Press Action ::: Holocaust Victims Attorney Files Class-Action Lawsuit Against TVAStand in Solidarity with Israel's Slaughter of PalestiniansEyeless in Gaza with the BBCU.S. Backs Massacre in GazaHope as Hype: Change We Can Bereave InPhony Anarchism, Bogus ResearchWashington Post Refuses to Disclose Identity of Maryland Police SpyIsrael and Palestine, Again, ForeverUntil There Are No Beings Whom We Still Define as 'Other'Gaza and the World: Will Things Ever Change?TVA Manages Easy PR Victory in Kingston Coal Ash DisasterCNN: At Least 9 Dead Palestinians = 1 Dead PalestinianShameless PropagandistsA New Low for the New York Times: Ethan Bronner on GazaTorture Conviction Opens Door to Prosecution of Top Bush OfficialsGaza: Plan of AttackDoes Gawker Hate Black People?The Media Narrative on Palestine and IsraelThe Absurd Persistence of Domination: Of Speciesism, Capitalism, and Shaking Their FoundationsIsrael's Spin Doctors Working OvertimeNo One Came to Save ThemIsrael Enjoys Lifetime Free Pass from Western Media OutletsCapture and Sequestration: Seeking Justice in Kingston Coal Ash DisasterWorld Leaders Bless Israel's Solution to Palestinian ProblemStop IsraelUSA TerrorismClass Is a Dirty WordThe Tragedy of SUV-Driving Parents with Cell PhonesCounting Sea GullsVDOT Upholds Death Sentence for Beltway TreesIf Obama Coached the KnicksPassivity in a Forest's Final DaysObama ConspiracyPower DownObama and the 2076 ElectionIrrelevant Leftists Stoked for Inauguration CelebrationPhony Anarchists Issue Call for Happy InaugurationWoody Guthrie: A Little Recession Music, PleasePolitical 'Monsters' Make PeaceObama Exploits Liberal DenialPress Action Dynamic Dozen 2008The Humane Society Flexes Its MuscleThe Obama NationObama Preserves Our Way of LifeA New Stone Age or the Same Old Stonewalling?'Vegetarian' Vampires Show No MercyObama and the Great DepressionThe Spinelessness of Lesser EvilismNews Flash: Obama Hypnotizes ZinnIn Search of Compassion during Prime Hunting SeasonObama's First 100 Days Promise Bold, Radical ActionSome Things Are Bigger Than Any of UsDo You Still Consider Yourself an Anarchist?A Song for ObamaDriving Mister BarackProtesting Obama's InaugurationWhat Would Swayze Do?Industrial Capitalism Is a Given and the Natural World Is SecondaryManuel Roig-Franzia Carries on the Tradition of Sleaze at the Washington PostPalin heaps praise on unrepentant 'terrorist'No White FlagsQuack JournalismStandoff in Manassas: 'We Will Not Be Your Slaves of the 21st Century'10 Reasons Why Obama Represents Business As UsualT. Boone Pickens Speaks the Ugly TruthSolidarity is a Weapon: A Benefit for Marie MasonZoo Culture: Superficial Relationships of Domination and ControlUtah Phillips: My Body Is My BallotA Cunning and Conniving AdversaryPerception ManagementRolling Thunder 2008Weather BombingsNader's In: Let the Whining of the Democrats, Liberals and Leftists BeginWho Killed the U.S. Anti-Globalization Movement?The Cult of the MilitaryTerror RoyaltyLess Evil than Macaca Man? Jim Webb Surrenders Our FreedomComplete ControlV for VanquishedPresidential Scorecard for 2008Will Matt Taibbi Pull a Christopher Hitchens?Redskins Hire Another Christian Fundamentalist as Head CoachFreedom SundayAs Spygate Scandal Grows, Will NFL Run Interference?Anti-Empire PreachersFun in the Arizona SunSlaughterhouse ReduxChasing Bob AvakianThe Lesser of Two TerroristsMaking PeaceTwo views on Hugo ChávezMorrissey: 'You have to be a terrorist in order to be the President'Peter Gelderloos goes on U.K. book tourTiger Woods Disrepects Greatest American HeroesCrying Wolf: The Campaign to Brand all Animal Rights Activists as 'Terrorists''Breaking News' Is a Matter of PerspectiveNo Walk in the ParkTop Ten Reasons Why the White Supremacist Capitalist Patriarchal Culture (WSCPC) ...DeportationIran, Israel, The Big Lie, and The Real ThreatTop Ten Campaign Slogans for Barack ObamaMeat-eater's State of ‘The Nation’Bush's State of the Union: 'Leader of the Free World' Blabs to Nobody in ParticularBill O'Reilly = Super GeniusHillary Clinton and the Pro-Israel Lobby: The Semiotics of IniquityNewsweek's Cover BoysIn the Grip of Militant LiberalismWanted: Creative ExtremistsTurning on the WarThe Logistics of AccountabilityAn Open Letter to CongressTwo PresidentsWish You Were Here (A Small Sampling)Apartheid and a Right to ExistA New Congress? Not When It Comes to IranTop Ten Reasons Why You Might Vote Democrat in 2008The Future of Alternative Press Review Is in JeopardyAre You a Health Nut?Radical Conclusions, Reformist SolutionsSelective Justice and the Execution of Saddam HusseinHussein and Ford = Dead CriminalsPermanent Martial DominanceThe Western Antiwar Movement: The Left Boot of Imperialism?Rope-a-Dope: Are Bush and his Coterie Next in Line?On Israel's Nuclear CapabilitiesPress Action Awards 2006Too Little Too LateHold Americans AccountableThe Immunity of EmpireThe Court HistorianWorst of the WorstOpen Letter to Mike Wallace On His Ahmadinejad InterviewFacing Reality in Derrick Jensen's 'End Game'Goodbye, Murray Bookchin'We Should Always Remember Who Makes the Rules': Derrick Jensen Sees the Big PictureVermont Vets Support Ward Churchill StatementZarqawi and Lesser-Evil Politics: A Contest Nobody WinsAmerica: The Land of Denial (What We Missed While the Yankees Played the Red Sox)Holding the War Parties Accountable: From Bush to HillaryMore – Lots MoreHaditha Was InevitableSucks to Be You! Americans' Unforgivable Attitude Toward ImmigrationFrom Galileo to ChurchillChallenging the Auto-dependent LifestyleKarl Rove Indicted? Jason Leopold and Truthout Take on Rove and the White HouseImpeachment Is Just One Tiny Step'Philosophical Differences': Does Property Destruction = Eco-Terrorism?Save Darfur? Not So Fast...News Muse: 9/11 Movies, Anti-war Protests, and 'Illegal' HumansBeyond Bashing Bush: Grassroots Environmentalism and the Prospect for a Populist Resurgence15 Minutes of Radical Fame: America Meets Blum and ChurchillVenezuela, Take a NumberIf We're at War, President Bush Should Limit Oil ProfitsThe Conventional Wisdom of Warmonger William ArkinPolitical Tiddlywinks and Global EcocideOpen the BordersParenti Does CultureHannity, Just Answer the QuestionCynthia McKinney's Capitol OffenseLet Us Now Praise OIL (Our Iraqi Liberators)Four Words that Spoke VolumesA Call for Open BordersThe Athlete as Role Model: Remembering Baseball Maverick Curt FloodRogue States and Phony DebatesV for VendettaTwist and Hate: The Smearing of Paul Craig RobertsDoes Anyone Really Need Another Article?Nothing Lasts Forever, Unless You Are in VermontHungering for Justice at My First Congressional TestimonyBread and Roses: International Women's Day and the Fight for a Better Life for AllPlanned Media Gag May Save AmericaThe Bashing of BennishAttack of the Terrorist Fax: SHAC Activists ConvictedThink Global, Act Local: Rinse, Repeat, DieThe Feinstein Family of War Profiteers, Part Two: Partisanship Trumps EthicsSeven Arrested at White House Protest Against Iraq WarSenator Feinstein's War Profiteering: Enabling BushU.S. Racism and Fear: Nothing NewWhose Freedom?Democrat’s Pull Out: Another Election Year StuntKeeping Anarchism Alive: In Remembrance of Professor Paul AvrichThe Unholy Alliance Strikes BackPress Action Hero of the Week: JOHN SENTAMUCindy Sheehan's Message to the DemocratsNation-States Gone Wild: The Persecution of David IrvingA Letter to Kate O'BeirneThe Illegitimate Child of Ethnic NationalismU.S. Supports Iran in Rejecting Gay Rights Organizations at the UNCelluloid Subversives: Is Clooney Our Brando?Order Out of ChaosHow I Spent My 15 Minutes of FameThe American Turkey Is DeadThe Rhetoric of Al Gore: Not to Be TrustedMaking Friends with Black People: An Interview with Nick AdamsCheap Shot: The Left All Atwitter over Vice President's Itchy Trigger FingerPress Action Hero of the Week: SLY STONE'Against Vicious Injustice': An Interview with Tony Christini of Mainstay PressA Thank You Note to the PresidentIn the Company of Philip Agee and John PerkinsThe New Liberation MovementTale of a Connecticut DonkeyWhy Hamas Won and What it MeansHillary and George: Two Warmongers in a PodPress Action Hero of the Week: BORFBetty Friedan Asked: 'Is That All?'Evolution IS Intelligently DesignedPunishing Denmark: Taking on the Wrong EnemyThe Case for BushWhat an Idiot! Bush Jumpstarts the Alternative Energy Movement...Cindy Sheehan and Lesser-Evil Politics: Campaigning Against the War in CaliforniaOsama's Book or Oprah's Book?Bracing for the SOTU SpeechWilliam Blum in the Media WhirlwindWho Will Tell the People? Slipping through Enemy Lines with Mike MalloyPress Action Hero of the Week: ALI ABUNIMAHWhy I Now Genuflect to Charles KrauthammerEggs Roll, Eyes RollThe DepositionDiplomacy As a Real Option: Avoiding Iraq Fallout with IranWar with Iran: It’s More Than NuclearHamas: Sharon's Legacy?Insane ChutzpahFAIR vs. Media MattersWikipedia's Accountability ProblemKeith Olbermann Interviews William BlumPress Action Hero of the Week: EAMON JAVERSWhat Kind of Antiwar Movement?Spreading War, Not DemocracyExalting Sharon: A Dire Case of Collective AmnesiaTarget: Iran ... Here we go againPants on Fire: Liars of the Bush Administration Will Take the World Down in Flames If We Let ThemResistance in the Tradition of MLKBelafonte and the Do-GoodersThe People's Diplomat: An Interview with John H. BrownThe Anti-Empire Report: 'Iraq Is Open for Business'MoveOn.org Surrenders: Silence is ComplicityPredictions for 2006Citizen's Arrest: In Pursuit of Accountability in U.S. Foreign PolicyYou Can't Go Home Again...Let Ernst Zundel and David Irving Go HomeTurning the Tables on the MinutemenPress Action Hero of the Week: CAROL SCHWARTZWhat's Wrong with Amy Goodman?A Political Capital CorrectionPeople's HurricaneEntrenched Hypocrisy: Hillary Clinton, AIPAC and IranTop 12 Animal Stories of 2005There's More Than One Way Out of CrisisGo to the Light!Which Wolf Will You Feed in 2006?BW Inquiry Exposes Bandow Payola SchemeJensen's 'Endgame' on the HorizonOnline Casino: Republicans Keep White House in 2008Chicago Turns Down Discounted Venezuelan OilThe 'Little Red Book' Crackdown HoaxIMF Approves Loan for Iraq: Let the Oil Drilling BeginThe Shootdown of Flight 93Capital's PunishmentPress Action Awards 2005The Little WarriorsTaking the Antiwar OathA Small Matter of JusticeMurder in Jerusalem25 Years LaterThe Washington Post Elevates Insider Wisdom - Makes Popular Outrage InvisibleHappy Birthday, Noam ChomskyIt's Freaky: Anarchism No Longer a Fringe Passion at the Post'Sooner or Later It Will Snap'BBC's Stephen Sackur Backs CIA TortureRescuing the American FlagGreenhouse School Cultivates MulticulturalismDershowitz and the Two-Book SolutionGeorgie Best Died 30 Years AgoThe Iraqi Bill of RightsThe Right to Armed Struggle (In memory of Filiberto Ojeda Rios)Anarchists and Others Demonstrate Opposition to US War in IraqHelen Keller: Not Blind to War CrimesSchlock and GawkVermin and Souvenirs: How to Justify a Nuclear AttackVlady Is DeadCinema of the Subversive: An Interview with Jordy CummingsDellinger on Hiroshima and Nagasaki'Karl Rove Isn't the Only Monster Out There': An Interview with Josh Frank'Like Boys Playing with Flies': 55 Years After No Gun RiAnti-War Movement: MIAOperation Wake UpThe Eclipse of VenusPolitics and the Playing Field: An Interview with Dave ZirinTheir Security and Ours: It’s a SetFrom Hiroshima to Fallujah: The Slaughter of Civilians Continues‘Guilty until proven innocent’: An Interview with Dr. Walter M. BraschA Familiar Spin on Exposing the Sins of War PropagandaWater Inc.: A Hard-Hitting Eco-ThrillerWater on the BrainBeyond Chutzpah: Dershowitz, Finkelstein and a University PressFuneral for a HenIs Gotham Worth Saving?Hephalumps and Woozels: A Review of Joshua Frank's 'Left Out'No NegotiationHere Comes the Judge, and He's Coming for Your HouseTake My House, PleaseWMD, American-style: It's 60 Years Since AlamogordoThey Had a Coup d'etat and We Weren't Invited...Now It's Our TurnAn American Lesser Evil Apostle in TehranShowtrials and Scarecrows: 'Ecoterrorism' and the War on DissentOnly Republicans Lie?My Dog or Your Child? Ethical Dilemmas and the Hierarchy of Moral ValueA Birthday Message from the IWW: Rebel, And Mean ItMay Day at Yankee StadiumDown With Democratic Party USA!The Secret to the Success of BloggingZimbabwe's Very American ElectionThe Activist's Guide to Health & FitnessU.S. Intelligence ‘Dead Wrong’Fischer's Gambit, Accepted (by Iceland)Stop the Massacres in Iraq! Bring the Murderers Home!The Arrogance of an Empire's Anti-WarriorsReclaiming Their Material InheritanceIs Noam Chomsky an 'Intellectual Moron'?Connections: How Three Unrelated Books RelateHarvard President Larry Summers on Deserving and Undeserving HumansWolf After WolfWeapons of Mass Deconstruction: The Revolutionary Potential of ArtThe Million Dollar InterviewProgressivism and Free Speech for AllCarol Devine-Molin, GOP Operative, Fails at HistoryDiagnosing the Green Party: Narcissism Runs RampantThe Gray LineObjectivity in Independent MediaThe New Abolitionism: Capitalism, Slavery and Animal LiberationLies, Disinformation, the Media and What Is the Truth Exactly?Federation Interviews Louis ProyectA Subtle Propaganda Campaign to Discredit Mahmoud Abbas, Sharm Al Sheikh and a Palestinian State'One Man Has Stopped Killing'Disinformation: A Crime Against Humanity and a Crime Against PeaceHarsher and Dreader Realities: Enough Double Talk on the LeftDiscoverTheNetwork: David Horowitz's Smear PortalRadio Active North of the BorderIt's Not About Free Speech Anymore (Was It Ever?)Objectivity in Independent MediaRunaway Prosecution: A National OutrageA Specter Is Haunting the Middle East: The Specter of 'Democratic Occupation'The Self-Hating Media and the Cult of MilitarismPlaut and the ChronWatch Crazies: Viva La Cucaracha!We Have the Right to Remain Silent…But the Duty to SpeakAfter the Liberating Democracy of the ElectionsNational Lawyers Guild Condemns Verdict in Lynne Stewart TrialLynne Stewart Convicted of Collusion with CIA Created TerroristsKilling the Messenger: Ward Churchill’s Sins Against the EmpireWealthfare and WindfallsHorowitz, O'Reilly, Scarborough and Crew: An End Run Around the First AmendmentWhat Ward Churchill Didn't Say: (It's the Singer...Not the Song)Informing the Citizenry: Churchill and the NewscasterWard Churchill's Real SinsBlood for US3rThe Distortions of Acumen Continued: More Liberal Trashing of Ward ChurchillGrowing Chorus: Prosecute Ward Churchill for TreasonWarning: More Hate Speech from W. ChurchillChurchill, Eichmann and Those 9/11 TechnocratsSame As It Ever WasDracula's RainbowViewing America from the OutsideThe Distortions of Acumen: Liberals Trash Ward ChurchillJackowski and ColmesMy Secret Life as a CIA OperativeLeslie Gelb Asks Iraq: Who's Your Daddy?Super Patriot, Ward ChurchillAmerican and Canadian Media Continue to Fail: Four Nonsensical Conjectures about IraqWard Churchill Under AttackIraqi Order 81...Orders, Occupation, and OppressionDouble Blackmail and the Iraqi Resistance‘Piss on Pity’: Clint Eastwood's ‘Million Dollar’ Snuff Film21 Fleet StreetThe Return of Kurt NimmoThe Inauguration of Double Standard Media WatchA Conversation with a Hit ManDemocrats Support Bush’s Iran PolicyPity the FoolExposing the Lies of Our Times: An Interview with Mickey Z.Shameful Harvest: An American TraditionI Want My DDT: Little Nicky Kristof Bugs OutCanadian NGOs Demand Demilitarization of Aid in AcehPress Action Hero of the Week2004 in Contrast and ContradictionAcademic Witch-Hunt in IsraelMobilizing Relief Action as Disaster Strikes Once AgainJapanese Imperialists with a Brand New BagA Democrat's Look at 2004Reflections on Tsunamis and the State of ExceptionA Wave of Questions: Putting a Disaster in ContextA Question of Intent: The Chomsky InterviewNew Bill To Wipe Out Land Treaties with Virginia TribesCivilization vs. Barbarism? An Interview with Noam ChomskyThe Democrats' War on Women's Health RightsArticles I Didn’t Write (and Merry Miserable Christmas To You, Too)Happy New YearAn Interview with Stan GoffA Stain Upon the Sea: Profit Over Wild SalmonCrumbs from Our Table: Direct Action for Third World MiseryDavid Cobb and Medea Benjamin: Losers of the LeftRebuilding an Antiwar Movement for 2005Why PanamaThe Prescient Candidate Reflects: An Interview with Ralph NaderWe Need a Bad Guy in IranWho Killed Gary Webb?Merry December: Mickey Z. Gets in the Holiday SpiritThe Far Left Takes on the Far Right: An Open Letter to Patrick J. BuchananFree as in Freedom - Part Two: New LinuxAll the Rage: Mr. Solomon, Say You’re SorryThe Epiphanies of Dr. Steven BestACLU Files Lawsuit on Behalf of Protesters Arrested at Bush Rally in PennsylvaniaFree as in Freedom - Part One: GNU/LinuxKnow Your Enemy: Political Contradictions of the RightA Split Second in Eternity: The Mystical State of Drug PolicyHow the New York Times Misreports: An Interview with Howard FrielA Holiday Wish List'Reality Is a Construction...': Sander Hicks and the 9/11 Truth MovementFueling a Profitable Future: 9/11 and U.S. Energy PolicyAltercation or Domination? A Response to Eric AltermanSecuring Canadian Political Obeisance: Halifax Greets BushPat Tillman and Ricky WilliamsLila Lipscomb and Michael Moore: A Slice of Unprincipled American SelfishnessThe Return of Factsheet 5The Nation Magazine Cruise: Puuuke!Lifestyle as Direct ActionLeft Gatekeeers, or the Discreet Relationship between Krauthammer and AltermanInterview with an Antiwar Veteran from the Iraq WarVanunu for Rector: Glasgow University Launches its War on ErrorHawk Engagement: A Dangerous Turn in U.S. Plans for North KoreaMedium Cool, Cool MediumHating America on Fox: An Open Letter to John GibsonFederation Book Club AnnouncementAmerica’s CrisisDec. 12: OPERATION BOLIVIADO NOT Support 'Our' Troops: The Toxicity of Center-Rightists, Liberals, and the Establishment LeftLiberals and Bush’s PerformativesPress Action Submissions and Comment PolicyCanadian Settler Injustice Against First NationsInterview with a TupamaroFlight Attendants, the Working Day and Labor SolidarityRe-membering ThanksgivingThe Granma Moses of Radical WritingNo, Virginia, the Earth Is Not Flat ... They Just Believe It IsWhy I Don't Support the TroopsProtect the Right to Hunt IraqisThe Greensboro MassacreBanned in the UK! The Home Office says 'Stay Home!' to U.S. Animal Rights ActivistsEmpire of the SenselessReflections on Scott Peterson and RationalismDemocrats Commit Suicide: Harry Reid, Wrong Choice for Senate Minority LeaderU.S. Hiring Increases, But Slow Job Growth ContinuesThe No-Partner MythTo My Dear Sister in FallujahRumor Club: (Spread the Word...)Palestine Greater Than ArafatSue Him, Noam!U.S. War Crimes in Fallujah AttackLet's Complete 'The Emperor's New Suit'An Open Letter to Mr. Nader: Help End the Radioactive War CrimesThe ABB Logic of Retreat Has Been Discredited: Now We Must AdvanceWhich Way Progressives?Arma-geddon Sick of YouFuture Uncertain: U.S. Workers and Their RetirementsLiberals Never LearnA Non-ABB Take on Electoral FraudProgressive Efflux?This Is the Long-Distance CallRunning From the Religious RightThe Last Battle1968 and TodayKerry's Humiliating DefeatAn Appeal for the Release of Abul Kashem Faruk, a Bangladeshi Kidnapped in IraqFrom a Parallel Universe: President Gephardt Brings the Teamsters to D.C.The Bully Is BackWe Are Here! We Are Here!Blaming America First, Part 3Post-Mortem: Let the Disobedience (and the Real Work) BeginElection Day 2004 JournalIt's the Policies, StupidA President to ReelectThose Who Do Not Make History Suffer It!A 'Stronger America'Terror and DemocracyReal Men Don’t Let Other Men Bomb Civilians'We Can’t Ride the Bus to the Revolution'Bankruptcy, Overcapacity and the U.S. Airline IndustryAfter the VoteEminem Joins the ABB Mosh PitChomsky, Zinn, Nader & the Quadrennial FarceThe Left and Popular CultureBorn to be Wild (About Video Games?)Preserving Campus Political SpeechIt Is Either There or Here, and Better Them Than Us: A Pro-War Political MythChilling Political Speech on CampusIn U.S., Her Work, the Vote and DemocracyRumble in the Jungle (+ 30): Ali, Foreman, and the CongoVote Change 2004On Fixing Elections and Joining Democrats AnonymousMr. Friedman and the Two OccupationsWho's Running the Show Behind Corporate Media?C-SPAN Steps 'Outside the Ballot Box'

