Peace for the World

Peace for the World
First democratic leader of Justice the Godfather of the Sri Lankan Tamil Struggle: Honourable Samuel James Veluppillai Chelvanayakam

Monday, February 6, 2017

Man waving olive branch carries boy holding Palestine flag on his shoulders during Palm Sunday processionTo the Iona community, “It seemed obvious to us that we should listen to what Palestinian Christians were saying and take that seriously.”
 Ryan Rodrick BeilerActiveStills
The Iona Community, a Christian organization in Scotland, has declared its full support for the Palestinian-led boycott, divestment and sanctions (BDS) movement.
“BDS is an act of nonviolent solidarity, pursuing equality, freedom and justice,” reads a new Iona Community statement.
The statement endorses the BDS movement’s three demands by arguing for an end to Israel’s military occupation of the West Bank and siege of Gaza, equal rights for Palestinian citizens of Israel and the right of return for Palestinian refugees.
The statement also condemns Christian Zionism “as a distortion of the Christian faith in its abuse of scripture to oppress Palestinian people.”

“Listen to oppressed”

“The Iona Community has long sought, in all kinds of global and local contexts, to listen to the voices of those who are oppressed, and to take those voices seriously,” said Michael Marten, a member of the Iona Community’s council, its highest decision-making body.
“Through our members’ involvement in situations around the world over many decades, including in Africa, Asia, Latin America, as well as the Middle East, we have sought to try and understand the situations of others and offer solidarity and engagement.”
The community’s willingness to endorse full BDS and the right of return – steps that many other Christian bodies have not been ready to take – results from its relationship with Kairos Palestine, a coalition of Palestinian Christians that has endorsed the BDS call.
The statement was approved by the community’s council after a process that began with a working group formed in 2015.
“In engaging with the call from Kairos Palestine,” said Marten, “we took seriously the call for full BDS and in our discernment process felt that this was the only way we could respond. It seemed obvious to us that we should listen to what Palestinian Christians were saying and take that seriously.”
That same approach led to inclusion of the right of return.
“This is not a simplistic position,” said Marten, also an academic on political and religious history. “We recognize that the practical implementation of such a move is tremendously complex but that does not negate the fact that this [the expulsion of Palestinians by Zionist forces] is a fundamental injustice.”
He described the right of return as “central to a just transformation of the current conflict.”

Apology for Balfour

The Iona Community’s statement also refers to the centenary of the Balfour Declaration. Signed by Arthur James Balfour, then British foreign secretary, that 1917 letter pledged to support the Zionist movement’s objective of colonizing Palestine.
The Iona Community has urged that Britain apologize “for its part in the dispossession of Palestinian land and the wider Middle East conflict.”
Marten noted that Balfour came from a Scottish Presbyterian background, the same denomination as the founder of the Iona Community, George MacLeod.
Marten has been traveling to Palestine since 1991.
“[Since] that time, I can see a remarkable change in the situation,” said Marten. “From being a marginal position, a pro-justice position has become a mainstream one, including in the churches, even if the political contexts don’t reflect that.”
The Iona Community is small – with around 280 full members, and several thousand associate members and friends, according to its website. Yet it has long had an influence through the distribution of worship music and other liturgical resources used by many other churches worldwide.
For example, it has previously distributed music celebrating the South African anti-apartheid movement. The community’s statement notes that BDS tactics played a role “in ending South African apartheid,” adding, “we seek to learn from that.”
By taking this stance, the Iona Community should provide some inspiration to those churches and religious organizations, which have yet to come out publicly in defense of Palestinian rights.

Here’s How Trump Can Make a Deal With Israel

The new president has a chance to move the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem, but to avoid conflict he’ll have to act very carefully.

Here’s How Trump Can Make a Deal With Israel

No automatic alt text available.BY DENNIS ROSS-FEBRUARY 3, 2017

Like many of his predecessors, President Donald Trump promised to move the U.S. Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem as a candidate. While the new president is clearly motivated by showing that he does what others are unable or unwilling to do, it is too soon to know when or if he will act on this promise. Trump acted to defuse speculation that moving the embassy was imminent by saying in an interview last week: “I don’t want to talk about it yet. It’s too early.”

The White House has also yet to take an official position on settlement activity. Spokesman Sean Spicer said in a statement yesterday that while the White House does not believe settlements were an impediment to peace, the construction of new settlements or expansion of existing settlements “may not be helpful in achieving that goal.”

The Trump administration will no doubt discuss Israeli settlements, and the location of the U.S. embassy, when Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu visits Washington in February. When the president meets with the prime minister privately, he would be wise to ask how important moving the embassy is to him and where it fits in his list of priorities.

To be sure, no Israeli prime minister could possibly be against moving the embassy to Jerusalem. It is Israel’s political and spiritual capital — and it goes to the very heart of Israel’s identity as the state of the Jewish people.

