Blogger news

Archive for 07/01/2010 - 08/01/2010

Israeli right embracing one-state?

By Ali Abunimah

There has been a strong revival in recent years of support among Palestinians for a one-state solution guaranteeing equal rights to Palestinians and Israeli Jews throughout historic Palestine.
One might expect that any support for a single state among Israeli Jews would come from the far left, and in fact this is where the most prominent Israeli Jewish champions of the idea are found, although in small numbers.

Recently, proposals to grant Israeli citizenship to Palestinians in the West Bank, including the right to vote for the knesset, have emerged from a surprising direction: Right-wing stalwarts such as knesset speaker Reuven Rivlin, and former defence minister Moshe Arens, both from the Likud party of Binyamin Netanyahu, the prime minister.

Even more surprisingly, the idea has been pushed by prominent activists among Israel's West Bank settler movement, who were the subject of a must-read profile by Noam Sheizaf in Haaretz.

Unlikely advocates

heir visions still fall far short of what any Palestinian advocate of a single state would consider to be just: The Israeli proposals insist on maintaining the state's character - at least symbolically - as a "Jewish state," exclude the Gaza Strip, and do not address the rights of Palestinian refugees.
And, settlers on land often violently expropriated from Palestinians would hardly seem like obvious advocates for Palestinian human and political rights.
Although the details vary, and in some cases are anathema to Palestinians, what is more revealing is that this debate is occurring openly and in the least likely circles.
The Likudnik and settler advocates of a one-state solution with citizenship for Palestinians realise that Israel has lost the argument that Jewish sovereignty can be maintained forever at any price. A status quo where millions of Palestinians live without rights, subject to control by escalating Israeli violence is untenable even for them.
At the same time repartition of historic Palestine - what they call Eretz Yisrael - into two states is unacceptable, and has proven unattainable - not least because of the settler movement itself.
Some on the Israeli right now recognise what Israeli geographer Meron Benvenisti has said for years: Historic Palestine is already a "de facto binational state," unpartionable except at a cost neither Israelis nor Palestinians are willing to pay.

'Horse and rider'

The relationship between Palestinians and Israelis is not that of equals however, but that "between horse and rider" as one settler vividly put it in Haaretz.
From the settlers' perspective, repartition would mean an uprooting of at least tens of thousands of the 500,000 settlers now in the West Bank, and it would not even solve the national question.
Would the settlers remaining behind in the West Bank (the vast majority under all current two-state proposals) be under Palestinian sovereignty or would Israel continue to exercise control over a network of settlements criss-crossing the putative Palestinian state?
How could a truly independent Palestinian state exist under such circumstances?
The graver danger is that the West Bank would turn into a dozen Gaza Strips with large Israeli civilian populations wedged between miserable, overcrowded walled Palestinian ghettos.
The patchwork Palestinian state would be free only to administer its own poverty, visited by regular bouts of bloodshed.
Even a full Israeli withdrawal from the West Bank - something that is not remotely on the peace process agenda - would leave Israel with 1.5 million Palestinian citizens inside its borders. This population already faces escalating discrimination, incitement and loyalty tests.
In an angry, ultra-nationalist Israel shrunken by the upheaval of abandoning West Bank settlements, these non-Jewish citizens could suffer much worse, including outright ethnic cleansing.
With no progress toward a two-state solution despite decades of efforts, the only Zionist alternative on offer has been outright expulsion of the Palestinians - a programme long-championed by Israeli foreign minister Avigdor Lieberman's Yisrael Beitenu party, which has seen its support increase steadily.
Israel is at the point where it has to look in the mirror and even some cold, hard Likudniks like Arens apparently do not like what they see. Yisrael Beitenu's platform is "nonsensical," Arens told Haaretz and simply not "doable".
If Israel feels it is a pariah now, what would happen after another mass expulsion of Palestinians?

Lessons from South Africa
Given these realities, "The worst solution ... is apparently the right one: a binational state, full annexation, full citizenship" in the words of settler activist and former Netanyahu aide Uri Elitzur.
This awakening can be likened to what happened among South African whites in the 1980s. By that time it had become clear that the white minority government's effort to "solve" the problem of black disenfranchisement by creating nominally independent homelands - bantustans - had failed.
Pressure was mounting from internal resistance and the international campaign of boycott, divestment and sanctions. By the mid-1980s, whites overwhelmingly understood that the apartheid status quo was untenable and they began to consider "reform" proposals that fell very far short of the African National Congress' demands for a universal franchise - one-person, one-vote in a non-racial South Africa.
The reforms began with the 1984 introduction of a tricameral parliament with separate chambers for whites, coloureds and Indians (none for blacks), with whites retaining overall control.
Until almost the end of the apartheid system, polls showed the vast majority of whites rejected a universal franchise, but were prepared to concede some form of power-sharing with the black majority as long as whites retained a veto over key decisions.
The important point, as I have argued previously,is that one could not predict the final outcome of the negotiations that eventually brought about a fully democratic South Africa in 1994, based on what the white public and elites said they were prepared to accept.