Holocaust Victims Attorney Files Class-Action Lawsuit Against TVA
Press Action
Wednesday, January 07, 2009
http://www.pressaction.com/news/weblog/full_article/enclave01072009/

The law firm of Hausfeld LLP of Washington, D.C., and two Tennessee law firms filed a class-action lawsuit (pdf) on Jan. 7 in U.S. District Court in Knoxville against the Tennessee Valley Authority on behalf of landowners along the Emory and Clinch Rivers in response to the Kingston coal ash disaster.

Michael Hausfeld of Hausfeld LLP “is best known as the attorney who years ago brought action against Swiss Banks for conspiring with the Nazis in WWII. He got $2.3 billion settlement for Holocaust survivors and waived his attorney fee,” KnoxViews writes.

The plaintiffs are seeking damages in excess of $5 million.

Meanwhile, on Dec. 30, eight days after the Kingston coal ash holding pond failed, a Maryland judge approved a settlement resolving a class-action suit filed on behalf of residents of Gambrills, Md., against Constellation Power Generation, a subsidiary of Constellation Energy Group Inc. The litigation claimed that Constellation contaminated residents water supplies and endangered lives by dumping coal ash in a sand and gravel quarry near their homes in Anne Arundel County for more than a decade, The Murphy Firm, a Baltimore law firm, said in a Dec. 31 statement.