But Jerusalem has great emotional and political meaning for the Palestinians as well. As the site of the al-Aqsa mosque, the third-holiest site for Sunni Islam, the city can also be easily used to arouse immense passions throughout Muslim majority countries.

Perhaps that is why previous Israeli governments have quietly urged the United States to properly lay the groundwork before moving the embassy. In 1995, shortly after we had concluded the Interim Agreement between the Israelis and the Palestinians — an agreement in the Oslo process that extended the writ of the Palestinian Authority to all of the cities of the West Bank — Yitzhak Rabin, the Israeli prime minister, conveyed discreetly to the Clinton administration and to me personally that the pending congressional legislation to move the embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem could be destabilizing. He emphasized that he wanted the embassy to be in Jerusalem and that he would never oppose such a move — but we needed to be smart about this, recognizing that timing and context mattered. He was counting on us to avoid doing anything that could undermine his peace partners or empower Hamas or the Muslim Brotherhood in the region.

With that advice very much in mind, we negotiated legislation that permitted the president to waive the legal requirement to move the embassy for national security reasons. At the time, President Bill Clinton hoped we would succeed in negotiating a peace agreement between the Israelis and Palestinians that would resolve the final status of Jerusalem and end the conflict, enabling us to move the embassy during his presidency. Until an agreement was reached, he decided that he would exercise the waiver every six months. Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama, with no agreement in sight, have continued to exercise the waiver — and the timing of Obama’s last waiver allows Trump not to have to do anything about the embassy until June.

Should Trump forgo his promise and follow the pattern of his predecessors? Not necessarily, provided he prepares the ground carefully, consults quietly with key Arab leaders in advance, and publicly describes the limits of what our action means to the status of Jerusalem. Precisely because Jerusalem is an emotional issue for all sides, it is important not to do anything that could be exploited by those — such as Iran, the Islamic State, or other radical Islamists — who want to threaten both America’s interests and its Arab friends in the region. Indeed, a move that is not properly prepared will almost certainly force the Egyptians, Emiratis, Jordanians, Moroccans, and Saudis to distance themselves from the United States, for fear that they will face demonstrations by their own publics accusing them of acquiescing in America’s sacrifice of Arab interests in Jerusalem.

At the very moment when the Trump administration will want to draw Arab states into playing a larger role in the fight against the Islamic State, the embassy move could work against that objective. That said, there are ways to potentially manage the issue. First, the more the Trump administration takes key Arab leaders into its confidence and lays out its approach to the region, including a serious plan to counter Iran and its use of Shiite militias — something the Obama administration never developed — it can increase their interest in preserving ties to Washington. In other words, if the United States is a more credible ally on the threats that matter most to our Arab partners, it will find it easier to manage an issue that otherwise will be difficult for them.

Second, the administration must explain in advance that the embassy move is an acknowledgment of the reality that West Jerusalem is a part of Israel, that it has been since 1948, and that it will always be a part of the Jewish state. Moving the embassy to West Jerusalem simply acknowledges these facts. The United States is not going to prejudge the final status of the city — only negotiations can resolve that. The administration should repeat this mantra well before it actually moves the embassy, to condition the environment and make it difficult later to misrepresent what it is doing.

Third, as part of its discussions with Arab leaders, it should solicit their views on how it might talk about the issue in public. In these conversations, it should also make clear that it will pursue diplomacy to break the stalemate between the Israelis and Palestinians — knowing that the administration will pursue a diplomatic solution and will make it easier for our Arab friends to put the move in proper context. Having said that he considers a peace agreement between the Israelis and Palestinians the “ultimate deal” and that his son-in-law, Jared Kushner, will work on this issue, Trump should not raise false expectations about reaching peace soon. That is simply not in the cards, given the wide psychological and substantive gaps separating the Israelis and Palestinians. Still, he should be clear that his administration will take a practical approach to trying to change the circumstances, so what is not now possible in terms of peacemaking will become possible over time.

Lastly, before anything is done on the embassy, the new administration should reach out to the Palestinian Authority (PA). Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas is already out in public opposing the move. No doubt he hopes to dissuade the administration from moving the embassy, fearing that it will be portrayed as if he has lost Jerusalem. He almost certainly assumes that Hamas will encourage the Palestinian public to carry out violence against Israelis and possibly Americans — and that any such violence can get out of hand and be directed against him. Outreach to Abbas would be designed to explain what is being done and not done: If the embassy is being moved to West Jerusalem and is tied to statements that this does not alter the U.S. position that the permanent status of Jerusalem can be resolved only through negotiations between the parties, it allows Abbas to say he received assurances from the Americans that nothing final has been decided about the city. Any private outreach to him should convey the administration’s readiness to engage in diplomacy with the Israelis and Palestinians — while making clear that should the administration decide to move the embassy, the future of its relationship with the PA will depend on its not calling for violence or fomenting demonstrations in response.

