2 Oct 2017

Alexander von Humboldt Foundation International Climate Protection Fellowships for Developing Countries 2018 – Germany

Application Timeline: 1st March 2018
Offered annually? Yes
Eligible Countries: Citizenship of a non-European threshold or developing country (see list of countries in the Program Webpage Link below) which is also the fellow’s habitual abode and place of work;
To be taken at (country): Germany
Subject Areas: Climate Protection
About the Award: The International Climate Protection Fellowships enable prospective leaders to conduct a research-related project of their own choice during a one-year stay in Germany. Submit an application if you are a prospective leader from a non-European threshold or developing country working in the field of climate protection and resource conservation in academia, business or administration in your country.
Type: Fellowship
Selection Criteria
  • First academic degree (Bachelor’s or equivalent), completed less than 12 years prior to the start of the fellowship
  • Extensive professional experience in a leadership role (at least 48 months at the time of application) in the field of climate protection and resource conservation or a further academic or professional qualification;
  • Initial practical experience (at least 12 months at the time of application) through involvement in projects related to climate protection and resource conservation (possibly already during studies);
  • Leadership potential demonstrated by initial experience in leadership positions and/or appropriate references (see no. 8);
  • A detailed statement by a host in Germany, including a confirmation of support; details of the proposed project must be discussed with the prospective host prior to application;
  • Very good knowledge of English and/or German, documented by appropriate language certificates;
  • Two to three expert references by individuals qualified to comment on the candidate’s professional, personal and, if applicable, academic eligibility and his / her leadership potential.
Benefits
  • Fellowship amount according to qualifications between €2,150 and €2,650 per month
  • Two-month intensive language course in Germany
  • Lump sum for travel expenses
  • Allowances for visits by family members lasting at least three months
  • Allowance of €800 per month for the host in Germany for projects in the natural and engineering sciences, and €500 per month for projects in the humanities and social sciences
Number of Awards: 20
Duration: One year
How to Apply
Visit the Scholarship Webpage for Details
Sponsors: Alexander von Humboldt Foundation
Important Notes: Potential applicants who have spent more than six months in Germany or more than 12 months in a country that is not on the list of countries at the time of or shortly before application should contact the Humboldt Foundation (info@avh.de) before submitting an application as they may be ineligible on formal grounds.

HFG Foundation Young African Scholars Program 2018

Application Deadline: 15th December, 2017
Eligible Countries: African countries
Eligible Fields: Applicants’ projects are expected to highlight the issues of violence and aggression.
About the Award: Harry Guggenheim established this foundation to support research on violence, aggression, and dominance because he was convinced that solid, thoughtful, scholarly and scientific research, experimentation, and analysis would in the end accomplish more than the usual solutions impelled by urgency rather than understanding. We do not yet hold the solution to violence, but better analyses, more acute predictions, constructive criticisms, and new, effective ideas will come in time from investigations such as those supported by our grants.
The foundation places a priority on the study of urgent problems of violence and aggression in the modern world and also encourages related research projects in neuroscience, genetics, animal behavior, the social sciences, history, criminology, and the humanities which illuminate modern human problems. Grants have been made to study aspects of violence related to youth, family relationships, media effects, crime, biological factors, intergroup conflict related to religion, ethnicity, and nationalism, and political violence deployed in war and sub-state terrorism, as well as processes of peace and the control of aggression.
Type: Grants
Eligibility: 
  • Applicants must be aged 35 or younger and must have been educated on the African continent and currently residing there.
  • Applications are due by December 15th.  All application materials must be submitted by the end of that day (midnight, EST) in order to be considered.
Number of Awardees: 10
Value of Programme: The program includes:
  • a methods workshop
  • fieldwork research grants of $2,000 USD each,
  • editorial and publication assistance,
  • and sponsorship at an international conference to present research findings.
Duration of Programme: 
How to Apply: The online application will be available beginning October 1st.
Applications should be no more than six pages and include the following:
  • Research question
  • Short literature review
  • Description of research methods to be used
  • Two-page C.V.
  • Copy of passport or government-issued ID card
Apply online here (Requires a free account)
Or send application to:
The Harry Frank Guggenheim Foundation
25 West 53rd Street
New York, NY 10019
Award Provider: Harry Frank Guggenheim Foundation

Gbowee Peace Foundation Africa Scholarship for Women in Liberia, Nigeria and Ghana 2018 – University of Dundee

Application Deadline: 13th November 2017
Eligible Countries: Liberia, Nigeria or Ghana
To be taken at (country): Scotland, UK
Eligible Fields of Study: All
About Scholarship: The candidate should be aware that this scholarship is the University’s investment in the sustained growth of an individual and the betterment of a community at large. The candidate should indicate how she will use the studying abroad experience and the postgraduate qualification to locally or globally promote holistic transformation, facilitate equal access to opportunities for all, and encourage a peaceful, reconciled and empowered population in her home country.
Type: Masters Taught
Eligibility: Criteria for awarding the scholarship is as follows:
  • The applicant must be a Liberian, Nigerian, Ghanaian country national citizen
  • The applicant must be permanently resident in Liberia, Nigeria or Ghana at the time of application
  • The applicant must be female
  • Applicants will be selected on the basis of their merit and potential evidenced by their personal statement.
The awards will be given to students who are undertaking a one year taught masters programme at the University of Dundee, in the academic year 2016-17 (January 2017 entry).
Applicants should already have been offered a place at the University of Dundee and should have firmly accepted that offer or be intending to do so. We have a full list of our postgraduate courses, including details of how to apply, online.
Selection Criteria: 
  • Preference will be given to a candidate who has shown evidence of upholding the ethos of the Gbowee Peace Foundation Africa through sustained personal growth, involvement in community development, and a strong commitment to the advancement and education of women and youth in her home country.
  • It is recommended that the candidate provide examples or a personal narrative that highlight leadership qualities, personal fortitude, and active participation in developing meaningful opportunities which lead to the social, educational, and/or spiritual advancement of the disadvantaged.
  • The successful candidate should be prepared to use the scholarship not only as an educational experience but also as a chance to become immersed in another culture, while fostering understanding of her own country and culture amongst students and the local community of Dundee.
  • The applying candidate should address how she hopes to become involved in University or local societies, activities, and/or organisations, and how she will support discourse about issues women face globally.
Number of Awardees: Not specified
Value of Scholarship: up to a total of £20,000 for Tuition and living expenses
Duration of Scholarship: 1 year
  1. Complete the application form above
  2. To complete the application process you must complete the form and submit all relevant documentation and return by email to Gillian Sharp at the University of Dundee contactus@dundee.ac.uk
  3. Please type Leymah Gbowee Scholarship in the subject area of the email.
(Applicants will also be required to provide proof of their African citizenship and permanent residence)
Award Provider: University of Dundee and Gbowee Peace Foundation

