The Real News Network has the final segment of the interview with Sher Hever, An Occupier’s Peace or a Just Peace – Shir Hever on Reality Asserts Itself (4/4).

HEVER: Exactly. Yeah. It cannot be a Jewish state. It’s going to be–I mean, even if there will be a separate Palestinian state according to what we call the two-state solution, then the battle will continue. The struggle for equal rights in Israel will continue, because Israel cannot be a Jewish state; it has to be a state for all its citizens, one way or another. And the way that this defeat comes, it comes very suddenly. And, of course, the model is South Africa, where one week before apartheid collapsed, 90 percent of white people in South Africa supported apartheid. One week after apartheid collapsed, they all say we were always against it. And the Israeli minister of justice, Tzipi Livni, just said a couple of weeks ago, in response to the BDS movement, she said, I went to South Africa and spoke to some Jewish people there about their experiences from this era of the fall of apartheid, and the main thing they told me is it came unexpectedly, it came suddenly. There is a moment in which you lose courage, you lose your faith that you can continue to repress other people forever. And that moment may not be as far as we believe. I’m hopeful.

JAY: I think you would–personally, you’d have to see some pretty serious revolutions in the Arab world, which is not out of the question. But if Israel was then looking at revolutionary progressive governments actually willing to do more than lip service in support of the Palestinians, that might change the equation. But right now I can’t see it. With the current Arab regimes, Israel does not have much to fear

This interview is very valuable to watch, so I don’t want my following comments to dissuade you from watching it. I make these comments only because I think that The Real News Network has the opportunity to do a much better job than it is doing with these kinds of interviews.

Once again, we have an interviewee desperately trying to answer the deeper question, but Paul Jay seems to be more interested in convincing the interviewee of Paul Jay’s point. Paul should get himself interviewed so he can make the points he wants to make. Then, when an interviewee is about to make some profound statement Paul won’t have to try to switch the topic back to what he wants said in the interview.

There were so many times when Paul could have asked follow up questions on Sher’s train of thought that might have led to some profound insights for Paul, but more importantly, for the rest of us. It is such a shame that he missed giving us those opportunities.

I hope that people at The Real News Network will review this last segment to see all the missed opportunities that I saw. If the people there cannot see the missed opportunities, they need to keep looking for someone who is able to see what I saw.

The Moyers & Company web site has the article An Iraqi Perspective: How America’s Destruction of Iraqi Society Led to Today’s Chaos.  I have Elizabeth St John to thank for posting this on her Facebook page.  Below is a short excerpt to give you the gist.  You have to read the interview to see the justification for this.

Sect wasn’t really a part of the national consciousness. I was born in Iraq and I’d never in my life been asked if I was a Sunni or a Shiite. And I didn’t know who among my relatives or neighbors or co-workers or colleagues at school were Sunnis or Shiites, because it wasn’t an issue. It’s not that people were tolerant toward each other — they weren’t aware of sectarian backgrounds. It’s similar to some areas in the US where you don’t necessarily know what Christian sect your friends belong to. You might know, or you might not know.

That was before the US intervention. The US destroyed that Iraqi national identity and replaced it with sectarian and ethnic identities after 2003. I don’t think this is something that many Iraqis argue about, because you can trace the beginning of this sectarian strife that is destroying the country, and it clearly began with the US invasion and occupation.

Wow, this is mind-boggling.  I didn’t realize how much of this sectarian strife originated from US prejudices that we foisted on the Iraqis.  Separating the country into regions for each part of Iraq society seemed to me to be an adaptation to their situation, when in fact it was an adaptation to fit our prejudices.

Here I thought I was being understanding of the situation by thinking that I could understand why the Shiites were taking such a hard stance against the Sunnis because of what the Sunni minority did under Saddam Husein.  According to the Iraqi native in the in the interview, this “understanding” is a figment of my imagination (or the propaganda I have been fed).

I was contemplating an alternative to beating and torturing unaccompanied immigrant children as a way to discourage such immigration.  I had the idea that if we could at least stop making their home countries impossible to live in with our forced trade agreements, that might go a long way.

Rather than write my own diatribe, I went looking for an article to make my point.

Counterpunch has the story How Population Growth, “Free Trade,” and Inequality Produced a Calamity on the Border.

