|
CounterPunch
February
12, 2003
Debate Between Salman Abu Sitta
and Michael Lerner of Tikkun on The Right of Return
1. Michael Lerner wrote:
Would you be interested in participating in a roundtable discussion
on the telephone or writing a piece for us on "the right
of return"? Please let me know if and when you'd want
to write something or when in the next week you'd be available
for a phone call (give my your phone number, please).
2. Abu Sitta wrote:
Because of time difference and different
weekends, I think writing a piece will be better. Since my piece
would be published in a pro-Israel or pro-Zionism environment,
and the idea, I presume, would be to hear the 'other side' point
of view, I appreciate some input about:
--Who will be invited to participate?
--What are their reasons for denying the Right of Return or
their views of it?
--What length you allow for my piece? How much time do I have?
3. Michael Lerner wrote:
If we do it your way, with writers writing,
I will probably have your piece read and commented on by some
others. But you will not be the only pro-return piece-I've asked
Adi Ophir and Benny Morris also (though I never know who will
actually write, because I always find people saying they will
do x and then not doing it). But you can have 1600 words to make
the point.
4. Abu Sitta wrote:
This is my contribution. It is more
than the 1600 words limit. I could not cover the subject, even
in an outline, in less words. Our voice has not been heard for
years and there is so much to cover. If you decide to edit (shorten)
it, please consult with me.
You have at least one writer who said
he would write and did.
Quote
Contribution to Tikkun on the Right
of Return
At the age of ten, I became a refugee.
About a million people met that same fate in 1948. Their life
has suddenly been transformed from a state of tranquillity to
a state of utter destitution: families expelled at gunpoint in
the middle of night or in the heat of a summer day, screams of
help, cries of pain, children lost, mothers clutching pillows
instead of their children, thirsty old men shot in the head if
they stopped for water in the forced march, a whole family dismembered
to pieces by a bomb dropped from a plane while having supper,
survivors of (35 reported) massacres walking about in a daze.
The scenes of devastation filled the landscape: the sea of wretched
humanity trailing along the sea coast in Gaza or in the ravines
of the West Bank, resting under a tree, in a mosque or a school,
counting their number; the distraught father or mother rushing
back aimlessly looking for a missing loved one; houses deserted
with a bed undone, a hot food in the kitchen; a dog looking for
its owner; plants remain unwatered; cattle and sheep wandering
about out of their open sheds. Screams of Yahud, Yahud (Jews,
Jews) are heard and the tired crowd disperses frantically in
crevices and behind rocks. A jeep with mounted machine guns
sprays all moving objects. A plane hovers gently, almost soundlessly,
then drops barrels of destruction on concentrated masses, limbs
flying in the air, hanging on a branch.
All this and more is indelible in my
mind, and my children's. Yet my biggest trauma is not all this.
My experience during my expulsion is relatively mild when compared
to thousands who went through all these horrors. My biggest
trauma was that my child's mind could not comprehend that there
was such a cruel, hateful, vengeful enemy who was determined
to destroy my life. Why? What for? What have I, we, done to
him? I could not put a face, certainly not a human face, to
him. You see I have never seen a Jew before, not for many many
years after. The enemy was faceless. I heard all kind of stories:
the enemy landed on our shores, the enemy speaks a bable of languages,
has many faces, dialects, but is united in ruthless destruction
of my people. It took me many years of diligent work to put
a face to this enemy. All the years of my adult life, I carried
with me my history, intact and alive, while my geography was
severed from my physical existence, but remained ensconced in
my psyche. I longed for the day of return, when my history and
geography are united again. You see, I am Palestinian, a typical
refugee. Only with the Right of Return exercised, only with
my history and geography united again, then, only then, I, my
children and grandchildren, can shed the title of 'refugee'.
Not a day before.
* * *
To the Palestinians, the Right of Return
is sacred, legal and possible. It is sacred because it is embedded
in their psyche. Although they have been dispersed, their family
structure is strong. They still marry, across geographical divides,
from the same family had they not been expelled. According to
UNRWA records, fully 72% of villages moved to only one area of
the five UNRWA fields of operation, 20% to two areas and only
8% to three.
