In the spirit of keeping it real, drop everything and read this:
Excuse me, but Israel has no right to exist by Sharmine Narwani
"The phrase 'right to exist' entered my consciousness in the 1990s just as the concept of the two-state solution became part of our collective lexicon. In any debate at university, when a Zionist was out of arguments, those 3 magic words were invoked to shut down the conversation with an outraged, 'are you saying Israel doesn't have the right to exist??'
"Of course you couldn't challenge Israel's right to exist - that was like saying you were negating a fundamental Jewish right to have... rights, with all manner of Holocaust guilt thrown in for effect.
"Except of course the Holocaust is not my fault - or that of Palestinians. The cold-blooded program of ethnically cleansing Europe of its Jewish population has been so callously and opportunistically utilized to justify the ethnic cleansing of the Palestinian Arab nation, that it leaves me utterly unmoved. I have even caught myself - shock - rolling my eyes when I hear Holocaust and Israel in the same sentence.
"What moves me instead in this post-two-state era is the sheer audacity of Israel even existing.
"What a fantastical idea, this notion that a bunch of rank outsiders from another continent could appropriate an existing, populated nation for themselves - and convince the 'global community' that it was the moral thing to do. I'd laugh at the chutzpah if this wasn't so serious.
"Even more brazen is the mass ethnic cleansing of the indigenous Palestinian population by persecuted Jews, newly arrived from their own experience of being ethnically cleansed.
"But what is truly frightening is the psychological manipulation of the masses into thinking that Palestinians are somehow dangerous - 'terrorists' intent on 'driving Jews into the sea'. As someone who makes a living through words, I find the use of language in creating perceptions to be intriguing. This practice - often termed 'public diplomacy' has become an essential tool in the world of geopolitics. Words, after all, are the building blocks of our psychology.
"The United States and Israel have created the global discourse on this issue, setting stringent parameters that grow increasingly narrow regarding the content and direction of this debate. Anything discussed outside the set parameters has, until recently, widely been viewed as unrealistic, unproductive and even subversive.
"Participation in the debate is limited only to those who subscribe to its main tenets: the acceptance of Israel, its regional hegemony and its qualitative military edge; acceptance of the shaky logic upon which the Jewish state's claim to Palestine is based; and acceptance of the inclusion and exclusion of certain regional parties, movements and governments in any solution to the conflict.
"Words like dove, hawk, militant, extremist, moderate, terrorist, Islamo-fascist, rejectionist, existential threat, holocaust-denier, mad mullah determine the participation of solution partners - and are capable of instantly excluding others.
"Then there is the language that preserves 'Israel's Right To Exist' unquestioningly: anything that invokes the Holocaust, anti-Semitism and the myths about historic Jewish rights to the land bequeathed to them by the Almighty - as though God was in the real-estate business. This language seeks not only to ensure that a Jewish connection to Palestine remains unquestioned, but importantly, seeks to punish and marginalize those who tackle the legitimacy of this modern colonial-settler experiment.
"But this group-think has led us nowhere. It has obfuscated, distracted, deflected, ducked, and diminished, and we are no closer to a satisfactory conclusion... because the premise is wrong.
"There is no fixing this problem. This is the kind of crisis in which you cut your losses, realize the error of your ways and reverse course. Israel is the problem. It is the last modern-day colonial-settler experiment, conducted at a time when these projects were being unravelled globally.
"There is no 'Palestinian-Israeli conflict' - that suggests some sort of equality in power, suffering, and negotiable tangibles, and there is no symmetry whatsoever in this equation. Israel is the Occupier and Oppressor; Palestinians are the Occupied and the Oppressed. What is there to negotiate? Israel holds all the chips. They can give back some land, property, rights, but even that is an absurdity - what about everything else? What about ALL the land, property and rights? Why do they get to keep anything - how is the appropriation of land and property prior to 1948 fundamentally different from the appropriation of land and property on this arbitrary 1967 date?
"Why are the colonial-settlers prior to 1948 any different from those who colonized and settled after 1967?
"Let me correct myself. Palestinians do hold one chip that Israel salivates over - the one big demand at the negotiating table that seems to hold up everything else. Israel craves recognition of its 'right to exist'.
"But you do exist - don't you, Israel?
"Israel fears 'delegitimization'' more than anything else. Behind the velvet curtain lies a state built on myths and narratives, protected only by a military behemoth, billions of dollars in US assistance, and a lone UN Security Council veto. Nothing else stands between the state and its dismantlement. Without these three things, Israelis would not live in an entity that has come to be known as the 'least safe place for Jews in the world'.
"Strip away the spin and the gloss, and you quickly realize that Israel doesn't even have the basics of a normal state. After 64 years, it doesn't have borders. After six decades, it has never been more isolated. Over half a century later, it needs a gargantuan military just to stop Palestinians walking home.
"Israel is a failed experiment. It is on life-support - pull those three plugs and it is a cadaver, living only in the minds of some seriously deluded foreigners who thought they could pull off the heist of the century.
"The most important thing we can do as we hover on the horizon of One State is to shed the old language rapidly. None of it was real anyway - it was just the parlance of that particular 'game'. Grow a new vocabulary of possibilities - the new state will be the dawn of humanity's great reconciliation. Muslims, Christians and Jews living together in Palestine as they once did.
"Naysayers can take a hike. Our patience is wearing thinner than the walls of the hovels that Palestinian refugees have called 'home' for three generations in their purgatory camps.
"These universally exploited refugees are entitled to the nice apartments - the ones that have pools downstairs and a grove of palm trees outside the lobby. Because the kind of compensation owed for this failed western experiment will never be enough.
"And no, nobody hates Jews. That is the fallback argument screeched in our ears - the one 'firewall' remaining to protect this Israeli Frankenstein. I don't even care enough to insert the caveats that are supposed to prove I don't hate Jews. It is not a provable point, and frankly, it is a straw man of an argument. If Jews who didn't live through the Holocaust still feel the pain of it, then take that up with the Germans. Demand a sizeable plot of land in Germany - and good luck to you.
"For anti-Semites salivating over an article that slams Israel, ply your trade elsewhere - you are part of the reason this problem exists.
"Israelis who don't want to share Palestine as equal citizens with the indigenous Palestinian population - the ones who don't want to relinquish that which they demanded Palestinians relinquish 64 years ago - can take their second passports and go back home. Those remaining had better find a positive attitude - Palestinians have shown themselves to be a forgiving lot. The amount of carnage they have experienced at the hands of their oppressors - without proportional response - shows remarkable restraint and faith.
"This is less the death of a Jewish state than it is the demise of the last remnants of modern-day colonialism. It is a rite of passage - we will get through it just fine. At this particular precipice in the 21st century, we are all, universally, Palestinian - undoing this wrong is a test of our collective humanity, and nobody has the right to sit this one out.
"Israel has no right to exist. Break that mental barrier and just say it: 'Israel has no right to exist'. Roll it around your tongue, tweet it, post it as your Facebook status update - do it before you think twice. Delegitimization is here - have no fear. Palestine will be less painful than Israel ever was." (al-akhbar.com, 17/5/12)
Friday, May 25, 2012
Thursday, May 24, 2012
Comedy... or Propaganda?
