue of
whether or not Iran has atomic weapons or is manufacturing them and
focused on attacking Iran's capacity to produce nuclear energy - namely
the production of enriched uranium. The Quartet has conflated enriched
uranium with a nuclear threat and nuclear potential with the danger of an
imminent nuclear attack on Western countries, troops and Israel. The
Europeans, especially Great Britain, have two options in mind: To impose
an Iranian acceptance of limits on its sovereignty, more specifically on
its energy policy and capacity to control the deadly air pollution of its
major cities with cleaner sources of energy; or to force Iran to reject
the arbitrary addendum to the Non-Proliferation Agreement and then to
propagandize the rejection as an indication of Iran's evil intention to
create atomic bombs and target pro-Western countries. The Western media
would echo the US and European governments position that Iran was
responsible for the breakdown of negotiations. The Europeans would then
convince their public that since "reason" failed, the only recourse it to
follow the US to take the issue to the Security Council and approve
international sanctions against Iran.

The US then would attempt to pressure Russia and China to vote in favor of
sanctions or to abstain. There is reason to doubt that either or both
countries would agree giving the importance of the multi-billion dollar
oil, arms, nuclear and trade deals between Iran and these two countries.
Having tried and failed in the Security Council, the US and Israel are
likely to move toward a military attack. An air attack on suspected
Iranian nuclear facilities will entail the bombing of heavily populated as
well as remote regions leading to large-scale loss of life.

The principal result will be a massive escalation of war throughout the
Middle East. Iran, a country of 70 million, with several times the
military forces that Iraq possessed and with highly motivated and
committed military and paramilitary forces can be expected to cross into
Iraq. Iraqi Shiites sympathetic to or allied with Iran would most likely
break their ties with Washington and go into combat. US military bases,
troops and clients would be under tremendous attack. US military
casualties would multiply. All troop withdrawal plans would be disrupted.
The 'Iraqization' strategy would disintegrate, as the US 'loyal' Shia
armed forces would turn against their American officers. Beyond Iraq,
there would likely be major military-civilian uprisings in Egypt, Saudi
Arabia, Lebanon, Jordan, Palestine and Pakistan. The conflagration would
spread beyond the Middle East, as the Israel-US attack on an Islamic
country would ignite mass protests throughout Asia. Most likely new
terrorist incidents would occur in Western Europe, North America, and
Australia and against US multinationals. A bitter prolonged war would
ensue; pitting 70 million unified Iranian nationals, millions of Muslims
in Asia and Africa against an isolated US accompanied by its European
allies facing mass popular protests at home.

Sanctions on Iran will not work, because oil is a scarce and essential
commodity. China, India and other fast-growing Asian countries will balk
at a boycott. Turkey and other Muslim countries will not cooperate.
Numerous Western oil companies will work through intermediaries. The
sanction policy is predestined to failure; its only result will be to
raise the price of oil even higher. An Israeli or US military attack will
cause severe political instability and increase the risk to oil producers,
shippers and buyers, raising the price of oil to astronomical heights,
likely over $100 a barrel, destabilizing the world economy and provoking a
major world recession or worse.

Conclusion

The only possible beneficiary of a US or Israeli military attack on Iran
or economic sanctions will be Israel: it will seem to eliminate a military
adversary in the Middle East, and consolidate its military supremacy in
the Middle East. Even this outcome is problematic because it fails to take
account of the fact that Iran's challenge to Israel is political, not its
non-existent nuclear potential. The first target of the millions of
Muslims protesting Israeli aggression will be the Arab regimes closest to
Israel. An Israeli attack would be a pyrrhic victory, if a predictable
political conflagration unseats the rulers of Jordan, Egypt, Syria and
Saudi Arabia. The consequences would be even worse if the US attacks:
major oil wells burning, US troops in Iraq surrounded, long-term relations
with Arab regimes undermined, increased oil prices and troop casualties
inflaming domestic public opinion. An attack on Iran will not be a cleanly
executed 'surgical' strike - it will be a deep jagged wound leading to
gangrene.

No doubt AIPAC will celebrate "another success" for Israel in their yearly
self-congratulatory report of missions accomplished. The Presidents of the
Major Jewish Organizations in America will thank their obedient and loyal
congressional followers for approving the destruction of an 'anti-Semitic
and anti-American nuclear threat to all of humanity' or some similar
rubbish.

The big losers of a US-Israeli military attack are the US soldiers in Iraq
and other Middle Eastern countries who will be killed and maimed, the US
public which will pay in blood and bloated deficits, the oil companies
which will see their oil supplies disrupted, their new multi-billion
dollar joint oil exploitation contracts undermined, the Palestinians who
will suffer the consequences of greater repression and massive
displacement, the Lebanese people who will be forcible entangled in a new
border war, and the Europeans who will face terrorist retaliations.

Except for the Israeli lobby in the US and its grass root Jewish American
supporters and allies among the Presidents of the Major Jewish
organizations there are no other organized lobbies pressuring for or
against this war. The ritualistic denunciations of "Big Oil" whenever
there is a Middle East conflict involving the US is in this instance a
totally bogus issue, lacking any substance. All the evidence is to the
contrary - big oil is opposed to any conflicts, which will upset their
first major entry into Middle Eastern oil fields since they were
nationalized in the 1970's.

