Libby Davies' So-called "Mistake," the NDP, and Israel-Palestine BLOG POST posted on June 16, 2010 by Paul Burrows

URL: http://www.mediacoop.ca/blog/burrows/3649">http://www.mediacoop.ca/blog/burrows/3649

Libby Davies’s So-Called “Mistake,” the NDP, & Israel-Palestine



As many of you may know, there has been an uproar in the House of Commons recently, and a flurry of parliamentarians (Tory, Liberal, and NDP) expressing "outrage" over something related to the Israel-Palestine conflict.

No, Canadian politicians have not suddenly found their "moral bearings" and the integrity and courage to speak out against Israel's recent act of state terrorism and piracy on the "high seas". No, the uproar is not about Israel’s slaughter of civilians bringing humanitarian aid to the desperate and starving population of Gaza. All the major political parties were basically silent about that -- beyond the typical Canadian expressions of “concern” for the loss of life, the crocodile tears, and the obligatory references to Israel’s “right to exist” and “right to defend itself.”

And no, the uproar is not even about the deeper issues of settler-colonialism, occupation, apartheid, or ethnic cleansing so integral to the Israel-Palestine conflict. It’s not about the collective punishment of the people of Gaza itself, the criminal blockade of an entire people, half of whom are children, and 65-70% of whom are in a state of desperate “food insecurity”.

What, then, is the uproar about? NDP Member of Parliament Libby Davies (East Vancouver) was recorded on video as suggesting that the Israeli occupation began in 1948. In the same video, she also expressed support for the notion of a Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions campaign against Israel.

It is not surprising that politicians from the three major political parties are now issuing public condemnations of Davies’ statements, and vying for the title of “best friend of Israel.” Emblematic of this campaign is former NDP’er turned Liberal Foreign Affairs Critic Bob Rae’s written denunciation in which he describes Davies’s comments as indicative of “a level of hostility and ignorance that is truly breathtaking.” Rae went on to state that “the logical implication” of suggesting that Israel’s occupation began in 1948 “is that Israel has no right to exist.” He concluded by demanding that NDP leader Jack Layton ask for Davies’ resignation and “an apology to all Canadians.”

It is not even surprising that the NDP has (yet again) turned on one of its own over the Israel-Palestine conflict. Let me, momentarily, remind everyone of the events of 2002. In the span of one week NDP leader Alexa McDonough went from condemning Israeli “state terrorism,” and hinting at the possibility of sanctions, to apologizing for what she called “a regrettable public perception” that the NDP is anti-Israel. Instead of denouncing in unequivocal terms Israel’s illegal occupation, and its well-documented use of torture and collective punishment, its deliberate targeting of civilians, journalists, ambulance drivers, and international peace monitors, not to mention the mounting evidence of a wholesale massacre in Jenin, McDonough simply described Israel’s actions in Jenin and elsewhere as “counter-productive.”

In short, what is happening right now to Libby Davies happened eight years ago to Svend Robinson. More afraid of vacuous and knee-jerk allegations of “bias” and “anti-Semitism” by Canada’s pro-Israel lobby, than it is committed to supporting the right of an oppressed people to resist foreign occupation and military rule, the NDP quickly and shamefully caved in to pressure in 2002 and stripped MP Svend Robinson of his Middle East portfolio. Robinson had long been ridiculed in the Canadian mainstream press for expressing strong social justice views, and for putting his principles (valid or not) ahead of popularity. It was no surprise, therefore, that one of the few MP’s with any honesty and integrity about such human rights violations was quickly demoted by his own, ostensibly “social democratic” party. The avalanche of shunning was lightspeed and continental. NDP’ers in parliament as well as provincial legislatures joined the chorus of denunciation. Manitoba’s own Gary Doer, Bill Blaikie, and Judy Wasylycia-Leis took less time to publicly distance themselves from Svend Robinson in 2002 than it took to say “irrelevant careerist hack.”