The following questions and answers are taken from a recent interview with the character Admiral General Aladeen, protagonist of Sacha Baron Cohen's film The Dictator.
The interview appeared in the Sydney Morning Herald's entertainment supplement, Metro, on May 11:
Is it true you were banned by the BBC after your Australian TV appearances?
"... All I wanted to do was use their airwaves to promote my anti-West and anti-Zionist platform."
Who are your idols when it comes to dictators?
"You have the great Saddam (Hussein), Muammar (Gaddafi)..."
You've won 3 Wadiyan Golden Globe awards as an actor. What are your favourite movies...?
"... I particularly love science fiction, particularly this film Schindler's List. I love it. It's so fantastical. Me and my friend Mahmoud Ahmadinejad see it and laugh..."
And what about peace in the Middle East?
"I look on Wikipedia and see that Israel is still in the present tense and it makes me very upset. My country is only 2000 miles... from Israel as the Scud flies."
How did you become leader?
"I rose to power in tragic circumstances. My mother died from strangulation during childbirth and my father was grenade intolerant. In the good old days of the gentlemen dictators, you simply had to murder your father but now you have to do sneaky things like rigging elections and imprisoning most of your citizens..." (Despot the difference, Jenny Cooney Carrillo)
Under the heading 'Genre', The Dictator is classified 'Comedy'. Zionist Propaganda would be more accurate.
Related post: Why 'The Dictator' is No Laughing Matter (20/5/12).
The interview appeared in the Sydney Morning Herald's entertainment supplement, Metro, on May 11:
Is it true you were banned by the BBC after your Australian TV appearances?
"... All I wanted to do was use their airwaves to promote my anti-West and anti-Zionist platform."
Who are your idols when it comes to dictators?
"You have the great Saddam (Hussein), Muammar (Gaddafi)..."
You've won 3 Wadiyan Golden Globe awards as an actor. What are your favourite movies...?
"... I particularly love science fiction, particularly this film Schindler's List. I love it. It's so fantastical. Me and my friend Mahmoud Ahmadinejad see it and laugh..."
And what about peace in the Middle East?
"I look on Wikipedia and see that Israel is still in the present tense and it makes me very upset. My country is only 2000 miles... from Israel as the Scud flies."
How did you become leader?
"I rose to power in tragic circumstances. My mother died from strangulation during childbirth and my father was grenade intolerant. In the good old days of the gentlemen dictators, you simply had to murder your father but now you have to do sneaky things like rigging elections and imprisoning most of your citizens..." (Despot the difference, Jenny Cooney Carrillo)
Under the heading 'Genre', The Dictator is classified 'Comedy'. Zionist Propaganda would be more accurate.
Related post: Why 'The Dictator' is No Laughing Matter (20/5/12).
Kafka in the Gulf 3
The Act of 1869
Before coming to the next event in the story, it will be necessary to say something of the Colonial Prisoners Removal Act, because it is on this and attendant British statutes that so much of the legal side of this affair depends. The Act, passed in 1869, was designed to deal with cases in which citizens of British colonies, sentenced to imprisonment, could not very well serve their terms in the colony of sentence; either because their continued presence there, imprisoned, might cause unrest, or because facilities for secure long-term imprisonment were lacking in some colonies. The Act therefore provided that, with the sanction of an Order in Council, a prisoner convicted in one colony might be transferred to serve his sentence in another. It was provided that the sanction of the Order in Council, under which the 'transfer' was affected, should come into force as soon as it had been published in the appropriate colony, and that when the sanction had been given the actual transfer of the prisoner might be effected under a warrant signed by the governor of the 'exporting' colony and addressed to the master of the ship that was to take the prisoner, or to some other appropriate person. And finally the Act declared that prisoners should be subject in the 'importing' colony to all laws and regulations, and should be dealt with in exactly the same manner, as would be applicable if they had been tried and sentenced in the 'importing' country.
Now this Act did not, of course, apply to foreign countries, not even those under British protection. By the Foreign Jurisdiction Act of 1890, however, it was provided that various existing Statutes applying to Britain and the colonies might be applied to foreign territories in which there was British jurisdiction, and the Foreign Jurisdiction Act, 1913, adds to the list of such statutes the Colonial Prisoners Removal Act of 1989.
And, to summarise the position regarding British jurisdiction in Bahrain, it extends to cases involving British subjects and cases involving both British and local subjects; these latter cases go, either (with the necessary concurrence of the Political Resident) to the local Bahraini courts, or to the special British Joint Court for hearing such 'mixed' cases.
To return from the general to the particular, the prisoners having been arrested on November 2 and 3, nothing further happened until, on December 1, Sir Charles Belgrave (the Ruler's Officer, not the British Government's) orally asked Sir Bernard Burrows, British Political Resident for the Persian Gulf, whether the British Government would be willing for five men who were about to be tried 'for sedition or treason' to undergo their imprisonment, if they were convicted, in a British possession. On December 18 Sir Bernard Burrows replied that this could be arranged, and that the authorities in St. Helena had expressed willingness to have the prisoners.
But on the same day, December 18, Sir Charles Belgrave, on behalf of the Ruler, handed to the Resident, for transmission to the British Government, the following astonishing document: To Her Majesty the Queen of Britain. May God preserve and keep her. In view of the ancient friendship long existing between Her Majesty's Government and us we request assistance from time to time in removing certain persons sentenced in our court to a safe place outside Bahrain for imprisonment for the appointed sentence. We beseech you to allow us to make arrangements with the Governor of the island of St. Helena for the reception of the persons who will be sent to that island in accordance with the sentence decided. Always, your Majesty, placing confidence in a response to our request. May God keep you in his care.
Now in the first place the Ruler's statement that 'we request assistance from time to time in removing certain persons sentenced in our court to a safe place outside Bahrain for imprisonment...' is simply untrue; he had never before made any such request. Much worse, however, is the implication contained in the reference to the reception in St. Helena of 'the persons who will be sent to that island in accordance with the sentence decided'. For this request was not only made five days before the 'trial' took place; it was made four days before the court set up to convict the prisoners was even called into being. In other words, the Ruler knew perfectly well what the 'verdict' would be, and the 'court' was merely there to rubber-stamp this.
The Family Trial
And a scrutiny of the 'trial' shows that his confidence was not misplaced. To begin with, the Ruler removed the case from the ordinary Bahraini courts and set up a special ad hoc court to deal with it. This court consisted of three judges (there is no trial by jury in Bahrain); they were Sheikh Abdullah, Sheikh Daij, and Sheikh Ali. All three of them are relatives of the Ruler. This family gathering, instead of hearing the case in Manamah, the normal seat of what passes for justice in Bahrain, went to a small place some miles away, called Budeya, ostensibly on the grounds that the disturbances made Manamah unsuitable. The defendants declared that the court was improperly constituted and that the trial should take place in Manamah. These contentions were naturally rejected by the Ruler's relatives, and the defendants therefore refused to enter a defence, call witnesses or address the court. One of the defendants, Al Bakir, said that he wished to make a statement provided that certain people not present (through whom alone he could hope to get the facts of the situation publicised), were brought to the court. The Ruler's relatives refused this, too, and proceeded to convict all five of the defendants of all the charges brought against them. The evidence brought against the prisoners was not of a kind that would have been entertained by any British court. The three now on St. Helena were sentenced to 14 years imprisonment, the other two to 10 years. The only right of appeal they had was to the ruler personally, and having refused the jurisdiction of a court composed of his relatives, they were doubtless not disposed to try their luck with him. At any rate, no appeal was lodged.