It is legal because it is enshrined in
international law and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
It is protected by the sanctity of private ownership which cannot
be extinguished by occupation, sovereignty or passage of time.
No amount of legal sophistry will undermine this right.
Now I advance the thesis that the return
is possible. If the reverse is true, that will not of course
nullify or diminish the right of return. Land robbery does not
confer ownership rights. This thesis is aimed at those well-meaning
people who accept the validity of the Palestinian right of return,
but fear this may trigger off another Nakba, a Jewish
one this time. They do not want the horror of Nakba to
be experienced again, even by the perpetrators of the original
Nakba. Others claim that the return means the dilution
of the Jewish character of Israel, or as Begin often claimed,
the destruction of Israel. This futile effort is intended only
to legitimize material and political gains made by military conquests.
Let us examine these contentions one by one.
* * *
Can the refugees return to their homes
without causing a reverse exodus? Is there room for them?
We examined the 46 natural regions of Israel and determined for
each region the number of urban and rural Jews, the present Palestinians
in Israel and the refugees whose homes were in this region.
We then grouped them in three groups: A, B, C a la West
Bank.
Group A has an area of 1,628 sq. km and
has a population of over 3 million Jews, or about 70% of the
Jews.
This is the same area and largely in
the same location as the land which the Jews purchased or acquired
under British protection in 1948. Its area is 8% of Israel.
This is the total extent of Jewish ownership in Israel. Here
is the heaviest Jewish concentration.
Area B has a mixed population. Its area
is 6% of Israel and is just less than the land of Palestinians
who remained in Israel. A further 10% of the Jews live there.
Thus, in a nutshell, 78% of the Jews live in 14% of Israel.
That leaves Area C, which is 86% of Israel.
This is largely the land and the home of the Palestinian refugees.
Who lives there today? Apart from the remaining Palestinians,
the majority of the Jews there live in originally Palestinian,
now mixed, cities and a few new towns. The average size of a
new town in Area C is comparable to the size of a refugee camp.
If Jabaliya camp were a town in Israel, its rank in terms of
size would be in the top 8% of Israeli urban centers.
Who then controls the vast Palestinian
land in area C? Only 160,000 rural Jews exploit the land and
heritage of over 5 million refugees packed in refugee camps and
denied the right to return.
The refugees in Gaza are crammed at a
density of 4,200 persons per sq. km. If you were one of those
refugees, and you look across the barbed wire to your land in
Israel, and you see it almost empty, at 5 persons/sq. km, (almost
one thousand times less density than Gaza!) what would you feel?
Peaceful? Content? This striking contrast is the root of all
the suffering. It can only be eliminated with the return of
the refugees.
What do those rural Jews do? We are
told they cultivate the (Palestinian) land and produce wonderful
agriculture. We are not told that three quarters of the Kibbutz
are economically bankrupt and that only 26% of them produce most
of the agriculture. We are not told that the Kibbutz is ideologically
bankrupt; there is constant desertion, and very few new recruits.
Irrigation takes up about 60-80% of the water in Israel, 2/3
of it is Arab water. Agriculture in the southern district alone
uses 500 million cubic meters of water per year. This is equal
to the entire water resources of the West Bank now confiscated
by Israel. This is equal to the entire resources of upper Jordan
including lake Tiberias for which Israel is obstructing peace
with Syria. Total irrigation water, a very likely cause of war,
produces agricultural products worth only 1.8% of Israel's GDP.
Such waste, such extravagance, such disregard for the suffering
of the refugees, and such denial of their rights is exercised
by 8,600 Kibbutzniks who depend on agriculture for their livelihood.
When the refugees return to their land, they can pursue their
traditional agricultural pursuits, and no doubt this will take
up the slack in GDP. More importantly, peace will be a real
possibility.