I am sorry to say that the same thing is occurring right now, for virtually identical reasons. Jack Layton actually phoned up Israel’s ambassador to Canada to “clarify” that Davies’ comments did not reflect NDP policy. I'm sorry, but Layton has gone from mediocre to utterly pathetic on this issue. "It's not NDP policy?" What isn't? To acknowledge or even debate historical facts? If Davies had said that the European occupation of Canada began in 1867 (Confederation), or 1608 (Quebec City), or 1537 (Cartier), or 1492 (Columbus) or even earlier with the Vikings, reasonable people might quibble over the best symbolic date to highlight, but we would have all known what she meant, and we would not be calling for her resignation for implying that Canada has “no right to exist”. Davies would not have been "wrong" to highlight any one of these dates. Nor was she “wrong” to highlight 1948 as a symbolic date for Israeli occupation. She could also, legitimately, have extended her symbolic beginning to Zionist occupation of Palestine all the way back to the 19th century, well before the State of Israel was founded in blood and ethnic cleansing.

In short, Mr. Layton, these are historical and empirical questions, not policy decisions or Party platforms. That’s almost as ridiculous as saying “It’s not NDP policy to state that the Earth revolves around the sun.” As for Davies’ cautious call for Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions – well, Mr. Layton, that ought to be NDP policy, just as support for a similar campaign against Apartheid South Africa ought to have been NDP policy.

This pathetic tri-partisan indignation over Davies’ comments is one massive red herring. The whole House of Commons is in an uproar -- not over Israel's slaughter of civilians on the "High Seas," not over one of the longest military occupations in the world, not over one of the few formal apartheid states still in existence -- but over Libby Davies' acknowledgement of an historical fact; over her principled demand that the collective punishment of an entire people end; and over her hope that Canadian policy change in accordance with the growing world-wide, non-violent BDS campaign. Wow. I know that the NDP and Liberals recently denied any talk of a Party merger -- but why bother? I can't say I've noticed a hell of a difference over the last decade. The attack on Davies inside and out of the House of Commons is pathetic pandering at a time when Israeli state terror should be the target -- not a courageous MP speaking out against ongoing Israeli piracy. Shame on the NDP for, once again, turning on its own to compete for the title of honorary Israeli.

Judy Rebick and Murray Dobbin have both written fine commentaries about the misplaced uproar over Libby Davies' comments, and there is no need to repeat their central points. (People can read them on rabble.ca). However, Rebick still referred to Davies' statement about 1948 as a "mistake" and Dobbins still called her remarks "careless". Davies herself has subsequently referred to them as “mistakes”, and issued a series of retractions and qualifications. But why were her comments mistaken or careless? Because they were wrong, or because the NDP thinks it cannot win electorally without distancing itself from such views? Davies should be commended and defended for speaking the truth, for making a legitimate judgment about history (the symbolic start date of Israeli occupation), and for suggesting that Canadian policy change in accordance with the growing world-wide demand for BDS against Israel. To highlight 1948 is not a call for the destruction of Israel, any more than Aboriginal peoples highlighting 1492 or saying that Turtle Island is largely unceded “Indian territory” is a call for the destruction of any given State of the western hemisphere, let alone a call for Europeans to go back to Europe.

What we are witnessing here is precisely the “new McCarthyism” that Davies herself refers to in the video in question. Sadly, it is a McCarthyism waged almost as vehemently by the NDP as it is by the Liberals and Tories. More concerned about maintaining electoral “respectability” (however self-delusional), than following through on its own rhetoric of social justice, the NDP has once again demonstrated its complete moral bankruptcy. In waffling back and forth, and trying to offend neither oppressor nor oppressed (and increasingly, mostly, just offending the oppressed), the NDP has once again demonstrated why so many leftists, activists, environmentalists, workers, and ordinary, honest Canadians have either abandoned the party, or vote for it –– while holding back the bile –– as a “lesser of evils.” Between the NDP’s sorry provincial record as governing power in Ontario, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, and British Columbia, and its weak to pathetic federal record on matters of human rights and Canadian foreign policy (from Israel-Palestine, to Iraq and Afghanistan, to Haiti), there is increasingly very little to distinguish the NDP from the Liberals.