Once Israeli Jews concede that Palestinians must have equal rights, they will not be able to unilaterally impose any system that maintains undue privilege.
A joint state should accommodate Israeli Jews' legitimate collective interests, but it would have to do so equally for everyone else.

Moral currency devalued

The very appearance of the right-wing one-state solution suggests Israel is feeling the pressure and experiencing a relative loss of power. If its proponents thought Israel could "win" in the long-term there would be no need to find ways to accommodate Palestinian rights.
But Israeli Jews see their moral currency and legitimacy drastically devalued worldwide, while demographically Palestinians are on the verge of becoming a majority once again in historic Palestine.
Of course Israeli Jews still retain an enormous power advantage over Palestinians which, while eroding, is likely to last for some time.
Israel's main advantage is a near monopoly on the means of violence, guaranteed by the US.
But legitimacy and stability cannot be gained by reliance on brute force - this is the lesson that is starting to sink in among some Israelis as the country is increasingly isolated after its attacks on Gaza and the Gaza Freedom Flotilla.
Legitimacy can only come from a just and equitable political settlement.
Perhaps the right-wing proponents of a single state recognise that the best time to negotiate a transition which provides safeguards for Israeli Jews' legitimate collective interests is while they are still relatively strong.

Transforming relationships
That proposals for a single state are coming from the Israeli right should not be so surprising in light of experiences in comparable situations.
In South Africa, it was not the traditional white liberal critics of apartheid who oversaw the system's dismantling, but the National Party which had built apartheid in the first place. In Northern Ireland, it was not "moderate" unionists and nationalists like David Trimble and John Hume who finally made power-sharing under the 1998 Belfast Agreement function, but the long-time rejectionists of Ian Paisley's Democratic Unionist Party, and the nationalist Sinn Fein, whose leaders had close ties the IRA.
The experiences in South Africa and Northern Ireland show that transforming the relationship between settler and native, master and slave, or "horse and rider," to one between equal citizens is a very difficult, uncertain and lengthy process.
There are many setbacks and detours along the way and success is not guaranteed. It requires much more than a new constitution; economic redistribution, restitution and restorative justice are essential and meet significant resistance.
But such a transformation is not, as many of the critics of a one-state solution in Palestine/Israel insist, "impossible." Indeed, hope now resides in the space between what is "very difficult" and what is considered "impossible".

The proposals from the Israeli right-wing, however inadequate and indeed offensive they seem in many respects, add a little bit to that hope. They suggest that even those whom Palestinians understandably consider their most implacable foes can stare into the abyss and decide there has to be a radically different way forward.
We should watch how this debate develops and engage and encourage it carefully. In the end it is not what the solution is called that matters, but whether it fulfills the fundamental and inalienable rights of all Palestinians.

Ali Abunimah is author of One Country, A Bold Proposal to End the Israeli-Palestinian Impasse and co-founder of The Electronic Intifada.
The views expressed in this article are the author's own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera's editorial policy.


A neo-conservative (abbreviated as neo-con or neocon) is part of a U.S. based political movement rooted in liberal Cold War anticommunism and a backlash to the social liberation movements of the 1960s and 1970s. These liberals drifted toward conservatism: thus they are new (neo) conservatives. They favor an aggressive unilateral U.S. foreign policy. They generally believe that elites protect democracy from mob rule. Sometimes the spelling is "neoconservative."

Origins of the neo-conservative movement

In their book Right-Wing Populism in America, Chip Berlet and Matthew Lyons wrote that:
Neoconservatives, including many Jewish and Catholic intellectuals rooted in Cold War liberalism, clustered around publications such as Public Interest and Commentary and organizations such as the Committee on the Present Danger. They emphasized foreign policy, where they advocated aggressive anticommunism, U.S. global dominance, and international alliances. Although they attacked feminism, gay rights, and multiculturalism, "neocons" often placed less emphasis on social policy issues, and many of them opposed school prayer or a ban on abortion. In addition, many neocons supported limited social welfare programs and nonrestrictive immigration policies." [1]
Inter-Press Service journalist Jim Lobe noted that the development of a common understanding on the definition of neoconservative "can help distinguish them from other parts of the ideological coalition behind the administration's neo-imperialist trajectory". Lobe identifies the main strands as "the traditional Republican Machtpolitikers (Might Makes Right), such as Vice President Dick Cheney and Pentagon chief Donald Rumsfeld, and the Christian Rightists, such as Attorney General John AshcroftGary Bauer, and Pat Robertson."[2]
Writing in 2002 Lobe and Tom Barry argued that"neoconservatives have a profound belief in America1s moral superiority, which facilitates alliances with the Christian Right and other social conservatives. But unlike either core traditionalists of American conservatism or those with isolationist tendencies, neoconservatives are committed internationalists. As they did in the 1970s, the neoconservatives were instrumental in the late 1990s in helping to fuse diverse elements of the right into a unified force based on a new agenda of U.S. supremacy."[3]
For a list of prominent American neoconservatives, see Neo-conservatives/list.