Let us consider two scenarios, which
if applied are likely to diffuse much of the tension in the Middle
East. Let us imagine that the registered refugees in Lebanon
(362,000) are allowed to return to their homes in Galilee. Even
today, Galilee is still largely Arab. Palestinians there outnumber
the Jews one and a half times. If the Lebanon refugees return,
the Jewish concentration in Area A will hardly feel the difference,
and the Jews will remain a majority in all areas, even when they
are least in number, like area C.
Furthermore, if the 760,000 registered
refugees in Gaza are allowed to return to their homes in the
south, now largely empty, they can return to their same original
villages, while the percentage of the Jewish majority in the
centre (area A) will drop by only 6%. The number of these rural
Jews who may be affected by the return of Gaza refugees to their
homes in the south does not exceed 78,000 or the size of a single
refugee camp. This is a glaring example of the miscarriage of
justice
Another striking fact is that the number
of Russian immigrants, claiming to be Jews, is almost the same
as that of Lebanon and Gaza refugees combined. Those refugees
are denied the right to return home while the Russian immigrants
are taking their place, their homes and their land.
So much for the claim of the physical
"impossibility" of the return. The vacancy of Palestinian
land is so problematic to Israel that it is trying to find people
to live on this land. None other than Sharon and Eitan started
a scheme in 1997 to sell the refugees' land to builders to build
apartments so that an American or Australian Jew can buy an apartment
without being an Israeli. Kibbutz farmers who rented this land
from the Custodian of Absentee (i.e. refugee) Property received
a "compensation" up to 25% of its sale value. This
illegal activity, selling a land in custody, prompted the UN
to issue resolutions affirming the entitlement of the refugees
to receive any income of their property for the last 50 years
and calling on all states to present all documents and information
they may have on the refugees' property.
Now it is often said that Israelis oppose
the return of the refugees for fear that this will change the
Jewish character of the state. What do they mean by the phrase
"Jewish character"? Do they mean legal, social, demographic
or religious character? Let us examine these one by one.
First, what is the legal meaning of the
Jewish character? In the words of a noted Jurist, (Mallison):
"The Jewish character is really a euphemism for the Zionist
discriminatory statutes of the State of Israel which violate
the human rights provisions The UN is under no more of legal
obligation to maintain Zionism in Israel than it is to maintain
apartheid in the Republic of South Africa." In March 2000,
the reports of UN Treaty-Based Committees, such as Human Rights
Committee, Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination,
Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and Committee
against Torture, have all condemned Israeli practices and characterized,
for the first time so clearly, the exclusive structure of the
Israeli law as the root cause of all those violations of international
law. How, then, can the international community accept the premise
of a "Jewish character" as a basis for the denial of
the right to return home?
If they mean a social Jewish character,
this idea is clearly a misnomer. There is not much in common
between a Brooklyn Jew and an Ethiopian Jew, or between a Russian
claiming to be a Jew and a Moroccan Jew. The gulf between the
Ashkenazi and the Haredim can never be bridged. The Sephardim
(Mizrahim) are allocated the lower rings of the social ladder.
Jerusalem and Tel Aviv are being polarised on sectarian lines.
Israel has long given up on the idea of a melting pot.
There are 32 languages spoken in Israel.
Prof. Etzioni Halevi of Bar Ilan University and a specialist
on the Jewish national identity says, "we are not a single
people, language is different, attire is different, behaviour
and attitude are different, even the sense of identity is different."
How can then the Palestinians, the inhabitants of 530 depopulated
towns and villages be the odd element in this mosaic?
If they mean by the Jewish character
the numerical superiority of Jews, they have to think again.
The Palestinians who remained in their homes now represent 26%
of all Jews. How could Israel ignore their presence? Will Israel
plan another massive ethnic cleansing operation? Very unlikely.
They are there to stay and increase. In the year 2010, Palestinians
in Israel will be 35% of Jews and they will be equal to the number
of Jews in 2050 or much earlier when immigration dries up. So
what is the value of chasing an elusive target while innocent
people wait in the refugee camps?