The firm said the settlement, approved by Baltimore City Circuit Court Judge Alfred Nance, provides for the connection of 84 households previously supplied by private wells to public water, the establishment of two trust funds to compensate affected property owners and provide site enhancements in the neighborhood, the remediation and restoration of the former quarry site, and a commitment to cease future deliveries of new coal ash to the quarry.

Back in Tennessee, one of the best sites for the most up-to-date and incisive coverage of the Kingston coal ash disaster is Mike Byrd’s Enclave blog.

Also today, the nonprofit Environmental Integrity Project released a report indicating that nearly 100 largely unregulated “wet dumps” across the United States that are comparable to TVA’s breached site in Tennessee for the storage of toxic pollution from coal-fired power plants have a place on one or more of the “worst site” lists for six toxic metals, including arsenic and lead.

“In fact, many of the toxic coal ash ‘wet dump’ sites around the U.S. appear to pose a greater potential danger than the Tennessee site that is now in the headlines. In the case of deadly arsenic, which has been detected in water polluted by the TVA site disaster in Tennessee, the Stanton Energy Facility in Orlando, FL., has reported dumping roughly 10 times more of the carcinogen in its site between 2000-2006 than the TVA did over the same period,” EIP said.

Stand in Solidarity with Israel's Slaughter of Palestinians
Press Action

http://www.pressaction.com/news/weblog/full_article/ralliesforgenocide01072009/

Israel places the Gaza Strip under siege, restricting the flow of all goods into the region. The region’s inhabitants are deprived of food, medicine and fuel. They aren’t permitted to leave the region. And then, as it prepares to wage a massive assault on Gaza, Israel kicks out all foreign journalists in order to prevent news coverage of the terrible atrocities it plans to carry out in the region.

The air assault on Gaza begins in late December, killing hundreds of residents, injuring thousands and terrorizing the entire region. Israel’s military tells the local residents to leave their houses, which are then destroyed by Israel’s military. Israel then bombs the schools and other buildings where the local residents go for shelter and refuge, killing scores of people.

While Israel is carrying out these terrible atrocities, an astonishing phenomenon is occurring in cities across the United States and Canada: groups of people are actually holding rallies, cheering on Israel’s mass killing of the people of Gaza.

To encourage people to attend the rally in its city, the Jewish Federation of Greater Houston writes:

"For more than ten days, Israel has been engaged in a defensive operation to halt years of rocket attacks into southern Israel from the Hamas terrorists in Gaza. This Wednesday evening, the Houston Jewish community will join together in a service of solidarity and support. We hope you will join your friends and neighbors in standing with Israel at this critical time."

As the onslaught on Gaza intensifies, the list of rallies across North America in support of Israel’s atrocities grows. The Israeli killing machine is systematically and methodically wiping out a large segment of the population of Palestine. And yet the rallies in support of Israel’s extermination campaign go on. Check out this impressive list of rallies scheduled in support of Israel’s brutal, calculated, methodical slaughter of Palestinians.

Wednesday, January 7, 2009
Los Angeles, CA:
Rally in Support of Israel’s Right to Defend Itself Against Hamas
Date: Wednesday, Jan. 7, 2009
Time: 12 p.m. (noon)
Location: Federal Building in Westwood, LA
Veteran and Wilshire Streets
Sponsoring organizations: StandWithUs, Bnei Akiva and the ILC in cooperation with the Jewish Federation of Los Angeles, and Jewish Day Schools across Los Angeles
Contact: Andrew Cushnir (323) 761-8315

Houston, TX:
Stand with Israel Rally
Date: Wednesday, Jan. 7, 2009
Time: 7 p.m.
Location: Congregation Beth Yeshurun
4525 Beechnut Blvd.
Houston, TX
Sponsoring organization: Jewish Federation of Greater Houston
Contact: (713) 729-7000
Web site: http://www.houstonjewish.org/headlineDetail.asp?id=245

Columbus, OH:
Community Gathering
Date: Wednesday, Jan. 7, 2009
Time: 7 p.m.
Location: JCC of Greater Columbus
1125 College Avenue
Sponsoring organization: Columbus Jewish Federation
Contact: Avrum Kluger (614) 237-7686
Web site: http://www.jewishcolumbus.org/page.aspx?id=191104

Chicago, IL:
Community Briefing
When: Wednesday, Jan. 7, 2009
Time: 7 p.m.
Where: North Shore Congregation Israel
1185 Sheridan Road
Glencoe, IL
Sponsoring organizations: Jewish United Fund/Jewish Federation of Metropolitan Chicago and the Consulate General of Israel to the Midwest
Contact: Lisa Klein at (312) 444-2094
Web site: http://www.juf.org

St. Louis, MO:
Community Gathering
Date: Wednesday, Jan. 7, 2009
Time: 7 p.m.
Location: JCC at 2 Millstone Campus Drive
Sponsoring organizations: Jewish Federation of St. Louis, coordinated by JCRC
Contact: Batya Abramson-Goldstein (314) 442-3838

Dallas, TX:
Rally
Date: Wednesday, Jan. 7, 2009
Time: 7 p.m.
Location: Jewish Community Center
7900 Northaven Rd
Dallas, TX 75230
Sponsoring organization: Jewish Federation of Greater Dallas
Contact: Marlene Gorin at (214) 415-6222
Web site: http://www.jcrcdallas.org

Atlanta, GA:
We Stand with Israel Community Solidarity Rally
Date: Wednesday, Jan. 7, 2009
Time: 7:30 p.m.
Where: Ahavath Achim Synagogue
600 Peachtree Battle Ave NW
Atlanta, GA 30327
Sponsoring organizations: Jewish Federation of Greater Atlanta and co-sponsored by the Israel Professional Council
Contact: Noah Levine at (404) 870-1604
Web site: http://www.ShalomAtlanta.org

Thursday, January 8, 2009
Philadelphia, PA:
We Stand with Israel Solidarity Rally
Date: Thursday, Jan. 8, 2009
Time: 12 p.m. (noon)
Location: LOVE Park
16th Street & JFK Blvd., Philadelphia
Sponsoring organization: Jewish Federation of Philadelphia
Contact: Alex Stroker at (215) 832-0577 or
Web site: http://www.jewishphilly.org

Harrisburg, PA:
Community Gathering
Date: Thursday, Jan. 8, 2009
Time: 5:15 p.m.
Location: East Wing Rotunda of the State Capitol
Sponsoring organizations: Community Relations Council of the Jewish Federation of Greater Harrisburg and the Pennsylvania Jewish Coalition
Contact: Jay Steinberg at 236-9555, ext. 3104

Pittsburgh, PA:
Community Gathering and Briefing
Date: Thursday, Jan. 8, 2009
Time: 5:30 p.m.
Location: Jewish Community Center
5738 Forbes Ave
Pittsburgh, PA 15217
Sponsoring organization: Jewish Federation of Pittsburgh
Contact: Jeff Cohan at (412) 992-5234
Web site: http://www.ujf.net

New Orleans, LA:
Community Gathering
Date: Thursday, Jan. 8, 2009
Time: 5:30 p.m.
Where: Uptown JCC
Sponsoring organizations: Jewish Federation of Greater New Orleans
Contact: Neil M. Schneider (504) 780-5610

San Francisco, CA:
Community Gathering
Date: Thursday, Jan. 8, 2009
Time: 5:30 p.m.
Location: Congregation Sherith Israel
Sponsoring organizations: Jewish Community Relations Council and The Jewish Community Federation.
Co-sponsors: AIPAC, the Board of Rabbis of Northern California, Blue Star PR, The Israel Center of JCF, American Jewish Committee and Congregation Emanu-El.
In Coordination with: Congregation Adath Israel, Congregation Beth Israel Judea, Congregation Beth Sholom, Congregation Sha’ar Zahav, SF Voice for Israel, Jewish National Fund, ADL, Raoul Wallenberg Jewish Democratic Club, Republican Jewish Coalition, Northern California Chapter and congregations and Jewish organizations of the Peninsula
Contact:

Youngstown, OH:
Community Gathering
Date: Thursday, Jan. 8, 2009
Time: 5:45 p.m.
Location: JCC
Sponsoring organizations: JCRC and the Board of Rabbis of Greater Youngstown
Contact: Bonnie Burdman 330-746-3250, ext. 183

Chicago, IL:
Community Briefing
Date: Thursday, Jan. 8, 2009
Time: 7 p.m.
Location: Anshe Emet Congregation
3715 North Broadway
Chicago. IL
Sponsoring organizations: Jewish United Fund/Jewish Federation of Metropolitan Chicago and the Consulate General of Israel to the Midwest
Contact: Lisa Klein at (312) 444-2094
Web site: http://www.juf.org

Albany, NY:
Rally for Israel
Date: Thursday, Jan. 8, 2009
Time: 7 p.m.
Location: Temple Israel
600 New Scotland Ave.
Albany, NY 12208
Sponsoring organization: United Jewish Federation of Northeastern NY
Contact: Shelly Shapiro at (518) 783-7800 x235

Bridgeport, CT:
Community Gathering
Date: Thursday, Jan. 8, 2009
Time: 7:30 p.m.
Location: Congregation Rodeph Sholom
Sponsoring organization: Jewish Federation of Eastern Fairfield County, CT
Contact: Laurie Gross (203) 372-6567 ext. 172
Web site: http://www.jccs.org/

Boston, MA:
Rally to Support Israel
Date: Thursday, Jan. 8, 2009
Time: 7:30 p.m.
Location: Congregation Mishkan Tefilah
300 Hammond Pond Parkway
Chestnut Hill, MA
Sponsoring organizations: JCRC of Greater Boston, Combined Jewish Philanthropies, Anti-Defamation League, American Jewish Committee, AIPAC, BIAC, The David Project, Hadassah, The Hillel Council of New England, South Area Israel Action Team and others
Contact: Josh at (617) 457-8650

Southern NJ:
Community Gathering
Date: Thursday, Jan. 8, 2009
Time: 7:30 p.m.
Location: Congregation Sons of Israel
Sponsoring organizations: Jewish Community Relations Council of Southern NJ and the Jewish Federation of Southern NJ
Contact: (856) 751-9500

Southfield, MI
Israel Solidarity Rally
Date: Thursday, Jan. 8, 2009
Time: 7:30 p.m.
Location: Congregation Shaarey Zedek
27375 Bell Road, Southield
Sponsoring organizations: Jewish Community Relations Council, Jewish Federation of Metropolitan Detroit, Anti-Defamation League-Michigan Region, American Jewish Committee-Detroit Chapter, B’nai B’rith-Great Lakes Region, B’nai B’rith Youth Organization, Hadassah-Greater Detroit Chapter, National Council of Jewish Women-Greater Detroit Section, American Israel Public Affairs Committee, StandWithUs-Michigan, Zionist Organization of America-Michigan Region Confirmed speakers: Deputy Consul General of Israel Hon. Gershon Kedar and Greater New Mt. Moriah Baptist Church Rev. Kenneth Flowers
Contact: 248-642-2641 or
Web site: http://www.jfmd.org

Montreal, Canada:
Solidarity with Israel
Date: January 8
Time: 7:30 pm
Location: Congregation Beth Israel Beth Aaron, 6800, ch. Mackle, Côte Saint-Luc, Montreal
Web site: http://www.darnna.com/phorum/read.php?12,146788

Toronto, Onatario, Canada:
Rally with Israel
Date: Thursday, Jan. 8, 2009
Time: 7:30 p.m.
Location: Beth Tzedec Congregation
1700 Bathurst St.
Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Sponsoring organizations: Canadian Jewish Congress Ontario Region, CJPAC, CIJA, Canada-Israel Committee, UJA Federation of Greater Toronto Confirmed speaker: Former Israeli Consul General in New York Alon Pinkas
Contact: 416.635.2883 ext. 5394
Web site: http://www.jewishtoronto.net/blog.aspx?id=214

