Fight Back! - News and Views from the People's Struggle

Call-in day June 20 will press U.S. senators and representatives for more legalization, less criminalization

Fight Back — Wed, 19 Jun 2013 02:53:13 +0000

Los Angeles, CA - As the U.S. Senate has begun debating the immigration reform bill, on June 20 the Legalization for All Network is organizing a national call-in day to demand that senators make the immigration reform bill better. There are many parts of the bill that increase militarization of the border. Meanwhile, the legalization aspect of the bill would leave too many immigrants out and needs to be expanded.

So around the country people will call their senators to demand that they support legalization for all undocumented immigrants; that they reduce the time to reach legal permanent residency; that they eliminate the militarization of the border and surveillance drones from the bill; and that they stop the deportations now.

The current Senate bill has more than a ten-year wait for undocumented immigrants to become legal permanent residents. This and other barriers will act to exclude many from legalization.

Right now hundreds of immigrants are dying as they try to cross the border because the militarization of the border has driven them to harsh desert areas. The current Senate bill could lead to military drones flying over millions of Americans who live within 100 miles of the border - 24 hours a day, seven days a week.

Under the Obama administration, there has been record number of deportations. The call-in day will demand that Senators support a moratorium on deportations while the legalization process is starting.

Call the two U.S. Senators for your state. Find their phone numbers here: http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm.

Call the US Representative in your district by putting your zip code in the box in the upper right corner of this page: http://www.house.gov/representatives/.

For more details, go to facebook.com/LegalizationForAll.

Moral Monday protest mobilizes over 1000 to protest NC legislature

Fight Back — Wed, 19 Jun 2013 02:20:08 +0000

Raleigh, NC – 84 people were arrested today, June 17, during the 7th wave of Moral Monday protests, while over 1000 rallied outside the North Carolina legislature to protest the right-wing policies being carried out by the Republican majority. While police loaded up buses with the arrested protesters, hundreds chanted, "You're gonna need another bus, 'cause baby there are more of us!"

With devastating efficiency, the Republican majorities in the House and Senate and Republican Governor Pat McCrory are rolling back progressive laws and regulations across the board: workers’ rights, equal access to education, unemployment benefits, environmental protection, health care access, voting rights and racial justice are all under unprecedented attack from a legislature that is dominated by ‘free market' ideology.

The June 17 protest was the seventh in a wave of weekly protests organized by Reverend William Barber and the North Carolina NAACP. The theme of this week's protest was on environmental and health care justice. Thousands have mobilized from across the state to protest the legislature since the first Moral Monday on April 29. To date more than 480 people have been arrested for acts of civil disobedience.

Evan Kolosna, an organizer with the University of North Carolina-Asheville Students for a Democratic Society (SDS) and the North Carolina Student Power Union, told Fight Back!, “This is directly affecting us as students - the budget cuts are targeting our schools, so I would say to other fellow students: 'Come out here and fight for your education and your future.’”

There were about two dozen health care workers at the demonstration today, holding signs saying "Health care is a right" and "GOP Rx for NC = Bad medicine."

"What is happening with the legislature now, with the Republican majority, is a travesty of justice," said Mohan Chilukuri, a health care worker, "because they are denying healthcare to 500,000 people that would have been eligible under the Affordable Care Act." Chilukuri called on physicians to come out and protest the legislature and Governor McCrory.

With next week's demonstration focused on workers’ rights and the attacks on organized labor by the legislature, the Moral Monday protests are set to continue for the coming weeks. The rallying cry of the demonstrators is, "Forward together, not one step back!"

Chicago set to protest escalation of U.S. war on Syria

Fight Back — Tue, 18 Jun 2013 02:32:16 +0000

Chicago, IL - The Obama administration announced it will arm the Syrian opposition and the U.S. military has made plans to set up a No Fly Zone over Syrian territory. The Anti-War Committee – Chicago (AWC) opposes these measures to escalate the conflict which has already cost 93,000 lives.

The AWC has called a protest against U.S. intervention in Syria for June 18, from 5:00 to 7:00 p.m. at Federal Plaza, 50 W Adams, in Chicago.

President Obama says the Assad government crossed a ‘red line’ by using chemical weapons. According to Holly Kent-Payne, an AWC spokesperson, “How can we believe this when there is no evidence cited as proof of the Syrian government’s use of the nerve gas, sarin? In fact, Turkey recently caught 12 members of the Syrian opposition with sarin, and the top U.N. investigator in Syria, Carla Del Ponte, stated last month that she found evidence of the rebels, not the government, having used sarin.”

Joe Iosbaker of AWC added, “The truth is, the Syrian rebels are losing so the U.S. is scrambling for excuses to intervene. Remember when Bush lied about ‘weapons of mass destruction’ to justify the war in Iraq? The U.S. and NATO support the Syrian rebels despite their strong ties to Al-Qaeda because they want to replace Bashar al-Assad with someone who will do their bidding.”

Recently, NATO published a finding that 70% of Syrians support the Assad government. Also, Pew Research Center polls show that the majority of Americans oppose U.S. intervention in Syria.

According to the Pentagon, the No Fly Zone would cost $50 million a day. Kent-Payne said, “Chicago is closing 50 schools, while the White House thinks nothing of spending $50 million a day. We need healthcare and education, not more war in the Middle East!”

For more info: antiwarcommitteechicago.blogspot.com

Going to Tehran: A must-read for anti-war activists

Fight Back — Sun, 16 Jun 2013 23:33:45 +0000

The dogs of war in the U.S. media bark and, in true Don Quixote fashion, it’s a sign that authors Hillary and Flynt Leverett are on the move. In their electrifying new book, Going to Tehran: Why the United States Must Come to Terms with the Islamic Republic of Iran, the former National Security Council experts – who were forced out of their positions for their opposition to Washington’s war-mongering and occupation – take on the growing myths told by the U.S. government about Iran.

Liberals, conservatives and centrists in the U.S. media hysterically attacked Going to Tehran as soon as it came out. The Wall Street Journal derided the Leveretts as “Washington’s most outspoken defenders of the mullahs,” in a particularly nasty hit-piece called “I Heart Khomenei.” Laura Secor of the New York Times called the book “one-sided” and a “mirror image” of the anti-Iran propaganda churned out by the U.S. government. Foreign Affairs claims they “overargue” their case for ending U.S. hostilities. The Weekly Standard accused them of “paranoid dogmatism,” and The New Republic called the book “an act of ventriloquism,” presumably with the Iranian government as the puppet master.