To be continued...
Before coming to the next event in the story, it will be necessary to say something of the Colonial Prisoners Removal Act, because it is on this and attendant British statutes that so much of the legal side of this affair depends. The Act, passed in 1869, was designed to deal with cases in which citizens of British colonies, sentenced to imprisonment, could not very well serve their terms in the colony of sentence; either because their continued presence there, imprisoned, might cause unrest, or because facilities for secure long-term imprisonment were lacking in some colonies. The Act therefore provided that, with the sanction of an Order in Council, a prisoner convicted in one colony might be transferred to serve his sentence in another. It was provided that the sanction of the Order in Council, under which the 'transfer' was affected, should come into force as soon as it had been published in the appropriate colony, and that when the sanction had been given the actual transfer of the prisoner might be effected under a warrant signed by the governor of the 'exporting' colony and addressed to the master of the ship that was to take the prisoner, or to some other appropriate person. And finally the Act declared that prisoners should be subject in the 'importing' colony to all laws and regulations, and should be dealt with in exactly the same manner, as would be applicable if they had been tried and sentenced in the 'importing' country.
Now this Act did not, of course, apply to foreign countries, not even those under British protection. By the Foreign Jurisdiction Act of 1890, however, it was provided that various existing Statutes applying to Britain and the colonies might be applied to foreign territories in which there was British jurisdiction, and the Foreign Jurisdiction Act, 1913, adds to the list of such statutes the Colonial Prisoners Removal Act of 1989.
And, to summarise the position regarding British jurisdiction in Bahrain, it extends to cases involving British subjects and cases involving both British and local subjects; these latter cases go, either (with the necessary concurrence of the Political Resident) to the local Bahraini courts, or to the special British Joint Court for hearing such 'mixed' cases.
To return from the general to the particular, the prisoners having been arrested on November 2 and 3, nothing further happened until, on December 1, Sir Charles Belgrave (the Ruler's Officer, not the British Government's) orally asked Sir Bernard Burrows, British Political Resident for the Persian Gulf, whether the British Government would be willing for five men who were about to be tried 'for sedition or treason' to undergo their imprisonment, if they were convicted, in a British possession. On December 18 Sir Bernard Burrows replied that this could be arranged, and that the authorities in St. Helena had expressed willingness to have the prisoners.
But on the same day, December 18, Sir Charles Belgrave, on behalf of the Ruler, handed to the Resident, for transmission to the British Government, the following astonishing document: To Her Majesty the Queen of Britain. May God preserve and keep her. In view of the ancient friendship long existing between Her Majesty's Government and us we request assistance from time to time in removing certain persons sentenced in our court to a safe place outside Bahrain for imprisonment for the appointed sentence. We beseech you to allow us to make arrangements with the Governor of the island of St. Helena for the reception of the persons who will be sent to that island in accordance with the sentence decided. Always, your Majesty, placing confidence in a response to our request. May God keep you in his care.
Now in the first place the Ruler's statement that 'we request assistance from time to time in removing certain persons sentenced in our court to a safe place outside Bahrain for imprisonment...' is simply untrue; he had never before made any such request. Much worse, however, is the implication contained in the reference to the reception in St. Helena of 'the persons who will be sent to that island in accordance with the sentence decided'. For this request was not only made five days before the 'trial' took place; it was made four days before the court set up to convict the prisoners was even called into being. In other words, the Ruler knew perfectly well what the 'verdict' would be, and the 'court' was merely there to rubber-stamp this.
The Family Trial
And a scrutiny of the 'trial' shows that his confidence was not misplaced. To begin with, the Ruler removed the case from the ordinary Bahraini courts and set up a special ad hoc court to deal with it. This court consisted of three judges (there is no trial by jury in Bahrain); they were Sheikh Abdullah, Sheikh Daij, and Sheikh Ali. All three of them are relatives of the Ruler. This family gathering, instead of hearing the case in Manamah, the normal seat of what passes for justice in Bahrain, went to a small place some miles away, called Budeya, ostensibly on the grounds that the disturbances made Manamah unsuitable. The defendants declared that the court was improperly constituted and that the trial should take place in Manamah. These contentions were naturally rejected by the Ruler's relatives, and the defendants therefore refused to enter a defence, call witnesses or address the court. One of the defendants, Al Bakir, said that he wished to make a statement provided that certain people not present (through whom alone he could hope to get the facts of the situation publicised), were brought to the court. The Ruler's relatives refused this, too, and proceeded to convict all five of the defendants of all the charges brought against them. The evidence brought against the prisoners was not of a kind that would have been entertained by any British court. The three now on St. Helena were sentenced to 14 years imprisonment, the other two to 10 years. The only right of appeal they had was to the ruler personally, and having refused the jurisdiction of a court composed of his relatives, they were doubtless not disposed to try their luck with him. At any rate, no appeal was lodged.
To be continued...
Kafka in the Gulf 2
Absolute Rule
The story begins in November, 1956, in Bahrain. Bahrain is not, of course, a British territory, but it is a territory under British protection: it has a British Political Agent (at the material time Mr Charles Alexander Gault) and a British political Officer (a lower rank; at the time, Mr Alfred Francis Ward) who represent the British Government in Bahraini affairs, and exercise the protection of the British Government. Above the Political Agent for Bahrain there is the British Political Resident for the Persian Gulf (then Sir Bernard Burrows).
Bahrain is under the absolute personal rule (subject only to British administration of external affairs, exercised through Resident and Agent) of the Ruler, Sheikh Salman bin Hamed. He had, at the time our story starts, a British Political Adviser, Sir Charles Belgrave: the Adviser, unlike the Resident and the Agent, is in the employ of the Ruler, not of the British Government, and acts exclusively on his behalf. Sir Charles was, in effect, Prime Minister of Bahrain, a post he held from 1926 to 1957, and one of the more touching facts in this history is that he got the post by answering an advertisement the Ruler put in the British press; it is perhaps the only occasion in history when a Prime Minister has been appointed in this fashion. Anyway, Sir Charles Belgrave was not, to say the least, an outstandingly progressive or flexible Prime Minister of Bahrain, and was, for the last years of his appointment at least, rarely in the position of urging the Ruler to go faster and further in modernising the political conditions in Bahrain than the Ruler himself would have been inclined to do. It was the British officials - Resident and Agent - who pressed the Ruler to modernise his regime, and the few concessions he made were almost entirely due to British Government pressure.
The Ruler's Law
There was nothing in Bahrain, at the material time, that would be recognised as a law in this country: what its citizens might, might not and had to do was at any given moment what the Ruler decided. There is now a rudimentary legal code, but the prisoners in this case were not tried according to its provisions (which did not exist) or indeed according to the provisions of any legal code whatever. With the exception of certain cases within the jurisdiction of the British Government (constitutionally speaking, of Her Majesty), all cases go either to the existing Bahraini courts, or to special courts that the Ruler may set up, and how, where, and by whom cases are heard and judged is within the Ruler's absolute discretion.
