Father Ben Urmston SJ
 

Current Events 1998-2008

Fr. Ben:  I just checked out your web site, and I must say that it is remarkable.  It is surely the best single source of information on social justice and peace issues that I have found.  The current events section is especially good.  I have not found another source with so much information on so many issues of current importance.  Kudos!

Jay Guzwiller XU '98

Go to Current Events Archives:

Affluenza
Afghanistan
Central America
Columbia
Cuba

Death Penalty
Democratic international law
Depleted Uranium
East Timor

Economic democracy
 
 

Great Lakes Africa
International criminal court
Iraq
Israel
Kosovo
Labor
  Northern Ireland
Nuclear weapons
Political democracy
Race Relations

 

Restorative justice
Stem cells
Sudan
Taxes

Terrorism
Tikkun
Usury
Violence
War

Welfare

 


 

Signs of the Times

Jesus urged us to read the signs of the times.  Here I share my own reading of current events in the light of my vision of utopia, the truth of tomorrow. As a community, as a nation, we have a collective light graced story in which God has loved us and we have taken that love to others. The United States affirms civic rights and political rights. We did free the slaves. Much later we did enact civil rights legislation. We did finally give women the right to vote. We have made some advances in fairness to workers. As a nation we do care about the environment. There is a part of the American people that is generous and open to new ideas. We still have the opportunity for non-violent change. 

I think we also need to face our collective dark graced story which takes courage and spiritual freedom to admit.  God is present in our dark graced story revealing to us that it is dark and helping us to move the dark graced story to the light graced story side of the ledger.   You may feel that what follows below is more of the dark graced story than the light.  If you have more examples of the light graced story, I welcome them as part of our dialogue.  I feel as long as we do not have basic human rights for each human person in our world, we have not reached the beginning.  It's not enough for me to be relatively free and secure.  I can't be happy as long as there's one person who is basically unhappy and lacking in the bare necessities.


Media

Modern media control public opinion and thus our limited democracy. Modern media promote our culture of violence. Modern media does not represent adequately workers, the environment, sustainable farming, peace groups, most of what you find on this web-page.  Modern media is owned by and controlled by corporations. Modern media influences our understanding of religion and faith.

I think we need a three-fold approach to the media. We need to critique TV, radio, and the newspapers.  (See for example, FAIR, Fairness in Accuracy in Reporting,  http://www.fair.org/  )  The electronic intifada http://electronicIntifada.net critiques the media on Middle East questions.

Below is an example of a critique of the corporate media:  "Because This Is the Middle East" FAIR 20 July 2006

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=2921"On July 16, CBS Face the Nation host (and CBS Evening News anchor) Bob Schieffer dedicated the entire Sunday morning news show to the Middle East conflict. In his closing editorial, he adapted a well-known fable in an attempt to explain the causes of the current conflict--or rather, the lack of causes: "Finally today, when the war broke out in the Middle East, the first thing I thought about was the old story of the frog and the scorpion who were trying to cross a river there. The scorpion couldn't swim, the frog was lost. So the scorpion proposed a deal, 'Give me a ride on your back, and I'll show you the way.' The frog agreed, and the trip went fine until they got to the middle of the river, and then suddenly the scorpion just stung the frog. As they were sinking, the frog asked, in his dying breath, 'Why would you do that?' To which the scorpion replied, 'Because this is the Middle East.'"

Lest there be any doubt about who is the frog and who is the scorpion in that parable, Schieffer went on to spell it out: "It is worth noting that the Palestinians in the Gaza Strip did not kidnap that Israeli soldier and provoke all of this because the Israelis were invading Gaza. No, all this happened in the wake of the Israeli withdrawal, which was what the Palestinians supposedly wanted. But this is the Middle East. Why would fundamentalists in Gaza and Lebanon choose to provoke this war at this time? There is no real answer except this is the Middle East."

Schieffer was echoing the media's conventional wisdom in portraying the Palestinian raid that captured the Israeli soldier as an inexplicable provocation. The New York Times, in a June 29 editorial headlined "Hamas Provokes a Fight," declared that "the responsibility for this latest escalation rests squarely with Hamas," adding that "an Israeli military response was inevitable."

The media assumption is that in withdrawing from Gaza in September 2005, Israel ended its conflict with at least that portion of Palestine and gave up, as Schieffer put it, "what the Palestinians supposedly wanted." In reality, however, since the pullout and before the recent escalation of violence, at least 144 Palestinians in Gaza had been killed by Israeli forces, often by helicopter gunships, according to a list compiled by the Israeli human rights group B'tselem. Only 31 percent of the people killed were engaged in hostile actions at the time of their deaths, and 25 percent of all those killed were minors.

From the time of the pullout until the recent upsurge in violence, according to B'tselem's lists, no Israelis were killed by violence emanating from Gaza. Although during this period Palestinian militants launched some 1,000 crude Kasam missiles from Gaza into Israel, no fatalities resulted; at the same time, Israel fired 7,000 to 9,000 heavy artillery shells into Gaza. On June 9, just two weeks before the Hamas raid that killed two Israeli soldiers and captured a third, an apparent Israeli missile strike killed seven members of a Palestinian family picnicking on a Gaza beach, which prompted Hamas to end its 16-month-old informal ceasefire with Israel. (Though Israel has denied responsibility for the killings, a Human Rights Watch investigation strongly challenged the denial, calling the likelihood of Israel not being responsible "remote"; Human Rights Watch, 6/15/06.) Hamas has repeatedly pointed to the Gaza beach incident as one of the central events that prompted its cross-border raid--indeed, Schieffer's own CBS Evening News has reported that claim (CBS Evening News, 6/25/06). Even so, Schieffer seems unable to recall this recent event.

Hamas also points to the capture of some of its leaders by Israel as the provocation for its raid. If Israelis had every right, as Schieffer said, to respond with force to the capture of one soldier by Hamas, then how are Palestinians expected to feel about the more than 9,000 prisoners captured and held by Israel--including 342 juveniles and over 700 held without trial (Mandela Center for Human Rights, 4/30/06)?

Moreover, Israel's withdrawal did not remotely give Palestinians "what they wanted." In addition to its continued deadly attacks on Gaza, Israel has continued to control Gaza's borders and has withheld tens of millions of dollars of tax revenue in response to Hamas' victory in democratic elections in January 2006. Israel's actions crippled the Gaza economy and prompting warnings from the U.N. of a looming humanitarian disaster (UNRWA, 7/8/06).

None of this is to say that Hamas, which has regularly ignored the distinction between military and civilian targets, does not share part of the blame for the current crisis. But to act as though Israel had been behaving as a peace-loving neighbor to Gaza until the soldier's capture is a willful rewriting of very recent history. The most Schieffer can bring himself to say about Israel is this: "Israel had every right to respond, and it did. But again, this is the Middle East, so perhaps a response may have made it all worse by giving moderate Arabs in the region an excuse to distance themselves from Israel."