When I see a book receive universal condemnation from the corporate-owned media, I take it as a sign that I need to read it. And ultimately every anti-war activist in the U.S. owes it to the people of Iran to check out this well-researched, persuasive and highly readable case against war with Iran. After all, we live in a country where Argo, a ludicrous xenophobic hit-piece on the Iranian Revolution, wins the Academy Award for Best Picture at the 2012 Oscars. As the Leveretts show in their book, the U.S. government and the corporate media work hand-in-glove to dominate the narrative on Iran, telling and repeating all sorts of myths and falsehoods to build the case for war against a large, independent, oil-producing country in the Middle East. Going to Tehran sets the record straight.

The book focuses on dispelling three elements of the U.S. mythology around Iran, breaking each into three-chapter parts. First, it challenges the myth that Iran is an irrational state “incapable of thinking about its foreign policy interests,” arguing instead that the Islamic Republic is incredibly rational in its fight for survival as a revolutionary state in a region historically dominated by U.S. imperialism and Israeli militarism. Second, it unravels the myth of Iran as an illegitimate state, by showing the overwhelming popularity of the Iranian government and refuting the unsubstantiated claims of electoral fraud in 2009. Finally, it challenges the myth that the U.S. can – or should – topple Iran through sanctions, diplomatic isolation and the threat of war.

The Iranian Revolution was a strike against imperialism

The Leveretts devote a serious chunk of their book to tracing the roots and trajectory of the 1979 Iranian Revolution and detailing the history of U.S., Israeli and Iraqi aggression against the Islamic Republic. They contextualize Ayatollah Khomenei’s Shi’a Islam, which strongly focused on social justice and anti-imperialism, and they detail the Iranian people’s history of resistance to the brutal U.S.-backed Shah monarchy. Khomenei’s thought and popularity casts a long shadow, even into Iranian society today, and the Leveretts give him appropriate treatment. Agree or disagree with their analysis, you have to admit that it’s a far cry from the cynical chauvinism of most Western commentators, who paint a crude (and often racist) caricature of the leading figure in Iran’s revolution.

Equally important is their handling of the Iran-Iraq War – called the ‘imposed war’ by Iranians. In that war, then-Iraqi President Saddam Hussein launched a U.S.-backed war of aggression against Iran. The Iranian people, inspired by the revolution’s promise of self-determination, sacrificed dearly to defend their country, with well over a million killed from both sides in the eight-year war. The Leveretts show how the ‘imposed war’ still impacts Iranian policy today, seen in the election and re-election of war veterans, like current President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, for political offices.

U.S. policymakers constantly refer to Iran as a theocratic dictatorship, but the Leveretts expose this argument as baseless, chauvinistic and out of touch with ordinary Iranians. They write, “Most Middle Easterners do not think that the Islamist features of Iran’s political system make it undemocratic…For most Egyptians and other Middle Easterners, the ‘main division in the world’ is not between democracies and dictatorships but between countries whose strategic autonomy is subordinated to the United States and countries who exercise genuine independence in policymaking. For most people in the Middle East, the Islamic Republic is on the right side of that divide.” The Leveretts argue that this divide between imperialist and anti-imperialist countries explains Iran’s rising stock in the Middle East. After decades of U.S. wars and occupations, people in the Middle East support those forces that resist imperialism, rather than the Gulf monarchies that kowtow to Washington’s agenda.

Counter-revolution defeated: The ‘Green Movement’ and the 2009 presidential elections

It does not seem like four years ago that Iran held its last presidential election, which triggered the so-called ‘Green Movement’. With the 2013 elections just behind us, the Leveretts revisit some key facts about the election in 2009 that were overlooked and distorted by the U.S. media. By examining polls, debate transcripts, voting patterns and Iranian election law, the Leveretts prove that Ahmadinejad legitimately won the 2009 election. They write: “The facts were evident for anyone who chose to face them: neither Mousavi nor anyone in his campaign nor anyone connected with the Green Movement ever presented hard evidence of electoral fraud. Moreover, every methodologically sound poll carried out in Iran before and after the election – fourteen in all, conducted by Western polling groups as well as by the University of Tehran – indicated that Ahmadinejad’s reelection, with two-thirds of the vote (which was what the official results showed), was eminently possible.”

Far from the popular rebellion that the U.S. media portrayed, the Green Movement receded just weeks after its beginning. The Green Movement represents the interests of businessmen tied to Western banks and corporations, well-off students, urban intellectuals and professionals, rather than the majority of Iranians. Many Iranians view the Green Movement as an attempted counter-revolution – backed by the U.S. – aimed at destabilizing a popular government that supports the Palestinian liberation struggle, Hezbollah in Lebanon and other resistance forces which the Leveretts examine in detail. The Leveretts show how the U.S. media wholly fabricated stories of brutality to delegitimize Iran. For instance, social media and the U.S. news heavily covered the supposed death of Neda Soltan by security forces, but they refused to retract the story when proof emerged that Neda “was very much alive and well” and directly asked the media to stop using her picture.

Even if the U.S. media refused to acknowledge the truth, the Iranian people clearly understood that the Green Movement was a threat to the independence of Iran. A Charney Research poll from 2010 found that “59% of responders said the government’s reaction had been ‘correct’; only 19% thought it ‘went too far.’” According to the opposition’s numbers, about 100 people died in clashes with security forces. The Leveretts show that the protests regularly led to opposition-instigated violence, to which the state then responded. Most insightful of all, the Leveretts compare the hypocritical reaction to the Green Movement by the U.S. to the violent crackdown on African American and Latinos outraged at the 1992 Rodney King verdict. The State of California sent in the National Guard and killed 53 people for demonstrating against this racist miscarriage of justice, but rather than condemning government violence, the U.S. media called the uprising a ‘riot.’