Lost in all this nonsense is the fact that Palestinians continue to be slaughtered by Israel, which boasts the world’s fourth strongest military. The media rightly documents and condemns suicide attacks on Israeli civilians, but often ignores the fact that four times as many Palestinians, mostly civilians, have also been killed since September 2000. Israel is using its own brand of state terror to maintain an illegal occupation of Palestinian land. (And it is a legitimate historical question to debate whether this occupation is 43 years old, or 62 years old, or even older.) Numerous Israeli leaders now fear arrest or indictment for war crimes if they travel to certain countries (a Belgian court attempted to indict Ariel Sharon, for example). Increasing numbers of labour unions, universities, and churches world wide have joined the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement (most recently, Swedish dockworkers imposed a full ban on loading or unloading ships going to or coming from Israel.) The United Nations has re-affirmed (every year since 1967) the need for Israel to comply with international law and withdraw from the Occupied Territories (by which they mean the West Bank, Gaza, and East Jerusalem). Every major human rights group in the world has been shocked and horrified by Israel’s attacks on Palestinian towns and infrastructure, going back to Jenin in 2002, and extending through to its brutal invasion of Lebanon, and its more recent attack on Gaza (Operation “Cast Lead”) during the winter of 2008-09. Growing numbers of Jews inside Israel and throughout the global diaspora have begun to say “Not in My Name,” including many Canadians. Even a growing number of Israeli soldiers have begun to refuse service outside the “Green Line” of 1967 borders, insisting that this occupation only exacerbates terrorist attacks, and has nothing to do with defence of Israel. Whether or not the NDP wishes to acknowledge such facts, or genuinely seek the truth, is irrelevant. If the NDP wishes to keep pretending that it is Canada’s party of social justice, fine. Nobody else is under any illusions.

A glimpse of the future, By Daniel Levy, Haaretz, 11.06.10

http://fwd4.me/T9H

Israelis might consider sending thank-you bouquets today to the national soccer teams of Switzerland and Greece. It is thanks to them that Israelis will have to choose between getting behind Brazil, England, Ghana or whomever, as the World Cup kicks off.

Of course, it would be nice to wrap ourselves in blue and white, and cheer on the likes of Yossi, Guy and Ben. But on this occasion, one should probably be thankful that we didn't make it. Hence, those flowers.

There were large demonstrations in Cape Town last week following the Mavi Marmara incident. For now, South Africa has recalled its ambassador, Ismail Coovadia, from Israel. An Israeli presence at this greatest of global sporting spectacles would have been guaranteed to attract an unrelenting wave of protests, PR stunts and bad publicity.

Unfortunately, South Africa is not the outlier - Israel is. In the days since Operation Sky Winds, Israel has been able to get a glimpse of the future and into the abyss that awaits if we continue on our current course. It is a future replete with both insecurity and the indignity of global opprobrium and sanctions.

Even or perhaps especially in our hyper-connected world, it seems only a finite number of truly global causes can be sustained at any one time. Palestine is now irrefutably on that list. That is certainly inconvenient for Israel and maybe unfair. We do, though, appear to be locked into a dramatic acceleration of this phenomenon and - in the absence of something resembling a credible peace or de-occupation effort - the global Palestinian solidarity movement is now competing to set the agenda.

In the last two weeks alone, two of Italy's largest supermarket chains have stopped carrying Israeli products; Swedish dockworkers have refused to unload goods from Israeli ships; Britain's largest trade union, Unite, unanimously voted to boycott Israeli items; and Elvis Costello and the Pixies have both canceled shows in Israel. Meanwhile, the latest debate raging in the United States is over how much of a strategic burden Israel has become.

The logic of the kind of unarmed resistance represented by flotillas to Gaza is to shine a light on the wrongdoings of an offending party. Ideally, one will succeed in appealing to the better nature, to the humanity, of the offending party, and its behavior (in this case, the blockade on Gaza ) will be corrected. If not, then one may seek to shame that party in the court of global public opinion. Any over-reaction or additional offensive behavior will only serve to strengthen the case of the light-shiner and "prove" the original premise of wrongdoing.