Israel's "response" has resulted in the deaths to date of at least 103 Palestinians, while no Israelis have died other than one soldier killed by friendly fire (New York Times, 7/19/06). Meanwhile, Israel has also destroyed Gaza's main power plant and its water system, leaving tens of thousands of Gaza families without access to food, water and medical care (Oxfam, 7/19/06). In Lebanon, Israel has killed over 300 people, the vast majority of them civilians, wounded over 1000 and displaced half a million (MSNBC, 7/19/06). To call such devastation an "excuse" for Arabs to "distance themselves from Israel" is a trivialization of real human suffering.

 Why is Bob Schieffer allowed to get away with such shallow, dismissive coverage of complicated and tragic events? Because it's the Middle East."

 

We also need alternative sources of information from the mainline news sources. One of these are the links on this web page. Another are the newsletters of the many peace and justice groups.   One of the alternative sources of information is the web-site of the National Office of Jesuit Social Ministries www.jesuit.org Here you can access immediate information updates and urgent action steps which are priorities of the National Jesuit Social Ministries.  Jesuit Advocates is a relatively easy way to contact your legislators.

 The US Jesuit Conference is in a process of strategic discernment concerning the future apostolic priorities of the Society of Jesus.  If you wish to give in-put, go to http://www.Jesuit.org/sections/default.asp?SECTION_ID=601.

Another Catholic Social Justice Lobby is  Network  www.networklobby.org 
See also Archdiocese of Cincinnati www.Catholic Cincinnati.org

See also Ecumenical Advocacy Days  http://www.advocacydays.org  Sojourners of Rev. James Wallis http://www.sojo.net

Jewish Voice for Peace also makes it relatively easy to contact public officials about Israel/Palestine/Lebanon     http://www.Jewishvoiceforpeace.org

 

A third approach is to create our own means of communication. The picture above is taken in the radio studio of WVXU,  91.7 FM. For twenty eight years I had a weekly radio show called Faith and Justice Forum the response of religious groups to God's call for social action.

A fourth approach would be community ownership of the communications media or more wide-spread ownership.  Presuming we achieve a genuine democracy, I think this would give everyone a better chance to exercise their natural right of free speech.

www.freepress.net

Free Press is a national nonpartisan organization working to increase informed public participation in crucial media policy debates, and to generate policies that will produce a more competitive and public interest-oriented media system with a strong nonprofit and noncommercial sector.

We believe that a more democratic US media system will lead to better public policies — at home and abroad. As our world becomes more and more interconnected, it is imperative that any kind of development takes into account basic environment, economic, and human rights, while defining corporate and personal responsibilities. Free Press considers information to be among the most important resources to any society. We strive to open up the media system to allow more diversity of opinion to be expressed, to present a broader perspective, and to increase the caliber of information available to everyday people. This, in turn, will lead to a more participatory and accountable government and to more sustainable policies and practices regarding national and global development.

Why care about media? Media play a huge role in our lives. The Internet, TV, radio, newspapers, movies and books inform our ideas, values and beliefs. They shape our understanding of the world. Media are also essential to our democracy. We depend upon the news and information we get from the media to make informed decisions and to hold our government and corporate leaders accountable.

What's wrong with media? Our media system is in a crisis.The takeover of our country's media outlets by a small handful of giant conglomerates puts too much power and influence in too few hands. That's bad for our democracy, which depends on our ability to access diverse sources of news, information and opinion. Our media is in trouble in other ways, too. The big cable and phone companies that control access to the Internet want to be gatekeepers, deciding which Web sites and services you can use depending on which companies have paid them the most. They want to turn the open Internet we've always had into a closed, private toll road.

And public broadcasting, one of our most valuable public resources, is under constant threat in Washington by those who would cripple alternatives to the commercial media and muzzle the critical voices and diverse fare that public media offer. It's up to us to change the media. The way we do that is by changing media policies. Isn't it just the result of market forces? No, it's shaped by the government. Our media system wasn't created by the "invisible hand" of the free market. It's the direct result of policies made by Congress and the Federal Communications Commission in Washington. There's really no such thing as "deregulation." We're always going to have rules. (Just try starting your own radio station without a license and see how fast the FCC shows up.) The question that matters is whom those rules will benefit. Do the laws and regulations benefit the public or do they just benefit big companies that can afford high-priced lobbyists? For decades, communications policies have been made behind closed doors in the public's name but without our informed consent. That's unacceptable in a democracy. Only by restoring public input in the policymaking process can we create policies that serve the public interest.

Who owns the airwaves?  Believe it or not, you do! The "airwaves" are the transmission frequencies used by radio, TV and satellite broadcasters, cell phone companies, even your TV remote control,  to transmit signals. Although the airwaves are used for many different purposes, they ultimately belong to you, the American public, in the same way that your sidewalk or your local park belongs to you. The airwaves are a public resource. Unfortunately, citizens rarely even get to use the airwaves to make their own voices heard! Some businesses, like cell phone companies, pay the government to use the airwaves (also called "spectrum"). Radio and TV broadcasters, though, use these airwaves free of charge. In return for this generous government handout, broadcasters are required by law to serve the public interest.

 



 
 

 


Current Events 2008

                                        THE FAILURE OF DEREGULATION : A SOUTH AMERICAN ALTERNATIVE

                                                                                       By John Laun, Columbian Support Network
The week of September 15 – 21 brought a basic change in the approach of the U.S. government. The Bush administration, having mismanaged the economy spectacularly by eschewing regulatory oversight of the financial markets, decided on a 180 degree change  to “save” the US economy. As the stock market sank and banks appeared more and more threatened, Bush and his advisers abandoned their supposed philosophical distrust of “big government” and presented the U.S. Congress with a “bailout” plan which will ( if Congress accepts it,  which with a few changes on the periphery it almost certainly will) effectively nationalize the US financial system, making private enterprise dependent upon government investment for its survival.  Now many of those who opposed regulation yesterday are praising it as essential today.

What we may clearly observe here is the bankruptcy, not just of  fraudulently and carelessly run business and financial institutions, but of the Bush administration’s approach to the economy itself. The question for us now is how will this gigantic failure affect US foreign policy. If we have learned one thing from the spectacular failure of economic policy in the U.S. it is that a policy which trusts “market forces” by themselves to bring prosperity to everyone with a minimal of regulation, has been empirically shown to be flawed. An economic policy which celebrates a system in which the CEO’s of major financial institutions and businesses can take for themselves huge salaries while the institutions they lead are losing money, is a policy which will fail.  We now know that an economic policy which promotes income inequality and ignores the basic needs of its citizens for food, shelter, health care and education is doomed to failure. The Reagan Revolution’s prime principle that “that government is best which governs least” and “government is the problem” has been totally discredited.  The new artifice in this country should focus on the providing of basic needs at reasonable cost to all of this country’s residents. Upon that basis a strong economy not subject to the vicissitudes of unregulated market capitalism can be built.
 
        Interestingly, several countries in South America have come to that same conclusion and are building a multilateral structure through which the governments in those countries ---Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Ecuador, Paraguay, Uruguay and Venezuela---can implement economic policies which seek to answer the needs of the poor and the middle classes, and not to line the pockets of the rich and politically powerful. Instead of dismissing the economic policies of the governments of Evo Morales in Bolivia and Hugo Chavez in Venezuela, each declaredly “socialist”, US policy makers would do well as they implement government bailouts ( a type of “socialism” one might say) to follow the lead of these countries in developing programs aimed at guaranteeing a certain basic standard of living for all of the country’s residents.
 