Ultimately, moving the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem is not a simple issue. But with a careful approach to timing, outreach, and proper public framing, the Trump administration could manage it. If nothing else, it will be a test of the administration’s diplomatic skill.

Photo credit: JACK GUEZ/AFP/Getty Images

 
Former secretaries of state John F. Kerry and Madeleine Albright, along with Leon Panetta and other former top national security officials, entered the fray over President Trump’s travel ban early Monday with an unusual declaration stating that it “undermines” national security and will “endanger U.S. troops in the field.”

The six-page joint declaration was addressed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit in support of the temporary order blocking implementation of Trump’s ban on entry for travelers from seven predominantly Muslim countries. The executive order was blocked by a U.S. district court judge, prompting the government to appeal in what is becoming an unprecedented battle over executive power.
The declaration came as the state of Washington, which initially sought the restraining order, formally responded to the administration’s appeal. The government’s brief is due later Monday.

While the declaration by the officials is not part of the formal briefing in the case and judges have no obligation to read it, it is clearly meant to counter the government’s argument that continuing to block Trump’s executive action will cause great harm to the nation’s security. It perhaps also has the public relations function of responding to Trump’s Twitter claim that Judge James L. Robart was putting the “country in such peril” and that he and the court system should be blamed “if something happens.”
The basic theme of the declaration was that it is Trump’s order, not any judge’s ruling, that is putting the country in peril.
Just cannot believe a judge would put our country in such peril. If something happens blame him and court system. People pouring in. Bad!
Numerous “friend of the court” briefs have been filed in the case as well, the latest by 97 major tech companies.

The former officials implicitly took strong issue with the Trump administration’s claim that a similar approach had been taken by President Barack Obama during his administration.

Others signing the declaration in addition to Kerry, Albright and former secretary of defense and CIA director Panetta were John E. McLaughlin, deputy director of the CIA from 2000 to 2004 and acting director in 2004; Lisa O. Monaco, former assistant to Obama for homeland security and counterterrorism; Michael Morell, a career CIA official who has served as deputy director and acting director; former homeland security secretary Janet Napolitano; and Susan E. Rice, Obama’s ambassador to the U.N. and national security adviser.

“We all agree that the United States faces real threats” from terrorist networks and that vetting is necessary, they said in the filing.

“We all are nevertheless unaware of any specific threat that would justify the travel ban” established by the executive order. Rather, they said, they viewed it as one that “ultimately undermines the national security of the United States rather than making us safer.”

Specifically, they said, the order will “endanger U.S. troops in the field” who “fight alongside allies in some of the named countries who put their lives on the line to protect Americans.”

Vice President Pence on Feb. 5 defended President Trump’s travel ban while senators questioned Trump’s criticism of the federal judge who temporarily blocked the ban. (Bastien Inzaurralde/The Washington Post)

It will “disrupt key counterterrorism, foreign policy and national security partnerships that are critical to our obtaining” intelligence necessary to combat terrorist groups like the Islamic State, they declared, and “endanger intelligence sources in the field” by “breaching faith” with them.

They described Trump’s order as one of “unprecedented scope. We know of no case where a President has invoked his statutory authority to suspend admission for such a broad class of people. … In past cases suspensions were limited to particular individuals or subclasses of nationals who posed a specific articulable threat based on their known actions and affiliations.

“There is no national security purpose for a total bar on entry for aliens from the seven named country,” they wrote. “Since September 11, 2001, not a single terrorist attack in the United States has been perpetrated by aliens from the country named in the Order. Very few attacks on U.S. soil” since 9/11 “have been traced to foreign nationals at all. The overwhelming majority of attacks have been committed by U.S. citizens … In our professional opinion, the Order will harm the interests of the United States in many respects.”

The full declaration can be read here.

The state of Washington’s latest brief is available here.

Iran's missile test "not a message" to Trump

Iran's President Hassan Rouhani gestures as he speaks during a ceremony marking National Day of Space Technology in Tehran, Iran February 1, 2017. President.ir/Handout via REUTERS

Mon Feb 6, 2017

Iran said on Monday a recent missile trial launch was not intended to send a message to new U.S. President Donald Trump and to test him, since after a series of policy statements Iranian officials already "know him quite well".

Iran test-fired a new ballistic missile last week, prompting Washington to impose some new sanctions on Tehran. Trump tweeted that Tehran, which has cut back its nuclear programme under a 2015 deal with world powers easing economic sanctions, was "playing with fire".

Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Bahram Qasemi was quoted by Tasnim news agency as saying: "Iran's missile test was not a message to the new U.S. government.

"There is no need to test Mr Trump as we have heard his views on different issues in recent days... We know him quite well."

Iran has test-fired several ballistic missiles since the 2015 deal, but the latest test on January 29 was the first since Trump entered the White House. Trump said during his election campaign that he would stop Iran's missile programme.