Ottawa, Canada:
Stand with Israel Rally
Date: Thursday, Jan. 8, 2009
Time: 7:30 p.m.
Location: Soloway Jewish Community Centre
21 Nadolny Sachs Private
Sponsoring organizations: UJA Federations Canada, Canada Israel Committee, Jewish Federation of Ottawa
Contact: Francie Greenspoon at (613) 798-4696 ext. 255
Web site: http://www.jewishottawa.org/page.aspx?id=191061

Sacramento, CA:
Community Gathering
Date: Thursday, Jan. 8, 2009
Time: 7:30 pm
Location: Congregation Mosaic Law
Sponsoring organizations: Sacramento JCRC and Federation
Contact: Len Feldman, JCRC Director, Sacramento 916.747.3657

Peninsula, CA:
Community Gathering
Date: Thursday, Jan. 8, 2009
Time: 7:30 p.m.
Location: Congregation Beth Am
Sponsoring organizations: Jewish Community Relations Council and The Jewish Community Federation. Co-sponsors: AIPAC, the Board of Rabbis of Northern California, Blue Star PR, The Israel Center of JCF, American Jewish Committee and Congregation Emanu-El. In Coordination with: Congregation Adath Israel, Congregation Beth Israel Judea, Congregation Beth Sholom, Congregation Sha’ar Zahav, SF Voice for Israel, Jewish National Fund, ADL, Raoul Wallenberg Jewish Democratic Club, Republican Jewish Coalition, Northern California Chapter and congregations and Jewish organizations of the Peninsula
Contact:

Friday, January 9, 2009:
Chicago, IL:
We Stand With Israel Community Rally
Date: Friday, Jan. 9, 2009
Time: 12 p.m. (noon)
Location: Federal Plaza (Dearborn and Adams) in downtown Chicago
Sponsoring organizations: Jewish United Fund/Jewish Federation of Metropolitan Chicago
Contact: 312-357-4770 or
Web site: http://www.juf.org
Saturday, January 10, 2009

Scotch Plains, NJ
Evening of Solidarity with the People of Israel
Date: Saturday, Jan. 10, 2009
Time: 7:15 p.m.
Location: Wilf Jewish Community Campus
1391 Martine Avenue, Scotch Plains
Sponsoring organizations:
Contact: Felice Maranz at (908) 889-5335, ext. 304 or
Web site: http://www.jewishjerseycentral.org

Sunday, January 11, 2009:
New York City, NY:
Israel Solidarity Rally
Date: Sunday, Jan. 11, 2009
Time: 11 a.m.
Location: 42nd Street at 2nd Avenue (across from the Israeli Consulate)
Subways: 4, 5, 6 ot 7 to: Grand Central Station
Sponsoring organizations: Jewish Community Relations Council of New York and UJA Federation of New York
Contact: 212-983-4800 ext. 158 or
Web site: http://www.jcrcny.org

West Palm Beach, FL:
Rally
Date: Sunday, Jan. 11, 2009
Time: 12:30 p.m.
Location: Jewish Community Center of the Greater Palm Beaches, Kaplan Branch
3151 N. Military Trail
West Palm Beach, FL
Sponsoring organizations: Jewish Federation of Palm Beach County, Jewish Community Relations Council, JCC Palm Beaches, Palm Beach County Board of Rabbis
Contact: 561-242-6671 or e-mail to RSVP or for more details
Web site: http://www.JewishPalmBeach.org

Minneapolis, MN:
Community Gathering
Date: Sunday, Jan. 11, 2009
Time: 3:00 p.m.
Location: Sabes JCC
Sponsoring organizations: JCRC of Minnesota and the Dakotas, AIPAC, The Minneapolis Jewish Federation, United Jewish Fund and Council of St. Paul, National Council of Jewish Women, Hadassah, Minnesota Rabbinical Association, Christians United for Israel, Minnesotans Against Terrorism, Hillel, Sabes JCC, and St. Paul JCC
Contact: Steve Hunegs at (612) 338-7816

Miami, FL:
A Solidarity Rally for Israel
Date: Sunday, Jan. 11, 2009
Time: 4 p.m.
Location: Holocaust Memorial
1933 Meridian Ave.
Miami Beach, FL 33139
Sponsoring organizations: Greater Miami Jewish Federation and its Jewish Community Relations Council, the Rabbinical Association of Greater Miami, and the Anti-Defamation League. We are also partnering with many organizations including the American Jewish Congress, Friends of the Israel Defense Forces, Hadassah, the Jewish National Fund, the Women’s International Zionist Organization, Christians United for Israel, and the Miami Coalition of Christians and Jews
Confrimed speaker: Consul General of Israel Ofer Bavly
Contact: Carol Brick-Turin, Director of the Jewish Community Relations Council, at 786.866.8486

Northern NJ:
We Stand With Israel Solidarity Rally
Date: Sunday, Jan. 11, 2009
Time: 6 p.m.
Location: Kaplen JCC on the Palisades
411 East Clinton Avenue
Tenafly, NJ
Sponsoring organization: UJA Federation of Northern New Jersey
Contact: (201) 820-3900
Web site: http://www.ujannj.org

Wilmington, DE:
We Stand with Israel Solidarity Rally
Date: Sunday, Jan. 11, 2009
Time: 7 p.m.
Location: Bernard and Ruth Siegel Jewish Community Center
101 Garden of Eden Rd.
Wilmington, DE 19803
Sponsoring organization: Jewish Federation of Delaware
Contact: Karen Venezky at (302) 427-2100 or

Ormond Beach, FL:
Rally for Israel
Date: Sunday, Jan. 11, 2009
Time: 7 p.m.
Location: Temple Beth-El
579 N. Nova Rd.
Ormond Beach, FL
Sponsoring organizations: Jewish Federation of Volusia and Flagler Counties and local area congregations
Contact: Richard Holtz, President of Temple Beth-El & Vice President of Committees URJ-SEC, 386-677-2484

Tuesday, January 13, 2009:
South Bend, IN
Israel Update, Community Briefing with Israel’s Deputy Consul General to the Midwest Gershon Kedar
Date: Tuesday, January 13, 2009
Time: 7:30 pm
Location: The Jewish Federation of St. Joseph Valley
3202 Shalom Way
South Bend, IN 46615
Sponsoring Organization: The Jewish Federation of St. Joseph Valley
Contact: Chaya Segal 574-233-1164

Eyeless in Gaza with the BBC
Press Action
Tuesday, January 06, 2009
http://www.pressaction.com/news/weblog/full_article/idrees01062009/

By Muhammad Idrees Ahmad

On February 29 last year the BBC’s Web site reported deputy defense minister Matan Vilnai threatening a “holocaust” on Gaza. Headlined “Israel warns of Gaza ‘holocaust’” the story would undergo nine revisions in the next 12 hours. Before the day was over, the headline would read “Gaza militants ‘risking disaster’”. (The story has since been revised again with an exculpatory note added soft-pedalling Vilnai’s comments). An Israeli threatening “holocaust” may be unpalatable to those who routinely invoke its spectre to deflect criticism from the state’s criminal behaviour. With the “holocaust” reference redacted, the new headline shifts culpability neatly into the hands of “Gaza militants” instead.

One could argue that the BBC’s radical alteration of the story reflects its susceptibility to the kind of inordinate pressure for which the Israel Lobby’s well-oiled flak machine is notorious. But, as will be demonstrated in subsequent examples, this story is exceptional only insofar as it reported accurately in the first place something that could bear negatively on Israel’s image. The norm is reflexive self-censorship.

To establish evidence of the BBC’s journalistic malpractice one often has to do no more than pick a random sample of news related to the Israel-Palestine conflict currently on its Web site. In a time of conflict, BBC’s coverage invariably tends to the Israeli perspective, and nowhere is this reflected more than in the semantics and framing of its reportage. More so than the quantitative bias—which was meticulously established by the Glasgow University Media Group in their study Bad News from Israel—it is the qualitative tilt that obscures the reality of the situation. This is often achieved by engendering a false parity by stretching the notion of journalistic balance to encompass power, culpability and legitimacy as well. The present conflict is no exception.

“Hamas leader killed in air strike”, reads Thursday’s headline on the BBC Web site. Notwithstanding the propriety of extrajudicial murder, there are 14 paragraphs and the obligatory mention of the four dead Israelis before it is revealed that “at least nine other people”, including the assassinated leader’s family were killed in the bombing of his home in the Jabaliya refugee camp. The actual number is 16 dead, 11 of them children; 12 more wounded, five of them children; 10 houses destroyed, another 12 damaged—a veritable slaughter. Had a Hamas bombing killed or wounded 28 Israeli citizens, including 16 children you’d be sure to see endless coverage—of the kind the BBC lavished on the disconsolate illegal settlers in 2005 as they were made to relinquish stolen real estate in Gaza. The BBC’s Mike Sergeant, sitting in Jerusalem, would not concern himself with such sentimentality. There is no further mention of Palestinian civilian deaths. Their tragedy was no more than a sanguine message which Sergeant tells us will “be seen as an indication that the Israeli military can target key members of the Hamas leadership.”

“Israel braced for Hamas response”, blared the ominous headline on the next day’s front page. With all references to Hamas in its coverage prefixed with “militant” and invariably accompanied by images of blood and debris, the average viewer is very likely to assume the worst. It transpires what the world’s fourth most powerful military is bracing itself for is merely a citizen’s protest called by Hamas in the Occupied Territories. Further on we learn that Israel has been bombing such “targets” as a mosque and a sleeping family.

The BBC’s next headline on the same day—“Gaza facing ‘critical emergency’”—is an improvement. It quotes Maxwell Gaylard, the UN’s chief aid co-ordinator for the territory, highlighting the magnitude of the humanitarian crisis. Following this is a warning from Oxfam that the situation is getting worse by the day: clean water, fuel and food in short supply, hospitals overwhelmed with casualties, raw sewage pouring into the streets.

And then we get “balance.”

Israel, we learn, has claimed Gaza has “sufficient food and medicines”. It of course ought to be easy to verify which of the competing claims is valid, but that presumably would violate the “usual BBC standards of impartiality.” There is also a more mundane reason why the BBC won’t present its own findings, but it is tucked away in the very last paragraph of the article. Israel, we learn, “is refusing to let international journalists into Gaza,” including no doubt those of the BBC. The ethics of reporting would require that the BBC preface each of its reports with the disclaimer that it has no way of knowing what is going on in Gaza other than through the propaganda handouts of the Israeli military.

The final act of chicanery comes in the shape of a sidebar which lists the number of rockets fired by Palestinians for each day of the conflict. This is particularly odd in an article ostensibly about the consequences of the Israeli blockade and bombing, especially since no similar figures are produced for the number of bombs, missiles and artillery shells rained on the Gazans. The source the BBC uses is the Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center based in Israel. What it does not mention however is that the “private” think tank is a conveyor belt for Israeli military propaganda which, according to the Washington Post, “has close ties with the country’s military leadership and maintains an office at the Defense Ministry.” Any Palestinian claim on the other hand would not appear unless enclosed in quotation marks, even if independently verifiable.

The quotation marks are a useful distancing device deployed to show that the characterization may not be one shared by the BBC. This would be understandable if their application were consistent. It isn’t. To take one telling example, after the Lebanon war when both Israel and Hizbullah were accused by Amnesty International of war crimes, only in the case of Israel did the BBC enclose the accusation in quotation marks.

It is through these subtle—and not so subtle—manipulations of language that the BBC has shielded its audience from the ugly realities of Occupied Palestine. In the BBC’s reportage Palestinians “die”, Israelis are “killed” (the latter implies agency, the former could have happened of natural causes); Palestinians “provoke”, Israelis “retaliate”; Palestinians make “claims”, Israelis declare. Schools, mosques, universities and police stations become “Hamas infrastructure”; militants “clash” with F-16s and Apaches. “Terrorism” is something Palestinians do, Israelis merely “defend” themselves—invariably outside their borders. All debates, irrespective of fact or circumstance, are framed around Israel’s “security”. If the Apartheid wall is mentioned, it is in terms of its “effectiveness”. In the odd event that you have an articulate Palestinian voice represented, the debate is rigged with a set-up video that is meant to put them on the defensive. When all else fails, there is the reliable “both sides” argument—if reality won’t accommodate the image of an even conflict, the BBC figures, language will.