If they mean the religious Jewish character,
who says this is in danger? For one thousand years, the Jews
did not find a haven anywhere for their religious practice better
than the Arab world.
One must conclude therefore that the
cliché "Jewish character" is only meant to justify
keeping the land and expelling its people.
In practical terms, it is entirely feasible
to plan the return in such a way and in such phases that the
Je-wish residents will not feel any effect, except the pleasant
feeling that a true peace is a reality at last
But the Israelis must come to terms with
al Nakba, the Palestinian holocaust, and its consequences.
They must shed their collective amnesia about the Palestinians,
the notion that they landed in an empty country, conquered 530
empty towns and villages, cultivated a land where oranges, olives
and wheat grew by divine intervention, and found urban and rural
landscape carved by genies. They must learn to live with the
Palestinians, not instead of them. They must believe that: no
return means no peace.
Unquote
5. Michael Lerner wrote:
I am unclear whose article this is. Can
you send me a one line biography with the article? I'm not sure
whether or not to publish it. It is very harsh, and doesn't
recognize that Jews came to Israel as refugees and that when
they were homeless and there was enough land to share the Palestinian
people tried to keep them out and would not share the land. Without
that recognition, the article seems to strengthen the hands of
the Israeli right-wing, because it seems so unwilling to acknowledge
anything legitimate in Jewish claims. Of course, that may be
an accurate description of how many Palestinians perceive the
situation, but it doesn't really help move things toward resolution.
So, I'm not sure what to do. But in any event, please put a
name and a one sentence description of who the person is who
wrote it.
6. Abu Sitta wrote:
To: Rabbi Michael Lerner
From: Dr. Salman Abu-Sitta
-- Short Bio.
Normally my letters are addressed and signed. But I followed
your example of responding to the contents only. Hence, a possible
confusion. My short biography:
Long-time researcher on Palestinian refugees
(over 50 papers and other publications). Former Member of Palestine
National Council (for 20 years). President, Palestine Land Society.
--It is "harsh".
I am not clear what you mean by this description. If you mean
the description I gave to the treatment meted out to the Palestinians,
this is a correct description. Every word in my piece (p. 1)
can be corroborated by dozens of refugees. If you refer to my
research about demography, Jewish character etc., I have not
heard any one yet challenging the facts, although this study
was read at the Israeli Anthropological Annual Conference in
Jerusalem in May 2000 and published by Ha'aretz on 23 July 2000
(Hebrew edition only).
--Jews are refugees too. Palestinians
refused to share the land.
This is your long-held view (Tikkun, p. 46, Vol. 4, No. 5).
You add that "the collision of two nationalisms led directly
to the creation of the Arab refugee problem". The overwhelming
evidence of thousands of testimonies of refugees, now supported
by evidence in the declassified Israeli, British and American
files, give a different and more graphic picture. It clearly
shows a pattern of a determined, well-planned and sustained campaign
(till today) of ethnic cleansing against the Palestinians. Zionists
wanted Palestine Arabrein. If Zionists wanted to 'share' land,
the Palestinians would have welcomed them as they did German
Templars, Circassians, Bosnians, Armenians and others. In fact
that is what they did until the infamous Balfour declaration.
--To publish or not.
I cannot argue with an editor, can I?
If you would not, others would. But I thought the idea was
to inform US Jews particularly. My guess is that they have a
distorted idea of the Palestinians. They would do themselves
a favour (at least in the long run) to learn more facts about
the Palestinians before events rush them and then they complain
about the "irrational" Middle East. Just before I
read your email, I listened over the phone to a conference, held
in Gaza, attended by PA ministers, political leaders of all types
and by over a thousand refugees. They together recited the Oath
of Return, they will not relinquish the Right of Return nor recognize
any agreement which does.
--To strengthen the Right Wing Israelis.
Who are they? The war criminal Sharon?
The fanatic settlers from Brooklyn? The "Kill the Arabs"
terrorists? Those who want to blow up Al Aqsa Mosque and incur
the wrath of over one billion Muslims? Those who committed the
massacres of Deir Yassin Tantoura and 33 others in 1948 alone?