Ashinaga Fully-funded Undergraduate Scholarships for Orphans from sub-Saharan Africa 2018

Application Deadline: 25th February 2018
Offered annually? Yes
Eligible Field of Study: courses offered at candidate’s choice higher institution
To be taken at (country): Higher institutions outside of Africa, in countries such as Japan, US, UK etc
Eligible Countries: Angola, Botswana, Cape Verde, Ethiopia, The Gambia, Ghana, Guinea-Bissau, Kenya, Lesotho, Liberia, Malawi, Mauritius, Mozambique, Namibia, Nigeria, Rwanda, Sierra Leone, Somalia, South Africa, Sudan, Swaziland, Tanzania, Uganda, Zambia, and Zimbabwe
About Scholarship: Ashinaga presents the “Ashinaga Africa Initiative” aiming to provide higher education to 20 brilliant students from Sub-Saharan African countries each year, some of which are among the poorest in the world, and encourage them to become leading professionals in their own countries.
We search and screen for potential candidates: orphaned or bereaved students with academic potential but who cannot afford to apply to university. We provide them with a concentrated study camp for six months at Ashinaga’s facility, Kokorojuku, in Uganda and Senegal, where they are given dedicated support and assistance with their study of various subjects and languages, as they prepare to apply to highly ranked universities around the world. We also provide them with a full scholarship and living expenses for four years during their studies abroad.
We expect to see these young, educated people go back to their own countries and establish democratic and fulfilled societies, bringing people a higher national income and high-quality education. This movement will eventually contribute to the overall wellbeing of Sub-Saharan countries by helping to break the cycle of poverty, even though the effects will not be immediate, as they are when food or equipment is donated.
There is a theory that the African population will expand to more than three billion by the end of this century. We believe if we can create a bright future for Africa, a continent with so much potential, humanity’s global prospects will be bright as well.
Ashinaga is a Japan-based nonprofit organization, which provides educational and emotional support to orphaned students. The organization has supported over 95,000 orphans in the last 45 years, and many of its graduates are actively contributing to society in a variety of fields across the world.
Offered Since: 2014
Type: undergraduate
Eligibility: Applicants must:
  • Be an orphan, having lost one or both parents
  • Be 23 or younger, having been born after October 1, 1995
  • Have graduated high school within the past two years
  • Be committed to returning to Sub-Saharan Africa once they have finished their studies abroad
Number of Scholarships: 20
Value of Scholarship: The Ashinaga (100-Year Vision) Scholarship provides a full scholarship that covers the cost of tuition, accommodation (during the terms and vacation), insurance, flight, and provides monthly stipend which covers food and necessary academic costs.
Duration of Scholarship: for the period of undergraduate studies
How to Apply: There are three ways to apply for the Ashinaga Africa Initiative, although the Program prefers online applications or those sent by email. There is no application fee, and you must never pay anyone to apply or to apply on your behalf.
  • Completed application form
  • Working email address and telephone number
  • Document proving the death of one or both parents, such as a death certificate
  • Proof of age, such as a birth certificate, national ID or passport
  • Secondary school/high school graduation certificate
  • Results from final national exams
  • Academic report cards from the last two years of high school/secondary school
  • Recommendation letter from a principal or teacher
  • Passport-style photo of yourself
  • Both essays described below
Essays
Please type/write using a separate sheet of paper. If you choose to handwrite your essays, please write in print and with black ink. Essays written with pencils will not be accepted.
  • Essay 1: Please describe how you grew up and experienced losing your parent(s). What challenges have you faced after the loss of your parent(s) and what have you done in order to overcome them? Please write in detail, especially the actions you took to continue and further your education. (Maximum 500 words)
  • Essay 2: Please describe the goals you wish to achieve after graduating from university abroad. Outline how the skills and knowledge you gain from a university degree would help you reach your goals when you return to Sub-Saharan Africa. (Maximum 500 words)
Remember that these essays are personal—they are about you and so should only be written by you. Ashinaga is interested in how you make the most of what is available to you.
Award Sponsors: Ashinaga.
Important Note: Please note that if you apply by post, all submitted documents will not be returned to you. Therefore, you must send copies of documents ONLY.
This application and the selection process are FREE. Any person requesting payment at any stage of the process, does against Ashinaga’s will, and should not be paid.

American Ignorance About Puerto Rico

ALEXANDER RODRIGUEZ

Here is a link to a rather depressing survey, one which affirms that nearly half of Americans are not aware of Puerto Rico’s status as a U.S. territory. After years of sobering evidence which only further illuminates the utter failure of our education system, another “50 percent of Americans believe an untrue thing to be a true thing” survey does not surprise nearly as much as it should.
Yet, in the wake of the utterly devastating Hurricane Maria and atrocious levels of misery and squalor inflicted upon the island, I think it proper to explore the abstract ways in which this territory not fully part of the U.S.
We begin with the most abstract and least fact-based subset of sociological evaluations: culture. Refer, once again, to the poll above. After you make your obligatory Idiocracy references, consider what this poll suggests about cultural perceptions: to a large portion of the American population, Puerto Rico is a foreign land. Consequently, the island’s status as “not-America” is held as truth by this demographic; to make matters worse, much of this demographic also consists of the types who equate “not-America” with “inferior” and “inconsequential.” This demographic constitutes half of the voting base; they have political influence, and, with Donald Trump in the White House, their toxic ideology has prevailed. Hell, it prevailed long before that; after all, why else would popular support back the War on Drugs, or the Iraq War, or constant U.S. military budget increases?
Head Shitflinger Donald Trump responded to the catastrophe in Puerto Rico, after days of ignoring in in favor of spewing bile at the NFL, by first using the frighteningly fatuous excuse of “it’s in the middle of a VERY BIG ocean” to rationalize his sheer uselessness, and subsequently claiming that Puerto Rico “[wants] everything to be done for them.”
Needless to say, Trump has proven once again that he is an entitled, soulless, ass-breathing prick. However, Trump’s political influence is but a symptom of these same cultural conditions that lead to people asking such questions as “Why should the U.S. help Puerto Rico? We should focus on America First!” Culturally, this systemic ignorance (mixed with your Percent Daily Value of xenophobia) has practically rendered Puerto Rico a foreign land. Well, at least they have some political influence… right?
Here is the thing about that: Puerto Ricans cannot vote in any U.S. federal elections. From TripSavvy, a travel guide website: “They enjoy all the benefits of citizenship, save one: Puerto Ricans who live in Puerto Rico cannot vote for the U.S. President in the general elections (those who live in the United States are allowed to vote).” I am unclear as to what those other ‘benefits of citizenship’ are, but one thing is certain: Puerto Rico is at a major disadvantage. In my U.S. History class, we just finished researching the grievances of the 13 Colonies right before the American Revolution, with one highly salient factor being the lack of representation in the British Parliament. One cannot help but draw the historical parallel; we will keep on celebrating Independence Day by keeping our neighbors awake and frightening our dogs, and yet, our government is inflicting upon its territories those same conditions which drove us to the tipping point of revolution. The government presents Puerto Rico with an illusion of sovereignty by allowing them to elect their own leaders, yet the U.S. Congress still wields the most control over the island’s governance.
Watching as these storms relentlessly ravage cities has been entirely miserable, and for as much as not “politicizing” natural disasters makes for a lovely pipe dream, it is impossible so long as there is political disagreement over such morally and scientifically straightforward issues as the acknowledgment of climate change, or whether we should even bother helping our own fucking territory. Xenophobia, ignorance, colonialism… these piss stains are so deeply embedded in the fabric of our society, and as long as they persist, the world will continue to be an unbearable place for so many people.