Cases in which there is British jurisdiction are specified in the Bahrain Order, 1952. This applies to all persons in Bahrain except Bahraini subjects and corporations, and subjects of the Rulers of Saudi Arabia, the Yemen, Muscat and Oman, Kuwait, Qatar or any of the Trucial States. For dealing with everybody else, the Order makes provision in Bahrain for different kinds of British courts. One, called the Joint Court, exists to deal with what are called Mixed Cases: these are cases (civil or criminal) in which persons subject to the Order and persons not subject to the Order are both parties. In other words, if a British citizen in Bahrain is involved in a dispute at law, or a crime, with a Bahraini citizen, the case is heard before the Joint Court; if only British citizens are involved it is heard before what is called the Court for Bahrain, and of course if only Bahrainis (or other local subjects) are involved the British courts have no jurisdiction, and the permanent and special Bahraini courts hear the case. (The reason for this Order is, of course, that the Bahraini courts are very properly considered quite unfit to try British subjects. They are also unfit to try Bahraini subjects, but HMG can hardly do anything about that.)
There is one loophole in this Order, which was to prove of great importance in the present case. The loophole consists of a section which provides that, with the concurrence of the Political Resident, mixed cases may (despite the special Joint Court for dealing with them) be transferred to the ordinary local courts. In an access of generosity, however, the Political Resident, Sir Bernard Burrows, gave a general concurrence in 1953 that all such 'mixed cases' could be heard before the local courts; in effect, therefore, he abolished the Joint Court entirely.
The Committee
There are no political rights in Bahrain, but some years ago an organisation known first as the High Executive Committee, and later as the Committee of National Union, came into being, one of its aims being a less authoritarian system of government in the territory. Three of the members of this Committee of National Union were Abdul Rahman Al Bakir, Abdul Aziz Al Shamlan and Abdullah Al Aliwat. The Committee was well known as the mildest, most inoffensive and least demanding nationalist group in the Middle East. Their objective was no more than to have elected representatives to sit on the advisory committees (for health, education, etc) that were entirely nominated by the Ruler. (These committees in any case had no powers apart from that of advising the Ruler and Sir Charles Belgrave.) Their aim would have been regarded as ludicrously inadequate by a Rural District Council in Britain, yet they were met with protracted delay and opposition from Sir Charles. When a BBC television unit went to Bahrain in June, 1956, there were some revealing exchanges between the interviewer (Mr Woodrow Wyatt) and Al Shamlan (Secretary of the Committee and now one of the three prisoners on St. Helena).
Wyatt: What is it that the Committee wants?
Al Shamlan: The Committee wants reform and wants to participate in the administration of the country.
Wyatt: Does it not participate in the affairs of Bahrain at all at the monent?
Al Shamlan: Not at all at the moment, people are not participating in their own affairs. It is only one-man rule.
Wyatt: What is the system of justice in Bahrain?
Al Shamlan: There is no justice. Actually, we have no rules whatever. We haven't got a code, we haven't got a penal code either.
Wyatt: No laws?
Al Shamlan: No laws. And that's what we are trying to get for this country. We want to get laws for the country.
Wyatt: And why do you want Sir Charles Belgrave to go?
Al Shamlan: Well... he is administrating hospitals, police, customs, finance, justice - that can't be for one man.
On March 2, 1956, when Mr Selwyn Lloyd was visiting Bahrain, there was a demonstration, and stones were thrown at his car. Al Shamlan declared that this demonstration (which had not been organised by his Committee) was not a demonstration against Mr Lloyd personally, or against the British Government - the Committee insisted that they wanted Bahrain to retain its British connection - but 'to give an expression about Sir Charles Belgrave only... the people, as they want him to go, they wanted that Selwyn Lloyd knows this fact'.
Following the launching of the Suez attack at the end of October, 1956, there were disturbances in various parts of the Middle East, in the form of protests and demonstrations against the action, and in Bahrain, in particular (because of the British-protected status of the territory), against the British part in it. Following these disturbances, one man was arrested there on November 2, and four more (including the three mentioned) on November 3. None of these men is a British subject (there is some doubt as to whether Abdul Rahman Al Bakir is a citizen of Bahrain or of Qatar, but he lived in Bahrain). What they were charged with was as follows" The attempted assassination of of the Ruler and of some of his family and of his Adviser (Sir Charles Belgrave); the destruction of the Ruler's palace; setting fire to the airport of Al Moharraq and other places; the overthrow by illegal means of governmental control [there are, of course, no legal means in Bahrain of altering the governmental control]; and the deposition of the Ruler.
This is, it will readily be seen, a pretty full morning's work, and why persons assassinating the Ruler should subsequently wish to depose him may not be entirely clear. Be this as it may, the men were arrested and charged (though it is not clear how long they were held before being charged, and nothing like habeas corpus proceedings exist in Bahrain), and nothing further happened for some weeks.
To be continued...
The story begins in November, 1956, in Bahrain. Bahrain is not, of course, a British territory, but it is a territory under British protection: it has a British Political Agent (at the material time Mr Charles Alexander Gault) and a British political Officer (a lower rank; at the time, Mr Alfred Francis Ward) who represent the British Government in Bahraini affairs, and exercise the protection of the British Government. Above the Political Agent for Bahrain there is the British Political Resident for the Persian Gulf (then Sir Bernard Burrows).
Bahrain is under the absolute personal rule (subject only to British administration of external affairs, exercised through Resident and Agent) of the Ruler, Sheikh Salman bin Hamed. He had, at the time our story starts, a British Political Adviser, Sir Charles Belgrave: the Adviser, unlike the Resident and the Agent, is in the employ of the Ruler, not of the British Government, and acts exclusively on his behalf. Sir Charles was, in effect, Prime Minister of Bahrain, a post he held from 1926 to 1957, and one of the more touching facts in this history is that he got the post by answering an advertisement the Ruler put in the British press; it is perhaps the only occasion in history when a Prime Minister has been appointed in this fashion. Anyway, Sir Charles Belgrave was not, to say the least, an outstandingly progressive or flexible Prime Minister of Bahrain, and was, for the last years of his appointment at least, rarely in the position of urging the Ruler to go faster and further in modernising the political conditions in Bahrain than the Ruler himself would have been inclined to do. It was the British officials - Resident and Agent - who pressed the Ruler to modernise his regime, and the few concessions he made were almost entirely due to British Government pressure.
The Ruler's Law
There was nothing in Bahrain, at the material time, that would be recognised as a law in this country: what its citizens might, might not and had to do was at any given moment what the Ruler decided. There is now a rudimentary legal code, but the prisoners in this case were not tried according to its provisions (which did not exist) or indeed according to the provisions of any legal code whatever. With the exception of certain cases within the jurisdiction of the British Government (constitutionally speaking, of Her Majesty), all cases go either to the existing Bahraini courts, or to special courts that the Ruler may set up, and how, where, and by whom cases are heard and judged is within the Ruler's absolute discretion.