Why did a solid majority of Iranians support Ahmadinejad in 2009 and approve of the government’s harsh response to the attempt at counter-revolution? The Leveretts argue in chapter four, entitled “Religion, Revolution and Roots of Legitimacy” that the Iranian people, especially poor farmers and workers, experienced real progressive gains from the revolution in 1979. In spite of economic sanctions and external threats, “the percentage of Iranians living in poverty – less than 2% by the World Bank’s $1.25-per-day standard – is lower than that in virtually any other large-population middle-income country,” including Brazil, India, Mexico and Turkey. Iran’s rapidly expanding public and low-income health care services have increased life expectancy by 21.9 years since 1980, according to the UN Development Programme. This serves as a model that even universities and NGOs working in Mississippi are implementing. Literacy rose from 40% under the Shah to 99% in the present-day Islamic Republic; voting suffrage is universal and religious minorities have guaranteed representation in the Majlis (parliament).

Despite Western Islamophobia, women’s rights in Iran are drastically improved. In addition to six months of paid maternity leave – far higher than the U.S. – “the majority of university students in Iran [and] the majority of students at Iran’s best universities are now female.” Some of the evidence the Leveretts present around issues of gender will genuinely surprise readers. For instance, they say that “rulings from [Ayatollah] Khomenei recognizing transgendered identity as biologically grounded, today provide the legal basis for free elective gender-reassignment surgery.”

While Iran still has many contradictions, related to gender and the role that working people play in society, the Leveretts argue that the Iranian people elect to build on the progressive gains rather than overturning them. The Green Movement represented a step backwards in the history of Iran, and the majority of Iranians recognized that.

Setting the record straight on Iran and the U.S.

The Leveretts won themselves no friends in the political establishment with their chapter entitled “Myths and Mythmakers.” By far the strongest section of the book, they analyze the neo-conservatives, liberal interventionists, the Israel lobby and the Iranian expatriates as four distinct but inter-related groups that fuel anti-Iranian sentiment in the media and in Washington. Many of these so-called ‘experts’ monopolize the corporate-owned press in the U.S., despite having never read a word of Farsi. Although these groups do not all outwardly advocate U.S. military intervention, the Leveretts show how even the more well-meaning liberal critics repeat the same myths told by the neo-cons and war-mongers, effectively strengthening their case for a strike on Iran. It is disturbing to think that the U.S. media still gives a platform for the most vocal cheerleaders of the disastrous Iraq War – Thomas Friedman of the New York Times and the xenophobic CIA analyst Kenneth Pollack – to spew their venom against Iran.

Even readers convinced that Tehran has nefarious intentions would benefit from the Leveretts’ book. In 1987, current Ayatollah Khamenei delivered a speech to the UN laying out a fundamental distinction between opposition to U.S. imperialism and support for the people, saying, “This indictment is directed against the leaders of the United States regime and not against the American people, who, had they been aware of what their governments have done against another nation, would certainly endorse our indictment.” Facing the hostile threat of a nuclear-armed Israel, and the U.S. military occupation of Iran’s next-door neighbors – Afghanistan, and previously Iraq - the people of Iran want peace and solidarity with the people of the U.S., not another war.

Going to Tehran is written primarily to persuade policy-makers to abandon the current U.S. strategy of toppling the government of Iran. Throughout the whole book, the Leveretts seem frustrated at the very likely possibility that their well-researched case against war with Iran will go unread by politicians. However, the primary audience that will benefit from Going to Tehran is not lawmakers, but rather anti-war activists. Anti-war organizers could use the book as a starting point for reading groups and teach-ins about the nature of U.S. aggression.

The disorganized response by the U.S. anti-war movement to NATO’s attack on Libya proves the need for a unified, principled, anti-imperialist opposition to war that seeks to build meaningful international solidarity. And in 2013, Going to Tehran is an important contribution to that struggle.

Syria stands firm

Fight Back — Sun, 16 Jun 2013 01:02:27 +0000

Fight Back News Service is circulating the following article from the British newspaper, Proletarian. The article, published in the beginning of June, contains a wealth of useful information.

As we go to press, the manufacture of provocations designed to justify open imperialist intervention against independent Syria is reaching fever pitch.

Foreign Secretary William Hague plumbed new depths of murderous hypocrisy when, after Britain and France had bullied and cajoled the other 25 members of the EU into lifting their arms embargo on Syria, so they could openly supply weapons to the counter-revolutionary terrorists, he declared that this escalation of imperialist aggression was necessary to force the Syrian government to accept a negotiated political settlement.

Hague’s statement that supplying yet more arms to the rebels was solely for the purpose of persuading Damascus to attend the proposed Geneva conference ignores the blindingly obvious – that Damascus has already accepted, indeed welcomed, this proposal, whilst the rebels, to date, are refusing to participate.

Direct and deadly zionist aggression has already violated both Syrian and Lebanese sovereignty, and the bomb blasts in a Turkish border town, engineered by unknown hands, are being worked up into an excuse for all-out war.

Yet so great are the dangers foreseen in Washington in committing openly and definitively to such a course that disabling splits are opening up within the imperialist camp over the next step.

The fact that the continuing efforts on the part both of Damascus and of Moscow to stay the hand of aggression and convene a peace conference without preconditions have not yet been dismissed out of hand by the West may be ascribed in part to a cynical calculation – just playing for time whilst the warmongers complete their preparations. However, a glance at the balance of forces on the ground makes it clear enough why some cannier imperialist opinion might urge a step backwards from the brink.

Rebel reverses

With every day that passes, it becomes clearer that the legitimate government of Syria, loyally defended not only by the armed forces but also by the overwhelming majority of Syrians, is not about to be toppled by the squabbling rebel factions to whom imperialism had entrusted the task.

Even some honest bourgeois journalists cannot but recognise this inconvenient reality. Alex Thomson, a foreign correspondent for Channel Four, blogged on 5 May that

“[I]n the central areas of the country, President Assad’s forces have made some notable strategic gains against the various rebel forces. Alongside that, fighters from Hizbollah, coming in from Lebanon in the west to these central areas of fighting, have made a real impact on the ground ...

“On 24 April, for instance, the Syrian Army seized Otaiba, which is just east of Damascus, after the usual sustained barrage. This punched a hole in the rebel supply lines via which they had been taking much of their fight to the northern, eastern and southern areas around the capital.

“Across Damascus, other gains too: rebels more or less now pushed out to the far side of the city ring-road zone in most areas. This again is a significant reversal of fortunes on the ground. Just two days later the army took their fight to Jobar, a key northeastern suburb of Damascus and one of the few areas in rebel hands inside the ring-road zone.

“If they can push the rebels from here then almost all of the gains the rebel forces have made around the Damascus suburbs will have been neutralised.”

