Pope must walk the talk

Pope Francis, Head of the Catholic Church

By Kevin Barrett

Pope Francis stunned the world by stopping his motorcade next to Israel's apartheid wall.

He got out, laid his head on the wall, and prayed. Visible behind him was graffiti reading "Pope, we need someone to speak about justice", "Free Palestine," and a comparison of Palestine to the Warsaw ghetto.

The iconic photo of the Pope's Palestinian prayer went viral around the world. Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu was furious – but vowed "not to get mad, but to get even." One wonders what sort of revenge Netanyahu is plotting.

The Pope's gesture spoke louder than his mostly empty words. He was obviously praying for the apartheid wall to come down. But he cannot say such things directly. The Zionists have more than enough financial and media power (and enough professional killers and dirty tricks experts) to "get even" with any Pope who speaks out against them too forcefully and directly.

The Pope's historic prayer at the apartheid wall illustrates the rise of religion as a force for social justice. Prior to 1979, social justice struggles were associated with "the left," meaning socialism or communism. Both movements were dominated by atheists and secularists. They saw religion as a tool of oppression, an "opiate of the people."

In 1979, two epochal events signaled a sea change in modern history. In Iran, the Islamic Revolution overthrew a corrupt and brutal secularist dictatorship and established a new social model – one that sought social justice through a religiously-based society. And in Poland, the Catholic Solidarity labor movement arose to challenge atheistic Communism. Soon religious Afghans were challenging the atheist Soviet occupation of their country. In 1989, the Berlin Wall came tumbling down...and with it the "Godless Communism" of the Soviet Empire.

Since then, the Islamic awakening has been challenging secular capitalism in many parts of the world. The Catholic Church has begun to take a strong stand against materialistic values. Russia's President Putin is turning Russia into a pro-religious society – a 180-degree turn from the Communist era of brutal atheist dictatorship. And with his support for Eastern Ukraine and Syria, President Putin is wrecking the New World Order's plan to wipe out traditional religions and establish a one-world secularist dictatorship.

In Turkey, pro-Islam forces have gradually gained the upper hand over the kemalist atheists, who had conducted one of the worst cultural genocides in world history during their doomed attempt to wipe out Islam. The long struggle of Turkish Muslims to regain their country has also been a struggle for democracy, human rights, and social justice.

The rise of Hezbollah and Hamas, both religiously-based resistance movements against Israeli occupation, is another sign of the times. The Palestinian resistance is no longer led by the secularist PLO, which has become a tame guardian of the status quo. Today the most successful anti-Zionist resistance group is Hezbollah, which defeated Israel in the war of 2006, and which is prepared to inflict an even more stunning defeat on the Zionists should they dare to attack Lebanon again.

Will Putin, the Pope, and the pro-justice Muslims (led by the Islamic Republic of Iran) unite to put an end to Zionism and its dream of a New World Order with a capital in Occupied Jerusalem?

Catholic historian E. Michael Jones foresees such an eventuality. In February 2013, Jones and I were returning to Tehran from a meeting with religious scholars in Qom. Jones, who admires Iran's God-centered society, expressed the fervent hope that the Pope would come to Iran to make common cause with the Islamic Republic – and turn decisively against Zionism. "But could this Pope (Ratzinger) ever do such a thing?" we asked. "He won't be Pope forever!" Jones announced.

An hour or so later, regular programming was interrupted by a special bulletin: "Pope Resigns!" It was the first time in 600 years that a Pope had decided to step down. If E. Michael Jones is ever nominated for sainthood, I will happily testify to his miraculous powers of premonition.

The new Pope, Francis, seems blessed with a heartfelt concern for ordinary people. He appears genuinely pained by the suffering of the Palestinians under Israeli oppression. And he seems instinctively opposed to the heartless power of New World Order bankster capitalism.

Will Pope Francis soon be "Going to Tehran"? Will he announce that Netanyahu needs an exorcism, and Zionism needs a funeral? Will he stand with Putin against NATO's nuclear encirclement of Russia? Will he join the world's Muslim scholars calling for an end to usury and the destruction of the current international banking system in favor of something more humane and equitable? Will he demand that the US radically scale back its obscene military spending and lead the planet towards demilitarization...and the transfer of trillions of wasted military dollars into schools, hospitals, mass transit, and sustainable energy? Might he call for an end to biological technologies that threaten human dignity and even human existence – such as bio-weapons, designer genes, and trans-humanism?

None of these things are possible today. But could they be possible tomorrow?