Then there’s the framing: Israel’s violence is always analyzed in terms of its “objectives”; Palestinian violence is of necessity senseless. This is no doubt how it must appear to the average reader since the word “occupation” rarely appears in the BBC’s coverage. It hasn’t appeared once in the last 20 stories on Gaza on its Web site. And if occupation is mentioned rarely, then the UN resolutions almost never. The picture is even worse on television, where the Israeli point of view predominates.

While Matan Vilnai’s threat of a holocaust is consigned to the memory hole, the statement invented and attributed to the Iranian president about wiping Israel off the map is still in play. It is this double standard which also allowed the BBC to cover the story of a British Jew joining the Israeli military as a life interest story—which may not be entirely surprising considering the BBC’s man in Jerusalem, Tim Franks, is himself a graduate of Habonim Dror, a Zionist youth movement. It is this inhuman devaluation of Palestinian life that allowed the BBC at the peak of the criminal blockade in July 2007 to have two stories up on its Web site related to the occupied territories, both about animals—an eagle and a lioness.

While the BBC’s refusal to by-line its online reports makes it hard to trace stories back to individual journalists, a revealing glimpse of the editorial context in which they work was offered by an article in the Observer by the BBC’s Middle East editor Jeremy Bowen—a man whose modest analytical skills are matched only by his historical illiteracy. With the BBC workhorse—“both sides”—weaved into the very headline, Bowen piles inanity upon cliché, sedulously avoiding any mention of the occupation. He is no doubt aware that the fragile narrative he has constructed, where the conflagration begins with Hamas firing rockets into Israel, will collapse with the first mention of the occupation which predates both the rockets and Hamas. Bowen, who has been conveniently transported to Sderot—an Israeli PR ploy to “embed” journalists within range of Hamas rockets in order to make them report with empathy—plays his part to the tee. On the other hand there is no mention of those at the receiving end of Israel’s lethal ordinance. He mentions civilian casualties only in the context of the “lot of bad publicity” they get for Israel. On the basis of this evidence, he then concludes “it is probably fair to say that [Israel] does not hit every target it wants, otherwise many more would have died”. We then end with speculation on Israel’s possible objectives. Despite “both sides”, there is no similar scrutiny of Hamas’s objectives.

At a conference in London in 2004, a BBC journalist based in the Occupied Palestinian Territories told me that when it comes to Israel the editorial parameters are so narrow that journalists soon learn to adapt their stories in order not to upset the editors. And editors likewise know not to upset their government-appointed managers. Since the days of Lord Reith, the BBC-founder who assured the establishment to “trust [the BBC] not to be really impartial”, on foreign policy the corporation has acted as little more than the propaganda arm of the state (whatever independence it had once enjoyed evaporated with the purge carried out by Tony Blair in the wake of the Hutton Inquiry). Contrary to the prevailing view in the US, where progressives don’t tire of comparing it favourably against US media, the BBC’s record of coverage in the Middle East is dismal. As media scholar David Miller revealed, during the Iraq war the representation of antiwar voices on the BBC was even lower than on its US counterparts. A Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung study found the corporation to have the lowest tolerance for dissent of the media in the five countries it analyzed. Just as its correspondents in Iraq celebrated the fall of Baghdad as a “vindication” of Blair, its man in Washington Matt Frei threw all caution to the wind to exult: “There is no doubt that the desire to bring good, to bring American values to the rest of the world, and especially now in the Middle East, is especially tied up with American military power.”

The BBC’s partiality in the case of the Israel-Palestine conflict is a mere reflection of the close affinity of successive British governments with Israel. Both Blair and his successor Gordon Brown have been members of the Israel Lobby group Labour Friends of Israel. The Foreign Minister David Miliband has kin who are settlers in the West Bank. All three major influence-peddling scandals in the past five years that engulfed the leadership of the ruling New Labour party involved money from wealthy Zionist Jews (all linked to the Labour Friends of Israel). If the BBC is not impartial, then the UK government most certainly is not. And the BBC, as is its wont, merely reflects the latter’s tilt. This is blatant enough that, despite Israel Lobby pressure, the BBC’s own Independent Panel concluded that its coverage of the Palestinian struggle was not “full and fair” and that it presented an “incomplete and in that sense misleading picture”.

But the gap between the alternate reality that the BBC inhabits and the reality on the ground witnessed and relayed by independent media is so great today that it has compelled John Pilger to write: “For every BBC voice that strains to equate occupier with occupied, thief with victim, for every swarm of emails from the fanatics of Zion to those who invert the lies and describe the Israeli state’s commitment to the destruction of Palestine, the truth is more powerful now than ever.”

Muhammad Idrees Ahmad is a member of Spinwatch.org. He blogs at Fanonite.org.

U.S. Backs Massacre in Gaza
Press Action

http://www.pressaction.com/news/weblog/full_article/everest01062009/

By Larry Everest

Shortly after darkness fell on Saturday night, January 3, Israel launched a massive land invasion of Gaza involving 9,000-10,000 soldiers, tanks, helicopters, and heavy artillery, engineering and intelligence forces, with the support of Israel’s Air Force, navy, and secret police and spy agencies. The ground invasion came after Israel, for the first time, unleashed an artillery barrage on Gaza, striking a mosque and killing at least 11 people. By the next day, Israeli forces had reportedly cut Gaza in half, “bisecting” it between north and south.

Seven straight days of Israeli bombing before the invasion had already resulted in an estimated 460 killed and 2,285 wounded (with the numbers increasing by the hour). Now more carnage looms with The New York Times (January 4, 2009) already reporting “Wounded civilians poured into the emergency room of Shifa Hospital in Gaza City on Sunday, including women and children.” And Israel’s ban on journalists from entering Gaza means that much death and destruction has gone unreported.

In a despicable display of Nazi-like threat and false show of concern, Israel dropped leaflets over northern Gaza telling residents: “For your own safety, you are asked to leave the area immediately.” Yet Palestinians are trapped in Gaza by Israel. Where are they supposed to go?

This raises the specter that many people, unable to leave, will be murdered. And according to a March 2008 report on Israeli Channel Two (after a visit from U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice), Israel’s strategy may be “for the removal of tens of thousands of Palestinians from the northern Gaza Strip, namely from the region that the resistance uses for the launch of these rockets, and to move them toward Gaza City and to confine them there.” (See http://arablinks.blogspot.com/2008/03/after-meeting-condi-israeli-officials.html)

The forced removal of a civilian population is the textbook definition of ethnic cleansing and a war crime.

In the past several days the U.S. government has made its support for Israel’s murderous assault on Gaza crystal clear. The U.S. was informed before Israel launched its attacks (and was reportedly involved in months of Israeli planning), and now CNN reports (January 4, 2009) that the U.S. military was “aware in advance of Israel’s plans to enter Gaza.”

So it is telling that on the very day of Israel’s invasion, President Bush gave his first public statement on Gaza—condemning Hamas, raising no criticism of Israel, and opposing a ceasefire, but instead justifying Israel’s attack: “This recent outburst of violence was instigated by Hamas—a Palestinian terrorist group supported by Iran and Syria that calls for Israel’s destruction.”

The same day, Secretary of State Rice strongly backed Israel and condemned any cease-fire that didn’t meet Israeli objectives. And the day before, a White House spokesperson said any decision on a ground invasion would be Israel’s to make—in other words, a bright green light for Israel from the U.S.

Meanwhile, President-elect Barack Obama has supported the Bush regime and Israel by refusing to publicly comment, while his spokespeople repeat campaign statements supporting Israeli action against Hamas.

Imperial Aims

The U.S. through Israel is aiming to tighten its imperial domination of the entire strategic region. And Israel, for its part, aims not only to aid U.S. imperialism in that, but to strengthen its own fortress-like settler state, even more ruthlessly oppressing and dominating the Palestinians.

The U.S., together with Israel, has a number of intertwining objectives it hopes to achieve with this military assault in Gaza. It wants to even more forcefully assert and hammer down the dominance of U.S. imperialism in the Middle East. As part of its so-called “war on terror,” the U.S. wants to further undermine and push back Islamic fundamentalist forces that pose a challenge to the U.S. empire. And it wants to brutally put down the struggle of the Palestinian people and break their will to resist.

‘Surgical’ Strikes Targeting a Society

Israel claims that Hamas “started it,” and that now Israel is simply trying to defend itself against Hamas “terrorists,” in order to stop rocket attacks on Israel and the Jewish people. Yet there is absolutely nothing just or legitimate about Israel’s targeting of Hamas.

For one, it was Israel that first broke the ceasefire in November and has refused to negotiate its renewal (while planning this attack for its own strategic objectives for over six months). Israel’s war is aimed at strengthening its stranglehold on Palestine, by defeating Islamic fundamentalist forces like Hamas that pose an obstacle to unfettered US-Israeli control. As one senior military officer put it, Israel’s goal was “making Hamas lose their will or lose their weapons.”

One Israeli spokesperson declared, “We have defined legitimate targets as any Hamas-affiliated target.” (Washington Post, January 2, 2009). Armed forces deputy chief of staff Brigadier General Dan Harel stated, “After this operation there will not be a single Hamas building left standing in Gaza.” (Ynet News)

The Palestinian people have a long history of fierce resistance and uprising against the brutal Israeli occupation. And Israel faces a lot of necessity to put down this struggle. This is why, while Israel is targeting Hamas as the governing party in Gaza with ties to Iran—it is also doing this as a way of breaking the back of the resistance of the masses, which has been a U.S.-Israeli goal for over 60 years. Consider the fact that “[H]undreds of thousands of Gazans have received warnings in the form of telephone messages or fliers that their buildings are Israeli targets.” (New York Times, January 2, 2009)

Or consider U.S.-Israeli objections to a resolution proposed by the Arab League calling for “an immediate ceasefire and for its full respect by both sides,” and for Israel to abide by the Geneva Convention with regard to protecting civilians in time of war. The U.S. attacked it as “unbalanced,” after earlier forcing the removal of language calling on Israel to lift its blockade of Gaza and stop the collective punishment of Palestinians. (Antiwar.com, January 1, 2009). So even abiding by basic international law concerning war crimes and crimes against humanity is intolerable for the U.S. and Israel, and an impediment to their criminal attacks on the Palestinian people!

The U.S. has also opposed calls for a cease fire, blaming Hamas for the fighting and demanding it stop firing rockets before Israel is required to halt its military assault—in effect blocking any diplomatic moves that could in any way impede Israel’s attack. As the article, “On the Nature and Role of Israel, the United States and Obama” points out:

“What Israel is doing in Gaza is like the Nazis confining people in the Warsaw ghetto during World War 2 and then when people rebel, the Nazis say, “aha—we are being attacked and anyone who says anything about the situation has to first agree on that—and before anything can be done to resolve the situation, the people in the Warsaw ghetto have to stop attacking us.”

The U.S. and Israel’s Broader ‘War On Terror’ Aims

Israel’s military assault on Gaza is part of a broad U.S.-Israeli counter-offensive against Islamic fundamentalist forces and Iran in particular which is seen by both as crucial to their broader “war on terror” objectives. This war, really a war for empire, is aimed at crushing Islamic fundamentalist forces, peoples and states which stand in the way of U.S. designs, and restructuring the region in order to strengthen the U.S. This war has made the U.S.-Israel’s strategic relationship ever more pivotal today.

Israel’s long-planned attack on Gaza is aimed at rolling back Hamas’ January 2006 election victory and its summer 2007 seizure of power in Gaza, as well as Israel’s political defeat in its summer 2006 war against the powerful and reactionary Hezbollah Islamic fundamentalist forces in Lebanon—Israel couldn’t deliver on its promise to destroy Hezbollah, which instead emerged strengthened. It’s also aimed at restoring Israel’s military “credibility”: “to expunge the ghost of its flawed 2006 war against Hezbollah in Lebanon and re-establish Israeli deterrence,” as the New York Times put it.