Neoconservative forums and advocates

The early leaders of the neoconservative movement were Irving Kristol (author of 1983 book Reflections of a Neoconservative) and Norman Podhoretz, both of whom have served as editors of Commentary Magazine, the flagship publication of the American Jewish Committee, a centrist American-Jewish organization. On its webpage Commentary boasts it is known "as the intellectual home of the neoconservative movement" which is "vitally engaged in the preservation and spread of democracy and Western values." [4]
Other magazines include the Weekly Standard, currently edited by William Kristol and owned by Rupert Murdoch. The editorial page of Wall Street Journal can generally be relied upon to promote solidly neoconservative analysis. Irving Kristol also founded The National Interest, a journal vying to compete with Foreign Affairs.
Important neoconservatives in American politics include Paul Dundes WolfowitzRichard PerleDavid WurmserWilliam Kristol (son of Irving Kristol), Elliott Abrams (son-in-law to Norman Podhoretz) and Douglas Jay Feith.
Think tanks and organizations closely related to the neoconservatives include American Enterprise InstituteProject for the New American Century and JINSA (Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs).

The neoconservatives and the Bush administrations

Many neoconservatives found important positions in the Department of Defense under George W. Bush. They had long argued for a preventive war against Iraq in particular, but also several other Middle Eastern countries (IranSyriaLibyaEgyptSaudi Arabia).
Immediately following the September 11, 2001 terrorist attack, they renewed their calls for attack on Iraq. The Bush administration chose to first invade Afghanistan, but the neoconservatives eventually prevailed.

Criticisms of neoconservatives from within the conservative movement

Neo-conservatism has come in for criticism by some from other strands of the conservative movement. The rather disparagingly dubbed "paleo-conservatives" criticise neoconservatives for being too liberal and too internationalist. Writing in The New American, a publication of the John Birch SocietyJohn F. McManus complains that a neo-conservative is "an opponent of Communism but a supporter of socialism and internationalism." McManus complained of a 1993 article in the Wall Street Journal expressing support for aspects of the welfare system. "These neocons have taken over the conservative wing of the Republican party. And they have succeeded in doing so to the degree that the word 'conservative' is now being applied to individuals and ideas that are, in fact, liberal (in the leftist sense), socialist, and totally undeserving of the conservative label," he complained.[5]
Right-wing ideologue Joseph Sobran echoed these sentiments complaining that "As a powerful movement, conservatism also attracted new members who were more interested in power than in principle. Some of these were called “neoconservatives” — admirers of Roosevelt and recent supporters of Lyndon Johnson who cared nothing for limited government and the U.S. Constitution." [6]

Neocon influence in the US media

The number of neocon dominated/controlled journals and program outlets has steadily increased ever since the introduction of Commentary. Eric Alterman lists the following outlets according to their degree of neoconnery [7]:
Although not listed in Alterman's list, The Atlantic Monthly also registers increasingly as a neocon-dominated periodical.
In Canada, neocon-dominated news outlets include:
  • Western Standard
  • The National Post
Increasingly, since Kenneth Whyte, the former editor of the right-wing and now-defunct Alberta Report' and former editor-in-chief of the National Post and the now defunct weekly magazineSaturday Night, took over as editor-in-chief and publisher of Canada's only weekly news magazine in 2005, MacLeans has also taken on a slick neoconservative bias. [8]

SourceWatch resources

Integral External Links



  • "The Neocons", You Tube, July 5th, 2007. (1 minute long)


The history of Neoconservatism

Isnin, Julai 19, 2010
Posted by Unknown

DAP:Tiada Subsidi Makanan-Kerajaan dikatakan kejam

Amat menghairankan, terutamanya apabila melihat ramai diantara penyokong Pakatan Rakyat yang marah apabila berlaku penstrukturan semula harga barangan. Saya yakin dengan penuh percaya bahawa ramai diantara penyokong Pakatan Rakyat yang selalu merengek dan meminta agar penstabilan harga pada beberapa barangan keperluan utama seperti Beras, susu, gula , minyak masak dan tepung di stabilkan harga di pasaran.