Qasemi said The U.S. government was "still in an unstable stage" and Trump's comments were "contradictory".

"We are waiting to see how the U.S. government will act in different international issues to evaluate their approach."

Despite heated words between Tehran and Washington, U.S. Defense Secretary Jim Mattis said on Saturday he was not considering strengthening U.S. forces in the Middle East to address Iran's "misbehavior".

Hamid Aboutalebi, deputy chief of staff of Iran's President Hassan Rouhani, tweeted on Monday that the U.S. government "should de-escalate regional tension not adding to it", and Washington should "interact with Iran" rather than challenging it.

ran announced on Saturday that it will issue visas for a U.S. wrestling team to attend the Freestyle World Cup competition, reversing a decision to ban visas for the team in retaliation for an executive order by Trump banning visas for Iranians.

(Reporting by Bozorgmehr Sharafedin; editing by Ralph Boulton)

Media Disinformation on Purported Aleppo Atrocities Fits Historical Pattern

The mainstream media is best understood as an appendage of the government and ruling class interests, one which functions as part of a propaganda system that has nothing to do with providing with facts, but rather creating an acceptable ideological framework for its audience. This explains why the media exhibits such a blatant confirmation bias.


by Matt Peppe- 

( February 6, 2017, Boston, Sri Lanka Guardian) It has been several months since the barrage of nightmarish reports about the horrors in East Aleppo as the government army prepared to drive out the remaining rebels from the city in mid December. Purported “activists” posted their “goodbye” messages, claiming they feared they would be slaughtered by government forces. Women were said to have chosen suicide over rape. And most widely disseminated of all were reports that regime soldiers had executed 82 civilians, including women and children. (See herehereherehere and here.) None of these shocking reports were verified by journalists on the ground. Though none of the news media admitted it, there were no foreign journalists in East Aleppo because they feared being kidnapped and killed by the al Qaeda-aligned rebels, as American reporter James Foley had been in 2014. But after hostilities concluded in East Aleppo with the rebels being driven out of the city, the same organizations who propagated the doomsday narrative have shown no interest in examining it and setting the record straight.

There have been no indications that anyone inside East Aleppo who posted a goodbye message was actually harmed. Lina Shamy, who miraculously enjoyed a reliable Wi-Fi connection and a steady supply of power to tweet constantly and grant Skype interviews from East Aleppo, warned on Dec. 12, 2016 that “this may be my last video. More than 50,000 civilians who rebelled against the dictator al-Assad are threatened with field executions or are dying under bombing.” CNN published this terrifying message from Shamy along with another in which she claimed “genocide is still ongoing!”

But Shamy was not executed upon the government taking control of the city. Instead, she was evacuated by the government out of the city. She is now living freely and recounting her experience in the pages of the New York Times, where she falsely blamed attacks on evacuation buses on the government’s Syrian Arab Army (SAA). In reality, it was the rebels who set fire to the buses full of civilians and imperiled the peaceful evacuations.

As for reports of executions of 82 civilians by government troops, it does not appear that anyone has followed up by presenting any evidence that this actually happened. There have been no names of the 82 people allegedly killed, no photos, no bodies, and no grave sites indicating that mass murder had occurred.

Perhaps this should not come as a surprise. The original reports were completely unsubstantiated, based on nothing more than one United Nations official repeating hearsay. News media relied on the authority of the United Nations to bolster the credibility of their headlines (“UN says civilians shot on the spot.”) Amnesty International took the UN reports at face value and said they “point to apparent war crimes,” phrasing meant to prejudice legal claims against the Syrian government while deflecting responsibility for making them.

The reports came from a single official: Rupert Colville, a spokesman for the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights. Colville told a news conference that in addition to 82 civilians (including dozens of women and children) reportedly killed by government troops, the death toll could actually be much higher, Buried deep below the headlines in the news coverage, we come across an important caveat.  Colville admitted “it was hard to verify the reports.”

Rather than present evidence of these horrible atrocities, Colville admits that they are merely rumors from an undisclosed source. To present this as an factual finding of the United Nations is like taking a prosecutor’s opening argument and saying it was the decision of the jury at the end of the trial. If the media was really interested in reporting the truth, they would frame the allegations skeptically rather than treat them as settled and proven.

But the purpose of media in the United States and Western democracies is not to report the truth but to reinforce the government’s position by accepting the fundamental validity of its narrative. As Noam Chomsky and Edward Herman write in Manufacturing Consent, “(a) propaganda model suggests that the ‘societal purpose’ of the media is to inculcate and defend the economic, social and political agenda of privileged groups that dominate the domestic society and the state.” [1]

It is evident that the political and military establishment is fixated on regime change in Syria, and thus has chosen to align with Syria’s local al-Qaeda affiliate — if not directly then indirectly by supporting groups that make common cause in fighting under their command. The propaganda model would predict that the media would portray the Assad government as uniquely cruel and savage, and the opponents of the regime as worthy victims of the Syrian government’s evilness.