The place to deal with those is the Truth and Conciliation Commission
or the International Criminal Court. The right wing Israelis
aim to complete the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians, by continued
exile, or by resettlement anywhere in the world except their
homes. The Palestinians are determined to defend themselves
against this Nakba. History tells us that determined
defenders win.
In conclusion, if you find any merit
in informing your readers of the general Palestinian position,
I am prepared to reduce the length closer to your limit of 1600
words. I understand your concerns but I hope they can be met
without sacrificing the truth.
7. Michael Lerner wrote:
Dear Salman Abu Sitta:
I have trouble understanding the underlying
strategic vision of people who hold your position. My view is
that the Palestinian people should build a movement fully committed
to non-violence, and with realizable goals (a Palestinian state
on almost all the West Bank and Gaza, with dismantling of the
settlements and no Israeli military presence). That is realizable,
and should include massive aid to resettle Palestinians in the
West Bank, so that millions could return to that Palestinian
state. In that context, I believe that the world and a significant
section of the Israeli public and world Jewry could become your
active allies. I have watched other oppressive states like England
in India, South Africa, and the American southern racist states
melt under the moral pressure mobilized by that kind of nonviolent
movement led by people like Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr.
I cannot see how anyone can imagine that
the Palestinian people will ever win anything unless they adopt
this kind of movement that creates a moral split in the Jewish
people between those who care for human rights and those who
do not. So, taking the stance that rejects both non-violence
and achievable goals of the sort I mentioned, and clinging to
violent struggle plus maximalist demands (right of return) is
simply a choice to perpetuate the Occupation. Now, I can't see
how that is in the best interests of the Palestinian people,
so I don't understand the choice. Is it the belief on the part
of some significant section of the Palestinians who took the
oath you mentioned that they can militarily defeat Israel? If
so, how? If not, then aren't you choosing to perpetuate decades
of Occupation? I really don't understand-and hope you would
take a minute to explain the strategic vision underlying this
approach.
As to the article, I've missed the March
deadline, so now I'd like to turn to the next issue of the magazine.
I think what I would like to do is this: create a roundtable
discussion (on the telephone) with some Palestinians and some
peace-oriented Jews to have this discussion. There would be maybe
6 people, and we would tape the discussion. . Would you be willing
to be part of such a discussion which would then be edited and
used in the magazine? And is there someone else you highly
recommend to be part of it?
I want your perspective to be heard.
But knowing how many Jews in America today see me as a crazy
self-hating Jew who is really a Palestinian apologist, and then
recognizing that even I can't understand the perspective that
insists on return to Israel except by people who have given up
on anything real and so must retain fantasies of destroying the
Jewish state altogether, I can only imagine how others who think
I am extreme would react. Still, my goal is to present an honest
and accurate picture, and that's why I think a roundtable might
work. What do you think?
Warm regards,
Rabbi Michael Lerner
8. Abu Sitta wrote:
Rabbi Lerner,
This is turning into some sort of debate.
I hope it will help.
You have trouble in understanding my/our
strategic vision. You advise that our strategy to recover our
rights should have two qualities: (a) non-violent (b) realizable.
I think you better direct this advise to the Zionist movement.
This is why.
(a) Non-violence
The first military militia was organized
by Trempledor in the twenties, followed by the Haganah, Irgun
and Stern gangs. Just before the end of the British Mandate,
Ben Gurion went through his fourth version (Plan Dalet) of the
plan for the destruction of Palestine; yes, it said plainly:
destruct, expel, occupy, clear ...etc. You must know, by now,
that before the British departure, Ben Gurion amassed 65,000
trained soldiers, many of them were veterans of World War II,
to conquer about 650 Palestinian towns and villages, which were
defended by dozens of poorly-armed peasants in each village,
totalling no more than 2,500. You must know that, with this
force, Ben Gurion managed to expel half of the refugees before
an Arab soldier set foot on Palestine soil. You must know that
half of the 17 reported massacres took place before the British
departure and Israel's creation. Arab forces tried to rescue
the remainder of Palestine, but they obviously failed. Ultimately
Ben Gurion expelled the inhabitants of 530 towns and villages
and confiscated their land and property. So, who is to be advised
to be non-violent? Who today possesses the most lethal weapons
of mass destruction? Who is responsible for the longest trail
of blood, the largest volume of destruction and the highest record
of world condemnation?