On the rebel side, everything is chaos and dismay. On the ground, rival bands of jihadis, bankrolled and armed by different wings of the Gulf sheikh mafia, alternately squabble over the war booty and alienate the population by displays of sectarian thuggery. In turn, they have nothing but contempt for the so-called ‘transitional government’ that Washington, Paris and London hope to parachute into power.

The New York Times told us some time ago how “Fahed al-Masri, a spokesman for the rebel Free Syrian Army’s unified command, questioned how a government could function when it controlled little territory or money yet would be held responsible for the fate of more than one million Syrian refugees and several times that number displaced inside the country.

“‘Welcome, government,’ Mr Masri said sardonically.”(‘Syrian rebels pick US citizen to lead interim government’ by Anne Barnard, 18 March 2013)

The previous head of the so-called ‘Syrian National Coalition’, Moaz al-Khatib, got the elbow because he had the temerity to call for peace negotiations without preconditions. In his place now struts Ghassan Hitto, a Syrian Kurd whose previous 30 years living in Texas have apparently taught him all he needs to know in order to serve imperialism as a quisling ‘prime minister’.

This ludicrous audition over who to pick to play the pirate king was embarrassing in the extreme, coming as it did at the moment when the Arab League was waiting to see who would fill the seat left vacant when the real Syrian state was suspended last year. Still clinging to the hope that Khatib might change his mind, Arab League spokesman al-Thani expressed the pious wish that “things will get corrected ... it’s important for him not to lose this moment”!

Fat chance: Kerry had already waved him goodbye: “The notion he might resign has been expressed on many an occasion and is not a surprise. The opposition is more than one person.”

New pretender Hitto instantly distanced himself from al-Khatib’s brief flirtation with the idea of talks without preconditions. Yet the Guardian lamented that the latest aspirant to the throne “has made little progress” in “unifiying civilian and military wings of the revolution”, noting that“Rebel groups inside Syria take few instructions from the political body and have little direct contact with its leaders.”(‘Moaz al-Khatib’s resignation plunges Syrian opposition into chaos’ by Martin Chulov, 24 March 2013)

Indeed, some of the leaders of the ‘Free Syrian Army’ terrorists have in turn refused to recognise Hitto’s appointment!

Teetering on the brink

Though imperialism has been driven ever closer to the brink of outright hostilities, every new provocation designed to bounce public opinion into supporting yet another criminal war seems to have another purpose as well: to nerve up doubting elements actually within imperialist ruling circles to cast caution to the wind and wade into the swamp. The ballyhoo around chemical weapons is a case in point.

The unsubstantiated claims that the Syrian army was ‘using chemical weapons against its own people’ were manufactured with the obvious intention of justifying in advance another installment of imperialist aggression. Yet as well as hoping to pile pressure on Syria, this scaremongering appeared also to be piling pressure on the White House itself, whose occupant had just a few months earlier waxed so eloquent about the “red line” that would be crossed were President Assad to resort to the use of chemical weapons.

Now though, with Syria’s national defenses holding up so well, the rebels in disarray and the US’s other pressing business in the Pacific claiming the president’s attention (while the resistance forces in Afghanistan and Iraq have given a strong lesson about what Uncle Sam can expect if US boots touch the ground in serious numbers), the ‘red line’ bravado appears to be somewhat subdued.

In a White House press briefing on 6 May, Jay Carney tied himself up in knots trying to cover Obama’s retreat, waffling that “What the president made clear is that it was a red line, and that it was unacceptable, and that it would change his calculus ... What he never did – and it is simplistic to do so – is to say that ‘If X happens, Y will happen’. He has never said what reaction he would take.”

So that’s clear then.

When the human rights investigating team at the UN, led by Carla Del Ponte, produced a dossier that not only failed to substantiate the allegations against President Assad but even included evidence that dared to suggest that the rebels had slaughtered dozens of people with sarin nerve gas attacks in Aleppo and elsewhere, there might almost have been audible from the White House a sigh of relief.

Whilst John Kerry still kept trying to milk the lie that there existed “strong evidence” of President Assad having used chemical weapons, this was flatly contradicted not alone by UN officials but also by US administration sources. British prime minister David Cameron’s pathetic insistence on flogging the same dead horse long after its death certificate had been signed may have been intended as just another brown-nosing token of fealty to the Special Relationship. Instead, it just underscored the warmongers’ embarrassing inability to agree on a line and stick to it.

Zionist attack burns Obama’s bridges?

With or without a green light from the White House, the Israeli jets that twice violated Lebanese airspace to attack Syria’s defenses and inflict death and destruction on her capital city were indeed an “act of war” which “opened the door to all possibilities”, as the Syrian government correctly noted.

In the raids that took place between 2 and 4 May, Damascus International Airport was hit, as were a number of other locations in and near the capital. A doctor at the city’s Tishreen Military Hospital reported the death of at least 100 soldiers, with dozens more wounded. Residential areas were also bombed, driving citizens to take refuge in their basements.

A government statement carried on Syrian TV correctly identified the attack as “an attempt to raise the morale of the terrorist groups, which have been reeling from strikes by our noble army”. We might add that it was also an attempt to force the hand of those within the imperialist camp itself who might be having second or third thoughts about stepping over the brink.

By such a flagrant attack on the sovereignty of both Syria and her Lebanese neighbour, Tel Aviv perhaps hopes to end all thoughts of retreat by pre-emptively burning the bridges.

Turkish provocation backfires

Washington’s recent efforts to reconcile Israel and Turkey, even persuading Netanyahu to apologise to Erdogan for the IDF’s murder of nine Turkish peace activists on board the Marmi Marvara, were driven by an urgent need to get Tel Aviv and Ankara into a warmongering alliance against Syria.

Turkey has long played a major role in facilitating the subversion of its neighbour: opening up safe havens on the border for terrorist forces from which cross-border attacks can be mounted, and assisting with the arming and protection of those forces. Ankara’s shallow ‘anti-zionist’ posture, adopted solely to placate public opinion at home, has, to a great extent, been quietly shelved, enabling Israel and Turkey to work together once again against their common enemy.

Sure enough, a week after the Israeli attacks, a new provocation was launched by Turkey. On 11 May, twin car bombs exploded in Reyhanli, a Turkish border town in the province of Hatay, killing 51, injuring dozens more and inflicting widespread damage on buildings in the vicinity. The victims included both Turks and Syrians.