        In light of this it was striking to see President Bush welcome to the White House the President of Colombia, Alvaro Uribe Velez, the principal ( and perhaps only) South American defender of the capitalist model which has brought the U.S. financial system and many, many U.S. citizens to the edge of the abyss. Alvaro Uribe has presided over the displacement of millions of peasants, Afro- Colombians and indigenous peoples as he promotes large-scale export agriculture and a  bilateral Free Trade Agreement (FTA) with the U.S. which will enshrine  the interest of the rich and powerful as it decimates the rural poor. And his policies have undercut social security programs and dismantled unions, while continuing to place union members’ lives at risk from paramilitary threats. As evidence continues to mount of the close ties of President Uribe’s advisors and his party to paramilitaries, one would hope that, given these revelations, Colombians would reject implementation of the FTA and instead replace alliance to Bush with active participation in the new South American alliance. 

September 21, 2008

Address of Pope Benedict XVI to the United Nations, April, 2008:  "As Pope John Paul II expressed it in 1995, the United Nations should be "a moral centre where all the nations of the world feel at home and develop a shared awareness of being, as it were, a 'family of nations'" (Address to the General Assembly of the United Nations on the 50th Anniversary of its Foundation, New York, 5 October 1995, 14).

The founding principles of the UN -- the desire for peace, the quest for justice, respect for the dignity of the person, humanitarian cooperation and assistance -- express the just aspirations of the human spirit, and constitute the ideals which should underpin international relations. As my predecessors Paul VI and John Paul II have observed from this very podium, all this is something that the Catholic Church and the Holy See follow attentively and with interest, seeing in your activity an example of how issues and conflicts concerning the world community can be subject to common regulation. The United Nations embodies the aspiration for a "greater degree of international ordering" (John Paul II, Sollicitudo Rei Socialis, 43), inspired and governed by the principle of subsidiarity, and therefore capable of responding to the demands of the human family through binding international rules and through structures capable of harmonizing the day-to-day unfolding of the lives of peoples. This is all the more necessary at a time when we experience the obvious paradox of a multilateral consensus that continues to be in crisis because it is still subordinated to the decisions of a few, whereas the world's problems call for interventions in the form of collective action by the international community.

Indeed, questions of security, development goals, reduction of local and global inequalities, protection of the environment, of resources and of the climate, require all international leaders to act jointly and to show a readiness to work in good faith, respecting the law, and promoting solidarity with the weakest regions of the planet. I am thinking especially of those countries in Africa and other parts of the world which remain on the margins of authentic integral development, and are therefore at risk of experiencing only the negative effects of globalization. In the context of international relations, it is necessary to recognize the higher role played by rules and structures that are intrinsically ordered to promote the common good, and therefore to safeguard human freedom. These regulations do not limit freedom. On the contrary, they promote it when they prohibit behavior and actions which work against the common good, curb its effective exercise and hence compromise the dignity of every human person. In the name of freedom, there has to be a correlation between rights and duties, by which every person is called to assume responsibility for his or her choices, made as a consequence of entering into relations with others.. . This never requires a choice to be made between science and ethics: rather it is a question of adopting a scientific method that is truly respectful of ethical imperatives.

Recognition of the unity of the human family, and attention to the innate dignity of every man and woman, today find renewed emphasis in the principle of the responsibility to protect. This has only recently been defined, but it was already present implicitly at the origins of the United Nations, and is now increasingly characteristic of its activity. Every State has the primary duty to protect its own population from grave and sustained violations of human rights, as well as from the consequences of humanitarian crises, whether natural or man-made. If States are unable to guarantee such protection, the international community must intervene with the juridical means provided in the United Nations Charter and in other international instruments. The action of the international community and its institutions, provided that it respects the principles undergirding the international order, should never be interpreted as an unwarranted imposition or a limitation of sovereignty. On the contrary, it is indifference or failure to intervene that do the real damage. What is needed is a deeper search for ways of pre-empting and managing conflicts by exploring every possible diplomatic avenue, and giving attention and encouragement to even the faintest sign of dialogue or desire for reconciliation.

The principle of "responsibility to protect" was considered by the ancient "ius gentium" as the foundation of every action taken by those in government with regard to the governed: at the time when the concept of national sovereign States was first developing, the Dominican Friar Francisco de Vitoria, rightly considered as a precursor of the idea of the United Nations, described this responsibility as an aspect of natural reason shared by all nations, and the result of an international order whose task it was to regulate relations between peoples. Now, as then, this principle has to invoke the idea of the person as image of the Creator, the desire for the absolute and the essence of freedom.

This reference to human dignity, which is the foundation and goal of the responsibility to protect, leads us to the theme we are specifically focusing upon this year, which marks the sixtieth anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. This document was the outcome of a convergence of different religious and cultural traditions, all of them motivated by the common desire to place the human person at the heart of institutions, laws and the workings of society, and to consider the human person essential for the world of culture, religion and science. Human rights are increasingly being presented as the common language and the ethical substratum of international relations. At the same time, the universality, indivisibility and interdependence of human rights all serve as guarantees safeguarding human dignity. It is evident, though, that the rights recognized and expounded in the Declaration apply to everyone by virtue of the common origin of the person, who remains the high-point of God's creative design for the world and for history. They are based on the natural law inscribed on human hearts and present in different cultures and civilizations. Removing human rights from this context would mean restricting their range and yielding to a relativistic conception, according to which the meaning and interpretation of rights could vary and their universality would be denied in the name of different cultural, political, social and even religious outlooks. This great variety of viewpoints must not be allowed to obscure the fact that not only rights are universal, but so too is the human person, the subject of those rights.

[The Pope continued in English]

The life of the community, both domestically and internationally, clearly demonstrates that respect for rights, and the guarantees that follow from them, are measures of the common good that serve to evaluate the relationship between justice and injustice, development and poverty, security and conflict. The promotion of human rights remains the most effective strategy for eliminating inequalities between countries and social groups, and for increasing security. Indeed, the victims of hardship and despair, whose human dignity is violated with impunity, become easy prey to the call to violence, and they can then become violators of peace.

The common good that human rights help to accomplish cannot, however, be attained merely by applying correct procedures, nor even less by achieving a balance between competing rights. The merit of the Universal Declaration is that it has enabled different cultures, juridical expressions and institutional models to converge around a fundamental nucleus of values, and hence of rights. Today, though, efforts need to be redoubled in the face of pressure to reinterpret the foundations of the Declaration and to compromise its inner unity so as to facilitate a move away from the protection of human dignity towards the satisfaction of simple interests, often particular interests. The Declaration was adopted as a "common standard of achievement" (Preamble) and cannot be applied piecemeal, according to trends or selective choices that merely run the risk of contradicting the unity of the human person and thus the indivisibility of human rights.