If the new religious movements for social justice unite – and make common cause with everyone who supports justice, including those who consider themselves secularists – who knows what the future might bring.

Editorial                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       

June 4

Once again Mr Jerry John Rawlings and his friends have celebrated the anniversary of the coup which saved him from facing the firing squad for subversion of the state of Ghana.

We understand why this celebration must be important for Mr Rawlings, his family and friends. After all if it were not for the mutiny of June 4, he would not be alive.

 In the same vein we can imagine what the families and friends of the victims of June 4 feel when the event is celebrated in the manner in which it has been thrown into our faces.

What will the children of Real Admiral Amedume feel, when they are reminded about the fact that their father was shot at the stake for legally and legitimately taking a loan, the equivalent of Gh¢ 5.00 (Five Ghana Cedis) today?

What about all those whose livelihoods were destroyed forever and have continued to suffer humiliation since 1979?

In any case, which of the Ghanaian leaders will survive if they are judged by the standards of the so-called  June 4 uprising.

The noise about June 4 can sometimes be very annoying especially as Ghana is perhaps in a worse state than what it was in 1979.

 Please spare us the ugly noises about June 4.

Renowned Israeli Economist Predicts Economic Catastrophe for Israel

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Nyetanyahu

By Richard Silverstein

            They say that economics is “the dismal science.”  Frankly, I never excelled in math or science in school.  That was my brother’s field and he ended up a university chemist.  But over the past decades, economics has become a crucial element in understanding societies, wealth and national politics.  That holds doubly true in the case of Israel and Palestine.

          As with everything concerning this subject, there is a propaganda “line” that Israel-advocates sell the world.  First, there was the pioneer nation that made the desert bloom, turning it into a modern society.  Lately, it’s become the “start-up nation.”  This myth sells an Israel full of technical geniuses coding their hearts out to bring innovation to the world.  It suggests an Israel in tune with the democratic and entrepreneurial spirit of the rest of the world.  Even a nation on the cutting edge of technological discovery.  After all, if Warren Buffett invested $4-billion in one of  Israel’s most profitable companies, doesn’t that prove the case?

While there is an element of truth to this story, as there are with all myths, it conceals far more than it reveals.  A recent interview with renowned Israeli economist Dan Ben-David, exposes the rest of the sordid picture of an economy rent in two, divided between haves and have-nots, between a secular Jewish elite and all the rest.  It’s worth quoting extensively from this piece since Ben-David offers a probing, even revelatory portrait of a nation, and economy in dire straits.  It’s a picture you’ll almost never see in the mainstream media:

Professor Dan Ben-David, a noted economist, has been observing Israel’s socioeconomic policies and studying their long-term implications with consternation for more than two decades. Over the last six years, serving as the executive director of the Taub Center for Social Policy Studies in Israel, his insight by which the Zionist project could ”end in tears” has been deepening. He feels that ”the window of opportunity enabling us to save the state from collapse is getting smaller, as we reach the point of no return.”

In an interview with Al-Monitor, Ben-David explains why the path that the State of Israel is following in its 66th year will eventually lead to the system’s collapse.

Keep in mind, this isn’t Norman Finkelstein or Noam Chomsky speaking.  This is a respected Israeli economist who buys into the Zionist dream, albeit with a critical perspective.  When he declares Israel is on the road to ruin, someone ought to sit up and take notice.

Here’s more of his analysis:

When I deal with the socioeconomic aspect of Israel, I have the feeling that we’re letting the country slip through our fingers. It’s ironic. On the one hand, this really is the “startup nation.” We are on the forefront of developments in high-tech and medicine. At the same time, however, there is another country here. What we have, in effect, is two countries. We track productivity rates in Israel, and based on the data, productivity here is among the lowest in the developed world. Obviously, that has implications on growth and quality of life. All the OECD [Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development] states beat us in that.

It is important to understand that this is a trend. It is a process that began in the 1970s, so it is possible to say that we have been in decline for the past 40 years. If, in the 1950s and 1960s, we were able to reduce the gaps between us and the world’s leading countries, the trend has reversed itself since then.

That means that even when there are people who live here and who want to live here, there will also be people who leave because they can get more somewhere else. We are passing the threshold in which more and more people will not want to live here, and that could end in tears. We have to ask ourselves where our children and grandchildren will be. It is true that we are not talking about major calamities in the next year or two. We still have time to make changes and fix the problems, but that time is running out.