Almost before the smoke had cleared, and well before any serious investigation could even have begun, Ankara was pointing the finger at Damascus and saying it would take “all retaliatory measures necessary”. Yet the allegation flies in the face of the most basic common sense. With the rebels on the run and peace talks in the offing, what conceivable advantage could Damascus hope to secure by such an attack?

The only possible beneficiaries would be those who want to see the talks fail; those who would like to bounce the world into another war. The chairman of the foreign affairs committee of Russia’s Duma got it right: “In the terrorist attack in Turkey, Syria was accused again – as it is always blamed for everything. Someone wants to disrupt the peace conference and to push ahead with the use of military force.”

It is well known that the car bomb is a favourite weapon of the jihadists, and their feelings about the prospect of talks going ahead with Damascus are also no secret.

Ankara’s complicity with terror

Western press reports convey the impression that the Turkish border neatly separates the ‘civil war’ of Syria from the peaceable ‘refugee camps’ in Turkey which provide simple humanitarian relief for Syrians uprooted by the conflict. This simplistic fairy tale fits in nicely with the idea of fratricidal strife in Syria threatening to ‘spill over’ into peaceful Turkey!

In reality, it is not Syria that destabilises Turkey but Turkey which, by offering a safe haven and free passage to terrorists, is actively destabilising Syria. The West-backed rebellion has long since transformed the whole border area between the two countries into a war zone, making life hell for Turks and Syrians alike.

Whilst doubtless many of the 200,000 Syrians on the Turkish side are helpless civilian victims caught up in the conflict, others are, with full encouragement from Ankara and the West, using this region as a base area from which to launch attacks against Syria. They certainly do not draw the line at using refugee populations as human shields for their subversion.

None of this does much to win the hearts and minds of the local Turkish inhabitants.

Some reports talk of Syrians being beaten up and Syrian businesses attacked by vengeful Turks in the aftermath of the bombing. However, when about a hundred Reyhanli residents responded to the outrage by coming out on the street, it was to the Turkish foreign ministry that they marched and Erdogan’s head for which they called, blaming him for a policy towards Syria which had brought such horrors in its train. Another spontaneous march in Ankara similarly attacked Erdogan for dragging Turkey into war.

Between the world wars, the region of Hatay in which Reyhanli is situated was part of Syria, and many Syrians were living there long before the present crisis – including a substantial minority of alawites. Whilst there are fewer alawites in Reyhanli itself, the region as a whole has distinguished itself by its opposition to Ankara’s support for the rebellion.

Perhaps another motive for the outrage could have been to bounce local opinion into supporting open war against Syria. If so, it has miserably failed. Staff at a media office for a Syrian rebel group located down the street from the site of the first explosion were to be observed hurriedly drawing and locking their shutters, fearful of being correctly identified as enemies of peace in the region.

As for Erdogan, stripped of his phony anti-zionist demagogy and caught red-handed trying to pitch his country into a counter-revolutionary war at the bidding of Uncle Sam and his loathsome brethren in Britain and France, the future does not look rosy.

Syria stands firm

By spreading lies about chemical weapons, launching air strikes against Damascus and engineering provocations on the Syria/Turkey border, imperialism perhaps hopes to bounce Syria into confronting all its enemies at the same time; into reacting to aggression in a fashion and on a timescale convenient to the West.

The New York Times wept crocodile tears recently over what it supposed to be the Syrian president’s dilemma. “He could retaliate against Israel and risk conflict with the region’s strongest military — an option analysts called unlikely. Or he could refrain, in which case he risks appearing further weakened and hypocritical to supporters and opponents alike, many of whom are united in their antipathy for Israel.”

To back up this dubious speculation, the paper quotes one ‘Basil’ (no second name), a resident living near a military research centre that was attacked, as asking “Why does the regime attack the rebels with Scuds and warplanes while it takes no action on the Israeli raids?” (‘Syria blames Israel for fiery attack in Damascus’, 5 May 2013)

However much it may frustrate the West to see Syria choose which of her enemies to fight and in which order (meanwhile refusing to be deflected from her support for the peace conference proposed by Russia), it is going to have to live with the fact that the vast majority of Syrians continue to support their president, their constitution and their country – the more so, the more open the aggression with which she is threatened.

The Syrian masses are well able to distinguish between patriots and rebels; between those who resist zionism and those who collaborate with it; between those who fight for the independence and sovereignty of Syria and those who act as the paid flunkeys of imperialism.

The sly assertion slipped in by the New York Times that “supporters and opponents alike ... are united in their antipathy for Israel”was given the lie even within the same article, when we were told that within hours of Israel’s blitz of the nation’s capital city, “the rebel Damascus Military Council declared that it would try to capitalise. The council issued a statement calling on all fighters in the area to work together, put aside rivalries and mount focused attacks on government forces.”

Further, we were informed that “Some rebels and activists say they consider Mr Assad a far higher-priority target than Israel, though they still oppose it. The main exile Syrian opposition coalition walked that line carefully in a statement issued after the bombings, blaming the government for allowing attacks by ‘external occupying forces’.”

The reader must judge for himself what credence should be given to this kind of ‘opposition’ to zionism.

Peace conference in the balance

As this is being written, the fate of the proposed peace conference hangs in the balance. The lack of seriousness betrayed by the West is underlined by the refusal to include in the peace process not only the expatriate imperialist stooges of the Syrian National Coalition but also the National Coordinating Body, whose presence at talks Russia has proposed.

Unlike the SNC, the NCB represents those forces within the country which, whilst opposed to the current government, are also opposed to the armed uprising and to foreign intervention, and would be prepared to enter talks. Again, Washington’s insistence on excluding Iran – or even Saudi Arabia – from talks erects a further stumbling block to genuine negotiations.

And if the West is in earnest about making a peace conference, why did it choose this moment to gee up Qatar into drafting a UN resolution slandering the Syrian government and condemning its legitimate military efforts in defence of Syrian independence? As Syria’s UN ambasador, Bashar Ja’afari, told the General Assembly, Qatar’s resolution of 14 May “is running against the current, especially in the light of the latest Russian-American rapprochement, which the Syrian government welcomed”.

Russia and China opposed this mischief-making resolution, as did Iran, Cuba, Bolivia, Ecuador, Zimbabwe, Venezuela, Nicaragua, the DPRK and Belarus – as well, of course, as Syria itself. Many other countries that had gone along with a similar resolution last August abstained, including South Africa and Indonesia.