Experience shows that legality often prevails over justice when the insistence upon rights makes them appear as the exclusive result of legislative enactments or normative decisions taken by the various agencies of those in power. When presented purely in terms of legality, rights risk becoming weak propositions divorced from the ethical and rational dimension which is their foundation and their goal. The Universal Declaration, rather, has reinforced the conviction that respect for human rights is principally rooted in unchanging justice, on which the binding force of international proclamations is also based. This aspect is often overlooked when the attempt is made to deprive rights of their true function in the name of a narrowly utilitarian perspective. Since rights and the resulting duties follow naturally from human interaction, it is easy to forget that they are the fruit of a commonly held sense of justice built primarily upon solidarity among the members of society, and hence valid at all times and for all peoples. This intuition was expressed as early as the fifth century by Augustine of Hippo, one of the masters of our intellectual heritage. He taught that the saying: Do not do to others what you would not want done to you "cannot in any way vary according to the different understandings that have arisen in the world" (De Doctrina Christiana, III, 14). Human rights, then, must be respected as an expression of justice, and not merely because they are enforceable through the will of the legislators.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

As history proceeds, new situations arise, and the attempt is made to link them to new rights. Discernment, that is, the capacity to distinguish good from evil, becomes even more essential in the context of demands that concern the very lives and conduct of persons, communities and peoples. In tackling the theme of rights, since important situations and profound realities are involved, discernment is both an indispensable and a fruitful virtue.

Discernment, then, shows that entrusting exclusively to individual States, with their laws and institutions, the final responsibility to meet the aspirations of persons, communities and entire peoples, can sometimes have consequences that exclude the possibility of a social order respectful of the dignity and rights of the person. On the other hand, a vision of life firmly anchored in the religious dimension can help to achieve this, since recognition of the transcendent value of every man and woman favors conversion of heart, which then leads to a commitment to resist violence, terrorism and war, and to promote justice and peace. This also provides the proper context for the inter-religious dialogue that the United Nations is called to support, just as it supports dialogue in other areas of human activity. Dialogue should be recognized as the means by which the various components of society can articulate their point of view and build consensus around the truth concerning particular values or goals. It pertains to the nature of religions, freely practiced, that they can autonomously conduct a dialogue of thought and life. If at this level, too, the religious sphere is kept separate from political action, then great benefits ensue for individuals and communities. On the other hand, the United Nations can count on the results of dialogue between religions, and can draw fruit from the willingness of believers to place their experiences at the service of the common good. Their task is to propose a vision of faith not in terms of intolerance, discrimination and conflict, but in terms of complete respect for truth, coexistence, rights, and reconciliation.

Human rights, of course, must include the right to religious freedom, understood as the expression of a dimension that is at once individual and communitarian a vision that brings out the unity of the person while clearly distinguishing between the dimension of the citizen and that of the believer. The activity of the United Nations in recent years has ensured that public debate gives space to viewpoints inspired by a religious vision in all its dimensions, including ritual, worship, education, dissemination of information and the freedom to profess and choose religion. It is inconceivable, then, that believers should have to suppress a part of themselves their faith in order to be active citizens. It should never be necessary to deny God in order to enjoy one's rights. The rights associated with religion are all the more in need of protection if they are considered to clash with a prevailing secular ideology or with majority religious positions of an exclusive nature. The full guarantee of religious liberty cannot be limited to the free exercise of worship, but has to give due consideration to the public dimension of religion, and hence to the possibility of believers playing their part in building the social order. Indeed, they actually do so, for example through their influential and generous involvement in a vast network of initiatives which extend from Universities, scientific institutions and schools to health care agencies and charitable organizations in the service of the poorest and most marginalized. Refusal to recognize the contribution to society that is rooted in the religious dimension and in the quest for the Absolute by its nature, expressing communion between persons would effectively privilege an individualistic approach, and would fragment the unity of the person.

My presence at this Assembly is a sign of esteem for the United Nations, and it is intended to express the hope that the Organization will increasingly serve as a sign of unity between States and an instrument of service to the entire human family. It also demonstrates the willingness of the Catholic Church to offer her proper contribution to building international relations in a way that allows every person and every people to feel they can make a difference. In a manner that is consistent with her contribution in the ethical and moral sphere and the free activity of her faithful, the Church also works for the realization of these goals through the international activity of the Holy See. Indeed, the Holy See has always had a place at the assemblies of the Nations, thereby manifesting its specific character as a subject in the international domain. As the United Nations recently confirmed, the Holy See thereby makes its contribution according to the dispositions of international law, helps to define that law, and makes appeal to it.

The United Nations remains a privileged setting in which the Church is committed to contributing her experience "of humanity", developed over the centuries among peoples of every race and culture, and placing it at the disposal of all members of the international community. This experience and activity, directed towards attaining freedom for every believer, seeks also to increase the protection given to the rights of the person. Those rights are grounded and shaped by the transcendent nature of the person, which permits men and women to pursue their journey of faith and their search for God in this world. Recognition of this dimension must be strengthened if we are to sustain humanity's hope for a better world and if we are to create the conditions for peace, development, cooperation, and guarantee of rights for future generations.

In my recent Encyclical, Spe Salvi, I indicated that "every generation has the task of engaging anew in the arduous search for the right way to order human affairs" (no. 25). For Christians, this task is motivated by the hope drawn from the saving work of Jesus Christ. That is why the Church is happy to be associated with the activity of this distinguished Organization, charged with the responsibility of promoting peace and good will throughout the earth. Dear Friends, I thank you for this opportunity to address you today, and I promise you of the support of my prayers as you pursue your noble task.

Before I take my leave from this distinguished Assembly, I should like to offer my greetings, in the official languages, to all the Nations here represented.

Peace and Prosperity with God's help!

[The Pope repeated the above greeting in French, Spanish, Arab, Chinese and Russian]

Association for the Rights of Catholics in the Church  http://www.arccsites.org/
 

In this year commemorating the enormous contribution to the Church of St. Paul, it's good to remember that as St. Peter was a centripetal force in the Church, St. Paul was a contrifugal force.  The Association for the Rights of Catholics in the Church calls for a Constitutional Convention:  accountability to the people of God of church authorities on all levels, including official agencies and church-related institution, for their financial policies and practices, including investments and the ownership and alienation of property.  Involvement of the local church in the selection of bishops and pastors.  Shared responsibility in policy-making through development of structures and practices of consultation at every level of the church.  A gathering process leading up to the Council which would be as representation and participative as possible.  Consult A Catholic Bill of Rights, Sheed and Ward, 1988,  Charter of the Rights of Catholics, 1994, Toward a Catholic Constitution, Crossroad, 1996.  A broadly-based bottom-up effort, constructive in spirit, will make an impact.

                                                                                    Muslim-Jewish-Christian Alliance for 9/11 Truth

 

            Thousands of our brothers and sisters have been killed, many have been tortured, and American civil liberties have been negated based on a story that has been challenged by hundreds of highly credentialed technical experts and scholars. 

 

            We, of the Muslim-Jewish-Christian Alliance for 9/11 Truth during these trying times, execute the principles of our combined faiths:  What does the Lord require of you but to do justice, love kindness and walk humbly with your God. (Micah 6:8), God did not give us a spirit of cowardice but rather a spirit of power and love. (2nd Timothy1:7), Say what is true, although it may be bitter and displeasing to people. (Prophet Muhammad: Hadith: Baihaqi)  http://www.mujca.com

 

            As we can engage in wishful thinking, we can also engage in fearful thinking.  “I don’t want to look at the evidence that 9/11 was an inside job because I’m afraid of what an investigation would do to my image of the US.  I believe in Americanism the religion.  We make mistakes, but we wouldn’t do anything that bad.  The American Empire that we are building creates freedom, democracy, and human rights.” 