The other aspect of the problem is inequality and poverty. Poverty rates in Israel are among the highest in the developed world. Of course, these two things are interconnected. If, in the 1950s and 1960s, we were an example to the West of how a country does things the right way, we have since become one of the least egalitarian countries in the world.

Behind the inequality and low productivity, we find a growing population that did not receive the tools it needed from the state to integrate into the modern workforce. By this, I mostly mean the Arab and ultra-Orthodox sectors. Their situation has a negative impact on productivity. In an economy where productivity is low, it is impossible for wages to be high. When productivity in an entire country is very, very low, it says something about that country’s ability to offer high wages. The population that continues to grow lacks the tools and condition to integrate into the market. What is needed to understand the reasons for this is to take a look at the level of the country’s education in the core subjects. Since the 1990s, the State of Israel’s achievements in international mathematics and reading tests are among the lowest in the developed world, and we can’t seem to overcome that.

…This is true even if we don’t include the ultra-Orthodox, because their children do not participate in international testing. In other words, if they were included in the test results, the situation here would be even more dismal. When we look at the achievements of Arab children, we see that the level of education we provide them in core subjects is beneath what they would get in developing countries. That has enormous implications, because if we consider the demographics, we see that almost half the children in this country are either ultra-Orthodox or Arab. When they will grow older, they will increase the percentage of the population that is unable to participate in the workforce. Productivity will then decrease and existing gaps will expand. It is the responsibility of the state to reach these children and provide them with the tools they need.

First of all, we need a structural reform in the education system. If the education we provide in the periphery is at least as good as the education in the center of the country, and if we connect those places to the center of the country with a rapid, inexpensive, reliable and readily available transportation system, it will mean that almost the entire population will be living within half an hour of the country’s center. That’s a key issue, and it’s hard for people to swallow that.

The main story is that there are gaps among us, among the part of the country that is not ultra-Orthodox or Arab. If we just look at the middle class, we find that the gap between its two extremes is among the highest in the Western world. Gaps in education hint at what will happen once children grow up, because all of this will be expressed later on as gaps in income.

That is actually incorrect [the the Netanyahu government is a major instigator of structural reforms]. We’re riding a wave of marketing. Not every wage agreement is a reform. We are avoiding any dealing with the core problems. We, the Israelis, believe that everything will work itself out. Apparently, it’s part of our nature. There have been some changes in the past decade, and it is all starting to click for quite a few people, but what is happening now is that we are treating the symptoms without treating the actual problems.

What is needed here is systematic treatment of the problems of the kind that the prime minister must lead, together with his Cabinet. What is needed is a comprehensive master plan, because we are in a race against time…And as hard as it is now, once we reach a certain point it will become absolutely impossible to do anything. We will reach the point of no return.

It won’t happen in two years. I’m talking about trends. Take the ultra-Orthodox, for example. They make up 8.5-9% of the total population. What will happen when their children grow up? We won’t be able to manage. That is why we have to reach their school-age children today. There isn’t much time left. Half of those children don’t even get a developing world education, so there is no way that they can maintain a developed world economy. They could only maintain a developing world economy, and a developing world economy can’t maintain a developed world military. At that point, there will be no country left. This is a whole new definition of national security: If we don’t have an economy that can keep everything together, we will not be able to contend with the security challenges we face.

When it comes to the ultra-Orthodox, the main emphasis should be on educating their children. There is no modern country apart from Israel that allows parents to prevent their children from receiving the education they need. There are things that every child must know.

Ben-David expounds upon his ideas in greater detail in this report published by his Taub Center at Tel Aviv University.

Shir Hever, one of Israel’s foremost economists studying the costs of Occupation and maintenance of the national security state, and a former student of Ben David’s, adds his own analysis:

…[Ben-David] doesn’t ask himself why Israel has such a faulty education system…Massive and decade-long cuts in Israel’s education system have been the direct result of unsustainable security costs…Deep discrimination within Israel’s education system has channeled resources to the illegal colonies, drying up the center. Israel’s national education system is geared towards preparing the pupils for the army, a highly militaristic system, in which Arabic, if learnt at all, is mainly seen as a tool to enter into service in a military intelligence unit. In fact, there are entire schools which are sponsored by weapons manufacturing companies.

Ben David has previously shown shocking numbers of educated Israelis who leave Israel, seeking employment elsewhere. Of course, many of those who leave do so because they hope to give their children better education somewhere else, but what about those who wish to raise their children in a less militarized environment?

