Fifty-six percent of domestic terrorist attacks and plots in the U.S. since 1995 have been perpetrated by right-wing extremists, as compared to 30 percent by ecoterrorists and 12 percent by Islamic extremists. Right-wing extremism has been responsible for the greatest number of terrorist incidents in the U.S. in 13 of the 17 years since the Oklahoma City bombing.
After DHS withdrew the report, the department cut the number of analysts studying non-Islamic domestic terrorism. Daryl Johnson, the primary author of the report and a self-described Republican, soon left his post at DHS and said in July, 2011 that DHS has “just one person” dealing with domestic terrorism. The Department has largely been silent on domestic terrorist threats ever since.
Although current statistics show that right-wing extremism is on the rise through groups like the Sovereign Citizen and Patriot movements, domestic counterterrorism continues to receive few resources and little public attention. Though Islamic extremism remains a significant domestic security threat, current statistics and incidents such as Oklahoma City show that it is far from the only threat. In order to protect American citizens, we need to match our resources to the reality of our threats, not just the politically expedient narratives we have formed.
Another great piece over at Think Progress by my good friend and colleague, Ken Sofer.
Israel is moving to criminalize and detain asylum-seekers.
(Oren Ziv / ActiveStills)Levinsky Park sits just across from Tel Aviv’s central bus station, a rundown, bustling neighborhood in the city’s south known for its large migrant worker community and municipal neglect.
For years Levinsky Park itself has been a hub for homeless asylum seekers. On any given day there can be up to 250 persons living in the park, according to Nick Schlagman, program manager at the African Refugee Development Center.
The African asylum-seekers, hoping for a solution to their limbo status, have fled impossible situations at home — mostly Eritrea and Sudan. They were greeted upon arrival in Israel with a hostile government that offers them no support or protection and wants them out.
Indefinite detention
The climate in Israel for refugees has grown increasingly harsh. The border with Egyptis heavily patrolled by soldiers who pounce on new arrivals, shuttling them to a detention center, where they are registered, held for a number of weeks, then left to fend for themselves. Most receive a month-long visa, which must be renewed on a rolling basis, Schlagman explained.
The trend was cemented in January, when the 1954 Prevention of Infiltration law was amended. The amendment allows the state to detain refugees without trial for three years, or indefinitely if they are from an “enemy” country such as Sudan.
This puts Israel at first place among western states for the longest jail time for asylum seekers, according to Amnesty International (“Israel: new detention law violates rights of asylum seekers,” 10 January 2012).
To help realize this provision, a refugee detention center is being planned that will hold 10,000 persons. Those that offer support to refugees, the law says, may face up to 15 years in prison.
The Infiltration Law was originally intended to block the efforts of Palestinians uprooted during the Nakba, the ethnic cleansing leading to Israel’s foundation in 1948, who might try to return and lay claim to their homes. It allowed the state to imprison “infiltrators” — anyone, namely Palestinians, who crossed Israel’s boundaries without official permission.
The law was imagined as part of the Zionist project of keeping Israel Jewish by excluding Palestinians. Today it has the same purpose, this time targeting people fleeing an oppressive dictatorship in Eritrea, and Sudan, where large scale human rights abuses have occurred in the province of Darfur and in fighting between the north and south.
The Israeli government has described its anti-refugee policies as “deterrence.” If the state’s 50,000 refugees relay to their families and friends the awful treatment meted out to them in Israel others like them will go elsewhere, the logic goes.
Israel cannot deport the refugees due to its signing of the 1951 Refugee Convention, according to which states must provide refuge to those fleeing danger in their home country. Israel manages to circumvent this obligation by refusing to acknowledge people as refugees, instead labeling them “migrant workers.”
The conditional release visa that refugees receive does not allow them to work. “We went to the high court to fight this,” explained Yohanes Bayu, director of ARDC, “which decided the state could not fine businesses that employed asylum seekers.”