Thus it should not be surprising that after the re-capture of East Aleppo actual evidence of a massacre was discovered, but was ignored.  Since the evidence pointed to atrocities by the rebels against the government, instead of vice versa, it went unreported in the Western press.

In late December, 100 government soldiers were found dead inside East Aleppo. Video by Syrian “activists” showed that at least some of the dead soldiers had been captured days earlier, suggesting they were executed rather than killed in battle. Despite photographic and video evidence, these deaths were not worthy of being covered by CNN, the New York Times, the BBC or other outlets who did report on unverified accusations of executions by the other side.

The Hue and Racak “Massacres”

Several historical examples are useful to see how stories that coincide with the government line are amplified by the media, no matter how little evidence exists. Later, when evidence emerges which calls into question the original narrative, the media simply ignore it and it is lost to history.

During the U.S. aggression against Vietnam, the brutality and viciousness of the “Communists” was exemplified in the American public imagination by the “Hue Massacre” in January 1968. The official narrative was that North Vietnamese troops, while retreating from the city of Hue after the Tet offensive, carried out indiscriminate massacres of civilians and buried them in mass graves.

London Times correspondent Stewart Harris reported in March 1968 that Hue Police Chief Doan Cong Lap claimed there had been 200 killings and a mass grave discovered with 300 bodies. The next month, the Saigon government’s propaganda agency put out a report claiming there were 1,000 victims of a Communist massacre, many of whom had been buried alive. After this was not picked up, the U.S. State Department put out the same report the following week. It was duly splashed across all the major American newspapers.

“The story was not questioned, despite the fact that no Western journalist had ever been taken to see the grave sites when the bodies were uncovered,” write Chomsky and Herman in The Washington Connection and Third World Fascism. “On the contrary, French photographer Marc Riboud was repeatedly denied permission to see one of the sites where the Province Chief claimed 300 civilian government workers had been executed by the Communists. When he was finally taken by helicopter to the alleged site, the pilot refused to land, claiming the area was ‘insecure.’ ” [2]

Subsequently, a purported “captured document” was found that allegedly showed Communists had admitted to killing 2,748 people. This was taken at face value and became the new official version of the incident.

In reality, a vicious U.S.-led assault to recapture Hue had resulted in massive casualties. Photographer Philip Jones Griffiths wrote that most of the victims were killed by the air assault. The dead were falsely designated as victims of a Communist massacre.

Gareth Porter, who thoroughly investigated the events in Hue, described his findings as follows:
The available evidence – not from NLF sources but from official U.S. and Saigon documents and from independent observers, indicates that the official story of an indiscriminate slaughter of those who were considered to be unsympathetic to the NLF is a complete fabrication. Not only is the number of bodies uncovered in and around Hue open to question, but more important, the cause of death appears to have been shifted from the fighting itself to NLF execution. And the most detailed and ‘authoritative’ account of the alleged executions put together by either government does not stand up under examination.But there was never any attempt by the mainstream Western press who were so quick to amplify the U.S. government’s accounts to investigate what really happened and set the record straight if their findings did not match the initial story. Nor was there any interest in investigating casualties in Hue when there was substantial evidence that they were caused by the U.S. military and forces loyal to the military dictatorship they were supporting.

30 years later in Kosovo, the Western media reported the latest massacre by the evil forces of an official enemy. In this case, the Serbian military had allegedly murdered 45 unarmed Kosovo Albanians in the village of Racak. The first reports of a “massacre” and a “crime against humanity” in Racak were pronounced by Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) mission head William Walker.

On January 18, 1999, Chief International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia prosecutor Louise Arbour showed up at the border of Kosovo and demanded entry to investigate the incident. In March, U.S. President Bill Clinton would use the pretext of Racak to justify an illegal air war against Serbia when he declared, “(w)e should remember what happened in the village of Racak, where innocent men, women and children were taken from their homes to a gully, forced to kneel in the dirt, sprayed with gunfire — not because of anything they had done, but because of who they were.” [3]

Clinton’s version was created out of whole cloth. There were no women and children, and there was no evidence the dead had been marched from their homes and forced to kneel in the dirt. The Serbian government determined that there was only 22 men, and that the deaths had resulted from a fire fight during a police action to catch Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA) fighters who had killed four policeman the week before.