Does it surprise you to know that the
Zionists/Israelis have not ever experienced the ravages of war
domestically? never had whole villages destroyed as in Palestine,
never had whole town quarters destroyed as in Beirut and Suez,
never had water and electricity cut or railway lines ripped off
as in many parts of Palestine, never had hundreds of victims
lying dead as in Sabra, Shatila or Cana, or children heads smashed
by hammers as in Dawayima, pregnant women stomachs ripped open
as in Deir Yassin, or old men and women burnt alive as in Lajjun.
Yes, there were feeble attempts at dropping
stray bombs on Tel Aviv (by Egypt in 1948 and Saddam in 1991).
Yes, there is fear gripping the Israelis. But that is a chronic
Jewish ailment. Israel's actions are like the one who commits
an actual murder on the pretext that the victim may think one
day of harming him.
No, Rabbi. You are preaching at the
wrong synagogue, so to speak. Please deliver this sermon to
those who need it.
(By the way, I did not advocate violence.
Where did you get this idea? I think that the moral power,
especially in the current surge in human rights advocacy and
high-tech communications, is the biggest support for Palestinians
today.)
(b) Realizable aims
If Herzl heard you, he will laugh. Imagine
Jews meeting in a Basle hotel room in 1897, and planning to expel
millions of people and occupy five countries. Is that realizable?
Imagine Ben Gurion pleading with Peel Commission in 1937 asking
for a Tel Aviv area to cede from Palestine, while in his mind
he wants to conquer all of Palestine, as he told Baltimore Conference
in 1942! Is this realizable? Yes he did it and more.
Now, the Palestinians' aims are more
modest. They do not want to attack any body. They simply want
to return home. This return has nothing to do with politics,
sovereignty, occupation or even apartheid. They lived in their
homes under Memlukes, Ottomans, British and some under Israelis.
You see they do not have 'aims'; they have rights. Because
these rights are Inalienable, they represent the bottom red line
beyond which no concession is possible. Because doing so will
destroy their life. That they will not permit.
You say: can they militarily defeat Israel?
I do not know. I do not think this is the main issue. Let
us remember that Israel did not win, the Arab lost. This is
not just playing with words. Tell me of one 'real' war (except
in 1973) in the last 50 years.
But if we are talking 'realism', let
us consider the following:
--In spite of many attempts at their
destruction, Palestinians did not vanish.
--They (88% of the refugees) are in and around Israel. Depth
behind them is limitless.
--If 99% admit they have no rights whatsoever, the 1% means 10,000
angry people in each of the five UNRWA area. With local support,
they can seriously influence events. So the motto: no return
= no peace is not without foundation.
--No human being will accept less than his fundamental human
rights, which include the return to one's home. You can bargain
on secondary levels of rights, political, economic or cultural,
but not something that basic.
--How do you expect the refugees to accept their fate and remain
in exile when they see a million Russians (with little or no
links to the land) living in their homes and in their land?
How could any self-respecting Israeli to live in a house or on
a land robbed from its owner? Refugees consider every Israeli,
who lives, willingly, in their homes and on their land and deny
them the right to return, to be their adversary, until he ceases
to do so.
So, the Israelis should be advised to
abandon violence and seek realizable aims. That is, they cannot
continue to destroy the Palestinians and deny their human rights.
Jabotinsky's 'iron wall' brought blood and fire but will never
bring permanent peace. Jews have no moral right to preach the
west for what was done to them in the tragic years of World War
II when they continue to inflict destruction on the Palestinians
for all the years since then. They should shed their collective
amnesia. If they want to live within the family of nations,
they should first learn to live in Palestine with (not instead
of) its people.