 

It takes a great deal of Ignatian spiritual freedom and courage to read and listen to serious difficulties with the official explanation of Sept. 11, 2001.  Dr. David Ray Griffin explains his own perspective in The New Pearl Harbor (updated)  We can ask whether our own faith can interface with the power of the media, corporations, and the government. Were the teachings of Jesus on the dignity of each person opposed to the notion of American empire presented by some neo-conservatives?  Did Jesus have serious difficulties with the empire that existed when he brought his life and his message to our world?  Was Jesus crucified because of His opposition to Empire?  Does Jesus today have difficulty with any empire?  Read also Dr. David Ray Griffin,  The New Pearl Harbor (2004), The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions (2004),    9/11 and American Empire (Vol I) – Intellectuals Speak Out (2006), Christian Faith and the Truth Behind 9/11: A Call to Reflection and Action (2006), The American Empire and the Commonwealth of God (2006), Debunking 9/11 Debunking: An Answer to Popular Mechanics and Other Defenders of the Official Conspiracy Theory (2007), 9/11 Contradictions: An Open Letter to Congress and the Press (2008).  I would start with the up-dated edition of The New Pearl Harbor.  It’s closely reasoned and thoroughly researched.  Those who reject the official conspiracy theory, most of whom say the best explanation of the facts is that it was an inside job, agree on one thing, there is need for a new, thorough, independent investigation of the greatest crime of the century.

 

When two or more people plan to do something illegal or immoral, it’s a conspiracy.  The official explanation is a conspiracy theory.   After reading and listening it takes a great deal of prayer and discernment to decide which of the four versions below fit more plausibly with the facts. 

 

There are at least four versions of 9/11:

 

1.         The official conspiracy story: on Sept. 11, 2001, 19 Arab Muslims hi-jacked four US Commercial airliners.  Two of them crashed into two buildings of the World Trade Center causing three buildings to free-fall in about ten seconds each, straight down into each of its foot-prints.  The fires in the buildings melted (or weakened according to a later story) the steel structures, causing the top floors to pancake on the floors beneath.    (A paper passport somehow flew out of the Towers without even being singed.) Seven years after the event, the National Institute of Standards and Technology, a government agency, added a new version to their previous report but stuck to the theory that fires, not explosives, caused the 47-story World Trade Center 7 to collapse in a six-second free-fall.   See The New York Times, Friday, Aug. 22, 2008, p. A 18  Only Arab Muslims in the Middle East believe rumors of alternative 9/11 scenarios.  New York Times Sept. 9, 2008, A 16.

            Even after two planes crashed into the World Trade Center and the FAA knew another plane was flying toward Washington DC, a plane crashed into the Pentagon, the most protected building on the planet with fighter planes always on alert at nearby Andrews Air Force Base, with sophisticated radar and automatic defenses against all but friendly aircraft.   This hi-jacked commercial plane flew into the West not the East Wing of the Pentagon where the military leaders and Defense Department was, then the plane completely evaporated.  The alleged hijacker who had trouble flying a small single-engine plane performed a complex  maneuver with a large plane that even an experienced pilot could not accomplish except with a smaller military plane.

            A fourth plane was forced down in Pennsylvania, disappearing completely into the ground except for a red bandana in which a passport was wrapped.  One of the hijackers had explosives in his “intercepted” baggage and would have had his Will in the plane that he intended to crash into the World Trade Center.  The vague and omnipresent war against terror is a just war.  The Project for a New American Century wants full spectrum dominance, land, sea, air, space.  There was remarkable incompetence by the FAA, the military, NORAD, etc. on this day and this day only.  Yet no one was fired or reprimanded.  Some were even promoted.

 

2.         Same as above except that 9/11 was blowback to our gross violation of human rights around the world especially to the Palestinians, Iraq,. Iran, Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, Indonesia, etc. etc.  We have abused 9/11 to begin invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq and undermine the US Constitution, further consolidating the American Empire proposed by some of the neo-conservatives, preserving military dominance in the full spectrum, air, land, sea, and space; also censoring the internet and other forms of communication.

 

3.         People in the US Government and military knew about the conspiracy and allowed it to happen, ordering Norad to stand-down its fighter planes which about 100 times a year intercepts flights off course or flights suspected of being hi-jacked.   

 

4.         People in the US Government and Military conspired to carry out 9/11, collapsing the three buildings in the World Trade Center in a 10 second apiece free-fall caused by sophisticated controlled demolitions with expertise and means only available to the military.  The evidence of controlled explosives planted within the buildings is over-whelming.  There are eleven characteristics of controlled demolitions.  The Twin Towers and World Trade Center Building 7 had all eleven characteristics.   

            There is no evidence the 19 Arabs named were devout Muslims ready to meet their Maker or even that they were on the planes.  Some of the nineteen are still alive.  The building fires were not even close to the temperature needed to melt steel.  No high-rise steel buildings before or after 9/11 have collapsed because of fires or planes crashing into them.  Millions of dollars were made by those betting stocks would fall of the two airlines that crashed into the Twin Towers, and the stocks of a large tenant of the World Trade Center.  And there were others who profited financially from 9/11.   Another theory is because of enormous immoral international secret financial transactions that were coming due, instead of trying to break into all the offices in the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, the buildings had to be destroyed.

            The 9/11 Truth Coalition includes Democrats and Republicans, liberals and conservatives, engineers, architects, scholars, veterans, air-plane pilots, many  of the relatives of the victims, many of the fire and police departments and of the F.B.I (all of which latter three groups are afraid to speak out) etc. etc.  Some have spoken out and have been ridiculed and dismissed as crazy, even fired or threatened.  One of the greatest crimes in history has been committed and no one has been prosecuted.   Investigations into the greatest crime of the century have been blocked and obstructed, evidence destroyed and covered up.  The FBI says it has no legal case against Osama Bin Laden for the 9/11 attacks.  The latter’s “confession” on a poor quality video is obviously not him.  To the extent that some Al-qaeda may have taken credit for out-witting the greatest super-power in the world, it has greatly increased their prestige and numbers.  Some claim Osama Bin Laden is still working for the US.

 

Although no one pretends to know all the details partly because much of the evidence has been destroyed, the one point that the 9/11 Truth Coalition agree on is that there needs to be an entirely new independent investigation.  If respected citizens from a friendly country like Canada were to hear all sides and give their report, respect could be restored for US government, US corporations, and the corporate media. 

 

In any case an end to the war system with the secrecy that accompanies it is imperative and now.  Likewise, an end to the secrecy and confidentiality of basic economic and scientific research in our economic system.  Jesus says the truth will make us free.  First the truth may hurt, but eventually the truth will make us free.  As St. Ignatius of Loyola says in the Spiritual Exercises, Discernment of Spirits, no. 326, if we reveal deceits and malice, the evil spirit sees that he cannot succeed because his obvious deceptions have been detected.  On a positive level, to be honest with ourselves is the very best effort a person or the human family as a group can make.  The resources of our planet need to be shared or there won’t be any resources to share.