What Mazal Mualem refers to as the “diplomatic process,” is a code-name for a system of colonization and aparheid. This system was accepted by the majority of the Jewish-Israeli public because it promised to discriminate in their favor, but as Ben-David shows, the discrimination and inequality tends to seep further, and has caused wide gaps even within the hegemonic group.

Also, this article didn’t really talk about what is exactly Israel’s “start-up nation.” The real question is how many of the successful companies which contribute to this image are in fact security and military companies, whose success depends on the continuation of the repression of Palestinians. Such companies are reluctant to hire Palestinian citizens of Israel, and usually ultra-Orthodox Jews as well (unless they happened to have served in the army). Therefore, the issue of occupation and apartheid is not one aspect of this story, but the very root of the problems which Ben-David so aptly describes.

In the past, Israel’s advocates here have claimed that Israel’s economic divisions are somehow not the fault of the State since the have-nots in the Palestinian and ultra-Orthodox sectors opt out of the national educational and social system.  This is simply not an excuse.  As Ben David points out, the responsibility of a government and society is to the good of the whole.  If the greater good includes educating all children so that they may support themselves and their families and contribute to society, then government must both offer a good education for all and obligate parents to participate in the educational system.  There is simply no excuse for accepting half the nation’s children getting no or substandard educational opportunity.  A society that settles for this is one that has failed, despite whatever innovation it may offer in other areas.  Israel is not a nation only of the secular educated elite.  It is a nation of all its citizens (or should be).  If it is any less, it is a failure.  Plain and simple.

Though Shir alludes here to the enormous costs of maintaining Occupation and the national security state, this article elaborates on the issue.

America’s Role in the Creation of the State of Israel

US President Hussein Obama

By Karin Brothers

Weir’s fascinating history focuses on how the State of Israel came into existence through a cynical using of the United States and how it was defended from American critics who saw the support for Israel as violating US principles and damaging US interests.

The significance of the 1917 Balfour Declaration, the British “gentleman’s agreement” between the British government and Lord Rothschild that pledged British support for a Jewish homeland, has not been understood by many for the quid pro quo that it represented.  The agreement, which occurred when it appeared that Germany was winning WW I, was that Zionists would work to get the United States involved in the war if Britain would deliver Palestine as a Jewish homeland.  The reason for the American involvement in the war and the American contribution to the arrangement have not been widely understood: the Balfour Declaration (as well as the later British Mandate) were drafted in both Britain and the US, including by U.S. Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis.

Germany had no inkling of this deal until the post-war 1919 Paris Peace Conference, which Zionists attended to ensure that Britain would come through with its part of the agreement.

Even before Britain washed its hands of Palestine, Zionists recognized that they needed the support of the United States for Israel to survive and thrive, so the U.S. became the focus of propaganda and political pressure.  Harry Truman, the US President who recognized the State of Israel immediately after it declared itself a state, had received a then-staggering $2 million from a Zionist donor during what had appeared to be a losing presidential campaign.  State Department leaders were against supporting Israel because it damaged U.S. relations with Arab countries and, more importantly, violated important American principles of self-determination and justice. Elected leaders, vulnerable to political pressure and access to campaign funding, were not able to maintain such America-first integrity.

Weir documented various little-known Zionist efforts to support the creation of their state.  The activities — basically bribes, lies, subterfuge, threats and violence– included:

 Zionist leaders’ “mixed reaction” to Nazism, with some seeing that the convergent goals would benefit a Jewish state that required a Jewish population;

 Secret American Zionist clubs (including the elite Parushim with Felix Frankfurter) which pledged to work for Israel behind the scenes;

Creating the myth that a refuge was needed for Jews (including falsifying anti-Semitism in Germany and Poland and, more importantly, sabotaging western countries’ efforts to open their doors to Jewish refugees after WW II in order to ensure that Jews had few choices of refuge outside of Israel); and

 Zionists’ role in the creation of Christian Zionism and the Scofield Reference Bible.

Weir ends her short history of Israel’s creation by documenting some key examples of how Israel-firsters were able to destroy the careers — if not the lives — of prominent Americans in government, journalism and academia who warned of the loss of American credibility in supporting a state that was based on religious discrimination.

Weir keeps her book focused on the early history of Israel, ignoring highly significant later events, particularly those concerning Senator William Fulbright: his uncovering of Jewish charity fraud that recycled charitable donations into US propaganda, his attempts, with JFK, to force the main Zionist organization to register as an agent of a foreign government and the loss of Fulbright’s Senate seat to the then-unheard of Dale Bumpers.