Whilst a combination of threats and promises served to secure 107 votes in favour of the resolution, this had shrunk significantly from last summer’s 133 votes. Meanwhile, the abstentions had climbed from 31 to 59, whilst others simply absented themselves from the vote altogether. None of this is calculated to bring cheer to imperialist hearts.

Whichever way imperialism decides to jump, the Syrian people and leadership have, over two long and hard years of battling subversion exported from the West, served as an inspiration to all those engaged in the growing axis of resistance against imperialism. They have many times over earned the right to call upon the working masses of the world to show their solidarity.

Support for Syria in her hour of need is not a private affair, but a duty that concerns all those oppressed and exploited by imperialism.

Victory to the Syrian nation and its leader President Assad!

No co-operation with imperialist war crimes!

Milwaukee rally supports Palestine, says "Don't award apartheid!"

Fight Back — Sat, 15 Jun 2013 21:07:00 +0000

Milwaukee, WI - The Milwaukee Palestine Solidarity Coalition rallied outside the Israel Bonds Awards Dinner, June 13, saying "Don't award apartheid!" Inside the high class downtown Pfister Hotel, Israeli government ministers were presenting an award to a Park Bank CEO for his monetary support to the apartheid state of Israel. But while Israel and their 1% supporters met behind the protection of police stationed in the hotel lobby, activists representing at least seven community organizations rolled out their own red carpet.

"I came out to educate myself more on the issue as well as support the cause," said Angie Ortiz, "I will definitely go to the ceremony again next year."

With "Free Palestine" scrawled across the sidewalk at the hotel entrance, a makeshift stage and red carpet mocked the award ceremony inside. But instead of awarding the elite U.S. supporters of Zionist apartheid and occupation, awards were given to each Palestine solidarity activist rallying in support of Palestinian human rights. The final award was given to the courageous Palestinian hunger strikers.

The counter-awards ceremony called for support of the boycott, divestment and sanctions movement (BDS) by divesting from Israel bonds. Activists also called on Alicia Keys to cancel her scheduled tour date in Tel Aviv, Israel. This week over 12,000 signatures were delivered to Keys' charity "Keep a Child Alive" in New York, demanding she join the likes of Alice Walker, Roger Waters, Stevie Wonder, Desmond Tutu and Stephen Hawking to stand up for the rights of Palestinians living under occupation and apartheid.

The brand new Palestine Solidarity Coalition consists of several groups doing Palestine solidarity work in Milwaukee. The coalition is planning a city-wide campaign to boycott Israeli goods and end civilian and government aid to Israel from the U.S. That aid includes over $3 billion a year in government support alone.

Jess Sundin speaks at Left Forum, demands end to government repression

Fight Back — Thu, 13 Jun 2013 23:18:51 +0000

New York, NY – Jess Sundin, of the Committee to Stop FBI repression, spoke on a panel at the Left Forum here, June 8. Entitled the “Targeted killings of Americans on American soil: the story of Lynne Stewart, political prisoners and all progressive struggles in America.” The panel included Ralph Poynter, husband of jailed people’s lawyer Lynn Stewart and a leader of her defense committee. Also speaking was Ricardo Jimenez and Luis Rosa, fighters for Puerto Rico’s independence who served long prison sentences, Sue Udry of the Defending Dissent Foundation, Reverend Pinkney, Pam Africa, and others.

Sundin’s speech follows:

Greetings comrades and friends. It's an honor and humbling to speak with you today, and especially to appear on such an esteemed panel - you represent some of the most important movements of our time. Many of you have been invaluable allies to myself and the Committee to Stop FBI Repression. Thank you for all of your work.

As Ralph [Poynter] says, the clock is ticking for our brothers and sisters, political prisoners behind bars. These men and women, freedom fighters, were targeted by a government that has no interest in justice.

We are talking about a government that is in the hands of vampires who have no shame. They built a country on stolen land, on the backs of stolen people, by exploiting the labor of working people - especially African slaves, and now super-exploited immigrant workers. They wage brutal wars to seize control of other nations' wealth, and they protect banksters and bosses who steal the jobs, homes and safety net that thousands of working people need for our survival. They pass laws to limit our rights to organize and pave the way for environmental destruction. We must bear in mind that those in power have no interest in justice. In fact, their interests run counter to justice at every turn. They thirst for profit and domination and it is no surprise that they act out against those who see that another world is possible, and who dare to fight for it.

In preparing for today, I thought back to when I first met Lynne [Stewart] and Ralph, in the summer of 2008 at an anti-war conference in Ohio. This was after her conviction for material support to terrorism and related charges, but before her sentencing. I had stars in my eyes when I met the famous people's attorney, Lynne Stewart. I was charmed by her warmth and openness, when she signed on in support of the anti-war march I was organizing at the RNC in Saint Paul the following September. At that time, I had no idea that organizing would send me down a similar path to Lynne. Undercover agents surveilled myself and other protest organizers and began to manufacture a case against us, also on charges of material support to terrorism.

In 2010, the FBI carried out coordinated raids at the homes of anti-war and international solidarity activists. When they arrived at our home at 7:00 a.m. on Sept. 24, we did not understand the scope of these events. We were focused on the battering ram poised at the door when my partner and our 6-year-old daughter opened it. It soon became clear that the government was targeting us, just as it had Lynne, as well as so many Arabs and Muslims before us, in an effort to silence dissent and clear the way for imperialist wars abroad. In all, nine homes were raided, 23 people were subpoenaed to the grand jury, and another brother, Carlos Montes, was targeted with felony charges going back to an old COINTELPRO-era case against him as a leader in the Chicano movement. We had to fight back.

We made several important decisions:

First, we refused to cooperate with the prosecution. Not one of us testified at that grand jury, even with the threat of imprisonment for refusing. We would not help the government make a case against our colleagues in the U.S., nor would we give them information that could endanger the lives and work of our comrades abroad.

Our resolve won the support of thousands, who protested, made phone calls, signed petitions, and hosted speakers around our case.

Our second important decision was to build a public campaign in defense of ourselves and our work. I was giving press interviews on my front lawn, while FBI agents carried boxes of my belongings out the front door behind me. We never apologized for our organizing; we stood by liberation movements from Palestine to Colombia, even those unjustly termed ‘terrorist’ by the U.S. government.

