People Before Profit blog

EDITORIAL: Whats needed for Israeli-Palestinian peace?

Fri, 27 Jul 2007 06:17:00 +0000

Former British Prime Minister Tony Blair arrived in Jerusalem last week in his new role as envoy for the so-called Quartet of Middle East mediators — the UN, European Union, Russia and the United States.

He landed just ahead of a visit by Egyptian and Jordanian diplomats seeking to revive talks on the Arab League’s peace initiative. That widely greeted proposal calls for normalization of Arab countries’ relations coupled with Israel’s ending the occupation and returning to its pre-June 1967 borders, establishment of a Palestinian state and a negotiated just solution for Palestinian refugees.

But despite the diplomatic flurry, and Bush administration statements about the urgency of resolving the crisis that has devastated the lives of Palestinians and imposed onerous burdens on Israelis, the Bush and Olmert policies have been the main obstacles.

Olmert continues to refuse to discuss resolution of the basic issues, including the Israeli settlements spreading through the West Bank, and the problem of the Palestinian refugees. His insistence on partial and temporary steps allows the divide-and-rule occupation to further entrench itself, further fueling tension.

The Bush administration has consistently enabled the right-wing Israeli government’s drive to prevent the emergence of an independent Palestinian state. Washington provides at least $3 billion a year in largely military aid, and Bush has openly supported the expansion of illegal settlements and the walling-off and carving up of Palestinian lands.

Real peace is possible. Both Palestinians and Israelis have shown repeatedly that they want a just solution based on two states, Israel and Palestine.

What’s needed for a just peace is well-known: an end to Israel’s occupation of Gaza and the West Bank and return to the internationally recognized pre-June 1967 boundaries; dismantling of the “separation wall” and all settlements; release of the thousands of Palestinian political prisoners as well as any Israelis held by Palestinian forces; establishment of the Palestinian state including East Jerusalem as its capital, alongside Israel; and a negotiated settlement of the refugee issue.

Resolution of this festering conflict is in the interests of every American. Our government holds the key, and every member of Congress needs to hear from us on this issue.

The call of Cuba

Fri, 20 Jul 2007 07:18:00 +0000

I’m not so much of a world traveler, but I do know from friends who travel that there are few places you can go where you won’t find a McDonald’s, a Kentucky Fried Chicken or a Wal-Mart. One of those few places is Cuba — no McDonald’s, no Exxon Mobil or Citibank. Is this good or bad? That depends on what kind of travel experience you want, I suppose, or what kind of world you envision for your children. For those who would like to visit a country without Coca-Cola billboards, Cuba is a wonderful tourist or education destination. Unfortunately, if you are an American, you can’t go.

You do have freedom of travel guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution, of course. Just not freedom to travel to a few countries that our government doesn’t like. This restriction has been in place since the 1960s, and many attempts have been made in Congress to end the travel ban. Both houses have repeatedly voted in favor of freedom to travel, only to have the final bill changed, dropped or vetoed. So here we are in 2007, still wanting to visit our island neighbor, still prevented from doing so.

The restrictions are not just annoying and inconvenient, they are hostile and mean-spirited and affect most those many Cuban American families who long to be able to visit their relatives in Cuba. Under current U.S. policy (made more harsh recently by an act of the Bush administration), a Cuban American resident of the U.S. is only permitted to visit family in Cuba once every three years. And Cubans are often denied permission to visit the U.S. at all.

Many people each year choose to visit Cuba “illegally.” By routing through another country and pretending they didn’t go to Cuba, they try to avoid the threats of prosecution by the U.S. Treasury Department, which is in charge of maintaining the blockade against trade and travel. This is risky, but some, because they do not respect the law that inhibits freedom of travel, are willing to take the risks. Others, like the Pastors for Peace and Venceremos Brigade, openly travel to Cuba every year as a challenge to the blockade.

Pastors, a project of the Interreligious Foundation for Community Organization, has been taking delegations to Cuba since 1992 as Friendshipment caravans. The principles of their project are as follows:

“The blockade is a violation of international law and of the most fundamental law of God. The blockade is the centerpiece of a policy that increases hunger and decreases health care for the Cuban people. It is our duty as global citizens and people of faith to oppose such a policy and to come to the aid of our Cuban brothers and sisters when requested. As such, the U.S.-Cuba Friendshipment is a moral imperative.

“The Friendshipment is inspired by people like Rosa Parks who refused to move to the rear of a segregated bus. Ms. Parks openly challenged an immoral and unjust law that was eventually overturned, in part because she was willing to put herself on the line for a moral principle. The blockade will end when enough people actively oppose it. By taking a moral stand and openly challenging the blockade, we challenge the U.S. administration to change this law and we educate thousands of people about the real meaning of the blockade.”