Why the Kurdish Independence Referendum was a Miscalculation

Patrick Cockburn

The Iraqi government has banned international flights to the Kurdish capital Irbil from 6pm this Friday, isolating the Kurds in Iraq to a degree they have not experienced since the overthrow of Saddam Hussein in 2003. The isolation is political as well as geographical as traditional Kurdish allies, like the US, UK, France and Germany, have opposed the referendum on Kurdish independence while near neighbours in Turkey, Iran and Baghdad are moving to squeeze the Kurds into submission.
The referendum succeeded in showing that the Kurds, not just in Iraq but in Turkey, Iran and Syria, still yearn for their own state. Paradoxically, the outcome of the poll has demonstrated both the strength of their demand for self-determination and the weakness of their ability to obtain it. The Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG) is revealed as a minnow whose freedom of action – and even its survival – depends on playing off one foreign state against the other and keeping tolerable relations with all of them, even when they detested each other. In the past an American envoy would go out one door just as the head of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards came in the other.
The referendum has ended, perhaps only temporarily, these delicate balancing acts at which the Kurdish leadership was very skilled. In the last few weeks, the US has denounced the referendum in forthright terms, emboldening Iraq, Turkey and Iran to punish the Kurds for their undiplomatic enthusiasm to be an independent nation.
The poll was always a dangerous gamble but it is too early to say that it has entirely failed: minority communities and small nations must occasionally kick their big power allies in the teeth. Otherwise, they will become permanent proxies whose agreement with what their big power ally wants can be taken for granted. The skill for the smaller player is not to pay too high a price for going their own way. Iraq, Turkey and Iran have all made threatening statements over the last few days, some of them bombast, but they can hit the Kurds very hard if they want to.
The Kurds are in a fix and normally they would look to Washington to help them out, but under President Trump US foreign policy has become notoriously unpredictable. Worse from the Kurdish point of view, the US no longer needs the Iraqi Kurds as it did before the capture of Mosul from Isis in July. In any case, it was the Iraqi armed forces that won a great victory there, so for the first time in 14 years there is a powerful Iraqi army in the north of the country. We may not be on the verge of an Arab-Kurdish war, but the military balance of power is changing and Baghdad, not Irbil, is the gainer.
Anxious diplomats and excited journalists describe Iraq as “being on a collision course”, but the different parties will not necessarily collide. Muddling through is not only a British trait. But there is no doubt that the situation has become more dangerous, particularly in the disputed territories stretching across northern Iraq from Syria to Iran.
The referendum always had a risky ambivalence about it which helped ignite the present crisis. It all depended on what audience Kurdish President Masoud Barzani was addressing: when he spoke to Kurdish voters, it was a poll of historic significance when the Kurds would take a decisive step towards an independent state.
But addressing an international and regional audience, Barzani said he was proposing something much tamer, more like an opinion poll, in which the Iraqi Kurds were politely indicating a general preference for independence at some date in the future. Like many leaders who play the nationalist card, Barzani is finding that his rhetoric is being taken more seriously than his caveats. “Bye, Bye Iraq!” chanted crowds in Irbil on the night of the referendum.
Much of this was born of Barzani’s bid to outmanoeuvre his political rivals in Kurdistan by re-emerging as the standard bearer of Kurdish nationalism. He will benefit from his decision to defy the world and press ahead with the vote when it comes to the presidential and parliamentary elections in KRG on 1 November.
But the price of this could be high. It is not only Barzani who is facing an election in which national self-assertion is an issue in the coming months. Iraqi Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi has a parliamentary election in 2018 and does not want to be accused of being insufficiently tough on the Kurds. Banning of international flights to Irbil is far less than many Iraqi MPs say they want.
By holding a referendum in the disputed territories, Barzani promoted this issue to the top of the Iraqi political agenda. It might have been in the interests of the Kurds to let it lie since the contending claims for land are deeply felt and irreconcilable. Optimists believe that Irbil and Baghdad could never go to war because they are both too dependent militarily on foreign powers. It is true that the Iraqi armed forces and the Kurdish Peshmerga alike could not have held off and defeated Isis without close air support from the US-led coalition. But by putting the future status of the KRG and the territories in play, Barzani has presented the Iraqi government, Turkey and Iran with a threat and an opportunity.
The four countries with Kurdish minorities fear that secessionism might spread, but a further problem is that they do not believe that an Iraqi Kurdish state would be truly independent, but would shift into the orbit of another power. The Iranians are paranoid about the possibility that such a state would be an American base threatening Iran. Politicians in Baghdad say that, if the Kurds are serious about self-determination, they would cling onto the oil fields of Kirkuk and be dependent on Turkey through which to export their crude.
Once the KRG dreamed of becoming a new Dubai with gleaming malls and hotels, but since 2014 it has looked more like Pompeii. The skyline is punctured by dozens of half completed tower blocks beside rusting cranes and abandoned machinery. The boom town atmosphere disappeared in 2014 when the price of oil went down, money stopped coming from Baghdad and Isis seized Mosul two hours’ drive away. The state is impoverished and salaries paid late, if at all. This will now all get a lot worse with airports and border crossings closed and 35,000 federal employees no longer being paid.
At all events, the political landscape in Iraq and Syria is changing: we are at the beginning of a new political phase in which the battle to defeat Isis is being replaced by a power struggle between Arabs and Kurds.