Cases in which there is British jurisdiction are specified in the Bahrain Order, 1952. This applies to all persons in Bahrain except Bahraini subjects and corporations, and subjects of the Rulers of Saudi Arabia, the Yemen, Muscat and Oman, Kuwait, Qatar or any of the Trucial States. For dealing with everybody else, the Order makes provision in Bahrain for different kinds of British courts. One, called the Joint Court, exists to deal with what are called Mixed Cases: these are cases (civil or criminal) in which persons subject to the Order and persons not subject to the Order are both parties. In other words, if a British citizen in Bahrain is involved in a dispute at law, or a crime, with a Bahraini citizen, the case is heard before the Joint Court; if only British citizens are involved it is heard before what is called the Court for Bahrain, and of course if only Bahrainis (or other local subjects) are involved the British courts have no jurisdiction, and the permanent and special Bahraini courts hear the case. (The reason for this Order is, of course, that the Bahraini courts are very properly considered quite unfit to try British subjects. They are also unfit to try Bahraini subjects, but HMG can hardly do anything about that.)
There is one loophole in this Order, which was to prove of great importance in the present case. The loophole consists of a section which provides that, with the concurrence of the Political Resident, mixed cases may (despite the special Joint Court for dealing with them) be transferred to the ordinary local courts. In an access of generosity, however, the Political Resident, Sir Bernard Burrows, gave a general concurrence in 1953 that all such 'mixed cases' could be heard before the local courts; in effect, therefore, he abolished the Joint Court entirely.
The Committee
There are no political rights in Bahrain, but some years ago an organisation known first as the High Executive Committee, and later as the Committee of National Union, came into being, one of its aims being a less authoritarian system of government in the territory. Three of the members of this Committee of National Union were Abdul Rahman Al Bakir, Abdul Aziz Al Shamlan and Abdullah Al Aliwat. The Committee was well known as the mildest, most inoffensive and least demanding nationalist group in the Middle East. Their objective was no more than to have elected representatives to sit on the advisory committees (for health, education, etc) that were entirely nominated by the Ruler. (These committees in any case had no powers apart from that of advising the Ruler and Sir Charles Belgrave.) Their aim would have been regarded as ludicrously inadequate by a Rural District Council in Britain, yet they were met with protracted delay and opposition from Sir Charles. When a BBC television unit went to Bahrain in June, 1956, there were some revealing exchanges between the interviewer (Mr Woodrow Wyatt) and Al Shamlan (Secretary of the Committee and now one of the three prisoners on St. Helena).
Wyatt: What is it that the Committee wants?
Al Shamlan: The Committee wants reform and wants to participate in the administration of the country.
Wyatt: Does it not participate in the affairs of Bahrain at all at the monent?
Al Shamlan: Not at all at the moment, people are not participating in their own affairs. It is only one-man rule.
Wyatt: What is the system of justice in Bahrain?
Al Shamlan: There is no justice. Actually, we have no rules whatever. We haven't got a code, we haven't got a penal code either.
Wyatt: No laws?
Al Shamlan: No laws. And that's what we are trying to get for this country. We want to get laws for the country.
Wyatt: And why do you want Sir Charles Belgrave to go?
Al Shamlan: Well... he is administrating hospitals, police, customs, finance, justice - that can't be for one man.
On March 2, 1956, when Mr Selwyn Lloyd was visiting Bahrain, there was a demonstration, and stones were thrown at his car. Al Shamlan declared that this demonstration (which had not been organised by his Committee) was not a demonstration against Mr Lloyd personally, or against the British Government - the Committee insisted that they wanted Bahrain to retain its British connection - but 'to give an expression about Sir Charles Belgrave only... the people, as they want him to go, they wanted that Selwyn Lloyd knows this fact'.
Following the launching of the Suez attack at the end of October, 1956, there were disturbances in various parts of the Middle East, in the form of protests and demonstrations against the action, and in Bahrain, in particular (because of the British-protected status of the territory), against the British part in it. Following these disturbances, one man was arrested there on November 2, and four more (including the three mentioned) on November 3. None of these men is a British subject (there is some doubt as to whether Abdul Rahman Al Bakir is a citizen of Bahrain or of Qatar, but he lived in Bahrain). What they were charged with was as follows" The attempted assassination of of the Ruler and of some of his family and of his Adviser (Sir Charles Belgrave); the destruction of the Ruler's palace; setting fire to the airport of Al Moharraq and other places; the overthrow by illegal means of governmental control [there are, of course, no legal means in Bahrain of altering the governmental control]; and the deposition of the Ruler.
This is, it will readily be seen, a pretty full morning's work, and why persons assassinating the Ruler should subsequently wish to depose him may not be entirely clear. Be this as it may, the men were arrested and charged (though it is not clear how long they were held before being charged, and nothing like habeas corpus proceedings exist in Bahrain), and nothing further happened for some weeks.
To be continued...
Wednesday, May 23, 2012
Greg Sheridan Nailed on Q&A
Given the presence on the Q & A panel last night of ex-CIA interrogator turned whistleblowing author (The Interrogator: A CIA Agent's True Story), Glenn Carle, the subject of torture was inevitable. Greg (Jerusalem Prize) Sheridan, The Australian's foreign editor, and an unabashed apologist for all things USraeli (who had earlier in the discussion loudly declared that worked for Murdoch), was decidedly shifty. Torture was out, he said, but that old euphemism for same, 'enhanced interrogation techniques', now that was a different matter:
GS: "I don't think that it's about black and white. I don't think you're obliged to give the Taliban that you captured on the battlefield a slice of apple pie, a cup of tea and a warm environment. I think you're allowed to be pretty robust in your questioning, and the moral dilemma comes about when you think this person has information which may well save innocent lives if he gives it to us. Now..."
Tony Jones (interrupting): Can I ask you what is the limitation you put on this because you know that American Republican officials at very senior levels talk about enhanced interrogation techniques and there's a whole set of things you can and can't do to people?
GS: "Well, I think there have got to be rules and the CIA as I understand it ask for proper legal guidance all the time and find it very difficult to get legal guidelines. There have got to be rules..."
Tony Jones (interrupting): But they ended up doing a lot of waterboarding for example, so just to test you here, do you think waterboarding is legitimate?
GS: "Well, I would say this. Although I have the greatest respect for our fellow panelist there are other authors with similar knowledge who are of the view that enhanced interrogation techniques did provide life-saving information. Now it seems to me..."
Tony Jones (interrupting): Just to get back to my question. Do you condone waterboarding?
GS: "If the technique doesn't leave any lasting physical or psychological damage then I think you have to examine whether in an extreme case it might be allowed but I wouldn't allow a blanket policy saying yes you can waterboard. But I wouldn't absolutely rule out things which are pretty stressful in the interrogation department."
***
Tony Jones (addressing Glenn Carle): You're the expert on the subject. Do the ends justify the means?
GC: "No they don't. We just heard really the world as described by Rupert Murdoch and the Republican Party in the US, not a word of which makes sense as related to the truth and the law and our heritage and effective interrogation... There are four people who've written and spoken out about quote enhanced interrogation techniques since they occurred after 9/11. Two army officers who were interrogators, an FBI officer who was an interrogator, and a CIA officer - myself. None of us knew each other. All of us say almost verbatim the same things, which is that it doesn't work, it's illegal, it's immoral and it's unnecessary. The only people who've spoken out in favour of quote enhanced interrogation techniques - the only ones - are one of two categories. Either the individuals who made the policies and are trying to defend them for their legacy and for legal defence reasons, or the shills for the policies themselves. They're the only ones..."