This war is also part of a broader U.S.-Israeli effort to roll back regional gains by Islamist forces, especially Iran, which is a large, relatively powerful and coherent Islamic theocratic state with enormous energy resources and its own reactionary ambitions. Iran has challenged U.S.-Israeli regional hegemony through its increasing influence in Palestine, Lebanon, Iraq, and the region generally. It’s also pursuing nuclear enrichment, which is considered intolerable in Washington and Tel Aviv, because even Iranian mastery of this technology could shift the regional military balance and impede U.S. and Israeli freedom of military action, even if Iran didn’t immediately make a nuclear bomb.

Hamas and the Iranian government do not offer the people a road to liberation and they do not break with imperialism in any fundamental way. These forces represent reactionary outmoded social relations. At the same time, it is important to be clear that it is U.S. imperialism, ruled by reactionary outmoded ruling strata, which has done and continues to do by far the greater damage and poses the greater threat to humanity (often, as in this case, acting through Israel).

Bush targeted Iran in his most recent radio address. Sallai Meridor, Israel’s ambassador to the U.S., stated, “What you see in Gaza is made by Iran—it’s funded by Iran, the terrorists are trained by Iran, it’s supplied by Iran, the know-how to create short range rockets is Iranian,” calling Iran “an octopus,” with proxies in region and beyond the region.” (Press TV, December 30, 2008)

Former U.S. Ambassador to the UN John Bolton, who remains a major voice in U.S. foreign policy, recently warned Fox News. “So while our focus obviously is on Gaza right now, this could turn out to be a much larger conflict. We’re looking at potentially a multi-front war.”

As a Revolution editorial assesses, “The danger of this crime spiraling into even wider and more criminal war is very real.”

This is all the more reason to step up efforts to broadly educate people about what’s actually going on in Gaza, and to build very broad mass resistance—immediately.

Larry Everest is the author of Oil, Power & Empire: Iraq and the U.S. Global Agenda (Common Courage 2004), a correspondent for Revolution newspaper where this first appeared, who has reported from Iran, Iraq and Palestine, and a contributor to Impeach the President: The Case Against Bush and Cheney (Seven Stories). He can be reached via http://www.larryeverest.com.

Hope as Hype: Change We Can Bereave In
Press Action

http://www.pressaction.com/news/weblog/full_article/inaugurationhype01062009/

“Security officials might get one big break: Compared with some previous inaugurations, there are no indications that large numbers of demonstrators are coming to Obama’s swearing-in, authorities said.” – The Washington Post

George W. Bush hadn’t become George W. Bush, the most hated president in history, when thousands of people turned out in the streets of D.C. on that cold, drizzly day in January 2001 for a raucous gathering to demonstrate their disdain for what he represented, the path he followed to the presidency and the office of the presidency itself.

They didn’t need to give the former Texas governor a chance, 100 days to show his true colors. They knew Bush well enough to understand that he would uphold the same deplorable policies people had endured under Clinton, Bush I, Reagan, Carter, Nixon and all other modern presidents. That’s why thousands lined the streets of Pennsylvania Avenue, expressing their outrage at a system that had perfected a formula for preserving business as usual.

The massive demonstration against Bush’s ascendency, the largest inaugural protest since Nixon’s second coronation in 1973, came less than 14 months after the hugely successful protest in Seattle against the meeting of the World Trade Organization. It was the heyday of large, hell-raising protests.

Here we are eight years later, and this time we have an even better understanding of the policy positions of the person entering the White House. We know exactly where Barack Obama stands on Israel, Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran, Cuba, Venezuela, military spending, health care, drug policy, the death penalty, government surveillance, civil liberties, the police, the prison industrial complex, environmental destruction, gay marriage, election reform, political duopoly, democracy, Wall Street and many of the other top issues of the day.

And we recognize he’s dead wrong on all of these issues. We know he’ll kowtow to the nation’s ruling elite, albeit with less of a smirk. And yet, if the forecasts prove accurate, thousands of people won’t be out in force on the streets of D.C., giving the new regime the hostile reception it deserves.

Instead of flinging tomatoes and apples at the new president’s limousine as it speeds down Pennsylvania Avenue, hundreds of thousands of spectators will be waving and cheering the new leader as he makes his triumphant march from the Capitol to the White House.

And yet there’s hope the public will grow more radicalized as it recognizes the system will not change its destructive ways without a firm push. It was during the second term of Democratic President Bill Clinton that disparate political and social groups coalesced into a broad-based movement that focused on the institutions that comprise the system. It wasn’t focused on the wrongdoings of one person or one political party. It wasn’t an anti-Clinton movement. It was a deeper movement than we’ve witnessed the last seven years of increasing fatigue with the Bush regime.

Economic, social and environmental conditions today are growing worse by the day, and political action may not wait until Obama’s second term to ripen into a movement with an even stronger punch and longer-lasting results than we witnessed in the various global actions during that previous era, which stretched from the WTO Seattle protests in November 1999 to the G8 Genoa protests in July 2001.

Phony Anarchism, Bogus Research
Press Action
Sunday, January 04, 2009
http://www.pressaction.com/news/weblog/full_article/berletbrownshirts01042009/

The title of Chip Berlet’s piece in the January 2009 issue of Z Magazine, “Brownshirt Anarchism, Bogus Journalism,” has nothing to do with the article. It is plainly misleading. There is nothing in the article about “brownshirt anarchism.” In fact, Berlet’s article has nothing to do with anarchism. It is mentioned briefly in the beginning to make some broad point without a single fact to back the assertion.

The article is about a book written by non-anarchists, specifically a chapter written by Alan Bock, a libertarian. Berlet claims editors Joshua Frank and Jeffrey St. Clair in their book, Red State Rebels: Tales of Grassroots Resistance in the Heartland, encourage an alliance between left and right activists. Neither of these people are anarchists.

Berlet spends most of his article attacking the chapter in the book written by Alan Bock. What does Bock’s chapter have to do with “brownshirt anarchism”? Absolutely nothing. Berlet primarily counters the perspective and challenges a few “facts” Bock presents in the chapter regarding Ruby Ridge and the Weaver family. The entire chapter has absolutely zilch to do with anarchism.

Where are Berlet’s “brownshirt anarchists”? They are nowhere to be seen in this article. Regarding the second half of the title, it’s hard to tell who Z Magazine’s editors believe is engaging in “bogus journalism,” given how the article has nothing to do with the title. Is Z Magazine referring to the “pedestrian writing” found in a few of the chapters to Red State Rebels or are they referring to how Berlet constructed his article, in which the opening two paragraphs have no relation to the rest of the article?

Perhaps Z Magazine’s editors were expecting Berlet to submit an article similar to the one by Spencer Sunshine that ran in the winter 2008 issue of Public Eye Magazine, a publication of Somerville, Mass.-based Political Research Associates where Berlet serves as a senior analyst. If so, then perhaps Z Magazine’s editors forgot to change the placeholder headline when the article arrived and it wasn’t about “brownshirts” or “anarchism.”

Sunshine’s article, titled “Rebranding Fascism: National-Anarchists,” chronicles the small phenomenon of neo-fascist groups adopting selected symbols, slogans and stances of left anarchists. In his own article, Berlet appears to be headed down the same path as Sunshine but then gets sidetracked in the third paragraph by reliving the 1992 standoff at Ruby Ridge, Idaho between the Weaver family and federal police agents.

The title of Berlet’s piece is a misrepresentation of what’s in the article and also serves to discredit anarchists by tying them with fascists. Genuine anarchists oppose nationalism and explicitly reject so-called “national anarchists” as frauds. And the article itself does a disservice to Frank and St. Clair by suggesting they are encouraging alliances between left-wing activists and fascists.

Washington Post Refuses to Disclose Identity of Maryland Police Spy
Press Action

http://www.pressaction.com/news/weblog/full_article/policespy01042009/

The Washington Post has conducted some strong reporting on the Maryland State Police’s campaign to spy on activists from 2005 to 2007. But in its latest report on how the scandal was more expansive than originally thought, the Post decided not to identify one of the police officers who worked undercover to spy on various individuals and activist groups in the state.

According to a front-page article in the Jan. 4 Post, the reporters covering the scandal, Lisa Rein and Josh White, indicated that they are aware of the actual identity of this particular state police offer but are declining to disclose her name because the newspaper claims it might compromise her efforts to conduct future undercover operations for the Maryland State Police. Of course, these future operations could include spying on activists, similar to the surveillance work she previously conducted.

This Maryland State Police spying campaign is an extremely unsavory and nefarious episode because it represents another huge step by a police agency in the United States, with vast financial resources at its disposal, to monitor, follow and track individual citizens. In this particular case, dozens of individuals were labeled as “terrorists” in the state police’s database for engaging in nonviolent activities, including opposing the death penalty, opposing the U.S. war on Iraq, campaigning to establish bicycle lanes along highways in the state, promoting human rights, advocating for animal rights, and protesting weapons manufacturers.

By not identifying the real name of the undercover police officer, the Post becomes an accessory to future transgressions and misdeeds committed by the Maryland State police officer who used the aliases Lucy Shoup and Lucy McDonald as she masqueraded as an activist opposed to the death penalty and the U.S. war on Iraq.

In their Jan. 4 article, Rein and White wrote: “The trooper provided weekly reports to her bosses, logging at least 288 hours of investigative time. She did not return phone calls seeking comment, and The Post is not identifying her because of concerns about compromising her cover in other possible operations.”

In Europe, Communist regimes conducted similar secret police operations. For example, East Germany’s Ministry for State Security, commonly referred to as the Stasi, deeply penetrated most segments of East German society, including unofficial political groups. Like the Maryland State Police, the Stasi monitored political behavior among East German citizens.

As with the Post’s decision not to publish the name of the Maryland State Police officer, publishers in East Germany did not disclose information that they deemed harmful to the regime. While the government-operated press in East Germany was subject to pre-publication censorship, the news media in the United States and other Western states practice self-censorship in order to remain in the good graces of government authorities, especially police, military and intelligence agencies that may be engaging in abusive and insidious activities.

But with the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989, East German citizens demanded access to the files kept by the Stasi, similar to the campaign in recent months by U.S. activists to obtain the secret files kept by the Maryland State Police. In 1992, following a declassification ruling by the new reunified German government, the Stasi files were opened, leading people to look for their files. In Maryland, the state police have made available heavily redacted versions of the files for some of the people upon whom the agency spied starting in 2005.

The Post article indicates the surveillance activity continued until late 2007, long after Democratic Gov. Martin O’Malley took office in January 2007. Previous reports placed the blame for the abuse on state police officials associated with the administration of Republican Gov. Robert Ehrlich, a right-wing politician who served one term as governor.

The Maryland chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union notes that “despite the clear infringement of First Amendment rights, no Maryland law prohibits this outrageous law enforcement conduct or provides remedies for wrongful targets.”

The ACLU says it knows that the Maryland State Police “has not acknowledged the full scope of their wrongful spying program: there are more targets than have been acknowledged, the spying occurred over a longer period of time than has been acknowledged, the MSP as of this writing continues to illegally deny wrongful targets copies of their files.”

The group says it will be lobbying during the upcoming session of the Maryland General Assembly for legislation, dubbed the The First Amendment Protection Act of 2009. The legislation [pdf] would:

* Prohibit covert criminal intelligence investigations and dossier compilation of individuals and groups based solely upon political, social or religious activities and beliefs, absent articulable suspicion of criminal activity.

* Establish oversight and accountability to ensure law enforcement activities are related to legitimate law enforcement purposes; ensure that criminal intelligence files contain only accurate and relevant information; and ensure that only accurate and relevant criminal intelligence information is disseminated to national security and other law enforcement agencies.

* Provide remedies for wrongful targets of objectionable law enforcement spying and First Amendment violations.

Israel and Palestine, Again, Forever
Press Action
Saturday, January 03, 2009
http://www.pressaction.com/news/weblog/full_article/blum01032009/

By William Blum

Nothing changes. Including what I have to say on the matter. To prove my point, I’m repeating part of what I wrote in this report in July 2006 ...