While the Serb version, which was exculpatory to their own side, should not be accepted at face value either, it does raise possibilities worth examining. There was a context that could explain the dead bodies, i.e., heavy fighting between KLA and Serbian forces. As Michael Mandel writes in How America Gets Away with Murder: “to the extent that there was a massacre, it was provoked by the KLA as part of a deliberate and consistent pattern aimed at bringing on NATO’s military intervention.” Mandel notes that even NATO supporters such as Michael Ignatieff had written several months before that KLA tactics “were not a miscalculation, but a deliberate strategy” designed to force Serbian forces to overreact and force NATO to intervene on the KLA’s side. [4]

It is not hard to see the double standard by which the media operates when reporting alleged atrocities by enemies of the U.S. government. Actual massacres by the U.S. armed forces are portrayed as one-off cases attributable to low-level rogue offices, like My Lai in Vietnam, or as honest mistakes and collateral damage, like the Kunduz hospital bombing in Afghanistan. Even in the wholesale murder of hundreds of thousands of innocent noncombatants, like the nuclear bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki or the systematic carpet bombing of vast swaths of Cambodia and Laos, U.S. actions are never conceived of as evidence of barbarity and indiscriminate violence. Whereas atrocities by the other side are unfailingly portrayed as unprovoked mass murder, unconscionable examples of the enemy’s lack of humanity and indicative of the difference between us and them.

The mainstream media is best understood as an appendage of the government and ruling class interests, one which functions as part of a propaganda system that has nothing to do with providing with facts, but rather creating an acceptable ideological framework for its audience. This explains why the media exhibits such a blatant confirmation bias. In this light, it should be anything but surprising that the story about the Syrian government executing 82 civilians can become an official historical fact without any serious attempt to verify the actual course of events either at the time they happened, or after the fog of war has cleared.

References
[1] Chomsky, Noam and Edward S. Herman. Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media. Pantheon, 2011. Kindle edition. (Loc. 7556)

[2] Chomsky, Noam and Edward S. Herman. The Washington Connection and Third World Fascism: The Political Economy of Human Rights: Volume 1. Boston: South End Press, 1979. (pp. 346)

[3] Quoted in Mandel, Michael. How America Gets Away with Murder: Illegal Wars, Collateral Damage and Crimes Against Humanity. Pluto Press, 2004. Kindle edition. (Loc. 1737)

[4] Mandel, Michael. How America Gets Away with Murder: Illegal Wars, Collateral Damage and Crimes Against Humanity. Pluto Press, 2004. Kindle edition. (Loc. 1820)

'We fear soldiers more than gangsters': El Salvador's 'iron fist' policy turns deadly

State security forces have turned the war on gangs into an extrajudicial siege in Distrito Italia, where young men are being killed indiscriminately with impunity

A masked and armed policeman patrols a gang-controlled neighborhood in San Salvador. Violence has heightened between police and gangs in response to government crackdown. Photograph: Alex Peña/AP--Marcela Beltran at her home which police have raided several times since the attempted murder of her son Cristian. Photograph: Nina Lakhani
el salvador gang police
el salvador gangs
Cristian Hernández was left in a coma after being beaten and tortured by police and soldiers in January 2016. Photograph: Nina Lakhani--Gang members are escorted upon arrival at a maximum security prison in Zacatecoluca in El Salvador. Photograph: Marvin Recinos/AFP/Getty Images

 in Distrito Italia, San Salvador-Monday 6 February 2017

Agroup of teenage boys were celebrating a birthday with cake and cold beers, larking around and uploading selfies to Facebook. It should have been an ordinary scene played out among old friends, but in El Salvador, these are anything but ordinary times.

Shortly before 11pm, soldiers with rifles quietly descended from the surrounding hills and cornered the youngsters in an alleyway. Most of the teens were were thrown face-down on the ground – but two boys ran, and the soldiers gave chase.

Juanita Ortega was getting ready for bed when she realised that her son Pablo, 19, was in danger.
“Bang! Bang! Bang! I heard gun shots and ran outside to look for my son,” said Ortega, who asked that she and her son be referred to with pseudonyms for fear of reprisal.

“They were hitting the boys on the ground with their rifle butts. I shouted to my neighbours – ‘Get up! Come quickly! They’re going to kill our children!’ – and then I realised my son wasn’t there,” she said.

Pablo made a break for the dusty main street, but a bullet caught him in the thigh and he fell to the ground. Soldiers dragged him to an overgrown patch of waste ground nearby, where he was later found dead, apparently strangled with his own shirt.

Almost immediately, a white double cabin pick-up arrived at the scene. A different group of soldiers were dropped off, and the unit which had carried out the attack was driven away, witnesses said.

Forensic scientists arrived several hours later to take away the body. No witnesses were interviewed. Morning newspapers reported the incident as the death of another gang member.

Distrito Italia is an impoverished neighbourhood just north of San Salvador whose cosmopolitan name belies a grim reality. For years, it has been dominated by the Mara Salvatrucha (MS13), one of the country’s two main street gangs, who for the past 25 years have been locked in a battle to control territory.

But the street gangs are not the only factions involved in the violence. State security forces have laid virtual siege to gang-controlled communities where being a young male is enough to get you arrested, tortured or killed.