Order Prevails in Barcelona as Democracy Dies in Madrid

John Wight

Arriving in Barcelona in 1938 during the Spanish Civil War, Ernst Toller was moved to write, “’The most striking experience a foreigner has in Barcelona is that of the functioning of democracy.” In 2017 something akin to history repeating is unfolding in the Catalonian capital, where democracy has again been raised aloft as a cause worth fighting for.
The scenes of Spanish riot police marching through the streets of Barcelona and other Catalonian towns and cities, attacking civilians with batons and rubber bullets outside polling stations for the crime of attempting to cast a democratic vote on their future, of ballot boxes being seized and elected politicians being arrested – all at the behest of the government of an EU member state – you might think are incongruous and incompatible with the EU’s self-declared status as a pillar of democratic values in the 21st century, a status enshrined in Article 2 of its very own constitution, the Lisbon Treaty, which reads:
“The Union is founded on the values of respect for human dignity, freedom, democracy, equality, the rule of law and respect for human rights, including the rights of persons belonging to minorities. These values are common to the Member States in a society in which pluralism, non-discrimination, tolerance, justice, solidarity and equality between women and men prevail.”
However Brussels’ position of pristine indifference in the face of the grotesque and disgraceful scenes that have unfolded in Catalonia should be no surprise, given the anti-democratic character of its institutions. It should also not go un-noted that just as the EU has essentially washed its hands of the crisis in Catalonia, taking the position that it is an internal matter for the Spanish government and authorities, so the so-called democratic powers in the 1930s stood by as democracy in Spain was extinguished back then, holding to the supine position of ‘non-intervention’.
While in 2017 no one would seriously suggest that the Spanish government, led by Prime Minister Mariano Rajoy, is akin to the Franco regime that was adorned in the black tunics and knee length boots of fascism, the hardline position taken against Catalonian separatism lies much closer to fascist than democratic on the spectrum of response both in form and content. It is why Mr Rajoy is now the best friend that Catalonian separatism and independence could have, while at the same time the worst enemy Spanish unity has got. It is why he has now made Catalonian independence a question of when not if.
Regardless of the whys and wherefores of constitutional legality, does the Rajoy government in Madrid really believe that the sight of armed riot police attacking civilians outside polling stations in order to stop them casting a vote is one that will enhance its reputation and democratic credentials in the eyes of the world? Is his government really so blind to Spain’s tortured history that it would dare come even this close to resurrecting it? As for those who would claim such historical comparisons are overblown, the chilling sight of protestors giving the fascist salute and singing a pro-Franco anthem at a mass anti-Catalan separatist rally in Madrid in the run-up to the contested referendum in Catalonia is your answer.
Separatism carries within it both the seeds of progress and regress, of dignity and despair, depending on how the potency of its passions are handled by the contending parties involved. To treat separatism as a zero sum game instead of an idea that can only be defeated by another idea, never force, is an invitation to catastrophe. It is why the Rajoy government should be under no illusion that it has set Spain on a path towards ruinous consequences. Even though the Spanish Prime Minister may have legality on his side, as soon as the first riot police officer put his hands on the first woman and dragged her away from the front of a polling station in Barcelona, he lost the moral argument, transforming the Spanish constitution from a shield guaranteeing the protection of democracy and human rights into a sword being wielded to justify their suppression.
The Spain that found itself engulfed in civil war in the 1930s was home to the best and worst of humanity. It is a conflict that still today invokes the Arcadian dreams of a world in which the common man is the author of history rather than its victim. Thousands travelled to the country from all over the world to fight and die for that dream. Many of them were the sons and daughters of poverty, but all were rich with the belief and faith in a future defined by the unbounded liberation of human solidarity, relegating cold-hearted capitalism and its bastard child, fascism, to a footnote in history. Yet as recent events not only in Spain but across Europe with the rise of the right and far right have shown, they were unsuccessful.
There is nothing so powerful as an idea whose time has come, the French novelist Victor Hugo famously opined – and he was right. But all the same it would be dangerous folly to consider that the ‘idea’ whose time has come must automatically carry with it the promise of a better tomorrow. Fascism in the 1930s was also an idea whose time had come, nourishing the dark side of the human condition to produce a monster whose ferocity and capacity for death proved every bit as unbounded as the liberation promised by human solidarity.
The ugly scenes being played out in Barcelona in our today are but a chilling reminder that yesterday can, unless we are vigilant, also be our tomorrow.
As for the rule of law by which Mr Rajoy justified unleashing police violence on this scale, the sentiments of Rosa Luxemburg, delivered in response to the 1919 crushing of the Spartacist uprising in Berlin by a German state that had just begin its descent into the swamp of fascism, retain their resonance a hundred years later: “Order prevails in Berlin! You foolish lackeys! Your ‘order’ is built on sand.”

Wake Up Bangladesh, It’s Time For A Foreign Policy!