Denying right to work
In reality it is still extremely difficult for refugees to find work. While the government cannot overturn the court’s decision, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Interior Minister Eli Yishai are saying on television that employers of refugees will be punished, Bayu said.
In January, it was reported that contractors employed by the Tel Aviv municipality fired 800 asylum seekers working as street cleaners, under orders from municipal authorities (“Tel Aviv orders subcontractors to stop employing asylum seekers,”Haaretz, 23 January 2012).
Blankets confiscated
Conditions in Levinsky Park this year, with a particularly cold winter, were tough. One man sleeping there told The Electronic Intifada that municipal authorities had been making rounds of the park each morning, clearing away blankets donated by locals to help the homeless men through the cold nights.
One 40-year-old Eritrean, Yohanes Barko, did not survive the experience. Barko had lived in a tent in the park during the summer’s “tent protests” but was made homeless again when his tent was torn down by municipal authorities last October. In mid-January he was found in the park, having died from the cold (“Tel Aviv refugee froze to death. ‘Go back to Africa, it’s warmer,’” +972 Magazine, 22 January 2012).
“It was this man’s death that galvanized the community to take immediate action,” Schlagman noted. Tel Aviv locals, shocked by the state’s total apathy, began bringing bags of clothes and blankets to the park. Some came every night with warm meals.
In late January, Sons of Darfur, a group of Darfuri refugees, set up a small shelter for the refugees in an old bar, meters away from the park’s boundaries. The space can fit about 150 individuals. The organizers cannot afford to maintain the shelter, which costs 12,000 shekels ($3,200) a month to rent, but worry what might befall their lodgers should they close down.
The group, along with the Israeli emergency service Magen David Adom, managed recently to find temporary housing for all of Levinsky Park’s refugees. This is the first time since 2006 that the park is empty at night, Schlagman said.
Preserving apartheid
Once again, demography is being wielded by the establishment with great bluster and urgency. If Israel offers sanctuary to downtrodden Africans, soon its Jewish majority will be jeopardized, the argument goes.
Israel’s demographic fear has already fueled much racially-biased legislation, most recently the high court’s upholding of a law denying citizenship to West Bank and Gaza spouses of Israeli citizens and nationals of Arab “enemy” states.
While the security line is often employed to buttress policies denounced as racist and discriminatory, Israeli leaders are not attempting to disguise the amendment to the Infiltration Law as anything but another means of ensuring ethnic homogeneity — or, in other words, Jewish supremacy.
In December, Netanyahu spoke of a forthcoming trip to Africa and planned discussions with African leaders about how to stem the continuing stream of their citizens into Israel. “These are very important steps to ensure the future of the State of Israel as a Jewish and democratic state,” he said. “If we do not act to stop this illegal flood, we will simply be inundated” (“Netanyahu to go to Africa to return infiltrators,” Israel National News, 11 December 2011).
The Infiltration Law, in its criminalization of asylum seekers, is just another example of racism and apartheid motivating Israeli legislation.
The Wall of Hate (par WeHateZionism)
European Union lawmakers rejected a one-year extension of the bloc’s fisheries agreement with Morocco on Wednesday because of fears the pact would strengthen Rabat’s control of the disputed Western Sahara.
The decision will force EU fishermen to leave the waters off Morocco and Western Sahara within days after they had been allowed to operate in the area pending the formal approval of the agreement by the European Parliament.
“Today’s vote sends a strong message that the parliament will not accept any deal that ignores the rights of the people of Western Sahara and is in conflict with international law,” Spanish Green lawmaker Raul Romeva said in a statement.
“This agreement is a shameful stain on EU foreign policy and it is time it was consigned to the past.”
Critics have long questioned the sustainability of the agreement and whether — as mandated by the United Nations — it benefits the Sahrawi population living under Moroccan rule.