In this instance, Israel's leadership played its role with Lionel Messi-like perfection. It's true that Israel's official PR response was ill-conceived, while its "army" of citizen advocates indulged in the use of racist stereotypes on YouTube videos, doing more harm than good. But Israel's predicament goes far deeper than the embarrassment of having Avigdor Lieberman head this country's diplomatic corps: It has become structural and therefore far more worrying. The gap between Israel's self-perception and global perceptions of the country has taken on Grand Canyon-like proportions.

In short, the game is up. This is not defeatism - it's an acknowledgment of a reality that, by ignoring, causes Israel to imperil itself. It cannot be reversed by doubling PR budgets or endlessly cloning Shimon Peres or even Mark Regev. It cannot be reversed by allowing coriander into Gaza, by another photo-op with our friend President Mubarak, or even by enthusiastically supporting the creation of a new Palestinian town (ship ) in Rawabi. An occupation that just entered its 44th year and entails denying basic rights to millions of Palestinians can no longer be sanitized. As long as Israel maintains that occupation, the costs will become increasingly burdensome.

Having lost the world, Israel's focus turns in on itself. The country's leadership has to work harder to keep its own public on board for the occupation project. This requires a growing suppression of dissent, further ostracizing Israel's Palestinian minority, and ever-more aggressive appeals to Jewish national pride. Democratic norms are thereby eroded, further feeding the tarnishing of Israel's image. This is the vicious cycle in which Israel is embroiled.

It is true that there will almost certainly always be unjustified prejudice toward Israel. Whatever it does, some people will always be out to get us. But prejudice is not what motivates the vast majority of those mobilizing in solidarity with the Palestinians. The occupation is the oxygen of their campaign, and the vast majority seek an end to it - not to Israel itself. An Israel that fails to appreciate this and which sustains the occupation is the single most proximate cause of its own delegitimization.

It is still in our power, however, to change all of this. We can end the 1967 occupation in the West Bank, East Jerusalem, the Golan Heights and its remnants in Gaza, and achieve recognition for minor border modifications to the '67 line with one-for-one land swaps and support for reasonable arrangements on security. Israel could implement such a de-occupation with the Palestinians and Arab states directly, or with the U.S. and the Quartet - and have them deliver the Palestinian and Arab side of the bargain.

But if Israel does not take the lead, then let us at least hope that our remaining friends in the world will step forward with their own proposals and that we in turn will have the wisdom to say yes to them.

Enjoy the World Cup, and let's look forward to Israel's qualification in 2014 being all about soccer and blissfully devoid of politics.
_________________________
Daniel Levy is a senior fellow at the New America Foundation and editor of the Middle East Channel at foreignpolicy.com

"No one can terrorize a whole nation, unless we are all his accomplices."Edward R. Murrow, Transforming Power, Submitted by Judy Rebick, 06/15/2010

http://transformingpower.ca/en/blog/no-one-can-terrorize-whole-nation-unless-we-are-all-his-accomplices-edward-r-murrow

Today, the House of Commons formed a virtual lynch mob demanding the resignation of NDP MP Libby Davies' resignation for saying that the Israeli occupation began in 1948. She was punked by a phoney blogger who was trying to trap her into saying something unacceptable. Libby has been an outspoken critic of Israel since she visited Gaza and saw the horrors that Israel is inflicting on the people there. In her usual quiet courageous way, Libby is one of the few members of Parliament speaking for Palestinian rights and representing the thousands of Canadians who believe that Israel does not deserve the support of Canada.

It is a matter of debate whether the occupation started in 1948 or 1967. If you are of the view that the expulsion of the Palestinians from their homes when Israel was founded was unacceptable, then the occupation began there. If you agree with the foundation of the State of Israel whatever the costs to the Palestinian people, then you think the occupation started in 1967. Believing that the foundation of the state of Israel was unjust does not mean that you think the state of Israel should not continue to exist. I believe that the foundation of Canada was unjust but I don't call for the dissolution of Canada; although I am starting to consider it.