Taj Hashmi

To some, the title of my column today might be utterly ridiculous, as it suggests it’s time for Bangladesh to have a foreign policy. They might raise eyebrows at my suggestion that, Bangladesh is going without any foreign policy, since 2009. To them, Bangladesh has a sound foreign policy under a seasoned career diplomat as Foreign Minister, and an internationally renowned scholar as the Prime Minister’s Adviser in international affairs. So far so good! However, the proof of the pudding is in the eating.
The subservience of Bangladesh to India, and its unconditional surrender to Myanmar, which has forced about a million Rohingyas as refugees into Bangladesh since 2012, don’t make the pudding any edible! Bangladesh is almost totally friendless. Most of its trading partners, China, Japan, Russia, and even India have been openly siding with Myanmar, the main adversary of Bangladesh. Whatever the Bangladesh Government sells as its foreign policy is something phony, not indigenous or made in Bangladesh. It has the fingerprints of the “smooth operators” at the South Block of the Secretariat Building in New Delhi, which houses India’s Ministry of External Affairs.
The laundry list of failures in Bangladeshi diplomacy is long. I’m going to mention some unresolved issues between Bangladesh and two of its immediate neighbours, India and Myanmar, in this regard. It’s strange but true, not only its powerful immediate neighbour India frequently coerces Bangladesh into submission, but of late, its not-so-powerful neighbour Myanmar has also started browbeating Bangladesh.
Bangladesh has nothing to be proud of its relationship with India, which is both a bully, and an undesirable hegemon for it. However, sections of Bangladeshis, who don’t believe in independent Bangladesh and want its merger with India, consider India as the Bandhu Rashtro (The Friendly Country). The rationale for their unconditional support for India is possibly also because of the latter’s support for the Liberation War of Bangladesh in 1971. Nevertheless, the Indian support was never unconditional or altruistic, as it also benefitted from the disintegration of Pakistan.
The avowedly pro-Indian elements never mention India’s hegemonic and intrusive behavior, and its ulterior motives against Bangladesh. The pro-Indian elements in Bangladesh enjoy the best of times when people and parties of their liking are in power. These parties and individuals at times suspend the Constitution, and depend on the South Block of New Delhi to run the “foreign policy” of Bangladesh. Whenever such people are in power, the country of 160 million people behaves like tiny, land-locked Bhutan vis-à-vis India. This happened during General Ershad’s illegitimate rule, and is happening again since 2009.
Despite many blunders and hiccups during the formative phase of Bangladesh in the early 1970s, the Founding Father Sheikh Mujibur Rahman was brave and wise enough not to allow India a freehand in running the foreign and domestic policies of Bangladesh. Soon after his freedom from Pakistani incarceration in January 1972, he made it clear to the Indian PM Indira Gandhi that Indian troops must leave his country, as soon as possible. Although Henry Kissinger used obnoxious expressions against Bangladesh and Sheikh Mujibur Rahman – he called the country a “basket case”, and its leader “an inordinate fool”, but for Mujib’s assertive and bold foreign policy, Bangladesh earned some respectability in the arena of international politics.
One admires Mujib’s mottoes with regard to Bangladesh’s foreign policy: a) “Friendship to all, and malice to none”; and b) “Bangladesh will be the Switzerland of Asia”, in regards to maintaining a positive neutrality in the arena of international politics. However, thanks to the exigencies of the Cold War, and Bangladesh’s over-reliance on the geo-politically inept and economically bankrupt Indo-Soviet block to formulate its foreign and domestic policies during the tenure of Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, the country was not in the good books of the West, the Muslim World, and China. China and Saudi Arabia did not recognise Bangladesh up to August 1975.
After August 1975, it was time for Bangladesh to face the hostility of the behemoth India, which not only sheltered and armed hundreds of Mujib loyalists under Kader Siddiqui, who regularly attacked Bangladeshi border outposts from across the border, but it also started depriving Bangladesh of its due share of the Ganges waters. Until Morarji Desai became the Prime Minister in March 1977, at times it appeared that India would turn Bangladesh into another Kashmir or Sikkim. Meanwhile, through adept diplomacy under the leadership of President Ziaur Rahman, Bangladesh defied Indian hegemonic design and became friends with the West, China, and the Muslim World.
However, the rot in the realm of Bangladeshi diplomacy set in with the illegitimate military takeover of General Ershad in 1982, which was definitely a handiwork of the hegemonic Indira Gandhi regime. The end of pro-Indian Ershad regime in 1990 didn’t signal the end of Indian quest for establishing its hegemony in Bangladesh. Up to the election of Sheikh Hasina as the Prime Minister in 1996, India ceaselessly tried to destabilize Bangladesh by stirring up some “Hill Tribes” in Chittagong Hill Tracts. It armed, trained, and infiltrated members of the so-called Shanti Bahini into Bangladesh to “liberate” Chittagong Hill Tracts in the name of creating a homeland for the Mongoloid Chakma, Marma, and Larma people, touted as the subjugated aborigines of Bangladesh. The “Hill Tribes” of Bangladesh are the descendants of Myanmar refugees who came to the country after 16th century. Most definitely, they aren’t Adibashis or aborigines of Bangladesh, from any stretch of the imagination.
As if Farakka wasn’t bad enough for Bangladesh, India erected another barrage across the Teesta! And yet another (Tipaimukh) is under construction across the Barak. Nothing could be more abysmally erratic than Bangladesh’s disastrous “foreign policy” since 2009. The Government since 2009 is unwilling even to protest India’s taking undue advantages from Bangladesh. India’s successful arm-twisting of Bangladesh – which seems to be the most willing victim – is worse than America’s gunboat diplomacy in the Third World. Thanks to Bangladesh’s “foreign policy” India unilaterally enjoys transit rights through Bangladesh territory; denies Bangladesh similar rights to trade with Nepal and Bhutan; its BSF kills Bangladeshi nationals at the border with impunity; and last but not least, India denies Bangladesh its due share of the Teesta waters.
Both Manmohan Singh and Narendra Modi not only duped Bangladesh by lying in defence of New Delhi’s bona fides, but they also coerced the latter into submission. In late 2011, PM Hasina’s International Affairs Adviser told me about the “impending” signing of the Teesta waters sharing agreement between India and Bangladesh. In hindsight, it appears that Oxford-educated Manmohan Singh simply duped Oxford-educated Gowher Rizvi! Manmohan Singh conveniently singled out Paschim Banga’s Chief Minister Mamata Bannerjee as the main obstacle to the free flow of Teesta waters into Bangladesh. Same theatrics happened again under Narendra Modi, who also used Ms. Bannerjee as the scapegoat.
So much so that PM Hasina, who Modi outwitted totally, out of sheer frustration said something publicly in New Delhi – which was grossly unbecoming for a head of government: “Didi se pani manga, pani nahi mila, bijli mila. Chalo achcha hi hua, kuchh to mila” (“We asked for water to Sister [Mamata Bannerjee], but only got electricity. Anyway, it’s not that bad, we at least got something”)! Despite Bangladesh PM’s stooping down to the level of an Indian chief minister, her “foreign policy” or “Hilsa Diplomacy” (she carried Bangladeshi hilsa fish as gift for Ms. Bannerjee) didn’t work at all.
Last but not least, not only an Indian chief minister became an imaginary adversary of Bangladesh or an important factor in Indo-Bangladesh relationship, but in the recent past, India’s foreign secretary Sujata Singh – who was a government servant, not a politician – also played a decisive role in legitimizing the farcical Parliamentary Elections of January 2014 in Bangladesh. She came to Dhaka, met Ershad (who had earlier said he wouldn’t take part in the Elections) and soon afterwards, like a tame circus animal the latter changed his mind, took part in the so-called election, and legitimized the Hasina Government.
Bangladesh Government’s latest ambivalent statements, gimmicks, and self-congratulatory delusional assertions can make people laugh and cry at the same time. Soon after the Myanmar Government’s crackdown on Rohingya minorities in Arakan on 25th August, which soon turned genocidal, forcing more than half a million Rohingyas to flee to Bangladesh, the Hasina Government behaved in the most unbelievable manner. Sheikh Hasina offered Aung San Suu Kyi, her Myanmar counterpart, joint Bangladesh-Myanmar military operation against Rohingya “terrorists”, and instructed the BGB not to let any Rohingya enter Bangladesh.
Meanwhile, various ministers in charge of Foreign Affairs, Finance, Roads and Bridge, Industries, and even the DIG Police of Chittagong Division have come up with some weird suggestions/opinions about the Rohingya Crisis. While Foreign Minister Mahmud Ali has considered the Rohingya refugees a terrorist threat to Bangladesh, the Finance Minister has blamed Myanmar for waging an “undeclared war” against Bangladesh. The DIG beat them all. In his speech at a public gathering in Chittagong he singled out Pakistan’s military intelligence ISI for stirring up Rohingyas against the Myanmar government. His version isn’t that different from the Myanmar government’s wild allegations against outside forces for the ongoing carnage in Arakan. It might be unthinkable elsewhere, but police officers in Bangladesh also give speeches in public rallies, and give their opinion on various domestic and external issues, well-beyond their expertise and jurisdictions!
Surprisingly, there is no signs of Bangladesh Government’s taking any concerted and cohesive policy to address the Rohingya refugee crisis in Bangladesh. Soon after PM Hasina had abruptly “met” President Trump on the floors of the UN General Assembly on September 18th and talked with him for less than 20 seconds, Bangladesh’s Foreign Secretary told the press: “Trump told Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina, on Myanmar issue (Rohingya issue) we’re with you”. And we know he didn’t tell the truth, because soon the PM told the press in the most undiplomatic language: “Trump is not going to help Bangladesh to resolve the Rohingya problem”.
Now, Bangladesh seems to have no Myanmar/Rohingya Policy, which would have been there had the country formulated a foreign policy of its own, in accordance with its own needs and priorities, not something made by the Indian Government. Bangladesh was never in such a dire situation diplomatically – totally friendless in its immediate neighbourhood and abroad – not even during the turbulent days of early 1970s, when not only Kissinger but others also considered the country a “basket case”. Bangladesh government’s over-reliance on India at the cost of not maintaining a balanced relationship with the US, Western Europe, China, Pakistan, Japan, and the Middle East since 2009 is mainly responsible for this awkward situation. It’s time to have a foreign policy for Bangladesh, run by professionals keeping in view the best interests of the country, not for the benefit, and at the dictates of its malevolent and hegemonic neighbour, India.