 

            A leader of the Patriots and in general agreement with the 9/11 Truth Coalition is Dr. Robert Bowman.  Dr. Robert Bowman has a doctorate in nuclear physics, was a Lt. Col. in the Air Force, was highly decorated for his over 100 combat missions in Vietnam, was advisor to Ford and Carter on weapons in Space and the missile-shield "defense" system termed Star Wars. See http://www.thepatriots.US and also http://www.patriotsquestion911.com          

 

Bob Aldridge is a World War II veteran and former engineer.  He is an adviser/consultant sponsor of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation, British-American Security Information Council and the Institute for Law and Peace. His book America in Peril puts in doubt the official version of 9/11 and recounts the intrigue and deception that has followed.

 

            How can doing research into 9/11 be a call from God? If we don’t have a truly independent investigate, will such a false flag operation be perpetrated again?          See also http://www.cincinnati911truth.org/   Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth  http://www.ae911truth.org/

 

            510 architectural and engineering professionals and over 2000 other supporters including A@E students have signed the petition demanding of Congress a truly independent investigation.

 

If the evidence is so clear, why don't more people know about it? 

 

            911 Truth people feel that the Principalities and Powers including the media do not even want to discuss it because the global economy is so fragile that the truth would cause such a lack of confidence in the system that the truth would lead to a global financial collapse.  However, 911 Truth think that not revealing the truth will cause an even greater evil, an ecological disaster.  It's evident that no matter who is elected, there will be only small changes.  The world needs such basic changes that only the truth will set us free.  If we don’t challenge this false flag operation, the next time they will be more clever and efficient. 

           

Some say the Anthrax incident is part of the neo-con conspiracy; also the present support of Georgia in its conflict with Russia.  In Georgia, Iraq, and Afghanistan the main issue is control of oil.  If a small group can control the oil of the world, they will control the world.  The missile shields in Poland are a provocation to Russia.  What if Russia put missiles in Canada, Mexico, Cuba, etc.  How would we feel?

 

The main point that all in the 911 Truth Coalition agree on is that a truly independent investigation is necessary and now.  Otherwise those who planned and executed  the 9/11 attacks will try again and next time be more efficient.  No one knows all of the details.  But it’s clear that the official explanation has huge holes in it.   The recent report of the National Institute of Standards and Technology, a government agency, has “holes that you can drive a truck through” according to Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth.  (See above)  To restore faith in the US government, US corporations, and the corporate main-line media, we need a truly independent investigation.

 

I suggest that whatever your religion, philosophy, or human values that you compare your values and principles with those of the American Empire of some of the neo-conservatives.  I think you can see from the vision presented on this web-page that my own Catholic faith and vision is in direct contradiction with an American Empire or any Empire.  If our primary faith is in Americanism, if our Christian Faith is subordinated to our faith in America, if we can’t believe the US could do anything that bad, we won’t investigate the facts about 9/11/01.  We need to end the secrecy of the war system, the secrecy of our economic system, and substitute humility for arrogance.

 

We need to join the world community, create in a non-violent way a global ethic, put basic economic and solidarity human rights into our legal and constitutional structures, create a form of economic democracy and a democratic world federation.  God bless America.  God bless the human community and our planet.

 

Palestinian Refugees

 One of the most thoughtful and detailed analyses of the Palestinian situation that could provide the basis for honest negotiations beyond the pale of "security" and "terrorism" which permits us to push the issue aside. Karen Abu Zaid is Commissioner-General of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA). Fr. Donald Moore, S.J.

 

 

 

 

 

Edward Said Lecture

Palestine refugees: exile, isolation and prospects

Princeton, 6 May 2008

I am deeply honored to have been asked to deliver this year's Edward Said lecture here at Princeton. I have chosen to pay tribute to Professor Said by addressing the subject of Palestine refugees, their exile, isolation and prospects.

It is to the Palestine refugees of 1948, and their descendants--all four and a half million of them--in Jordan Syria, Lebanon, Gaza and the West Bank that the real honour of tonight belongs. And it is to acknowledge their trials, struggles, achievements and aspirations that I speak tonight, representing the 29,000 Palestine refugee staff of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (known as UNRWA), created by the General Assembly in 1949.

I begin with a few words on the remarkably gifted Palestinian to whose memory this lecture series is dedicated. Edward Said was born in British Mandate Palestine and his extended family was forced to flee the 1948 conflict to dispersed locations – Jordan, Lebanon, Egypt and the United States, thus reflecting a blend of the Palestinian refugee and diaspora experience.

Some might wish to highlight the outward contrasts between Edward's life of relatively privileged opportunity and the daily struggle for survival presently confronting many Palestinians – refugees and non-refugees alike. I prefer to note that, however wide the divide of class and circumstance, Edward Said's work succeeded in illuminating for a global audience the universal Palestinian predicament, and within it, the particular ordeal of Palestine refugees. He treated his audiences to searing critiques of power and authority in the Middle East and described the complex means by which the dispossession of Palestinians was carried out and maintained. He was consistent in his view that the interests and destinies of Palestine and Israel are intertwined in a single construct of mutuality and co-existence - rather than one of exclusion and separation. And he saw in this construct a sine qua non for a durable resolution of the conflict.

Such perspectives resonate with UNRWA for a number of reasons. Our humanitarian and human development activities are non-political in character and practical in orientation. To be effective in our work, however, we must be conscious of the complex context in which the Palestine refugee condition is situated. We must understand that the causes, evolution and resolution of refugee situations are driven by currents deriving from the perceived interests of states, contests for international influence and the ebb and flow of geo-politics, among them military strength and economic power. It is also helpful to appreciate how the larger context impinges on the international legal framework, particularly those aspects established to protect and care for people affected by armed conflict and its consequences.

UNRWA's work is informed as much by an understanding of this context as it is by our close physical connection with the Palestine refugees we serve.

As many of you know, UNRWA's raison d'être is the direct provision of essential public services to Palestine refugees in the Middle East. UNRWA maintains a programme of primary education for some half a million children annually. We provide primary health care that has eliminated communicable diseases among refugees, while achieving a close to 100% immunization rate for refugee children. We offer social services, particularly to those rendered vulnerable by poverty, disability and social exclusion. We build homes for refugees, replacing those destroyed by Israeli forces in the course of conflict and we construct and maintain the infrastructure of environmental health in refugee camps. UNRWA also runs a microfinance programme, helping small entrepreneurs to weather economic crises, build assets and improve their prospects for self-sufficiency.

Tonight, I shall offer glimpses of the Palestine refugee condition as I see it. I shall share some thoughts on how that condition relates to the wider international context and what the state of Palestine refugees and the persistence of their condition mean - or should mean - for international actors. As you might expect, I am influenced by 27 years of working with refugees around the world and by the experience of living and working in Gaza since August 2000.