I am Jewish and have always opposed Zionism. It was a debate among Jews. It is a legitimate debate. Libby, however, is not of the view that the state of Israel should not have been founded in its current form. She made a mistake and that was clear on the video. Yet she was publicly criticized by her leader Jack Layton, ferociously attacked by her colleague Thomas Mulcair and is now under sustained attack in the House.

And for whom are they speaking? In a recent BBC poll, only 23 percent of Canadians had a positive attitude towards Israel and 52 percent had a negative view. Libby is speaking for the majority of Canadians on this issue.

Libby is one of the best Members of Parliament. She is firmly rooted in her community, one of the poorest in the country. She stands up for what's important and, in these days of the rightward slide of the NDP, she is usually on the right side of most issues. She is also a wonderful person and doesn't deserve this shit.

So why the lynch mob? There is a campaign against freedom of speech on Israel. Under McCarthyism, it wasn't only Communists who got attacked, it was friends, families and associates of Communists, it was anyone who didn't think the capitalist system was the cat's meow. And it's the same with Israel. Anyone who proclaims their solidarity with the people of Palestine is persona non grata with this government and now, it seems, with the Opposition as well.

Please write to Jack Layton and Michael Ignatieff to tell them that you are outraged by their attacks on Libby Davies. Libby has spent decades speaking up in the House for the issues we all care about. Now it's time to speak up for her.

On June 17, a coalition of organizations are holding a press conference to raise their concern that democracy itself is threatened in Canada. The attack on Libby, the creation of a police state in Toronto in preparation for the G20, the cuts to funding for any group supportive of Palestinians, the embrace by our government of some of the worst human rights abusers in the world -- all of these are signs of the erosion of our democratic rights.

Speak the fuck up. It's time.

Bloody Sunday: Put Britain in the dock, guardian.co.uk, Bernadette Devlin McAliskey, Tuesday 15 June 2010

I witnessed the events of Bloody Sunday and its violent legacy. The British government, not soldiers, should be held to account

The outcome of the Saville inquiry has been published. A second British prime minister has apologised for the killing of unarmed and innocent protesters. This time the British government acknowledged the actions of members of the British army were unjustified and unjustifiable.

Prosecutions of individual foot soldiers are unlikely. Their own testimony cannot be used, and almost 40 years after the event, prosecution will raise a whole new series of concerns and debate about human rights violations oppressive litigation, and the application of the terms of the peace agreements. A respected human rights lawyer has already offered their services in prosecuting the real culprit, the British state. But Lord Saville has exonerated the state.

I was on the speaker's platform on Bloody Sunday. Despite burying the images in some deep mental archive, Bloody Sunday refuses to fade or mellow in my consciousness. Initially, disbelief gave way to fear, horror, anger, and then detachment. Finally, I was angry only with myself.

My political analysis had until then discounted any real belief – despite the long history of Anglo-Irish conflict – that the British government would countenance killing the people in order to suppress the protests. Now that it had happened, it made sense to me that it had always been going to happen and would continue; it was fundamental to the nature of the British state in Ireland. I felt I should have known that, and now I did, I was still up for the fight.

The key impact of Bloody Sunday was that a whole generation made a similar analysis and this fuelled some 25 years of violent political conflict, at least tolerated by the majority of the "minority population" and actively pursued by a significant but sustainable minority. It is responsibility for this legacy that sets Bloody Sunday apart from subsequent atrocities on all sides.

As a member of parliament at the time, I was denied the right to give parliament an eyewitness account. The home secretary, Reginald Maudling, lied to the House and the media willingly collaborated in uncritically repeating the government misrepresentation. In what was considered gross overreaction and disgracefully violent behaviour, I crossed the floor of the House and hit him.

I did not call for a public inquiry, did not welcome the Saville inquiry and only testified to respect the wishes of the bereaved families. I regret none of those things, but challenge the view that it was an expensive waste of time, energy and money. Had Bloody Sunday been no more than a violent and disgraceful overreaction or unlawful behaviour on the part of a few "squaddies" or overzealous commanders, it would not have required the British government and its military to create the complicated labyrinth of lies and deceit which has taken hundreds of testimonies, thousands of pages, millions of pounds and 38 years to unravel.