Are Rohingyas A Threat or Victims Of Hatred?

T Navin

In the recent past, Government of India has tried to construct an argument that Rohingyas are a security threat to the Nation. Home Ministry has tried to indicate that Rohingyas pose security challenge and are recruited by terror groups. This point has been used to state that they need to be deported. RSS chief Mohan Bagawat the ideological mouthpiece of the present regime declared that Rohingya crisis should be dealt “keeping in mind threat to national security”. It was also
pointed that they are being driven out from Myanmar for their linkages with terrorist groups.
Constructing an image of Rohingyas as a security threat while on the one hand tries to create a faulty picture and an Islamophobia around the same, on the other hand hides the victimisation of Rohingyas. The reality of Rohingyas offers a different narrative.
Rather than a threat, Rohingyas are victims of hatred in Myanmar. Rohingyas have been described as “the world’s most persecuted minority”. Though predominantly Muslims, there are also Hindus within Rohingyas. Despite Rohingyas having lived in Myanmar for centuries, they are not considered as one of the 135 ethnic groups in Myanmar deserving citizenship. They have been denied citizenship in Myanmar since 1982. The provisions of 1982 citizenship law deny them the rights to study, work, travel and access health services. They are denied voting rights. Even if ‘naturalised’ citizenship is proved, limits are placed on them in entering professions like medicine, law or running for office.
Even before this, following Myanmar’s independence from British rule in 1948, Rohingyas were not considered as one of the ethnicity that could gain citizenship. Only those Rohingyas with proof of their two previous generations having lived in Myanmar were to be considered as its citizens. Following the 1962 Military coup, all Rohingyas were to obtain national registration cards. Rohingyas in reality only got foreign identity cards. The 1982 citizenship law delegitimized them as citizens of the country.
Rohingyas are thus effectively stateless with citizenship rights denied to them. Living in one of the poorest regions of Myanmar namely Rakhine state, they receive apartheid like treatment, living in ghetto like camps with lack of basic services and opportunities.
Being at the receiving end of the state persecution since the 1970’s, Rohingyas have been forced to flee. They are victims of human rights abuses, extra judicial killings, rape and arson. Many of their homes were also burnt during the persecution. They have fled to countries namely Saudi Arabia (2 lakhs), Bangladesh (8.9 lakhs), Pakistan (3.5 lakhs), Malaysia (1.5 lakhs), UAE (10 thousand), Thailand and Indonesia (six thousand) and India (40 thousand).
There are about 40,000 Rohingyas living in India. About 16,500 have identity cards issued by UNHCR. Rohingya refugees are living in Jammu, Hyderabad, Haryana, Uttar Pradesh, Delhi-NCR and Rajasthan. They are living in UNHCR supported camps and receiving relief services. They are placed in a situation whereby they cannot return back to their countries till the persecution ends and the situation normalizes. The state in India needs to assume a responsibility to
provide relief to the victims as per internationally accepted norms. On the contrary, Government of India has resorted to use this as an opportunity to carry out propaganda war. Fake news is being used to legitimise their intent of deporting 40 thousand Rohingyas. They are being demonized and being linked with Islamic terrorism when no such evidence exists. One of these is through the use of fake news of Rohingyas killing Hindus. Tweets by twitter account holders of those
associated with party in power have tried to indicate that many Hindus were killed by Rohingya Islamic Terrorists and that their homes were burnt, Hindu temples destroyed in Rakhine. Another tweet indicated that Islamic Rohingya terrorist were burning down Buddhist temples in Myanmar. The origin of the images in each of these was in reality from Bangladesh. They had no connection with Rohingyas. The images from Bangladesh were manipulated to spread the propaganda of Rohingya violence in Myanmar against other religious groups.
In the process of giving Rohingya issue a religious cover and the cover of Islamic terrorism, a fact not stated is that there are also Hindu Rohingyas who have been forced to flee from Myanmar. On 4th September 2017, about 500 Hindus fled to Bangladesh’s Cox Bazaar.
The depiction of the ‘world’s most persecuted minority’ as an aggressor and terrorist when in reality, they are only victims of hate only serves the ideological propaganda of the Political party in power. They also represent a step by the state in abandoning its responsibility towards the refugees and those displaced due to conflicts.