Our third important decision was to unite with others fighting repression, starting with other targets of the bogus ‘war on terror.’ We have worked in support of the Holy Land 5, directors of the largest Muslim charity in the U.S., targeted because they are Palestinian and stand with their people against the Zionist occupation. The men of the Holy Land 5 are currently serving sentences as long as 65 years, after the same prosecutor from our case won a conviction on material support for terrorism. Amina Ali and Hawo Hassan, Somali women from Minnesota, were just sentenced last month to 20 and 10 years, for sending a few thousand dollars to support the orphans and widows of the civil conflict in their homeland - material support for terrorism. These are just a few cases, there are hundreds, everyone of them a shameful miscarriage of justice. Defending them is a key part of our strategy to defend ourselves.

Earlier this year, our efforts to unite against repression brought me to the shadow of Carswell, the prison that holds Lynne today. There were two important rallies for Aafia Siddiqui. She is a Pakistani woman about my age, mother of three, who on Sept. 23, 2010, the day before the FBI raided my home, was sentenced to 86 years for a bogus charge of attempted murder of a U.S. soldier holding her captive in Afghanistan, five years after she had been kidnapped from the streets of Karachi.

Unless people of conscience can win her freedom, Aafia will die in Carswell. Shamefully, the same is true for Lynne Stewart, and many people at the protest for Aafia carried signs for Lynne. As I stood outside of Carswell, it struck me that I could die there too. I have significant medical problems, and would likely be imprisoned there if the government made its terrorism case against me. Truth be told, the same could happen to anyone who stands up and organizes against this criminal system run by corporate gangsters and thug politicians.

We have revealing news reports every day, like the idea that the NSA is conducting warrantless phone and Internet surveillance against all of us, all the time. You know, I had a young activist friend, just last night ask on Facebook, why should she care if the government knows who she's calling or what she's writing in her emails, because she's not doing anything wrong. Of course, I wasn't doing anything wrong either, but an undercover agent spied on me for two years, posing as a friend and comrade, recording and reporting on our conversations and meetings. We need to understand that when the powerful are not openly repressing us, they are gathering information to use to repress us later. Now we are all treated like criminals. We are all Lynne Stewart.

The latest attack on sister Assata [Shakur], like the one on Carlos Montes in our case, shows us that the enemy never forgets. Both of them are heroes. They were attacked during the COINTELPRO era for their work, but they couldn't catch them then. Now, 40 years later, the government is trying to bring back those old cases, and call them terrorists. But they are heroes.

I want to close by urging everyone here to take real action to win freedom for Lynne Stewart, Mumia Abu Jamal, Oscar Lopez Rivera, and all political prisoners. I'll begin with my own pledge: The CSFR will stand with you. We've won real victories in our case - no one was jailed for refusing to cooperate with the grand jury, and Carlos Montes beat back charges that could have landed him 18 years, to resolve his case with not one day in jail. It's time for more victories, bigger victories. Let's bring Lynne home.

Protest slams NSA spying, voices support for Snowden

Fight Back — Thu, 13 Jun 2013 22:46:31 +0000

Minneapolis, MN - About 25 protesters gathered in front of the Hennepin County government building here, June 11, to protest the massive National Security Agency spying program and to support whistleblower Edward Snowden.

Misty Rowan, of the Anti-War Committee stated, “Well you know what? Our Fourth Amendment rights are a matter of national security Mr. President. I don't feel safe in a country where the government is monitoring everything I say and do. I refuse to accept this as the new terms and conditions of living in a nation that's been 'terrified' for the last 12 years. Enough is enough!”

Rowan continued, “In the AWC we've known about the ugly turn this war on terror has taken for a few years now. In 2010, the FBI raided our office and the homes of several of our members and others across the country, calling them to a grand jury in Chicago under investigation of material support for terrorism - just because we organize to end this war based on lies, and carried out against the will of the American people.

“The Occupy Wall Street movement also learned of the conduct of these agencies and became familiar with the snitches, infiltrators, wire tapping and raids. But this goes beyond the regular repression of political movements. What we are talking about is every single person, every single phone number, every transaction. It's as if the entire country, in fact the world, is under investigation by the U.S. government. People, you need to realize that this isn't about terrorists anymore. This is about you. How your government is treating you - supposedly for your own good."

Interview with Ralph Poynter, husband of jailed people’s lawyer Lynn Stewart

Fight Back — Wed, 12 Jun 2013 01:11:55 +0000

Lynne Stewart, a heroic and long-time progressive lawyer, is serving a ten-year prison sentence in Fort Worth, Texas for ‘material support of terrorism,’ after serving as defense attorney for Sheikh Omar Abdel-Rahman. On June 9 Fight Back! spoke with her husband, Ralph Poynter, about her case. Poynter is a Black community leader and retired New York City teacher.

Fight Back!: At the Left Forum, you organized a panel on political prisoners. How does Lynne's story relate to the general problem of political repression today?

Ralph Poynter: Lynne’s story is the same as all other political prisoners. Those who want to work toward a more decent society - no matter what way they work on it, by telling the truth, or acting on the truth - have become the automatic enemies of a destructive, corrupt state, and they act in that manner.

So Lynne is a political prisoner who defended those who were not supposed to get a defense. That is, the poor, the people of color and those involved in acts that did not harm anyone else, but the prohibition acts of certain drugs - and they left out alcohol and cigarettes, which are responsible for more deaths than all the others put together. And so Lynne defended these people, and she is paying the price.

Fight Back!: What is going on with Lynne's case today?

Poynter: Her legal case, we’re putting it before the Supreme Court, they call it certiorari. We’ve sent papers to see if the court is going accept the case. No one has challenged the Patriot Act through the Supreme Court on First Amendment rights, et cetera. This is one of the things that Lynne is doing legally.

And we’re asking for compassionate release because she is dying in prison. We want to get her out and get her to a facility in New York City. In Lynne’s own words, “If you are white, have a reasonable amount of economic support and certain notoriety, medical care is available to you in New York City.” We can have her survive long enough to carry her case to the Supreme Court, if she gets out of prison now, so she can access this medical care that is available to her in New York City.

Now, it is a race, no matter where she is. It’s a race for her life, and every day she’s in jail, it cuts down on her possibility of winning it.