Mungkin Ramai diantara para pembaca yang terlepas beberapa Paparan maklumat yang saya telah pun buat sebelum ini mengenai perkara ini .

Wawasan 2020 Mampu Dicapai Jika Tukar Strategi - Dr MahathirMalaysia Mungkin Berdepan Kemelesetan Ekonomi Berganda Berikutan Faktor Luaran

Sekiranya program rasionalisi subsidi yang dicadangkan oleh kerajaan ditentang hebat oleh para penyokong Pakatan Rakyat , Saya cadangkan kepada semua penyokong pakatan rakyat melihat dimanakah letaknya Program Subsidi Bahan Makanan oleh kerajan pakatan rakyat didalam DAP Alternative National Budgets 2010 yang dicadang oleh DAP.

Cuba teliti kembali, dimanakah letaknya Subsidi makanan yang selama ini digunakan dan dinikmati oleh penyokong penyokong pakatan rakyat? Ternyata ramai yang kelihatan disogok oleh pelbagai perangkaan yang belum tentu akan dinikmati sepenuhnya secara adil bagi penyokong pakatan rakyat mahu pun Penyokong Barisan Nasional didalam pengagihan projek-projek pembangunan yang bernilai berbilion bilion ringgit yang bakal ditaburkan. 

Ternyata, dengan penerbitan dokumen penting ini didalam bahasa inggeris , mematikan minat para penyokong Pakatan rakyat untuk membaca dokumen belanjawan alternatif ini. dengan mematikan minat para penyokong mereka yang selalunya berminat untuk mengetahui pendedahan skandal dan sebagainya, dan menjadikan kepimpinan Pakatan Rakyat selesa. dengan keadaan ini. 

Dimanakah letaknya pejuang pejuang bahasa ? adakah mereka telah hilang ?  

Bagaimana pula dengan perkara ini, 

8.2.3 Rights to borrow
Furthermore, it is proposed that states be given power to borrow from sources other than the federal government. States lost their right to borrow when they joined the Federation of Malaysia because the Constitution only allows borrowing from the federal government. But this need not be the case. Many other federations in the world, e.g. the US, Canada, Germany and Switzerland, allow states or provinces to have autonomous borrowing rights. This enables states to invest in infrastructure and development projects without needing to wait for federal approval and funds. Additionally, state governments would also be accountable to their creditors and thus have further pressure to invest wisely.

To ensure that the states utilise this new found right in a responsible and effective manner, restrictions will be put in place initially to ensure a managed transition. States can only borrow up to a maximum of 50% of their annual own-source revenue, which is revenue raised directly by the state governments and does not include federal grants or shared federal income tax revenue. The funds raised must be used for development expenditure and not operating expenditure. In the initial 3 years of introducing this measure, the federal government will guarantee only 30% of state debt to help states enter the borrowing market. The burden of scrutiny must however, be on the private sector lenders.

Ketika ramai yang ketika ini tidak mengenali apakah dia "Pink Forms" Mungkin kisah dibawah akan dapat memperkenalkan kepada mereka yang tidak tahu lagi kewujudan "Pink Forms" dan dapat mengetahui bagaimanakah kuasa Pink forms didalam perlawanan Anwar Ibrahin Vs. Ghaffar Baba.  

Kes Klasik Pengurusan Ekonomi Anwar

Anwar juga lupa bahawa pada zaman beliaulah usahawan-usahawan Malaysia hampir lingkup kerana dasar kewangan ala IMF Anwar. Sebab itu yang menyokong Anwar hanyalah dari kelompok mereka yang makan gaji (kerana tidak perlu fikir masalah syarikat untuk membayar gaji), kakitangan kerajaan, negara asing dan beberapa jutawan segera yang Anwar lahirkan.

Beratus syarikat besar menunggu masa untuk diisytihar muflis kerana tindakan Anwar menaikan kadar faedah ketika itu ekonomi sedang merudum.

Jika dasar Anwar dibiarkan bukan sahaja syarikat akan muflis malah sistem perbankan juga akan runtuh kerana gagal mendapat kembali hutang dari syarikat yang muflis.

Berapa ramai pemegang kad kredit yang muflis dan masih berhutang dengan bank kerana Anwar menaikkan kadar faedah?