There are times when I think this tired old world has gone on a few years too long. What’s happening in the Middle East is so depressing. Most discussions of the everlasting Israel-Palestine conflict are variations on the child’s eternal defense for misbehavior—“He started it!” Within two minutes of discussing/arguing the latest manifestation of the conflict the participants are back to 1967, then 1948, then biblical times. Instead of getting entangled in who started the current mess, I’d prefer to express what I see as two essential underlying facts of life which remain from one conflict to the next:

1) Israel’s existence is not at stake and hasn’t been so for decades, if it ever was, regardless of the many de rigueur militant statements by Middle East leaders over the years. If Israel would learn to deal with its neighbors in a non-expansionist, non-military, humane, and respectful manner, engage in full prisoner exchanges, and sincerely strive for a viable two-state (if not one-state) solution, even those who are opposed to the idea of a state based on a particular religion could accept the state of Israel, and the question of its right to exist would scarcely arise in people’s minds. But as it is, Israel still uses the issue as a justification for its behavior, as Jews all over the world use the Holocaust and conflating anti-Zionism with anti-Semitism.

2) In a conflict between a thousand-pound gorilla and a mouse, it’s the gorilla who has to make concessions in order for the two sides to progress to the next level. What can the Palestinians offer in the way of concession? Israel would reply to that question: “No violent attacks of any kind.” But that would leave the status quo ante bellum—a life of unmitigated misery for the occupied, captive Palestinian people, confined to the world’s largest open air concentration camp.

It is a wanton act of collective punishment that is depriving the Palestinians of food, electricity, water, money, access to the outside world ... and sleep. Israel has been sending jets flying over Gaza at night triggering sonic booms, traumatizing children. “I want nobody to sleep at night in Gaza,” declared Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, words suitable for Israel’s tombstone.

Israel has created its worst enemies—they helped create Hamas as a counterweight to Fatah in Palestine, and their occupation of Lebanon created Hezbollah. The current terrible bombings can be expected to keep the process going. Since its very beginning, Israel has been almost continually engaged in fighting wars and taking other people’s lands. Did not any better way ever occur to the idealistic Zionist pioneers?

William Blum is the author of “Killing Hope: US Military and CIA Interventions Since World War 2,” “Rogue State: A Guide to the World’s Only Superpower,” “West-Bloc Dissident: A Cold War Memoir,” and “Freeing the World to Death: Essays on the American Empire.” Previous Anti-Empire Reports can be read at http://www.killinghope.org/.

Until There Are No Beings Whom We Still Define as 'Other'
Press Action

http://www.pressaction.com/news/weblog/full_article/phelpsbest01032009/

Norm Phelps and Steve Best exchange thoughts on their differences concerning direct action and alliance politics in the animal liberation movement.

Reprinted with permission from Thomas Paine’s Corner.

We include the following email and thoughtful exchanges between noted authors Norm Phelps and Steven Best in the hope that the yin-yang flow and point-counterpoint arguments might interest our readers and stimulate wider debate on these issues. Rather than pretend that controversial differences—such as over direct action and alliance politics—do not divide this broad “animal advocacy movement” into separate and conflicted zones, or, worse, suppress any mention of controversial debates in a way that brings the menacing chill of the Green Scare into our conference rooms, meeting halls, and mailing lists, as if differences had to be steamrolled by dogma, conformity, and bureaucracy.

This dialogue shows how topics such as direct action, violence, and social revolution can be openly and intelligently broached without acrimony and recrimination, without defaming or fear of being demonized; in the spirit of friendship rather than under a cloud of fear, stereotyping, and objectifying judgment.

The exchange began in late January, when Phelps sent an appreciative but critical response to Best’s tough but nonetheless positive review [pdf] of Phelps’s recent book, The Longest Struggle: Animal Advocacy from Pythagoras to PETA, in the last issue of The Journal for Critical Animal Studies. Despite Phelps’ intent that his missive be for private rather than public reading, Best was sufficiently impressed by the warmth, humanity, and intelligence of his new interlocutor to want to respond, engage in a lengthy dialogue and debate, and ultimately to publish the exchanges, and Phelps graciously agreed.

Despite a mutual recognition that some of their core beliefs were incommensurable, clearly their similarities outweigh their differences, such as bond them in their unwavering commitment to animal liberation. But whether in agreement or disagreement, their dialogue unfolded in a context of mutual support, respect, and stimulation. With the exception of Phelps’ initial letter, these exchanges were edited (at the expense of existential flattening) to maintain focus on philosophical, political, and tactical issues, rather than on personal matters such as health, travel, and cats (as interesting as the cat conversations were!).

1. January 30, 2008
Norm Phelps to Steve Best

Hi Steve,

This is not in any sense a “letter to the editor.” It is rather a private email that I am writing to you for two reasons: First, to express my appreciation for your review of The Longest Struggle in The Journal for Critical Animal Studies. Given our (probably irreconcilable) differences on certain issues, I thought you interpreted the narrative that I was trying to develop in regard to long-term historical themes with great sensitivity, insight, and fairness, and I appreciate that. I also appreciate your generosity in recommending the book on the basis of what you see as its strengths despite your serious concerns about what you see as its weaknesses. Thank you.

Secondly, I would like to briefly (well, maybe not all that briefly) discuss my reasoning regarding some of the points that you raise in your review, especially where I may not have expressed my views as clearly as I might have wished to.

If I interpret it rightly, the overall thrust of your critique is that I treat animal abuse and slaughter as an independent phenomenon rather than viewing it as being of one piece with human abuse and slaughter and pursuing a more holistic approach that attacks all forms of exploitation simultaneously in the context of an overarching social theory (anarchism, for example). This approach is deliberate based on what I believe are sound theoretical and practical reasons.

Animal exploitation and murder are no more the result of a particular belief system, political system, or economic system than are human exploitation and murder. To think that they are is to mistake the symptom for the disease. The disease is selfishness, greed, arrogance, and a lack of compassion. As Lord Acton told us, “Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” Human history demonstrates that whenever a system (economic, political, religious, whatever) is installed that is designed to end, or at least ameliorate, human oppression, it is fairly quickly corrupted into a new mechanism for the same old oppression. Communism, is one example, institutional Christianity another. Political and economic democracy slow the process by distributing power widely enough to prevent its concentration while placing a significant share of it in the hands of those most vulnerable to oppression. As Winston Churchill reminded us, “Democracy is the worst system of governance ever devised except for all of the other systems that have been tried from time to time.” Radical social revolutions simply put a new class of oppressors in charge. I wish it were not so, but it is.

To put it bluntly, we enslave and murder animals because it is in our self-interest to do so and we have the power to get away with it, not because of capitalism, liberal democracy, the Judeo-Christian dominionist tradition, or any of the other reasons so commonly given. These are merely after-the-fact justifications. We enslave and murder animals because we can and we enjoy the results. Change the political or economic system, and that fundamental fact will still be operative, and the enslavement and murder of animals will continue unaffected except that it will now be justified by a different set of theories, one that is compatible with the new system. During the 20th century, animals, like people, suffered even more in the Communist East than they did in the capitalist West.

That being the case, changing the social or economic system without first changing the moral standing of animals in the public consciousness would make no difference in the lives of animals. Once the animals have caught up with humans in this regard, then changes in the social, political, or economic system could have beneficial effects for them—depending, of course, on the nature of those changes.

In terms of specific items, you suggest that I am “not even consistent in [my] critique of direct action.” (italics yours) I think that I am. The thread of consistency is this: I support the direct liberation of animals and actions whose function is to educate the public, whether legal or illegal, but I do not support arson, bombing, or other forms of economic sabotage.

For example, in the context of the ALF’s Operation Bite Back, I said, “Liberation raids are of inestimable benefit to the sentient beings who are liberated, and they are justified on that basis alone.” (268) The direct actions that you cite as examples of my inconsistency (because I approve of them) all were focused on either direct liberation or public education.

You say that the Gennarelli raid in the 1980s, “provoked a national outrage and closed the torture chambers down.” Yes and no. Yes, it did provoke a national outrage and was invaluable in raising public awareness of the horrors of vivisection. But no, it did not “close the torture chambers down.” NIH did indeed cut off Gennarelli’s funding in response to PETA’s sit-in at NIH headquarters, but animal labs at the University of Pennsylvania continued to function undisturbed, and Gennarelli went on to complete his gruesome experiments and develop his “Traumatic Injury Scale,” which is now routinely used in the assessment of traumatic head injuries. In other words, while the raid performed a vital public education function, which is why I describe it favorably, it had zero impact on the vivisection industry or the career of Dr. Gennarelli.

And that illustrates my point. Raids that are undertaken to destroy property lack the justification of immediate liberation of specific sentient beings. They depend on impeding research or creating economic disincentives to animal research (or fur farming, or whatever). But in fact, they do neither. Vivisection continues to expand, and fur is doing better than it has for nearly two decades (and its earlier decline was due to campaigns aimed at consumers rather than producers). Such raids have no track record for advancing the cause of animal liberation and a considerable track record for turning the public against it and giving an oppressive law-enforcement-animal-industrial complex an excuse to implement draconian measures against the entire movement.

As long as animal liberation is supported by only a tiny sliver of the population, property destruction has no potential to move us in the right direction. In fact, it performs the grave disservice of taking the focus off of the animals and shifting it onto the animal rights movement. It makes torturers and murderers look like victims and animal activists look like criminals and terrorists—while the suffering of the animals gets lost in the shuffle. This plays into the hands of the animal abusers, and leads to laws like the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act and the proposed “Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act,” which in December 2007 passed the House by a vote of 404 to 6, with no significant opposition in either party. It is now before the Senate where it appears poised to pass by an equally lopsided majority. These laws, and others that will surely follow, threaten the entire animal rights movement—not to mention free speech generally—and in would not have gotten a free ride in Congress had the ALF and SHAC not given surface plausibility in the public mind to the animal abusers’ claim that the animal rights movement constitutes domestic terrorism. The push for such laws began with Deputy Assistant Director of the FBI, John Lewis’ Senate testimony in 2004 (283) labeling the AR and environmental movements as “terrorist,” asking for new laws specifically targeting these movements, and supporting the need for these laws by citing the activities of the ALF, the ELF, and SHAC.

For both strategic and ethical reasons, I oppose arson, bombing, and threats of violence against humans, as well as harassment of people not directly involved in the animal abuse being campaigned against.

Thus, I support the liberation of animals — from Jesus’ liberation of the animals waiting to be sacrificed in the Temple through medieval saints, through early ALF liberation raids on laboratories and mink farms, through “open rescues” of the type practiced by Animal Liberation Victoria, Compassion Over Killing, and other groups. I myself was arrested and spent two days in jail for liberating 200 pigeons at a live pigeon shoot in Pikeville Pennsylvania (civil disobedience rather than a surreptitious raid), and I was arrested twice in Maryland for violating hunter harassment laws. You ask why I do not support “economic sabotage and arson . . . if they are both effective and needed tactics in the long and broad war against animal exploiters.” (italics yours) But that is precisely my point. I have seen no evidence that they are effective, and considerable evidence that they are counterproductive. Under present circumstances, I think their main function is to make their perpetrators feel like they are some kind of dashing, romantic cavaliers (I call this the Zorro complex, the daring masked raider galloping out of the night to right an injustice), and I think these raids actually sacrifice the animals to the fantasies of the activists.

In regard to arson, as I say in the book (270), there is the additional problem that the consequences of a fire or bomb cannot be reliably predicted, no matter how careful the perpetrators are to avoid injury to humans. So far the movement has been lucky, but if arsons continue, sooner or later a firefighter will be killed or severely injured, and that, in addition to being a moral wrong, will be a strategic catastrophe. Arson and economic sabotage are not “contemporary versions of Jesus’ acts.” Jesus’ act was the direct liberation of animals; it was civil disobedience rather than a surreptitious raid; and it carried only a negligible risk of unintended consequences.

Incidentally, I agree with you that I more assert than support my claims about Jesus. But that is because of space constraints. In a footnote, I refer readers to The Dominion of Love: Animal Rights According to the Bible, where I devote considerable space to supporting my position. If you are interested, I would be happy to send you a copy; just let me know a mailing address to which I can send it. Interestingly, as I also make clear in The Dominion of Love, the Later Prophets and Jesus tied justice for human beings to justice for animals and advocated for both in a single, integrated social justice agenda. Unlike ours, the ancient Jewish left was neither humanist nor speciesist.