The Article in March issue.
I am sorry you missed the deadline for publishing my article.
I did my best to respond to your request by writing within 6
days of request. Now, I think there are two approaches:
1) Either you publish my piece and other
contributions. Then I could have the opportunity to comment
on them
or 2) you organize a small (or big
if you can) conference on the Right of Return in which Palestinians,
Israelis and neutral participants would attend. This way various
aspects of the issue will be examined in a productive manner.
Hopefully some useful conclusions may be drawn from it.
I appreciate your continuing to explore
the 'other' view.
Salman Abu Sitta
9. Michael Lerner wrote:
Perhaps we should turn it into a debate
and put it on the TIKKUN website? If so, maybe you'd like to
try your hand at editing what we've both said so far in some
kind of logical and readable order? then I'll to respond to your
latest communication.
Michael
Yesterday's
Features
Douglas Valentine
An
Act of State: the Execution of Martin Luther King
Wayne Madsen
In
Material Breach of the Constitution
Bush's War on the Soul of America
Mahir Ali
The Dupes
of War: Blessed are the Peacemakers
Gordon Solberg
We Want Our Country Back
Wayne Saunders
Inside
Bush's Brain: a Pathology of Fear and Lies
Joshua Ruebner
An
Iron Triangle:
Raytheon-Israel-Congress
John Troyer
An
80s Flashback: Of Shuttles and Air Raids
Lee Waters
Inside the Bush White House
"Armageddon is Long Overdue!"
Website of the Day
Electronic
Iraq
Keep CounterPunch Alive:
Make
a Tax-Deductible Donation Today Online!
home / subscribe
/ about us / books
/ archives / search
/ links /
CounterPunch Available Exclusively
to Subscribers:
- CounterPunch Special:
The Persecution of Gershon Legman by Susan Davis: Smut, the Post Office, Commies
and the FBI;
- Reeling Democrats: Is Pelosi the Answer?
- Gandhi v. Hitler: the Secret Race for the Nobel
Prize;
- Sullying Mario Savio's
Memory;
- Lynching Then and Now;
- Earn While You Learn: Chris Whittle and Child Labor;
The Case of the Pompous
Professor;
- The Class Struggle in
Boston: All that
Effort, But What Did They Get?
Remember, the CounterPunch website is
supported exclusively by subscribers to our newsletter. Our worldwide
web audience is soaring , with about seven million hits a month
now. This is inspiring, but the work involved also compels us
to remind you more urgently than ever to subscribe and/or make
a (tax deductible) donation if you can afford it. If you find our site useful please: Subscribe
Now!
Or Call Toll Free 1 800 840 3683
home / subscribe
/ about us
/ books
/ archives
/ search
/ links
/
|
February 8
/ 9, 2003
Bill Christison
The
US Gameplan for Iraq
Intelligence Officers for
Sanity
Memo to Bush on Iraq
Olive Lowell
Homeland Insecurity
Champaign-Urbana Shaken by New INS Rules
Michael Neumann
Nonviolence: Its Histories and
Myths
Alison Weir
A Thousand Professors
David Krieger
On the Brink of War
Muqtedar Khan
The Logic of the Hawks
Anthony Gancarski
Pakistan on the Brink?
Jason Leopold
GAO Surrenders to Cheney
Anis Shivani
A Post-Liberal Theory of Consciousness for the Starbucks Habitué
David Vest
Dive Bomber
Norman Madarasz
The New Brazilian Cinema
Poets' Basement
Handleman, Smith, Engel
Website of the Weekend
Cities for Peace
Read
Whiteout and Find Out
How the CIA's Backing of the Mujahideen Created the World's Most
Robust Heroin Market and Helped to Finance the Rise of the Taliban
and Osama bin Laden
Whiteout:
CIA, Drugs & the
Press
by Alexander
Cockburn
and Jeffrey St. Clair
|