Tentulah seluruh kabinet pada masa itu harus bertanggungjawab secara kolektif. Namun kerana Anwar mendakwa beliaulah yang menguruskan ekonomi negara dengan cekap maka, penulis membuat andaian bahawa kesemua perkara ini adalah keputusan Anwar semata.

Jika Anwar terus melaksanakan dasar IMF (beliau menjadi Pengerusi boneka ketika itu) berapa banyak rakyat negara ini terpaksa menjadi penganggur dan pelarian rezeki di negara orang? Kerana Anwar dipecatlah, Malaysia dapat memberi peluang pekerjaan kepada rakyat Indonesia dan Thailand yang menerima pinjaman IMF.

Jika Anwar masih lupa juga, ingatkah beliau bagaimana Kementerian Kewangan bawah pimpinannya bercadang untuk menjual Perwaja kepada Maju Holding tapi dalam masa yang sama kerajaan terpaksa menanggung hutang?

Apabila Anwar Ibrahim merancang untuk menjual sebanyak 51% saham Perwaja Steel Sdn Bhd kepada syarikat Maju Holdings Sdn Bhd melalui Equal Concept Sdn Bhd, Kementerian Kewangan telah mengatur dua (2) pinjaman;

(a). Satu pinjaman berjumlah US$400 juta melalui Bank Standard Chartered di Labuan,

(b). Satu pinjaman berjumlah RM3.212 bilion melalui Arab-Malaysian Merchant Bank.

Kedua-dua pinjaman diatas digunakan untuk menjelaskan pinjaman yang telah diambil daripada 'Japanese Export Bank' dan juga Kumpulan Syarikat-syarikat perniagaan Jepun yang berjumlah RM2.6 bilion dan juga beberapa pinjaman lain.

Maju Holdings Sdn Bhd merancang untuk mengumpul dana sebanyak RM1.02 bilion melalui pengambilalihan Berjaya Singer untuk digunakan membayar RM1.02 bilion bagi memiliki sebanyak 51% pegangan saham di dalam Perwaja Steel Sdn Bhd.

Kementerian Kewangan Malaysia pula merancang untuk menggunakan pembayaran daripada syarikat Maju Holdings Sdn Bhd tersebut untuk membayar balik sebahagian dari pinjaman yang diambil dari Arab-Malaysian Merchant Bank.

Malangnya rancangan pengambilalihan Berjaya Singer oleh syarikat Maju Holdings Sdn Bhd itu gagal maka Kementerian Kewangan Malaysia telah meminjam sejumlah RM710 juta dari Kumpulan Wang Simpanan Pekerja untuk membayar balik pinjaman kepada Arab-Malaysian Merchant Bank.

Ini bermakna Kumpulan Syarikat-syarikat Perwaja masih lagi dimiliki oleh Kerajaan dan syarikat Maju Holdings Sdn Bhd hanya menguruskannya.

Sekarang ini Anwar Ibrahim melaungkan gerakan ketelusan (transparency) dan menentang sebarang bentuk nepotisma dan kronisma.

Adakah tindak tanduk Kementerian Kewangan Malaysia (dibawahnya) untuk menjual 51% saham Perwaja Steel Sdn Bhd kepada syarikat Maju Holdings Sdn Bhd boleh dianggap sebagai satu bentuk kronisma?

Bagaimana kita tidak boleh mentafsirkan penjualan syarikat besi keluli nasional pada nilaian 50% dibawah nilaian sebenarnya sebagai kronisma?

Alhamdulillah, rancangan ini tidak berjaya. Jikalau rancangan ini berjaya, Kementerian Kewangan Malaysia akan terus bertanggungjawab untuk membayar baki dari pinjaman Yen yang telah diambil pada tahun 1982 dan juga membayar balik pinjaman-pinjaman yang telah diambil dari Bank Standard Chartered di Labuan dan Arab-Malaysian Merchant Bank

Sekiranya Indonesia berjaya menurunkan kadar Inflasi dalam masa 10 tahun daripada 80% pada tahun 1998 kepada 12 % pada tahun 2008. dengan amalan kronisme dan nepotisme yang berlegar legar disekeliling pakatan rakyat akan menyababkan kemusnahan yang lebih buruk lagi . 

Kerajaan Barisan Nasional masih releven kepada semua rakyat,  dan tanyalah kepada rakyat yang mengeluh akibat daripada kenaikan harga Minyak , Adakah Di US , Canada , Germany , dan Switzerland memberikan subsidi bahan bakar dan Subsidi bahan makanan kepada rakyat ? Persoalannya yang sudah terang- terangan kita tahu jawapannya .

Popular Post

Blogger templates

- Copyright © Perjalanan Mahadi -Metrominimalist- Powered by Blogger - Designed by Johanes Djogan -