French centre-right lawmaker Alain Cadec described as meaningless the parliament’s decision to reject an agreement two months before it was due to expire, and said the decision would undermine talks on a new long-term fisheries pact with Morocco.
“The European Commission said on Monday that if this accord was not adopted by the parliament, there would be no future fisheries agreement with Morocco,” he said in a statement.
The bloc’s fisheries chief Maria Damanaki said the Commission would respect the parliament’s decision, and propose repealing the provisional approval of fishing rights in the region at a meeting of EU fisheries ministers on Thursday.
“We don’t know if a new fisheries protocol with Morocco is possible,” she said in a statement. If a new pact were agreed it would have to include more guarantees on environmental sustainability and international legality, she added.
Last year, Damanaki said the Commission could propose a renewal only if Morocco proves the deal will benefit Sahrawis.
Morocco’s annexation of Western Sahara in 1975 prompted a rebellion by the opposition Polisario Front. The UN brokered a ceasefire in 1991, but subsequent talks have failed to find a settlement in Africa’s longest-running territorial dispute.
The EU pays Morocco about 36 million euros ($47 million) a year to allow its fishermen to fish its waters and those off Western Sahara under an agreement signed in 2007. They catch mainly sardines and octopus.
A big blow to Morocco’s claim over the Western Sahara and a major win for the Polisario. I was not expecting this at all. Perhaps this will force Morocco to take some serious steps towards resolving this decades-old territorial dispute.
Let’s hope this takes some pressure off the fish stocks at least…
| — | Dr. Ali M. Nizamuddin is a ISPU Fellow and an associate professor of political science at the University of Illinois Springfield. (via ffeimo) |
You might be a conservative if…
1: You’re irate over the president taking so many vacation days on the taxpayer’s dime (61 thus far), but you thought George W. Bush earned every minute of his leisure time (196 days at the same point in his presidency).
2: You’re happy with your 40 hour work week, paid vacations and company-provided healthcare, but you’re strongly anti-union, because those commies haven’t done anything for you lately.
3: You strongly support the First Amendment and it’s guarantee of religious freedom to all, but you don’t think Muslims have a right to build an Islamic Community Center in Manhattan.
4: You believe Ronald Reagan was a devout Christian, even though he hated going to church, but any president who spends twenty years going to the same Trinity United Church in Chicago must be a Muslim.
5: You believe when a Republican governor creates a healthcare package with an individual mandate for everyone in his state, that’s a good idea. But when a Democratic president does it, suddenly it’s unconstitutional.
6: You’re so enthused about demonstrating your Second Amendment rights, you can think of no finer place to brandish your pistol in public than at a presidential rally.
7: You believe Bill Clinton was responsible for Osama bin Laden’s escape ten years ago, but thankfully George W. Bush caught up with him and killed him in Pakistan.
8: You believe in putting American jobs first, except when president Obama rescued 1.5 million GM and Chrysler autoworkers, because that was socialism.
9: It angers you that you can’t communicate with the Mexican busboy at your local Olive Garden, but when you took a vacation to San Francisco’s Chinatown, you thought it’s quaint that so many Chinese-Americans are holding fast to their traditional language. Because that’s America!
10: You deny that the lunatic who tried to murder Gaby Giffords was a conservative, even though he targeted a Jewish, pro-choice, pro gay rights, Democratic Congresswoman.
11: You thought it was perfectly normal that every president in history had an untethered right to raise the debt ceiling when warranted, but when Obama asked the GOP held congress to do it, you thought it only natural that it be tied to cutting Social Security and Medicare.
Oh my god, ALL OF THIS
Bahrain yesterday released doctors and medical personnel who have been behind bars since March 2011, after increased international condemnation and a series of hunger strikes by supporters inside and outside the country. The medical staff, who treated injured protesters during Bahrain’s revolution and spoke to the media about the horrors they witnessed among the dead and injured, found themselves behind bars accused of killing protesters and hiding arms inside hospital wards.