Standing For Media’s Rights In India

Nava Thakuria

India, largest democracy of the globe, remains a bad place for working journalists irrespective of the regimes in power at New Delhi or any province capital. The populous country witnesses the murder of around five media persons on average in a year and that has not been changed for decades. The land of Bishnu, Buddha and Bapu has however hardly succeeded in resolving any of those journo-murder cases logically and legally.
The media fraternity of the south Asian nation now plans to observe the birthday of Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi, a lawyer turned journalist turned India’s Father of the Nation, on October 2 with the countrywide demonstrations. The participants thus would commit to maintain their defiance to all mental and physical challenges in their professional lives.
The month of September poured three shocking news of journo-murders from different parts of India and the media fraternity has seemingly discovered again the vulnerability for those who pursue serious journalism. The year 2017 also witnessed the killing of eight journalists in nine months, but as usual the reactions to those killings from the authority and the public remained almost lukewarm. It was only Kannada editor-journalist Gauri Lankesh’s murder on September 5 at her Bangaluru (earlier known as Bangalore) residence that aroused massive protests across the country. Publisher of Gauri Lankesh Patrike, a Kannada language newspaper in Karnataka of central India, Ms Gauri was shot dead by unidentified gunmen, following which strong reactions were observed not only from inside the country but also various international organizations.
A Left ideology inclined journalist Ms Gauri’s assassination tempted more civil society groups, which are predominantly anti-Hindu nationalist ideologue like Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangha (RSS) and also Bhartiya Janata Party (BJP), to come to streets demanding justice. They were in hurry to make statements that the outspoken journalist was targeted by the ruling political elements as she used to criticize both RSS and BJP absolutely.
However, the Congress ruled Karnataka province government and its chief minister Siddaramaiah had a cordial relationship with Ms Gauri. Soon after her assassination, the province government chief announced her demise as a personal loss. But for reasons, best known to Siddaramaiah only, the chief minister’s reactions against the killer(s) of Ms Gauri, 55, were soft. So does the investigation process!
Protest-demonstrations were so loud that it inspired a Communist Party of India (Marxist) run Tripura government chief to personally join in a demonstration at Agartala. The chief minister Manik Sarkar’s participation in the protest program encouraged the media fraternity of northeast India and he was thoroughly appreciated for the gesture. But when a young television scribe of Tripura itself was beaten to death by a mob, the same CPI (M) chief minister remained silent. The Agartala based journalists, while condemning the murder of Shantanu Bhowmik on September 20, had to raise voices for getting reactions from Sarkar. Even then the chief minister, also in charge of home portfolio, pronounced a spongy reaction towards the incident. However, the condemnations from various national and international bodies were pouring against the brutal murder of Shantanu, 29, who used to work for an Agartala based Bengali-language cable news
channel named Din-Raat. A series of protest programs were organized by various Indian media bodies across the country demanding justice to Shantanu’s bereaved mother and sister.
On the fateful day, Shantanu went to cover a program of Indigenous People’s Front of Tripura (IPFT), which was protesting against the ruling CPI (M) and slowly it turned violent. Claimed to have supports from the tribal population of Tripura, the IPFT maintains its demand for a separate homeland (read Twipraland) for the tribal people out of Tripura. The party, which has seemingly a political understanding with the BJP, continued its violent protests since the last few years. The IPFT protest program at Mandwai of west Tripura, bordering Bangladesh, soon witnessed the arrival of many cadres belonged to the CPI (M)’s tribal wing Tripura Rajya Upajati Ganamukti Parishad (TRUGP) at the location. Both the parties had already engaged in violent clashes on the previous day at the same location.
So the situation got charged and finally members of both IPFT and TRUGP turned aggressive and later violent. Shantanu started shooting the violent activities with his mobile phone, as his lens-man avoided the professional camera for fear of abusive reactions from the agitators. As Shantanu started capturing the visuals of IPFT members attacking the opponent & police and also damaging vehicles on the roadside, he was asked initially to stop recording.
Later the protesters chased him for the phone and some of them turned unruly to finally attack Shantanu with stick-rods and other sharp items. Blood soaked Shantanu was rescued and sent to the hospital by the police, but till then he stopped breathing. His phone was however missing, which was also revealed by the State police chief Akhil Kumar Shukla.
According to the Paris based Reporters sans/without Borders, India is ranked 136th among 180 countries in its World Press Freedom Index (2017) barometer, which is just ahead of its neighbors like Pakistan (139th), Sri Lanka (141), Bangladesh (146) and China (176). Norway topped the list where India’s neighbors including Bhutan (84), Nepal (100), Maldives (117), Afghanistan (120), Burma (131) etc are ahead of it. One party ruled North Korea (180) is at the bottom of the list, where Vietnam and China were placed at 175th and 176th positions respectively.
Meanwhile, Shantanu’s killing was condemned and condoled by various international forums like the New York based Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ), the Pars based Reporters sans/without Borders (RSF), the Brussels based International Federation of Journalists (IFJ) etc, where everyone asked the Tripura government to go for a ‘thorough investigation’ into the death of Shantanu to bring those responsible to justice and also ensure the future safety of journalists.
Amnesty International, in its condemnation statement pointed out that the killing of journalists cannot become the order of the day. State governments in India must do everything in their power to prevent journalists from becoming targets for their viewpoints or affiliations. Authorities must end impunity for these killings, it added.
Condemning the killing of Shantanu, UNESCO director-general Irina Bokova said, “I trust the authorities will conduct an investigation into this killing and bring its perpetrators to justice. It is essential that journalists be able to keep us informed of events without fearing for their lives.”
In India, all influential media bodies like Indian Newspaper Society, Editors’ Guild of India, Broadcast Editors’ Association, Press Club of India, Indian Women’s Press Corps, Federation of Press Clubs in India besides various journalist unions strongly condemned the murder of Shantanu and urged the Manik Sarkar government help delivering justice. Even the Press Council of India, a quasi-judicial body, took note of Shantanu’s killing and sought a report from the Tripura government.
All media bodies of northeast India came put with the protest demonstrations against the killing of Shantanu and demanding a high level probe (preferably by Central Bureau of Investigation). Extending moral supports to the Tripura journalists for justice, the North East Union of Working Journalists (NEUWJ) also asked the local government to compensate the family of Shantanu adequately. Condemning the murder of Ms Gauri and Shantanu, the newly launched forum urged the Union government in New Delhi to formulate a national action plan for delivering earliest justices to journo-victim families. It also fervently appealed to the media fraternity of the country to get united on demanding safety & security measures for working journalists across India.
For records, Shantanu was the seventh Indian journalist to be killed this year. The string of killings began with Hari Prakash, 31, whose dead body was recovered in Hazaribag locality of Jharkhand on January 2. Then came another bad news from Bihar, where unidentified goons shot dead Brajesh Kumar Singh, 28, at Samastipur locality on January 3.
The third and fourth incidents involving the murder of working journalists were reported from Madhya Pradesh, where Shyam Sharma, 40, was stabbed to death by miscreants at Anshul locality on May 15 and Kamlesh Jain, 42, was shot dead in Pipliyamandi locality May 31. Later a Haryana based television journalist (Surender Singh Rana, 35) was shot dead on July 29 and a Mohali (Punjab) based senior editor (KJ Singh, 66) along with his old-age mother was found murdered on September 23.
India lost six journalists to assailants in 2016, which was preceded by five cases in 2015. It witnessed murders of two scribes in 2014, but the year 2013 reported as many as 11 journalists’ murders, where three northeastern media employees also fall victims to the perpetrators. The killing of Sujit Bhattacharya, Ranjit Chowdhury and Balaram Ghosh at Agartala broke as sensational news as Tripura had no recent record of journalist-murders.
Soon after Shantanu’s killing, blame games started as the BJP accused the Left government at Agartala of failing the law & order situation. The saffron party also demanded Sarkar’s resignation. The Congress leaders criticized both the ruling CPI (M) and the BJP for triggering communal violence dividing the population with tribal-nontribal (read Bengali) divides ahead of early next year’s Assembly polls. Lately after lot of hue & cries, the Tripura government decided to constitute an SIT to probe into the astonishing murder, where DGP Shukla claimed that the police had identified the culprits involved with the slaughtering of Shantanu besides three persons already been arrested. Following the demand of compensations raised by the Tripura based journalists, the State government also agreed to offer rupees one million to the bereaved family.