The Bloody Sunday Trust and the bereaved families have shown great stamina and courage in their quest for disclosure and truth. Respectfully, however, Bloody Sunday isn't just about the families or how the 13 individuals lost their lives that day; the 14th dying later of his wounds. It is about whether the British government committed a war crime in 1972 and in so doing started a war. It is the British government, not their anonymous and brutalised soldiers of their alphabet army who should be in the dock, at the international court of justice at The Hague. If Saville has closed that route to truth and justice, the British government will consider it worth every penny.

Had the British state been speedily held to account at The Hague, things might have been different for a lot of people, not least for nine Turkish human rights activists on their way to Gaza. They might not have been so confidently slaughtered by the state of Israel.

• This article was amended on 15 June to update the introduction

House of Commons passes controversial Colombia free trade deal (Excerpt) By The Canadian Press, June 14, 2010

OTTAWA - The House of Commons has passed a controversial free trade deal between Canada and Colombia.

MPs voted 188-79 on Monday to approve the deal, which human rights and union activists strongly oppose.

The Conservatives and Liberals supported the bill, while the NDP and Bloc Quebecois opposed it.

Critics cite Colombia's terrible human rights record, including the killing of trade unionists and other activists.

US wants South Korean boat’s sinking as they tell it but Russia and China don’t agree, Redress,By Christopher King, 15 June 2010

http://fwd4.me/Dfc

Christopher King questions the US-South Korean accusation that North Korea sank the South Korean corvette the Cheonan in March this year. He says the lack of evidence linking Pyongyang to the sinking, coupled with the history of US deceptions in Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq, makes it more likely that the Cheonan was sank by the US or South Koreans, accidentally or deliberately.

US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has “...warned Chinese officials that China could put itself in a ‘dangerous position’ if it refuses to accept North Korea’s role in the sinking of the Cheonan, an apparent reference to the South Korean joint civilian-military investigatory report”, according to the 2point6billion.com website. This Hong Kong news forum’s name should remind us that Europe is following America into conflicts everywhere with our economies and currencies collapsing while Asia is getting on with rapid development. Can there possibly be a connection?

There is no use Americans getting angry with China for having its exports surge as the Financial Times reports. Many of us can think of much better ways to spend money than on wars and have been saying for a long time that America should be restructuring its economy rather than killing people half a world away in order to steal their oil. Why blame China for America’s own blunders? As I’ve said previously, America would like an excuse for mid-level conflict with China in order to bring in trade sanctions and recover American jobs. A reason to default on their interest payments would be nice too. They’re also pressing for a revaluation of the renminbi. The Chinese won’t be impressed by Hillary ’s threats, so there’s the possibility of a good manufactured conflict here.
”Truth has now become politics and evidence doesn’t matter”

The Chinese and Russians don’t agree with America that North Korea sank the South Korean corvette Cheonan on 26 March 2010, and why should they just because Hillary Clinton expects them to? They’ve seen the evidence. All there is against North Korea is a piece of metal with a single character on it that is said to be usually (not always, but usually) used in North Korea. Even some South Korean experts don’t agree with this. No-one appears to have said is even part of a torpedo. It’s not enough to convince an American jury, criminal or civil, so how can it go to the United Nations? Why are the UK and Europe going along with this? Truth has now become politics and evidence doesn’t matter.

The international character of the investigation was much touted by the Americans, but it turns out that experts from other countries were merely window-dressing observers while Americans and South Koreans did the investigating. Since our countries are expected to back America in the United Nations, the investigation report should be made public before we become entangled in yet another American conflict even further away from Europe than the Afghanistan-Pakistan mess. Show us the evidence!