The government’s promise to apply a mano dura (“iron fist”) policy against gangs seems to have become a shoot-to-kill policy under which anyone living in a gang-controlled neighbourhood risks falling victim to extrajudicial violence.

While some of the victims have been gang members, others have nothing to do with organised crime. Pablo Ortega had only finished high school a few days before he was killed.

“I saw soldiers covering the pool of blood with earth where my son fell,” sobbed Ortega, inside her modest home. “The authorities say he was killed in a shootout with gang members, but it’s a lie, he was never a gangster.”

The interview is interrupted by the sound of a gun being loaded just outside the window. Two police officers saunter past with their hands ready on their pistols; dogs bark, doors slam shut.

“I’m scared, you have to go, I have another son,” pleads Ortega. “It’s like during the [civil] war, they’re killing young people but talking about it can get you killed as well.”

El Salvador’s 12-year war between leftwing guerrillas and US-supported military dictatorships left 80,000 dead, 8,000 missing and a million displaced in 12 years.

The conflict ended in 1992, but peace never came to this small Central American country: although the murder rate dropped 20% last year, El Salvador remains the most deadly country in the world after Syria.

During the civil war, the conflict was described in cold war terms: the government described its enemies as terrorists. Nowadays, the violence continues, but the language has changed: a law passed last year established the gangs as “terrorist groups”.

“In the 1980s, having long hair and carrying a book made you a target; being young still makes you a target today,” said Jeanne Rikkers, director of research at the violence prevention NGO Cristosal.

Yet it could have been different. After years of escalating violence, the murder rate almost halved in mid-2012 after government-appointed negotiators helped facilitate a truce between MS13 andd its main rival Barrio, 18. The deal was imperfect, but for the first time in years, there was some hope of peace.

By mid-2014, however, the truce had fallen apart amid broken promises, political rivalries and tough-on-crime electioneering.

The FLMN – founded by former rebels – won a second term in government and soon declared war on the gangs. In January 2015 vice-president Oscar Ortíz gave security forces the green-light to use deadly force against suspected gang members “without any fear of suffering consequences”.

And they have. Police records obtained by the investigative news website El Faroshow that 693 alleged gang members were killed and 255 were injured in 1,074 armed confrontations between January 2015 and August 2016.

In the same period, 24 police and soldiers were killed. That imbalance points to the excessive use of lethal force and summary execution, said Ignacio Cano, a police violence expert at the State University of Rio de Janeiro.

In contrast, police officers arrested just 88 suspected gang members in the whole of 2013 and 2014.
Rikkers said: “The public discourse is warlike. It focuses on eliminating gang members – not crime. [But] the mano dura approach hasn’t worked and won’t suddenly start to work in the future. In the meantime, we are turning a blind eye to grave human rights abuses.”

Those who speak out are often targeted themselves.

Pablo’s murder was among dozens of suspected unlawful killings documented by Dany Romero, a former MS13 member who dedicated himself to violence prevention after his release from prison in 2006.
Last July, he was arrested, accused of using his NGO as a front for gang activities, and detained in maximum-security on terrorism charges.

“Dany had a lot of information that could be a big problem for the state,” said Arnau Baulenas, legal director at the Central American University’s Institute of Human Rights.

Such cases mean that victims’ relatives are wary of speaking out.

Since her son’s death last year, Ortega has often seen the same unit of soldiers in her neighbourhood, but has not dared denounce them to the authorities, for fear of putting her surviving son at risk. “I tell you sincerely, we fear the soldiers more than we ever feared the gangsters,” said Ortega.

Those who monitor the killings say that similarities between the cases cannot be dismissed.

In June, another young man in Distrito Italia was killed in similar circumstances.

he family of Jaime Velásquez, 22, admit that he was a gang member. (They asked for him to be referred to with a pseudonym to protect his surviving relatives).

One night in June 2016, he was on lookout duty, when the soldiers arrived. He was shot seven times and left lying in the street. Witnesses told the Guardian there was no gun battle, and no soldiers were injured. A pick-up truck arrived to take the soldiers away. There was no police investigation.

“The soldiers don’t protect us, they kills us like dogs,” said Velásquez’s older sister

Prosecutors say many of the abuse allegations are concocted by the gangs, and deny being lenient on security forces.

“To date, no investigation has made us think that there is a policy of extrajudicial killings or death squads,” sad Allan Hernandez, director of specialist units.

“I can guarantee you 100% that prosecutors treat every murder with the same interest. A murder is a murder … In each case we look at the evidence.”

San Miguel Tepezontes is a picturesque rural town 20 miles east of the capital, situated high above Lake Ilopango. It doesn’t have Distrito Italia’s air of menace, but police say two rival gangs operate here, and last September dozens were arrested in a round-up of alleged MS13 members .

One of them was Cristian Hernández Beltrán, a car mechanic.