Zionism: The Ideological Cover-Up To Jewish Supremacy

Rima Najjar

The benign-sounding term “settler” or “settlement” is used so often in the news without reference to Jewish colonization of Palestine that the world often loses sight of the immoral nature of the Zionist project in Palestine. The term is used to describe Jews moving illegally to the West Bank, and commandeering land that belongs to Palestinians. Waves of Jews moving to Israel are no longer called colonists or even settlers in the news media, but rather immigrants.
Palestine is the only and last active act of settler colonialism. Since the creation of the UN, “more than 80 former colonies [including several in the Arab world] comprising some 750 million people have gained independence since the creation of the United Nations.”
Why the exception in the case of Palestine? Because the ideological driving force behind the process, Zionism, is the most virulently and insidiously powerful force on the planet. Over the course of the past one hundred years — i.e., since the Balfour Declaration, Zionism has successfully manipulated imperial powers, first Britain and now the United States, and also instrumentalized Christianity, as well as Judiasm, to serve its political purpose.
As John Berger put it: “Certain voices across the world are raised in protest [against the Jewish state]. But the governments of the rich, with their world media and their proud possession of nuclear weapons, reassure Israel that a blind eye will be cast on what its soldiers are perpetrating.”
Colonialism justifiably has a bad name. When Third World Quarterly published an article titled “The Case for Colonialism”, voices rose sharply demanding “retraction, to fire the journal editors, even to fire author and to revoke his PhD.” In that piece, Bruce Gilley argues controversially that Western colonialism was, “as a general rule, both objectively beneficial and subjectively legitimate in most of the places where it was found.”
Because of the moral questions raised by Western colonialism, the truth about the colonial nature of the Zionist project in Palestine has long been suppressed — consider, for example, the repulsion generated when a course was proposed at UC Berkeley titled “Palestine: A Settler Colonial Analysis”.
But despite the strong veil of Zionist hasbara that shielded the moral degeneracy of Zionism from view, the paradigm of Israel as a settler-colonial project did gain traction. When that happened, the attitude among pro-Israel and Zionist voices took on the same point of view as that expressed in the Third World Quarterly article.
“Settler colonialism conveys an unarguable sense of delegitimization, racial exclusion and financial exploitation”, wrote ArnonDegani in a Sep 2016 Haaretz opinion piece, titled: “Israel Is a Settler Colonial State — and That’s OK.”
…arguing for the comparability of Israeli history to that of the U.S., Canada, Australia, and New Zealand, pulls the rug from under the agenda of singling out Zionism and its deeds as particularly evil… Israel, though, is probably heading more towards an arrangement similar to that of South African settler colonialism: a consolidation into a democratic republic in which the Whites are recognized as sons of the land and yet still enjoy many of the privileges they accumulated during Apartheid. In Israel, from the left (Haaretz’s own Gideon Levy and RogelAlpher) and right (President Reuven Rubi Rivilin, MK Yehuda Glick), there is growing sentiment in favor of pursuing this particular one state settler colonial road.
The case being made here by Degani and his ilk is that Israeli Jews will still come out on top if Israel pursues the “one state settler colonial road”. They will be recognized as “sons of the land”, just as white settlers are in the U.S. or Canada, etc. have been, and “yet still enjoy many of the privileges they accumulated during Apartheid.” Clearly, this is a contention filtered through a Jewish supremacist ideology that is dismissive of the human rights of non-Jews.
BDS, on the other hand, is aimed at ending the three-tiered regime of injustice that has ruined Palestinian society since the creation of the state of Israel in 1948: 1) the military occupation and colonization of the Palestinian — and other Arab — territory occupied by Israel in 1967; 2) the system of institutionalized and legalized racism within Israel against non-Jews, and 3) the persistent denial of the internationally-sanctioned rights of the Palestine refugees, especially their right to return to their homes of origin and to reparations.
As Omar Barghouti observes, “Moral reconciliation between conflicting communities is impossible if the essence of the oppressive relationship between them is sustained.” And, in the case of Palestine, not even recognized.
And as long as the fundamental racism and moral blindness of Zionism continues to be obscured – as in negative references to “right-wing Zionism” rather than to plain Zionism or Jewish supremacy – the monumental ideological cover-up to Israel’s crimes against Palestinians will endure.