The main messages from Weir’s history are that the Jewish community has not legitimately needed a homeland- refuge from anti-Semitism and that Americans must take back their country by insisting that their elected officials place the interests of the United States before those of Israel.

The United States throws Libya into turmoil and runs away…

By Dr. Michael J.K. Bokor

Folks, I have heard it said several times that the US has interests but no permanent friend anywhere in the world. Certainly, it has demonstrated its military prowess in many parts of the world top confirm such an impression and to worsen it in other cases.

Happenings in Libya provide ample evidence to suggest that the US is running away from the very shadow that it created and used to insert itself in the Libyan crisis.

After putting Libya in a state of turmoil after helping opponents of Muammar Gaddafi to kill him and destabilize the country, the United States is detaching itself from that country. The nasty events in Benghazi that resulted in the killing of its Ambassador Stephens notwithstanding, the US seems to be sitting on the fence as the situation in Libya deteriorates by the day.

Can you believe it that the US is now asking its citizens to leave Libya (as the situation deteriorates further and the government cannot put its house in order to rule the country)?

Here is the news: “US tells its citizens to leave Libya amid unrest”, according to the BBC.

“The US State Department has warned any American citizens in Libya to leave the country immediately. It said the situation in the country remained unpredictable and unstable. On Tuesday, the US said it was sending a warship carrying around 1,000 marines to the region for any possible evacuation of American officials.” (See: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-27599301)

MY COMMENTS

One would have expected the US to be directly involved in repairing Libya, and that its allies in the multinational force (Britain, France, Qatar, etc.) that collaborated with it in devastating Libya would not turn tail but support the Gaddafi haters to rebuild their country and ensure that the democracy that they dangled in front of them would be accepted and installed to move Libya forward.

Unfortunately, nothing of the sort is happening, which leaves Libya in a worse situation than it was under Gaddafi (no matter how much venom his leadership style had wrought in his own citizens and outsiders alike). Destroying the country’s infrastructure and system of administration was no problem; but rebuilding that infrastructure and ensuring that Libya re-emerges from the ashes of Gaddafi is the problem that none of the outside forces wants to contribute toward solving.

Is the US teaching a lesson in failed military aggression against a sovereign state that nobody will be willing to learn?

If you heard President Obama’s speech today at the US Military Academy at West Point, New York, you should be left scratching your head:

He promised a new US foreign policy based on “collective action” with allies abroad, saying that the US would still lead but would avoid the “costly mistakes” of the past. He told graduates at the Academy.

He announced a $5bn (£3bn) fund to fight global terror and promised the US “must not create more enemies than we take off the battlefield”. (See: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-27606536)

Call it an epiphanic moment, and you will be right. And now that their own trained spy (Edward Snowden) is revealing all he can about their intelligence activities in cyberspace, they are more than scared. John Kerry is asking Snowden to “man up” and return home if he believes in the US’ justice system. (See: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-27614001)

The boomerang effect is hitting hard; not so? There you are, Uncle Sam!!

I shall return…

E-mail: mjbokor@yahoo.com

Subject: Still I rise: Maya Angelou

Maya Angelou

You may write me down in history
With your bitter, twisted lies,
You may tread me in the very dirt
But still, like dust, I'll rise.

Does my sassiness upset you?
Why are you beset with gloom?
'Cause I walk like I've got oil wells
Pumping in my living room.

Just like moons and like suns,
With the certainty of tides,
Just like hopes springing high,
Still I'll rise.

Did you want to see me broken?
Bowed head and lowered eyes?
Shoulders falling down like teardrops.
Weakened by my soulful cries.

Does my haughtiness offend you?
Don't you take it awful hard
'Cause I laugh like I've got gold mines
Diggin' in my own back yard.

You may shoot me with your words,
You may cut me with your eyes,
You may kill me with your hatefulness,
But still, like air, I'll rise.

Does my sexiness upset you?
Does it come as a surprise
That I dance like I've got diamonds
At the meeting of my thighs?

Out of the huts of history's shame
I rise
Up from a past that's rooted in pain
I rise
I'm a black ocean, leaping and wide,
Welling and swelling I bear in the tide.
Leaving behind nights of terror and fear
I rise
Into a daybreak that's wondrously clear
I rise
Bringing the gifts that my ancestors gave,
I am the dream and the hope of the slave.
I rise
I rise
I rise.

Maya Angelou