“Compounding the schizophrenic effect, Phelps attacks SHAC and the ALF but is entirely uncritical of Paul Watson’s own sabotage tactics, whether these involve sinking fishing vessels in a harbor, ramming pirate whalers to thwart their intent to murder whales, or ripping open a hole in the side of a whaler’s ship to disable it from its despicable task. I am certainly not criticizing Watson’s work, which I greatly admire, but rather pointing to another inconsistency whereby Phelps praises one form of property destruction but condemns another.”

I see Watson’s seal campaigns as primarily liberations rather than economic sabotage; when you spray-paint a white coat seal, you directly save her life. His whale campaigns should also be understood as liberations rather than more generalized economic sabotage since their primary functions are to save the lives of individual animals whom are being hunted and rally world public opinion against the whalers. And because they take place at sea rather than on land amid the general population, because they affect only people directly and voluntarily involved in the killing of whales, because Watson’s targets are clearly in defiance of international treaties (even the Japanese, with their plainly spurious claim of “research”), and because the public regards whales as unjustly endangered, charismatic creatures, these actions do not elicit the public backlash that the ALF and SHAC have engendered. They actually enhance the public image of the movement, and therefore, neither my strategic nor my ethical objections to the ALF’s use of arson and to SHAC’s targeting of people not directly involved in animal abuse can be applied to Sea Shepherd.

“Animal and human liberation projects work together, or not at all. Phelps’s single-issue politics transforms the relative autonomy of animal issues into a radical autonomy that separates animal liberation from its larger social, political, and economic context. Phelps’ atomistic, single-issue, two-party, liberal vision thwarts any effort to forge alliance movements against issues such as war, rainforest destruction, poverty, and world hunger that affect humans and animals alike.”

The massive imbalance of power between humans and animals and the cloak of invisibility which we have cast over animals necessitates, at least for the time being, a single-issue focus for the animal rights movement. Up until recently, there has effectively been no vision for the animals, and until one is articulated and repeated until it becomes thoroughly integrated into the common discourse, there can be no common vision that does not seriously disadvantage animals. That is to say, any alliances formed at this very early stage of society’s consciousness-raising concerning animals will carry a grave risk of betraying animals, a risk that in most instances I would regard as unacceptably high. (Based on its track record, I would consider ecofeminism an exception to that general rule.) At the present historical moment, the philosophical battle that needs to be won is for widespread recognition of the moral equality of animals; until that is accomplished, grand alliances of the type you describe (which look to me more like “popular fronts,” with all their attendant risks for betrayal and failure, than my own smaller alliances within the animal protection movement) will advantage human beings and disadvantage animals. Such alliances function like yellow caution flags in an automobile race; they lock everyone into the relative positions that they held when the flag was raised. If animals are at the back of the pack (as they are), they will stay there, having traded away most of their ability to propel themselves forward independently. Our task now is to establish the principle of moral equality for animals; then will come the opportunity to consider forging grand alliances. Dee Brown and Vine Deloria saw no reason to include the hardships and dangers faced by white pioneers in their groundbreaking books intended to level the playing field between American Indians and they saw very good reasons not to.

Not that I would spurn help for animals from individuals or groups whose primary interest is an anthropocentric issue (women’s rights, economic justice, racial justice, whatever), but I would not make alliances with such groups or movements an integral part of AR strategy until the power and awareness imbalance has been rectified.

“Moreover, they tend to be ignorant of the history of social movements and the crucial role violence, force, and intimidation have played in bringing about progressive social and moral change. The corrective to wholesale consumption of Gandhi and King can be found in books such as Howard Zinn’s, A Peoples History of the United States (which throughout emphasizes the crucial role sabotage and violence play in struggles for democracy); Ward Churchill’s, The Pathology of Pacifism; and Peter Gelderloos’s How Nonviolence Protects the State.”

I find nothing in A People’s History (a book I much admire) to suggest that a group with as little popular support for its goals as animal rights can accomplish anything by sabotage and violence except its own destruction. Ward Churchill’s success at depriving himself of a very important bully pulpit from which to speak out against oppression is an excellent illustration of this point. Whatever his merits as a scholar may or may not be, as an activist and strategist, he is a buffoon living in a fantasy world. How else can you describe an academic who poses for publicity photos wearing Che Guevara style camouflage and beret and holding an automatic rifle? (A Che complex is just a left-wing version of a Zorro complex.) I am not directly familiar with Peter Gelderloos’ work, and so I will not comment on it.

Your point that I devote less space to larger social, political, and economic context than is needed for a full understanding of animal exploitation is largely correct. One reason is lack of space: In a history that attempts to describe the human-animal relationship—with emphasis on efforts to bring compassion and justice into that relationship—over more than 10,000 years of human history, it is necessary to be selective, especially in a one-volume work aimed at a general audience.

More substantively, I believe that only after the animals’ perspective on the human-animal relationship has been established and analyzed—a project which is still in its infancy—will it be possible to fit that relationship into its proper place in terms of social, political, and economic theory. Otherwise, we will end up trying to force-fit the animals’ situation into already existing ideologies like socialism, anarchism, or whatever, that were designed for human-on-human relationships and have yet to demonstrate that they are adequate to address animal issues. Relatedly, I think that before a comprehensive explanatory history that integrates human and nonhuman oppression into a single exegesis can be written, it will be necessary to do much more of the preliminary work of writing explanatory histories (and sociologies) that focus on animals.

“While demonstrating that key advances in the modern animal advocacy movement came from England, Phelps never explains why this occurred and what socio-economic and cultural conditions might have prompted England’s leading role.”

I don’t think that anyone knows the answer to questions like “Why did the revolution in our perception of animals begin in England?” I have seen a lot of theories, mostly having to do with the assumption that it evolved in one way or another from the industrial revolution and the sudden expansion of companion animal guardianship, but none of them are persuasive. The difficulty with identifying causal relationships in major historical trends is, of course, that most hypotheses a) cannot be tested, and b) have no predictive function that can serve to keep them tied to reality, a fact demonstrated by Communism (“scientific socialism”) in the twentieth century. Therefore, they tend to be expressions of ideology masquerading as historical analysis. Historical trends have a uniqueness that typically frustrates causal analysis. The England question may well remain forever unanswered and unanswerable, although I did, somewhat tentatively, put forward one possible explanation (90-91; 94-96)

“It is an odd and significant lapse, moreover, that he doesn’t engage the environmental and social justice aspects of vegetarianism as they become increasingly apparent in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries and were explicitly developed as least by 1971, with the publication of Francis Moore Lappe’s Diet for a Small Planet.”

For reasons of length, focus, and redressing the imbalance between animal issues and human issues (including environmentalism and social justice), I deliberately dealt only with animal advocacy for the sake of (nonhuman) animals, as I said in regard to the human health wing of the vegetarian movement. (150). I think that this is an essential step and that trying to tie animal issues too closely to human issues is premature in a way that disadvantages animals. I do not reject human health, environmental, social justice, and world (human) hunger arguments. I just think at the present juncture we need to focus on the animals and their unjust suffering and death if we are ever to build a viable, effective animal rights movement.

“In another curious move, Phelps treats PETA with kid gloves despite their endless follies and demented policy of “euthanizing” thousands of cats and dogs, many perfectly adoptable.”

I do not find PETA’s “endless follies” (I assume you mean things like pies in the face and the “naked” campaign) foolish at all, given PETA’s unrivaled status for nearly thirty years as the group that has had the most success in bringing the animal rights and vegan/vegetarian messages to the mainstream public. PETA has done more to advance the animal rights cause than any group in the history of the world. More seriously, you give readers the false impression that I support PETA’s “euthanasia,” policy. In fact, I was critical of this policy in the book, saying in regard to PETA’s defense of it, “I do not find this argument persuasive,” (115) and going on to explain why I oppose the killing of healthy animals. I was even more explicit in my critique of PETA’s euthanasia program (and the failure of PETA, HSUS, and the ASPCA to support the no-kill movement) in the Abolitionist-Online interview that you cite elsewhere.

“Phelps carps against militant direction today in the same way that in the 1960s the NAACP chastised Martin Luther King Jr. as an “extremist” and urged he abandon his civil disobedience tactics and patiently “wait” for change.”

I have nowhere criticized civil disobedience. In fact, I support it. Nor do I anywhere argue that we should “patiently ‘wait’ for change.” But I do think we must be patient while we work for change. I certainly understand why you are impatient. I’m impatient, too. The horror of animal exploitation and mass murder cries out for impatience. But sadly, given the ubiquitous and entrenched nature of the problem, haste can all too easily make waste. In developing both ideologies and strategies, we need to move with forethought and discipline, one step at a time. At this point, the “patient” wing of the animal rights movement is making faster progress for animals than the “impatient” wing.

A new generation of historians is demonstrating that the civil rights movement was not born fully formed from the head of Zeus with Brown v. Topeka and the Montgomery bus boycott, as we had always been told, but had been developing slowly, feeling its way, almost from the end of Reconstruction. Thurgood Marshall and Martin Luther King were the culmination, not the beginning, of what some historians now call “the long civil rights movement.” The animal rights movement is as yet nowhere nearly as far advanced as the civil rights movement was when King wrote his Letter from a Birmingham Jail.

Most importantly, there is a critical difference between internal discipline (which is what I am arguing for here) and counsel to “go slow” by people who want to retard progress or are afraid of change. We have to remember that while Dr. King was rejecting calls from his right to slow down, he was also rejecting calls from his left to go faster by adopting reckless means that threatened to undermine his strategy and his progress, i.e. from Malcolm X, Stokely Carmichael, H. Rap Brown, Huey Newton, and others. I support the kind of civil disobedience practiced by King; I do not support the kind of counterproductive violence and economic sabotage that he condemned.

“Without argument or cause, and sounding more like the reactionary corporate front group, the Center for Consumer Freedom (CCF) than a champion of animal rights, Phelps smears the ALF and SHAC as “reprehensible” (274) groups engaged in nothing but “mischief-making” (276).”

I did not call the ALF and SHAC “reprehensible” (although I did say, and do believe, that many of their activities constitute “mischief making” and worse for the AR movement). I said that “SHAC’s tactics are reprehensible” (because they target people who are not directly involved in the animal exploitation that is being protested, including spouses, children, and neighbors of employees of companies that do business with the exploiters and sometimes go beyond simple harassment into the realm of violence). I deliberately did not apply the term to the people in SHAC or apply the term in any way to either the ALF or its tactics. I think that many of the ALF’s and ELF’s tactics (primarily arson and bombing) are morally and strategically wrong, but I did not call them “reprehensible.”

“Like HSUS and much of the mainstream animal movement, Phelps uncritically accepts FBI, state, and corporate definitions of violence and terrorism which are then replicated in the critique of direct action, thereby condemning some of the most effective actions taken in the movement as “criminal” and “counter-productive.”

I was highly critical of the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act, the prosecution of the SHAC 7, and the general oppressiveness of the government offensive against the animal rights movement. (274; 275-277; 280-283) I cited the FBI’s statement about the Chiron raid and Kevin Jonas’ denial, and pointed out that the government has never charged anyone except the mysterious Andreas San Diego. (273) I was also critical of the prosecution of Rod Coronado (268-269). One of my major objections to some of the tactics of ALF and SHAC is that they facilitate an unjust and oppressive crackdown on the animal rights movement while accomplishing nothing for the animals.

I have two questions in regard to your concerns about my definition of violence: First, if agents of HLS set fire to your office or staged a raucous, noisy demonstration outside of your home and threw bricks through your windows, would you consider those acts “violence?” I know I would if they happened to me. Violence is properly understood to refer to means, not ends, and we cannot have one definition of violence for those with whom we agree and another for those with whom we disagree. It is important to maintain consistency and clarity of language. (We can, of course, discuss whether there is such a thing as justified violence; that is a legitimate, but separate, discussion.) Second, can you show me any evidence that the tactics I condemn have had any effect in reducing animal exploitation or increasing public opposition to it? If n