The Cheonan sinking might indeed have been the North Koreans taking revenge for a maritime clash with South Korea in November 2009, but it is unlikely. The North Koreans like minor provocations that display their bargaining items and this does not fit the pattern. It might also have been a mine or the Sokcho, the Cheonan’s sister ship, wildly firing off a torpedo as well as its guns.
Suspcious US behaviour

As I’ve said previously, I like the United States as culprits. As suspicious behaviour, why is it that the US only announced on 5 July, after two months, that it and South Korea had an anti-submarine exercise in progress allegedly 75 miles away at the same time as the sinking? Possibly much closer. We knew anyway. Bloggers were writing about it and it was independently reported. I mentioned it on this website on 2 July. There’s grave suspicion in South Korea about the American story. The government says that it will track down spreaders of internet rumours and conspiracy theories contrary to government conclusions. What’s this? Isn’t South Korea supported by the US because it’s a democracy where, by definition, the proletariat are allowed to disagree with their government? Indeed, there is an expectation that we, the unwashed, will scrutinize our exalted leaders’ actions. Such over-sensitivity and control usually means that we’re not being told the truth.

The excited gunfire by the Cheonan’s sister ship, the Sokcho, against an (alleged) flock of birds and America’s bellicose response to the sinking, without evidence, reminds me of the 1964 Gulf of Tonkin incident that President Johnson used to start a full-scale war on Vietnam. We know how that went. Nearly 60,000 American dead wasn’t it, with at least two million Vietnamese killed and the population still suffering genetic damage from agent orange that the US sprayed over nearly the whole country.
Echoes of Tonkin

The papers about the Tonkin incident were only declassified and pried out of the government by persistent investigative journalists. The synopsis on the George Washington University website by Robert J. Hanrock in the formerly classified journal Cryptographic Quarterly makes fascinating and relevant reading.

If you don’t know the story, the USS Maddox and USS Turner Joy were on a mission of deliberate provocation within the territorial waters of North Vietnam. Simultaneously, on land the CIA and American “trainers” were organizing raids by South Vietnamese commandos on the North’s facilities. Maddox had engaged North Vietnamese torpedo boats two days previously when on a similar mission. On the night of 4 August 1964 at 21.34 hours both Maddox and Turner Joy detected surface and air threats. They began high speed evasive manoeuvres and a few minutes later Turner Joy began firing its main five-inch guns wildly. It fired over 300 rounds on up to 13 targets, fired star shells, dodged two dozen torpedoes, dropped four or five depth charges. Targets were appearing and disappearing. US aircraft called in could find no attackers. No trace of debris was found in the morning. The Maddox’s captain did not believe that there had been any attackers and this was found to be the case. The ships’ own high-speed wakes, erroneous sonar interpretation and radar reflections from waves were responsible for false targets and torpedoes.

Delighted by first reports of an attack, President Johnson was not pleased when doubts that any attack had occurred reached him. He was cheered however, when the National Security Service presented him with reports based on radio intercepts that had been selected to support the attack story by omitting 90 per cent of the material, particularly items indicating that there had been no attack. Johnson used this material to get the House of Representatives to give him a free hand on military action in South East Asia, resulting in the American wars in Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos. America killed millions. Does it sound familiar?

Johnson knew that there had been no attack on the Maddox and Turner Joy. He is quoted as saying, “Hell, those damn stupid sailors were just shooting at flying fish,” and thought himself very clever. The government had resisted releasing the Tonkin documents for years because they were so similar to the intelligence methods used in support of the Iraq war.

The Cheonan explosion time at 21.22 hours, is within 12 minutes of the time the 1964 Tonkin incident commenced (21.34 hours). The same symptoms of wild gunfire against an unidentified target are seen. American craft were near the Cheonan and presumably helicopters with torpedo-carrying and depth charge capability. It is possible that the Cheonan was not where it was supposed to be or expectations of where it should have been were wrong. In other words, it could have been mistaken for a North Korean vessel. The coincidence of times is noteworthy. Early evening when sight of one’s surroundings has just been lost could be a disturbing and disorientating time, especially near a hostile coast as both these incidents were.