So let me get this straight, as they say, here we have an ex-CIA man, who has seen and heard it all (and for whom, incidentally, Sheridan has professed nothing but the greatest respect), not only dismissing him as a mere mouthpiece for Murdoch and the Bushies, but nailing him as a shill for the waterboarders. Television doesn't get more real than that.
GS: "I don't think that it's about black and white. I don't think you're obliged to give the Taliban that you captured on the battlefield a slice of apple pie, a cup of tea and a warm environment. I think you're allowed to be pretty robust in your questioning, and the moral dilemma comes about when you think this person has information which may well save innocent lives if he gives it to us. Now..."
Tony Jones (interrupting): Can I ask you what is the limitation you put on this because you know that American Republican officials at very senior levels talk about enhanced interrogation techniques and there's a whole set of things you can and can't do to people?
GS: "Well, I think there have got to be rules and the CIA as I understand it ask for proper legal guidance all the time and find it very difficult to get legal guidelines. There have got to be rules..."
Tony Jones (interrupting): But they ended up doing a lot of waterboarding for example, so just to test you here, do you think waterboarding is legitimate?
GS: "Well, I would say this. Although I have the greatest respect for our fellow panelist there are other authors with similar knowledge who are of the view that enhanced interrogation techniques did provide life-saving information. Now it seems to me..."
Tony Jones (interrupting): Just to get back to my question. Do you condone waterboarding?
GS: "If the technique doesn't leave any lasting physical or psychological damage then I think you have to examine whether in an extreme case it might be allowed but I wouldn't allow a blanket policy saying yes you can waterboard. But I wouldn't absolutely rule out things which are pretty stressful in the interrogation department."
***
Tony Jones (addressing Glenn Carle): You're the expert on the subject. Do the ends justify the means?
GC: "No they don't. We just heard really the world as described by Rupert Murdoch and the Republican Party in the US, not a word of which makes sense as related to the truth and the law and our heritage and effective interrogation... There are four people who've written and spoken out about quote enhanced interrogation techniques since they occurred after 9/11. Two army officers who were interrogators, an FBI officer who was an interrogator, and a CIA officer - myself. None of us knew each other. All of us say almost verbatim the same things, which is that it doesn't work, it's illegal, it's immoral and it's unnecessary. The only people who've spoken out in favour of quote enhanced interrogation techniques - the only ones - are one of two categories. Either the individuals who made the policies and are trying to defend them for their legacy and for legal defence reasons, or the shills for the policies themselves. They're the only ones..."
So let me get this straight, as they say, here we have an ex-CIA man, who has seen and heard it all (and for whom, incidentally, Sheridan has professed nothing but the greatest respect), not only dismissing him as a mere mouthpiece for Murdoch and the Bushies, but nailing him as a shill for the waterboarders. Television doesn't get more real than that.
Tuesday, May 22, 2012
Kafka in the Gulf 1
Think Britain handing Palestine to the Zionist movement in 1917, or the so-called Act of Free Choice of 1969 which led to West Papua being delivered to the Indonesians. Both were monstrous acts of injustice with the direst of consequences for the peoples of both lands.
And why cite such appalling cases? Well, I've just read this:
"Tens of thousands of protesters took to the streets of Bahrain's capital city of Manama today, condemning King Hamad al-Khalifa for agreeing to enter a formal union with the Saudi royal family. The deal has the island's Shi'ite majority up in arms, interpreting the plan as a thinly veiled attempt by the Saudis to sideline their calls for democratic reforms. Saudi Arabia invaded Bahrain last year to help crush pro-democracy protests. The exact terms of the union have been nebulous so far, but officials have said it would unify the Saudi and Bahraini states on security, economic and diplomatic policies. Considering how much larger Saudi Arabia is, many have criticized it as a de facto annexation." (Tens of thousands protest in Bahrain against 'Saudi union', Jason Ditz, antiwar.com, 18/5/12)
What sort of regime could possibly contemplate, let alone carry out, such a flagrantly anti-democratic move? Obviously, one for whom the will of the people is, and always has been, anathema.
Meet the now 229-year old ruling dynasty of Bahrain, the Al-Khalifas.
One of the best introductions to the nature of this dynastic tyranny and its one-time British 'protectors' is a series of 3 feature articles by one of the UK's top journalists, the late Bernard Levin (1928-2004), published in the then progressive Spectator magazine in the early 1960s. In them Levin tells the story, in his own inimitable, punchy style, of a quite singular Kafkaesque injustice perpetrated on 3 hapless Bahrainis by the island's then ruler, aided and abetted at every turn by a motley crew of truly imbecilic Brits, some at the centre of British political life, some not.
In light of the appalling situation in which the people of Bahrain find themselves today, and the consequent need to background what it is precisely that they are up against. I've decided it'd be useful to resurrect (it's not on the internet) and serialise Levin's 3 articles - The Prisoners of St. Helena (1/7/60), The Prisoners of St.Helena: Part 2 (30/12/60), and The Ex-Prisoners of St. Helena (16/6/61) - under the heading of Kafka in the Gulf.
I'm not sure quite how many posts this will require, nor will they always be in consecutive order - there's simply too much else going on here and in the region - but I advise you to persevere. This surreal story has, in Bernard Levin, found an exceptional voice. Nor are the insights confined to the outrageously medieval politics of Bahrain. Few journalists have served up the politicians of their day on toast as well as Levin. But enough of that. I'll conclude this post with the opening paragraphs of The Prisoners of St. Helena:
On December 22, 1956, there appeared in the island of St. Helena (a British Colony) an Extraordinary Issue of the St. Helena Government Gazette containing the following announcement: An urgent request made on behalf of Her Majesty's Government was recently received by His Excellency the Governor, as to the possibility of arranging for the detention in St. Helena of five subjects of the Ruler of Bahrain in the Persian Gulf, convicted of political offences. After discussing all aspects of this request with the Executive Council, the Governor informed the Secretary of State for the Colonies of his concurrence in the proposed arrangements. It is expected that these persons will be brought to St. Helena in one of Her Majesty's ships in the latter part of January, and that they will be detained at Munden's.
And so indeed they were, and are. But since their trial for 'political offences' did not begin until December 23, the day after the publication in the St. Helena Government Gazette of the announcement that they would shortly be coming there, convicted, it seems to me that the Extraordinary Issue of the St. Helena Government Gazette was Extraordinary in more than the technical sense, and that the case whose outcome it so prophetically referred before it had started will bear investigation. And, as will be seen, the case becomes more extraordinary, and for that matter more disquieting, as investigation proceeds.
To be continued...
And why cite such appalling cases? Well, I've just read this:
"Tens of thousands of protesters took to the streets of Bahrain's capital city of Manama today, condemning King Hamad al-Khalifa for agreeing to enter a formal union with the Saudi royal family. The deal has the island's Shi'ite majority up in arms, interpreting the plan as a thinly veiled attempt by the Saudis to sideline their calls for democratic reforms. Saudi Arabia invaded Bahrain last year to help crush pro-democracy protests. The exact terms of the union have been nebulous so far, but officials have said it would unify the Saudi and Bahraini states on security, economic and diplomatic policies. Considering how much larger Saudi Arabia is, many have criticized it as a de facto annexation." (Tens of thousands protest in Bahrain against 'Saudi union', Jason Ditz, antiwar.com, 18/5/12)
What sort of regime could possibly contemplate, let alone carry out, such a flagrantly anti-democratic move? Obviously, one for whom the will of the people is, and always has been, anathema.