I chose the themes of exile, isolation and prospects to highlight pertinent aspects of the uniquely fraught Palestine refugee condition. Exile and isolation are common to the refugee experience, but only in the Palestinian case have these features acquired such lasting global notoriety. I shall try to bring to this discussion a measure of the understanding garnered through UNRWA's long years of presence in refugee communities, striving to make a difference in each refugee life.

The leading word in my title this evening is a defining attribute of the refugee condition everywhere. In refugee parlance, "exile" implies the occurrence of abnormal – usually tragic - events which threaten life, liberty or safety to a point where the instinct of self-preservation overrides attachment to community, land and livelihood, propelling flight to a place of safety. This sequence – flight, dispossession and arrival at a place of refuge – triggers a ripple of dissonance at a number of levels. The refugee is cast adrift from the moorings of identity, kinship, livelihood and belonging. And in their place emerges a sense of loss, the psyche of dislocation and an overwhelming longing for that which is lost.

Beyond the very personal, human consequence of forced flight, mass refugee movements disturb the often fragile equilibrium of international relations and immediately raise the issue of international responsibility.

States are under an obligation to guarantee the protection of rights and freedoms for their nationals and others in their territories. People become refugees when their country of origin is no longer able or willing to perform that obligation or afford them the protections necessary for normal life. To compensate, there is a matrix of shared, overlapping duties and roles entrusted to a variety of international actors. These are grounded in international law and custom and are meant to ensure that the "protection vacuum" in which refugees find themselves is filled.

Shared responsibilities straddle the humanitarian, developmental, political and diplomatic arenas. Ideally, these should function in mutually reinforcing harmony to deliver international protection for refugees. Inherently and by definition, such protection is finite in duration because the law and practice of refugee protection recognizes - at least implicitly - the refugee's fundamental need to physically restore the broken bond with his or her place of origin. Moreover, the protection framework assumes that reinstating the connection with the country of origin is the most effective way to resume full protection to the refugee.

If this condensed outline of forced flight and its connotations is accepted, it is appropriate to consider to what extent it corresponds to the experience of Palestinian exile and isolation, and how these themes play out in the countries and territory where UNRWA exercises its mandate.

On 14 May, 1948, the State of Israel proclaimed independence, triggering a conflict with Arab States and the genesis of the Palestine refugee situation. The details of events surrounding the forced flight of Palestinians sixty years ago are disputed and debated to the present day. This is hardly surprising given the diametrically opposed worldviews and historical perspectives of the protagonists.

For one side, the conflict was a war of liberation and independence, and victory an affirmation of the rightness of its cause. For the other, it was a catastrophe or Nakba presaging an era of suffering, struggle and unwavering resistance. One question on which views diverge particularly sharply, concerns the circumstances of Palestinian flight. Was it a "conventional" exodus of civilians seeking safety from an armed conflict in which civilian casualties were incidental, or was the scenario one of expulsion in which the ejection of, and casualties among, Palestinians were calculated and premeditated?

I raise this question to prompt reflection on a particular characteristic of Palestinian exile, namely, that the conflict which 'created' the refugees established at the same time a new and different entity on the territory of Mandate Palestine, viz. the State of Israel. The very reason for being of the newly-declared state – to create a Jewish homeland for Jews, wherever they were, was at odds with the aspiration of Palestinians to return to their homes.

The point is the 1948 conflict was imbued with existential significance. In the popular consciousness of those in the new State and throughout the Jewish diaspora, there was at the outset (and reportedly long before) little appetite for allowing - let alone encouraging - the inclusion of Palestinians in the new State. On the contrary, many historians agree that the overriding intent was to discourage or exclude Palestinian return.

In the decades since 1948, this 'orientation towards exclusion' has been cemented in many ways. Recurrent conflict has reinforced deep-seated antagonism on both sides, playing into the hands of those, including many in positions of authority, who question the feasibility of Israeli-Palestinian coexistence. And, of course, there is the demographic issue, which tends to cast natural Palestinian population growth as an effective bar to the possibility of return.

If we admit that the option of refugee return to the country of origin is central to the protection framework, then we see how the special circumstances surrounding the 1948 conflict and Palestinian exodus significantly constricted – and continues to constrict - the scope for protection and just solutions for Palestine refugees. I refer to the "orientation to exclude" to describe part of the limitations placed on the protections available to Palestine refugees from the inception of exile to the present day. All too frequently, the orientation towards keeping Palestinians and Palestine refugees "out" seems to overshadow not only the possibility of their return to their original homes, but also the rights and entitlements which are accorded to other refugee groups and to which Palestinians are also entitled under international law.

Across the region in which UNRWA works, Jordan and Syria stand out as countries where the trials of Palestinian exile have been tempered by a climate favorable to their protection. In place of the inclination to exclude, in Jordan and Syria there is respect for Palestinian rights and freedom for Palestinians to pursue social and economic opportunities. In Jordan, where the largest number of Palestine refugees – almost two million - resides, many enjoy Jordanian citizenship, hence the right to seek employment without restrictions and to benefit from assistance and support from the Jordanian government. In Syria, Palestine refugees do not acquire citizenship, but are free to lead normal lives. Refugees may join educational institutions at all levels and benefit from an open labor market.

In Lebanon, the features of exclusion and isolation of Palestine refugees have been much more pronounced, particularly as regards the right to work and freedom of movement. Until June 2005, when the government reversed decades of adverse legislation, Palestine refugees were prohibited from working in 73 specified occupations. The lifting of this particular restriction was welcome, yet many obstacles remain. Freedom of movement is still restricted for refugees living in some camps in the south of Lebanon. Most refugees depend almost entirely on UNRWA as they have only limited access to government services.

Political instability and armed conflict have also been the bane of Palestine refugees in Lebanon. Their vulnerability in this regard was proved during the summer of 2007 as over 30,000 refugees were displaced when the Nahr El Bared camp was destroyed in the course of conflict between the Lebanese army and a militant group that had recently entered the camp. UNRWA and the Government have developed a plan to rebuild Nahr El Bared camp and to help refugees return there in dignity.

While challenges remain in Lebanon, it is in the occupied Palestinian territory where exile, exclusion and isolation of Palestine refugees reach an appalling zenith.

There is a tendency to assume that conditions in the West Bank are relatively acceptable in comparison to the situation in Gaza. There is a difference between the deprivations suffered by Palestinians in the West Bank and those endured by Gazans, but the difference lies in the form, extent and varieties of oppression – not in the substance of suffering for the over 2.3 million Palestinians, 800,000 of whom are refugees.

I shall speak to four areas where Palestinian exile in the West Bank is accentuated by exclusion from the purview of protection. These are: the demolition of homes, the expropriation of land (for settlements and other 'security' purposes), the proliferation of checkpoints and other obstacles to movement, and the impact of the separation barrier and its associated regime of restrictions.

The homes and landed property of Palestinians and Palestine refugees are destroyed or removed – systematically and deliberately - by the Israeli authorities with worrying frequency. In the six months from September 2007 to February 2008, 169 properties met this fate, of which 88 were refugee homes. In consequence, some 676 Palestinians were displaced or rendered homeless. Among the most often affected are poor and vulnerable Bedouin and pastoral communities whose livelihoods are reliant on the land.