I know nothing of naval warfare, so call me presumptuous, but firing on an unidentified target that has not shown hostility is surely an amazing thing to do. America has an appalling record in Iraq and Afghanistan for attacking targets without confirmation of their identity. BBC reporter John Simpson’s convoy was attacked on camera by an American aircraft, killing a cameraman and 17 other persons with 45 injured. Wedding parties are particularly favoured for air attack, when they are reported as Taliban or Al-Qaeda training camps. General Stanley McChrystal’s big idea in Afghanistan at present is special forces night attacks on houses, often the wrong ones, with everyone killed, men, women and children. Of course, there’s the Wikileaks’ “Collateral Murder” video showing American attitudes, that you have probably seen.

The Sokcho might not have been the only craft firing at the time of the Cheonan explosion. If an American submarine or helicopter torpedoed or depth charged the Cheonan, whether by accident or intentionally, they are clearly not going to admit to it.

Because of their record of genuine conspiracies and murderous ones at that, only the most naïve persons now believe the American and British governments. That is why we have conspiracy theories. It is a simple fact that there is no evidence whatsoever in the public domain linking North Korea to the sinking. Having examined the best that the Americans have, the Russians and Chinese don’t think so either. Yet Hillary Clinton wants the world to trust and believe her when she says that North Korea was responsible. The evidence is really that the Cheonan sinking is another in a long line of American deceptions.
Christopher King is a retired consultant and lecturer in management and marketing. He lives in London, UK

Swastika permitted by Lithuanian Court – Rehabilitation of Nazi Colloborators and green light for Fascist Demos, Russia Today, 15 June, 2010

Source: Russia Today

The swastika is considered a Nazi symbol and banned in most of Europe. But a Lithuanian court recently ruled that it's not exclusively a Nazi emblem after students displayed the symbol at an independence parade.

The decision shocked many in the country, as they say it may now be used by neo-Nazis.

“I wanted people to think outside the box,” said Milvydas Juskauskas, one of the parade organizers. “That’s why I decided to look for a symbol which would urge them to do so. And I chose the ancient swastika – a symbol of light, fire and universe – as a perfect match. The swastika – once a sacred symbol – is now being misinterpreted and humiliated.”

Read more

It is, of course, etched forever in history as the sign of Nazi horror. But the march’s organizer said the symbol of Nazism was around long before Hitler.

A balcony with swastikas belongs to a 19th century building in the heart of Vilnius, the capital of Lithuania. Historians say that the swastika, as a symbol, is very popular in this part of the world. And it had been popular long before Adolf Hitler was born.

A professor in Vilnius says the swastika was an ancient symbol of fire and sun in places including China and Europe – even appearing on the first Soviet banknotes.

“I’ve come across swastikas a lot during decades of archeological research,” maintained Alekseus Lukhtanas, professor of archeology. “They can be found as decorations for ancient wallets, on clay pots and hats. And they are thousands of years old.”

But he’s opposed to the marchers’ revival of the symbol – notorious as the emblem of the Nazis. He questions their motivation in choosing a motif bonded in the public mind to a creed of extermination and hatred, rather than ancient history.

“One thing is an ancient symbol of fire and prosperity,” Lukhtanas said. “The other is when someone tries to use it for whatever their motivation is. I don’t believe they did it for archeological purposes. It was a very bad promotion. If they did, why wouldn’t they promote any other archeological findings on banners?”

And at first, Lithuanian authorities thought the same way. The students were originally arrested and put on trial for the illegal display of fascist symbols. But in a court decision that surprised and shocked many – they were acquitted. The judge saw no malicious intent in their actions – believing their story that they were promoting a historical symbol.

Further, a political activist says it’s an extremely sinister and dangerous development for his country.

“We see in Lithuania the process of rehabilitation of Nazi collaborators,” noted Algerdas Paletskis, the Frontas movement leader, “We see that people who fought against the Red army – Lithuanians fighting on Hitler’s side – are being rehabilitated. So this court decision legalizes the proliferation of swastika. At least in Lithuania swastikas can now be drawn by any artist and they will be in a position to say that it’s legal by the court.”

In Lithuania, the display of both Nazi and Soviet symbols is outlawed. But many are wondering if the court’s verdict may open the way for neo-Nazis to use history as a cover-up for fascist demonstrations.