Meet the now 229-year old ruling dynasty of Bahrain, the Al-Khalifas.
One of the best introductions to the nature of this dynastic tyranny and its one-time British 'protectors' is a series of 3 feature articles by one of the UK's top journalists, the late Bernard Levin (1928-2004), published in the then progressive Spectator magazine in the early 1960s. In them Levin tells the story, in his own inimitable, punchy style, of a quite singular Kafkaesque injustice perpetrated on 3 hapless Bahrainis by the island's then ruler, aided and abetted at every turn by a motley crew of truly imbecilic Brits, some at the centre of British political life, some not.
In light of the appalling situation in which the people of Bahrain find themselves today, and the consequent need to background what it is precisely that they are up against. I've decided it'd be useful to resurrect (it's not on the internet) and serialise Levin's 3 articles - The Prisoners of St. Helena (1/7/60), The Prisoners of St.Helena: Part 2 (30/12/60), and The Ex-Prisoners of St. Helena (16/6/61) - under the heading of Kafka in the Gulf.
I'm not sure quite how many posts this will require, nor will they always be in consecutive order - there's simply too much else going on here and in the region - but I advise you to persevere. This surreal story has, in Bernard Levin, found an exceptional voice. Nor are the insights confined to the outrageously medieval politics of Bahrain. Few journalists have served up the politicians of their day on toast as well as Levin. But enough of that. I'll conclude this post with the opening paragraphs of The Prisoners of St. Helena:
On December 22, 1956, there appeared in the island of St. Helena (a British Colony) an Extraordinary Issue of the St. Helena Government Gazette containing the following announcement: An urgent request made on behalf of Her Majesty's Government was recently received by His Excellency the Governor, as to the possibility of arranging for the detention in St. Helena of five subjects of the Ruler of Bahrain in the Persian Gulf, convicted of political offences. After discussing all aspects of this request with the Executive Council, the Governor informed the Secretary of State for the Colonies of his concurrence in the proposed arrangements. It is expected that these persons will be brought to St. Helena in one of Her Majesty's ships in the latter part of January, and that they will be detained at Munden's.
And so indeed they were, and are. But since their trial for 'political offences' did not begin until December 23, the day after the publication in the St. Helena Government Gazette of the announcement that they would shortly be coming there, convicted, it seems to me that the Extraordinary Issue of the St. Helena Government Gazette was Extraordinary in more than the technical sense, and that the case whose outcome it so prophetically referred before it had started will bear investigation. And, as will be seen, the case becomes more extraordinary, and for that matter more disquieting, as investigation proceeds.
To be continued...
Monday, May 21, 2012
Of Course, This Couldn't Possibly Happen Here
To
The Chief Minister,
Shri Prithviraj Chavan,
Government of Maharashtra,
Mumbai,
India,
Sub: We condemn the Mumbai Police action & confiscation of our 'Boycott Israel-Save India, 15th May Nakba-Day' Banners from a private office premise.
Respected Sir,
Namaste!
We are extremely peturbed and angry at the fact that today, on the 18th of May 2012, at 3.00pm, the Agripada police raided the premises of the Jamat-i-Islami-i-Hind at Madanpura & confiscated the 'May 15 - Nakba Day' banners. The office staff were called over to the Agripada Police Station for further questioning. Soon after, on making calls to the police station, which had earlier refused to give us any information, but after sustained calls from various important quarters we were informed that it was on the behest & instructions of the Israeli consulate in Mumbai, that the police went into action. This is indeed a matter of great concern, whereby the local police is now acting as an agent of a foreign consulate against Indian citizens.
This is clearly an infringement of our sovereign & democratic rights & we thus lodge our protest & condemn the action of the police as strongly as possible. The banners were not put up in any public space without the due permission of the municipal authorities, as is the norm. The banners were strung outside the balcony on the first floor of the said private premises. Moreover the banners had the following messages in the context of the May 15th protests that are held globally.
i) Boycott Israel - Save India!!
ii) Free Palestine & Right of Return of the Refugees
iii) May 15th - Nakba Protests!!
These banners and protests are in keeping with our historical national tradition of supporting the anti-colonial freedom struggles* & the international political consensus in terms of the global day of protests against the creation of the Zionist Apartheid Racist Israel.
Thus we demand that action be taken against:
i) The Israeli consulate, wherein they are clearly told to operate within the limits of a foreign entity as a consulate & not step beyond the boundaries & the laws of our country. They need to be told that they are not the new viceroys of India, where they can directly call up the local police station & have them raid & arrest patriotic citizens.
Though this problem also stems from the fact that due to state policy a number of low level police officials are also travelling to Israel, for so-called anti-terror training whilst it is a well known fact that Israel is the fountainhead of terror in the world.
This flawed training of our police by certified Islamophobes has resulted in an increased wave of anti-Muslim xenophobia amongst our police & intelligence services, as has been evident in the persecution of Muslim youth in the course of the last two decades.
Meanwhile, a significant number of Mossad agents have been identified & expelled from India for indulging in espionage, drug peddling & weapons smuggling. Also the links of racist Israel with the extreme right-wing Manuwadi forces, namely the BJP-RSS-VHP-BD, all stand exposed.
Yet the secular Congress-led UPA turns a blind eye to the Mossad operations in our city & across the country.
Israel poses a grave security threat to the very sovereignty & unity of our country. Today, the dubious & perfidious role of the Zionist-Israeli Lobby in America & the Western world stands exposed & Israel stands at the bottom of public opinion across the world. Yet the ruling political elite in our country do not seem to understand the obvious. Also the corrupting role of Israeli weapons manufacturers has been exposed by none less than the Defence Ministry itself, whereby 4 Israeli companies have been banned for bribing politicians, military officials and bureaucrats. The links of the Mossad & the Abhinav Bharat & Sanatan Sanstha terror organizations are also being probed due to the charge-sheet filed by Shaheed ATS Chief Hemant Karkare.
Thus it is also due to the flawed policies of the government, where the likes of racist Israelis operate with impunity, even by-passing the official corridors of power & our intel-security apparatus.
ii) The DCP Mr Kishore Jadhav & the Sr Inspector Mr Suryavanshi (Agripada Police Station) all need to be taken to task for operating at the behest of the Israeli consulate as their agents.
All the police stations in our city of Mumbai, across Maharashtra & India, need to be warned that they cannot be acting at a telephone call from either the Israeli, the American, or any other foreign power.
The next time the people of this city will lay siege to the police station if our sovereign democratic rights as Indian citizens are again infringed upon.
We also demand that the Home Minister, Mr P R Patil, take the appropirate action against these errant officials so we do not see a repeat of these abominable acts ever again.
We represent the patriotic tradition of our Freedom Movement against the British colonial occupation of our Motherland & we will not stand by and see our nation be colonized once again by American & Israeli imperialists. We will not betray the sacrifices & the memories of our founding fathers & the thousands who laid down their lives for a free India.
Today there is a movement across the world where the masses are challenging the US-Israeli-European Neo-colonial project & the demise of the Western imperial powers is destined.
It is time for the Indian political class to understand these new political realities for the future of our nation & the world is at stake.