The circumstances of this invasion of fundamental rights vary. Some houses are destroyed in the course of military operations. Many are demolished in pursuance of judicially issued administrative orders on the grounds that the owners lack building permits. While the orders are issued under Israeli law, questions arise as to why so few Palestinians are able to satisfy the requirements for applying for building permits and why so many who do apply are denied them.

It has also been observed that the areas cleared by the destruction of Palestinian homes and property appear to correspond to the expansion of Israeli settlements on Palestinian land. The inference is that settlement activity and demolitions may be allied elements in a larger scheme to create a Palestinian-free zone around occupied East Jerusalem and beyond. Human rights organizations have documented how apparently innocuous processes of municipal planning and zoning have been methodically employed to expel Palestinians from their land.

And land confiscation appears to be quickening of late, in parallel with accelerated construction of Israeli settlements, with significant parcels set aside for exclusive use by some 480,000 Israeli settlers or to support a vast security infrastructure. It is estimated that some 38% of West Bank territory has been confiscated or is otherwise inaccessible to Palestinians. This is land which, by international agreement, is meant to form the foundation of a Palestinian State

Obstacles placed by the occupying power to impede free movement of Palestinians and their goods are a feature of the closure regime in the West Bank. These take a variety of forms: both stable and 'flying' checkpoints manned by military or private security personnel; trenches dug across roads; blocks of concrete; and mounds of earth or boulders. These obstacles, which Israel claims are security measures to protect its citizens, have steadily increased over the years, despite negotiated agreements to the contrary. In 2005, the number of obstacles by monthly average was 472. In 2006 and 2007, there were 518 and 552 respectively. In February this year, three months after the Annapolis meeting and the re-launching of a peace process, there were 580. Today, there are 612 physical obstacles, impeding not only personal freedom of movement, but also commerce, development and all manner of social interaction among Palestinians.

The illegal separation barrier, with its associated system of checkpoints, terminals, permits and searches, is another practical manifestation of exile exclusion and isolation of Palestinians in the West Bank. The barrier is a hybrid structure. Much of it takes the form of a fence with restricted security zones on either side along with an array of security accessories – observation towers, patrol roads, trenches and razor wire. In parts, the barrier is a wall of grey concrete slabs, 25 to 28 feet high and several inches thick. It is a dominant, overpowering presence in the lives of those who live in its shadow, a testament to the exclusion of Palestinians from normal life and a bold statement of Israel's defiance of international law.

Construction of the barrier has continued in disregard of the 2004 Advisory Opinion of the International Court of Justice, and now stretches over 57% of its planned 723 kilometer route. When it is completed, it will have used up or rendered useless nearly 10% of West Bank land. A quarter of million Palestinians will be affected by it and it will prevent a quarter of the Palestinian population of East Jerusalem from entering that city. The lives and livelihoods of literally hundreds of thousands of Palestinians are blighted, strangled by this intrusive oppressive structure.

Those who have seen the barrier firsthand or on a map will notice that it runs a jagged course, encroaching deep into West Bank territory at many points, creating pockets between it and the border with Israel. In these spots on the map, the barrier takes on the depressing appearance of a noose. Thousands of Palestinians are trapped in these spaces. Palestinians in other communities are surrounded by the barrier on every side. Residents must have permits to reside in their own family homes inside these enclaves and a checkpoint serves as the only way for them to enter or leave. Exile, exclusion and isolation are nowhere so stark.

And Gaza? How does one begin to describe the excesses of exile, exclusion and isolation there? And what has not already been said about the misery they endure? A passage from William Shakespeare is an apt foil for discussing Gaza. "A wretched soul, bruised with adversity,
We bid be quiet when we hear it cry; But were we burdened with like weight of pain, As much or more we should ourselves complain." These are the words of Adriana, in Shakespeare's "A Comedy of Errors," a title that rings with irony.

I hasten to add that there is nothing inherently wretched about the 1.5 million Palestinians in Gaza, two-thirds of whom are refugees. On the contrary, Gazans – and Palestinians generally – are proud, dignified, hardworking people with a well-deserved reputation for devotion to family, learning and high achievement.

The fortitude of Gazans is legendary. Their cries seldom reach our ears. What we do hear, clearly and repeatedly, are pleas from within and outside the United Nations to stem the suffering of Gaza's people and warnings that the slide into the abyss serves the interests of no one. It is the international community which bids "quiet!"- greeting these cries on Gaza's behalf with studied indifference.

Since early 2006, after Hamas won free and fair, democratic elections in the occupied Palestinian territory, a range of progressively more stringent sanctions have been imposed on Gaza and its people. And since June of last year, when the Hamas movement took control of Gaza, following weeks of bloody internal conflict, the restrictions have tightened further, resulting in a 'siege' unprecedented in scale and severity.

The main crossings at Rafah and Karni have been closed for most of the period since June, suspending exports from Gaza with very few exceptions. Curbs on imports are draconian. What is allowed into Gaza, how much and when, is entirely at the whim (or the security decisions) of Israel, the occupying power. The well-being of every Gazan is entirely in the hands of those controlling the border crossings.

Consider the decrease in the declining number of trucks allowed in over the last 12 months. From January to June 2007, prior to Hamas taking control of Gaza, an average of some 11,000 trucks brought in goods every month (a number already considerably reduced from before the 2006 elections). From July 2007 to March 2008, the average monthly inflow shrunk to 2,485. Every item necessary for a normal healthy life is absent or in short supply in Gaza: medication and medical equipment, hard currency, textbooks, paper and pencils and erasers, detergents, light bulbs, construction materials, chemicals for sewage treatment, cooking gas, meat, raw materials for factories, farming inputs, batteries for hearing aids for the deaf. The list goes on and on. Any item deemed by the Israeli authorities to be of "dual use" is proscribed.

Gaza is grinding to a halt as a severe shortage of fuel hits hard. This affects the production of bread as well as the supply of water and electricity and the treatment and disposal of waste and sewage. Some 450,000 Gazans – 30 per cent of the population - are unable to access clean water. Since January, more than 60 million liters of raw or partially treated sewage has been dumped into the sea.

The blockade on Gaza has exacerbated poverty, unemployment and the human suffering that comes with material hardship. The adverse consequences for the health system are predictable. Serious conditions cannot be treated inside Gaza, yet many patients applying for permits to seek medical treatment in Israel or elsewhere are refused, including those who were already undergoing periodic treatment outside. The World Health Organization reports that between October 2007 and April 2008, 32 Palestinian patients, including five children, died as a result of their delayed or denied access to medical care outside Gaza.

Among the blockade's most destructive effects on Palestinians are those of a long-term nature. Last year, before Gaza's closure reached its present levels, there was evidence of stunted growth in over 13% of Gazan children with another 10% suffering permanent effects from chronic malnutrition. These statistics are predictable in a place where poverty is rife and where 80 per cent of the population is dependent on food aid and humanitarian assistance – food aid through UNRWA which covers only 61% of prescribed daily caloric needs. And I need not detail the long term psychological effects of the violence, humiliation and deprivations ever present in Gaza.

Most refugees are no longer able to supplement UNRWA rations with purchases of food; they cannot afford it, or produce never makes it from farm to market for lack of