Fight Back!: A lot of people know about Lynne’s case and there has been an outpouring of support for her, and for her compassionate release. What has been the impact of that support?

Poynter: We are hoping – today is Sunday – we are hoping that Monday we have a response from the government. We are hoping, but we are also planning Tuesday to have meetings to see our next step. We know the government knows about it. She has passed all of the legalities of compassionate release; she qualifies as the bill was written. But we also know that when Lynne went to prison, she was scheduled for an operation, and it was 18 months before they scheduled the operation in Fort Worth, Texas. So, they are in no hurry, and as I say, they are looking to kill her. And as the attending physician said, it was the worst case she’d ever seen, due to the delay. So this is nothing new.

We say we want treatment for her cancer. They’re delaying. We said we wanted treatment for her other physical problems, they delayed. This is death by lack of medical treatment in prison. But that makes Lynne no different than all the other political prisoners who are in jail. They suffer the lack of physical medical treatment.

Fight Back!: You’ve said people should keep making calls for Lynne. Tell us about those calls, and what else our readers can do to help Lynne now.

Poynter: The calls are going to the Office of the President, the Office of Eric Holder and the head of the prisons, Samuels. But the interesting thing is, she’s already qualified. Samuels said yes, the prison warden in Fort Worth said yes - that’s all that’s required by the statute of compassionate release and yet Lynne is still in jail.

And so we say, 'hey, it’s someplace. They just forgot about it, or they set it aside, or they’re waiting for her to die.'

So keep on calling. Keep on signing that petition in two places – change.org and iacenter.org

Keep on signing and calling until we change strategy, because we are running out of possibilities. Or we have to create some new possibilities, new actions, to make this government move. We have people fasting. Maybe we have to boycott something, maybe we have to pick a strategic place, maybe we have to block highways. Who knows what we will have to do? But the government will decide how far we have to go, because we’re running out of time very quickly.

Fight Back! urges our readers to answer this call for continued support.

Call and urge immediate compassionate release for Lynne Stewart:

Attorney General Eric Holder - 202-514-2001

White House President Obama - 202-456-1111 or 202-456-1414

Bureau of Prisons Director Charles Samuels - 202-307-3250

Follow the campaign, and sign the petition for Lynne’s compassion release at http://lynnestewart.org

Now is the time to stand up to government surveillance

Fight Back — Mon, 10 Jun 2013 22:28:28 +0000

In a whirlwind news week the public has become aware that the majority, if not all, of U.S. telephone calls are monitored by the NSA (National Security Agency) and have been for seven years, that the U.S. government is monitoring emails through a secret NSA program called PRISM, and that Edward Snowden is the whistleblower that made these revelations possible. On June 9, Snowden told The Guardian to publish that he was the leak even though it puts him in the crosshairs of the U.S. government. "I'm willing to sacrifice all…because I can't in good conscience allow the U.S. government to destroy privacy, internet freedom and basic liberties for people around the world with this massive surveillance machine they're secretly building."

These surveillance scandals come just weeks after the Associated Press announced that the U.S. Justice Department had secretly obtained two months worth of their reporters’ and editors’ phone records.

“There is a massive apparatus within the United States government that with complete secrecy has been building this enormous structure that has only one goal, and that is to destroy privacy and anonymity, not just in the United States but around the world,” said Glenn Greenwald, who broke the story for The Guardian, speaking on CNN. “That is not hyperbole. That is their objective.”

While many Americans are trying to figure out what these revelations mean for their Fourth Amendment right to privacy, at least 23 anti-war and international solidarity activists have already been dealing with this for quite some time. In 2010 the FBI subpoenaed the Anti-War 23 to testify at a secret grand jury in Chicago about their activism and their fellow members of peace and justice movements. Some also had their homes raided and it was apparent from their search warrants that the government was starting to listen - and maybe already was listening - to their phone conversations and reading their emails and social media communications.

Fight Back! asked activists involved with the Committee to Stop FBI Repression, “As someone who the government has been spying on since at least 2008, what do you have to say to the majority of Americans who just realized that they are also being spied on?”

Joe Iosbaker, an activist with the Chicago Antiwar Committee answered, “The FBI raids and grand jury subpoenas that we were hit with taught us that we have to defend our democratic rights to organize and to protest. The U.S. government is in crisis as a result of losing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, plus their system has an economic crisis that is not solvable. The corporations and the politicians are making the people pay for the crisis by cutting services, and the fight back is growing before our eyes. Some examples are the Occupy movement, the march against NATO and growing public worker strikes, like the teachers in Chicago. President Obama fears the prospect of even greater unrest, so the government gathers information, and when a movement gets going, tries to stop it with intimidation and threats of prison. People should stand up and say no to spying and intimidation! Don’t be afraid. Speak out!”

Tom Burke, an organizer with the Committee to Stop FBI Repression, agreed with Iosbaker, “People are rightly upset that the secretive National Security Agency listens to their phone calls and spies on them. People are angry that President Obama made promises to end spying at home and then acted worse than President George W. Bush did. People feel violated that their private phone calls and emails are being recorded and observed by U.S. government spies. It makes more people question the FBI raids and repression targeting anti-war activists, Arab-Americans and Muslims.”

Dave Schneider, an activist with SDS (Students for a Democratic Society) in Tallahassee, Florida, has done organizing to defend the Anti-War 23. He sees these news revelations coming to light as an opportunity for organizing. "This is an important moment for activists in the U.S. Despite overwhelmingly voting against the repression and surveillance that defined the Bush administration in 2008 and 2012, activists today find themselves at the mercy of an expanded national security state turned inward on the people. The U.S. makes a habit of criticizing other governments for supposedly spying on their citizens, but this practice goes completely unchecked by courts or laws in this country. If there is one lesson activists can learn from these revelations, it's that some words written on a piece of paper over 225 years ago doesn't guarantee you the right to free speech or to protest. We have to fight for it by organizing a broad based people's movement against government repression in the U.S."

Edward Snowden reported to The Guardian that the scope of the surveillance on Americans is incredibly widespread and is violating the right to privacy of everyone. When asked why he was revealing that he was the whistleblower he said, “I don’t want to live in a society that does these sorts of things.” He added, “I have no intention of hiding who I am because I know I have done nothing wrong.” Snowden is at risk for significant punishment from U.S. authorities for leaking this information. It is now up to the American public to use his information to challenge the government’s expanding security state.