We walk in the path of Mahatma Gandhi, Maulana Azad, Mahatma Phule, Dr Baba Saheb Ambedkar, Subash Chandra Bhose & Bhagat Singh & it is their teachings that we will strive to carry on.
Jai Hind!! Jai Bharat!!
Feroze Mithiborwala, Kishore Jagtap, Aslam Ghazi, Jyoti Badekar & Arif Kapadia
(From Mumbai police confiscate Nakba Day banners, Bharat Bachao Andolan, countercurrents.org, 19/5/12)
[* "What was still more unpleasant for the Government, the Moslem world outside Palestine began to raise its voice. An all-India Moslem Conference for Palestine was held in Bombay [now Mumbai, in May 1922] and passed a resolution that the Holy Land of Palestine was the trust of the whole Moslem world and not of the Moslems of Palestine alone. It demanded the abolition of the Balfour Declaration, the termination of the Mandate and the establishment of self-government there. It decided to celebrate a 'Palestine Day' throughout India, Burma and Ceylon, on Friday the 16th [May], to begin after prayers at the mosques. This was held as arranged, and in Bombay particularly was on an impressive scale. Long processions paraded through the Moslem quarters, waving banners inscribed 'Down with the Balfour Declaration!' and Reuter cabled that a meeting in the evening was attended by 100,000 persons." (Palestine: The Reality (1939), JMN Jeffries, p 620)]
The Chief Minister,
Shri Prithviraj Chavan,
Government of Maharashtra,
Mumbai,
India,
Sub: We condemn the Mumbai Police action & confiscation of our 'Boycott Israel-Save India, 15th May Nakba-Day' Banners from a private office premise.
Respected Sir,
Namaste!
We are extremely peturbed and angry at the fact that today, on the 18th of May 2012, at 3.00pm, the Agripada police raided the premises of the Jamat-i-Islami-i-Hind at Madanpura & confiscated the 'May 15 - Nakba Day' banners. The office staff were called over to the Agripada Police Station for further questioning. Soon after, on making calls to the police station, which had earlier refused to give us any information, but after sustained calls from various important quarters we were informed that it was on the behest & instructions of the Israeli consulate in Mumbai, that the police went into action. This is indeed a matter of great concern, whereby the local police is now acting as an agent of a foreign consulate against Indian citizens.
This is clearly an infringement of our sovereign & democratic rights & we thus lodge our protest & condemn the action of the police as strongly as possible. The banners were not put up in any public space without the due permission of the municipal authorities, as is the norm. The banners were strung outside the balcony on the first floor of the said private premises. Moreover the banners had the following messages in the context of the May 15th protests that are held globally.
i) Boycott Israel - Save India!!
ii) Free Palestine & Right of Return of the Refugees
iii) May 15th - Nakba Protests!!
These banners and protests are in keeping with our historical national tradition of supporting the anti-colonial freedom struggles* & the international political consensus in terms of the global day of protests against the creation of the Zionist Apartheid Racist Israel.
Thus we demand that action be taken against:
i) The Israeli consulate, wherein they are clearly told to operate within the limits of a foreign entity as a consulate & not step beyond the boundaries & the laws of our country. They need to be told that they are not the new viceroys of India, where they can directly call up the local police station & have them raid & arrest patriotic citizens.
Though this problem also stems from the fact that due to state policy a number of low level police officials are also travelling to Israel, for so-called anti-terror training whilst it is a well known fact that Israel is the fountainhead of terror in the world.
This flawed training of our police by certified Islamophobes has resulted in an increased wave of anti-Muslim xenophobia amongst our police & intelligence services, as has been evident in the persecution of Muslim youth in the course of the last two decades.
Meanwhile, a significant number of Mossad agents have been identified & expelled from India for indulging in espionage, drug peddling & weapons smuggling. Also the links of racist Israel with the extreme right-wing Manuwadi forces, namely the BJP-RSS-VHP-BD, all stand exposed.
Yet the secular Congress-led UPA turns a blind eye to the Mossad operations in our city & across the country.
Israel poses a grave security threat to the very sovereignty & unity of our country. Today, the dubious & perfidious role of the Zionist-Israeli Lobby in America & the Western world stands exposed & Israel stands at the bottom of public opinion across the world. Yet the ruling political elite in our country do not seem to understand the obvious. Also the corrupting role of Israeli weapons manufacturers has been exposed by none less than the Defence Ministry itself, whereby 4 Israeli companies have been banned for bribing politicians, military officials and bureaucrats. The links of the Mossad & the Abhinav Bharat & Sanatan Sanstha terror organizations are also being probed due to the charge-sheet filed by Shaheed ATS Chief Hemant Karkare.
Thus it is also due to the flawed policies of the government, where the likes of racist Israelis operate with impunity, even by-passing the official corridors of power & our intel-security apparatus.
ii) The DCP Mr Kishore Jadhav & the Sr Inspector Mr Suryavanshi (Agripada Police Station) all need to be taken to task for operating at the behest of the Israeli consulate as their agents.
All the police stations in our city of Mumbai, across Maharashtra & India, need to be warned that they cannot be acting at a telephone call from either the Israeli, the American, or any other foreign power.
The next time the people of this city will lay siege to the police station if our sovereign democratic rights as Indian citizens are again infringed upon.
We also demand that the Home Minister, Mr P R Patil, take the appropirate action against these errant officials so we do not see a repeat of these abominable acts ever again.
We represent the patriotic tradition of our Freedom Movement against the British colonial occupation of our Motherland & we will not stand by and see our nation be colonized once again by American & Israeli imperialists. We will not betray the sacrifices & the memories of our founding fathers & the thousands who laid down their lives for a free India.
Today there is a movement across the world where the masses are challenging the US-Israeli-European Neo-colonial project & the demise of the Western imperial powers is destined.
It is time for the Indian political class to understand these new political realities for the future of our nation & the world is at stake.
We walk in the path of Mahatma Gandhi, Maulana Azad, Mahatma Phule, Dr Baba Saheb Ambedkar, Subash Chandra Bhose & Bhagat Singh & it is their teachings that we will strive to carry on.
Jai Hind!! Jai Bharat!!
Feroze Mithiborwala, Kishore Jagtap, Aslam Ghazi, Jyoti Badekar & Arif Kapadia
(From Mumbai police confiscate Nakba Day banners, Bharat Bachao Andolan, countercurrents.org, 19/5/12)
[* "What was still more unpleasant for the Government, the Moslem world outside Palestine began to raise its voice. An all-India Moslem Conference for Palestine was held in Bombay [now Mumbai, in May 1922] and passed a resolution that the Holy Land of Palestine was the trust of the whole Moslem world and not of the Moslems of Palestine alone. It demanded the abolition of the Balfour Declaration, the termination of the Mandate and the establishment of self-government there. It decided to celebrate a 'Palestine Day' throughout India, Burma and Ceylon, on Friday the 16th [May], to begin after prayers at the mosques. This was held as arranged, and in Bombay particularly was on an impressive scale. Long processions paraded through the Moslem quarters, waving banners inscribed 'Down with the Balfour Declaration!' and Reuter cabled that a meeting in the evening was attended by 100,000 persons." (Palestine: The Reality (1939), JMN Jeffries, p 620)]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