The only identifiable organized political force, which has successfully
made deep inroads in the US Congress and in sectors of the Executive
Branch, are the pro-Israel lobbies and PAC's. The major proponents of a
confrontationist policy in the Executive Branch are led by pro-Israel
neo-conservative National Security Council member (and Presidentially
pardoned felon) Elliott Abrams, in charge of Middle East policy, and Vice
President Cheney. The principle opposition is found in the major military
services, among commanders, who clearly see the disastrous strategic
consequences for the US military forces and sectors of the State
Department and CIA, who are certainly aware of the disastrous consequences
for the US of supporting Israel's quest for uncontested regional
supremacy.

The problem is there is no political leadership to oppose the pro-Israel
war lobby within congress or even in civil society. [There is one, see
below - ed] There are few if any influential organized lobbies challenging
the pro-war Israel lobby either from the perspective of working for
coexistence in the Middle East or even in defending US national interests
when they diverge from Israel.  Although numerous former diplomats,
generals, intelligence officials, Reformed Jews, retired National Security
advisers and State Department professionals have publicly denounced the
Iran war agenda and even criticized the Israel First lobbies, their
newspaper ads and media interviews have not been backed by any national
political organization that can compete for influence in the White House
and Congress. As we draw closer to a major confrontation with Iran and
Israeli officials set short term deadlines for igniting a Middle East
conflagration, it seems that we are doomed to learn from future
catastrophic losses that Americans must organize to defeat political
lobbies based on overseas allegiances.


--------14 of 15--------

GREEN PARTY OF THE UNITED STATES

http://www.gp.org
For Immediate  Release:
Monday, November 28, 2005

GREENS, CALLING FOR PALESTINIAN RIGHTS, URGE DIVESTMENT FROM ISRAEL

WASHINGTON, D.C. -- The Green Party of the United States has endorsed a
statement calling for a comprehensive strategy of boycott and divestment
that would pressure the government of Israel to guarantee human rights for
Palestinians.

The resolution, introduced by the Wisconsin Green Party and passed in the
Green Party's National Committee, seeks reversal of Israel's current
policies.  The text is appended below.

"Israel's treatment of Palestinians - those who are Israeli citizens as
well as those in the territories - is comparable in many ways to South
African apartheid, and has resulted in a cycle of violence and lack of
security for both Israelis and Palestinians," said Mohammed Abed, a member
of the Wisconsin Green Party.  "A stable and just resolution of the
conflict requires the full realization of the human rights of Palestinians
and Israelis."

Greens allege that the 'peace process' will ensure neither peace nor human
rights, and have called the Gaza Disengagement Plan a smokescreen to buy
time and accumulate political capital for the Sharon government while it
pursues a plan to force Palestinians into disconnected reservations on
less than half the West Bank.

The Green Party is already on record as supporting the right of
Palestinian refugees to return to their homes and to receive compensation
for their losses; immediate Israeli withdrawal from all lands acquired
since 1967, including the West Bank, Gaza, and East Jerusalem (see
<http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/article329199.ece>);
maintenance of Jerusalem as a shared city open to people of all faiths;
suspension of U.S. military and foreign aid to Israel; complete
dismantling of the Israeli separation wall; and serious consideration of a
single secular, democratic state as the national home of both Israelis and
Palestinians.  Greens have affirmed the right of self-determination for
both Palestinians and Israelis.

"The Green Party is on the side of the many Israeli and Palestinian
organizations working together to achieve a just resolution through
nonviolent means," said Ruth Weill, co-chair of the Wisconsin Green Party.
"As proven in South Africa in the 1980s, divestment and boycott are an
effective means to achieve justice for the oppressed."

Greens note that direct U.S. aid to Israel has been conservatively
estimated at nearly $105 billion since 1949, which does not include
recently proposed assistance such as the $1.2 billion package for
developing the Negev and Galilee.

"American taxpayers' money is subsidizing Israel's treatment of its
Palestinian citizens and of Palestinians in the occupied territories,"
said Peter LaVenia, chair of the Albany, NewYork Greens.

RESOLUTION
Adopted by the Green  Party of the United States,
November 21, 2005

1. The Green Party of the United States (GPUS) publicly calls for
divestment from and boycott of the State of Israel until such time as the
full individual and collective rights of the Palestinian people are
realized.

To maximize the effect of the Green Party's support for divestment and
boycott of Israel:

2. The party calls on all civil society institutions and organizations
around the world to implement a comprehensive divestment and boycott
program.  Further, the party calls on all governments to support this
program and to implement state level boycotts.

3. The party urges the Campus Greens network to work in cooperation with
other campus organizations to achieve institutional participation in this
effort.

4. The GPUS National Committee directs the Green Peace Action Committee
(GPAX) to encourage the larger anti-war movement to promote the
divestment/boycott effort.

5. The GPUS National Committee directs the International Committee to work
with our sister Green parties around the world in implementing an
international boycott.

MORE INFORMATION

Green Party of the United States http://www.gp.org 1700 Connecticut Avenue
NW, Suite 404 Washington, DC 20009. 202-319-7191, 866-41GREEN Fax
202-319-7193

Green Party International Committee http://www.gp.org/committees/intl/
Green Party Peace Action Committee http://www.gp.org/committees/peace/
University of Wisconsin Divest from Israel Campaign
http://alawda.rso.wisc.edu/links.htm


--------15 of 15--------

 Texas Hold 'Em Up:
 so dang many freedoms to
 steal, so little time.


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

   - David Shove             shove001 [at] tc.umn.edu
   rhymes with clove         Progressive Calendar
                     over 2225 subscribers as of 12.19.02
              please send all messages in plain text no attachments