Nine months earlier Hernández, then 19, had been detained along with a friend by police officers, and driven to an isolated hillside a few miles away. Hernandez was given electric shocks, and beaten round the head with a rock; his fingernails were pulled out.

His unformed attackers threw him into the back of the police truck assuming he was dead, and drove a few miles along a country road before dumping him in the undergrowth. Somehow he managed to crawl into the road and was discovered by a neighbour.

His mother, Marcela Beltran, found him in hospital in an induced coma with grave injuries to his skull and brain. Hernandez didn’t recognise her for a month. He has permanent damage to his vision, hearing, sense of taste and balance, and needs reconstructive surgery to repair his skull.

Beltran, 34, reported the attack immediately, and managed to convince the police to launch a full investigation. But her determination has come at a high price.

The day after Cristian was released from hospital, the perpetrators came to the family home. Over the next few months, he was followed, detained and beaten again, until finally, in September, he was arrested again and accused of extortion and abetting gang murders.

In a success of sorts, three police officers and two soldiers have been accused of Cristian’s attempted murder. But the teenager remains in prison on charges of belonging to a terrorist group.

“My son isn’t a gangster, he’s been persecuted to make me shut up. Cristian is scared they will kill me, they could kill us all, but I won’t stop – the police cannot be untouchable,” said Beltran.

Philippines: Govt accuses church of being ‘out of touch’ after attacks on war on drugs


Effigies of corpses are seen with placards as activists protest against the Extra Judicial Killings in the country involving the war on drugs of President Rodrigo Duterte, during a rally outside the Philippine National Police (PNP) Headquarters in Quezon City, metro Manila, Philippines January 27, 2017. Source: Reuters
6th February 2017
THE Philippine government derided Catholic bishops on Sunday as “out of touch” after they used weekend sermons to attack a war on drugs they said had created a “reign of terror” for the poor.
Members of the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of the Philippines (CBCP) had dramatised President Rodrigo Duterte’s campaign and, instead of criticising, should focus on contributing to the “reign of peace” that innocent people now felt, presidential spokesman Ernesto Abella said.
The church assailed bloodshed that had caused suffering, and said killing people was not the way to deal with illegal drugs.
In a pastoral letter read out on Saturday and repeated to congregations at churches on Sunday, bishops said it was disturbing that many people in the majority Catholic nation were indifferent to the killings, or even approved of them.
Abella, a former pastor, said the war on drugs had made the country safer, “far from the ‘terror’ the bishops paint rather dramatically.”
“The officials of the CBCP are apparently out of touch with the sentiments of the faithful who overwhelmingly support the changes in the Philippines,” Abella said in a statement.
More than 7,600 people have been killed since Duterte unleashed a ferocious crackdown seven months ago, more than 2,500 in police raids and sting operations.
Human rights groups believe many other deaths that police had attributed to vigilantes were carried out by assassins likely colluding with police. The government and police vehemently deny extrajudicial killings have occurred.
The CBCP’s message was read at numerous churches in Manila attended by Reuters, though not all. Church sources said the Archdiocese of Manila issued a circular telling parishes to read the pastoral letter, a copy of which was obtained by Reuters prior to the first readings.
The drugs war is a contentious issue, with some bishops keen to make a stand and others hesitant to risk a backlash by criticising a campaign that enjoys broad public support.
Duterte has routinely attacked the Church, and as recently as this week called for a “showdown” with priests whom he has accused of having wives, engaging in homosexual acts, graft and child abuse.
In a speech late on Sunday, Duterte shrugged off the bishops’ letter and said there would be no let-up in his campaign.
“You Catholics, if you believe in your priests and bishops, you stay with them. If you want to go to heaven, then go to them,” he said. “Now, if you want to end drugs … I will go to hell, come join me.”
Funeral workers use a stretcher to transfer a body to a waiting van, after what police said was a drug-related vigilante killing, in Caloocan city, Metro Manila, Philippines February 2, 2017. Source: Reuters/Romeo Ranoco
“Give them a chance”
Katrina Rufael, an office worker who attended mass at the Baclaran Redemptorist Church, said the pastoral letter was justified.
“We have to oppose the war on drugs, because we cannot just put an end to the life of people who have made mistakes,” she said. “Let’s give them a chance to change.”
Elsewhere in Manila, at the Chapel of the Eucharistic Lord, a packed congregation listened attentively to the plea to stop the killings.
“Life is a gift from God, and only God can take it away,” said Ligaya Reyes, a government worker. “It was a strong statement, it should have been made a long time ago when the killing began.”
The statement was also heard at a chapel in the Philippine National Police (PNP) headquarters on Saturday. Not all agreed with it.
“They’re not being killed if they just surrender,” said a policeman’s wife, who gave her name as Dolores and said the PNP had been unfairly depicted as murderers for shooting drugs suspects resisting arrest.
“What the president’s doing right now … he’s doing good. Because for the common people, it’s our safety.” – Reuters