This year’s caravan began at the Canada/U.S. border in Coburn Gore, Maine, on June 30. In an attempt to bring humanitarian aid from Canadian citizens to Cuba, the Quebec Cuba Friendship Society found that their collected items were confiscated: a copy of the Physician’s Desk Reference, a breast pump for maternity hospitals, some used eyeglasses, some hospital gowns. It is such an affront to the concept of friendship and human kindness that these items would be forbidden because they are destined for the people of Cuba. I witnessed the confiscation. I have contacted my congressman, Mike Michaud, about it and am still waiting for a response.

A few days later I joined the 2007 Friendshipment Caravan to Cuba in Texas, meeting up with U.S., Canadian and European citizens who are committed to ending the blockade against Cuba by exercising their right to be good neighbors — citizens of good will who do not recognize artificial walls erected to prevent brotherhood. In a people-to-people foreign policy, we intend to demonstrate that the power of love and cooperation will prevail, if enough of us are willing to insist on our humanity.

We knew we might receive the same hostile treatment as the Canadians with their simple gifts of friendship. And we could be harassed and impeded again upon our return to the United States on July 28. It is our urgent hope that others will recognize that we all have an inherent right to our acts of brotherhood and will join us in condemning the U.S. blockade against Cuba.

Judy Robbins is a Cuba solidarity activist in Maine.

EDITORIAL: Sitting on a fault line

Fri, 20 Jul 2007 06:56:00 +0000

A major earthquake hit Japan’s Kashiwazaki Kariwa nuclear power plant this week. That should give pause to those who advocate looking to nuclear power as concerns about global warming escalate.

On July 16, an earthquake measuring 6.8 on the Richter scale struck near the facility, the world’s largest in terms of output capacity. What came next included a fire, leakage of water containing radioactive material into the sea, and a spill of low-level radioactive waste. The plant is now closed indefinitely.

The facility on Japan’s western coast was built to withstand a quake of magnitude 6.5. An official of the Tokyo Electric Power Co., which manages the plant, said designers did not anticipate a larger quake. “After looking at aftershock location data,” he added, “we have come to realize a fault lies right below the plant.”

Beyond the ongoing issues of safely operating individual nuclear power plants looms the elephant in the room — what to do with the huge amounts of nuclear waste generated even by today’s facilities, let alone tomorrow’s.

Three decades ago the U.S. government started studying Nevada’s Yucca Mountain as a possible national nuclear waste dump. In 2002 President Bush signed a bill to make Yucca Mountain the country’s central repository for nuclear waste.

But both the Western Shoshone Nation, on whose land the mountain sits, and the people and government of Nevada, including its Republican governor and attorney general, have fought the proposal tooth and nail.

The Western Shoshone say waste already generated by nuclear power and nuclear weapons facilities would more than fill Yucca Mountain’s planned capacity, even without the future output of existing and prospective plants. They also point out that the waste is lethal for 10,000 years and dangerous for 250,000 years, and that the proposed dump is near several local fault lines and a volcano.

Real clean energy alternatives are out there, including solar, wind and geothermal power. Isn’t it time to turn away from nuclear power, as well as nuclear weapons, and seek a truly green future?

Women sue Halliburton for sexual assault in Iraq

Fri, 13 Jul 2007 04:52:00 +0000

HOUSTON — Four women who used to work for KBR, formerly known as Kellogg Brown & Root, have filed suit against KBR and Halliburton, alleging they were sexually harassed and, in two cases, raped while on the job in Iraq, the Houston Chronicle reported on June 30. KBR is a former subsidiary of Halliburton, which is the prime beneficiary of billions of tax dollars as a result of the Iraq war. Vice President Dick Cheney is the former CEO of Halliburton.

Attorneys for the complainants said their clients were exposed to a “sexually charged atmosphere where women were repeatedly demeaned and solicited for sex despite reporting harassment to supervisors.” The women have been forced to turn to civil courts since they cannot determine whether federal authorities are proceeding with criminal prosecutions.

Experts have noted that many crimes are not being prosecuted against civilian war contractors because it has not been determined which judicial system applies to U.S. civilians working in a war zone in an occupied country.

The alleged sex crimes were committed in 2004 and 2005. One woman from Conroe, a suburb of Houston, states she needed surgery to repair torn muscles and ruptured breast implants after she was drugged and raped by drunken male co-workers in Baghdad in 2005.

The lawsuit alleges a work environment that was permissive towards males, excused their abusive behavior and may have encouraged it.