Finally, President Obama, instead of seeking to spend $4 billion on additional border security measures, should figure out how that same money can be used to develop and bolster the economies where the migrant kids actually are born. In Central America, a few billion dollars is real money and wisely spend it could actually transform these nations in tangibly beneficial ways. Flourishing economies and reliable sources of employment would reduce local rates of crime and despair and keep families rooted and together. Rather than gawk and squawk over a border crisis, we should all be working to ensure that every child in the hemisphere has a place right at home.

Who could possibly have foreseen that enhancing US corporate profits in Latin America at the expense of the poor in those countries and in ours could possibly have any unintended consequences?  Well, of course, I suppose that it could be these consequences were not unintended.

The Miami Herald has the story Expansion of ‘secret’ facility in Iraq suggests closer U.S.-Kurd ties by Mitchell Prothero McClatchy Foreign Staff.

IRBIL, Iraq — A supposedly secret but locally well-known CIA station on the outskirts of Irbil’s airport is undergoing rapid expansion as the United States considers whether to engage in a war against Islamist militants who’ve seized control of half of Iraq in the past month
.
.
.
…said one Western logistics contractor who spoke only on the condition of anonymity because he’d signed nondisclosure agreements with the U.S. government on the matter

The story is, no doubt, worthwhile to read.  I included the last part of the excerpt for the delicious irony.  At least they did not say that this contractor who violated the nondisclosure agreement that he signed with the US government is highly trustworthy.

If you think that the feelings of the majority of Americans will have anything to do with the decision on whether or not to get into the war in alliance with the Kurds, then you are a real optimist.

The Real News Network has interview Israel, World Capital of Homeland Security Industries – Shir Hever on Reality Asserts Itself (3/4).

So, actually, Israel is now the world capital of homeland security industries. They’re selling security cameras, surveillance equipments, drones, riot gear. That is the sort of technology that governments need in order to control their citizens. And it comes not just with the actual technology; it comes also with an ideology. It comes with the ideology that, look what Israel is doing, how Israel is controlling Palestinians and every aspect of their lives, and decides who can pass and who gets a permit and so on, and uses this technology to leave Palestinians no option to resist, and why don’t we sell that to other governments around the world. For example, Brazil bought a lot of that technology in order to repress the favelas in preparation for the World Cup. We see that in India, not just in the area of Kashmir, but mainly there along the border with Pakistan, and in East Europe. And we also see that with extreme-right governments, like Berlusconi in Italy that was worried about asylum-seekers coming from Africa, and using Israeli drones and Israeli technology to try to block that, but also not just buying the technology, but also buying the legitimacy, saying Israel is a wonderful country. Berlusconi was a big pro-Israeli spokesman. And if Israel is allowed to do it, we can do it too.

How many times has it been said and how many times have you thought that the solution to our airport security problems would be to follow the Israeli example? Surely they know how to enforce security with all the practice they have had.

This interview gives you some insight into the danger of getting our “wish”. How well controlled do you want to be as a citizen in a democracy? At what point does being this controlled put an end to the idea of democracy? I am not suggesting that these are easy questions to answer.

The Institute For New Economic Thinking has published the interesting rant Without fair elections and a viable legislative process at federal and state levels, the republic no longer exists.

Congress: Oligarchy has defeated the very idea of a legislative process. The Republican Party is the blunt tool of Oligarchy in the United States, Oligarchy’s hammer, but not for the purpose of achieving Republican goals. Oligarchy’s goal is to deadlock federal lawmaking bodies into permanent dysfunction and create a power vacuum that only Oligarchy can fill. Its method has proved foolproof: Bankroll the GOP’s extremists and ignoramuses; count on them to freeze the political process. Also, count on Democrats and the media to obsess about the so-called issues and ignore the fundamental shift in the power structure that Oligarchy has, in large part, achieved. Absent a surge of public participation (not likely, but not impossible), the collapse of our national legislative process has probably reached the point of no return: the point at which our national problems can no longer be redressed through traditional politics.

The real reason why I note this item is for the Thomas Pynchon  quote near the end.

If they can get you asking the wrong questions, they don’t have to worry about the answers.

Just about every news story in the Lame Stream media is a case of getting you to ask the wrong questions.

Truth Out has the article Monsanto’s Herbicide Linked to Fatal Kidney Disease Epidemic: Could It Topple the Company?

Monsanto’s herbicide Roundup has been linked to a mysterious fatal kidney disease epidemic that has appeared in Central America, Sri Lanka and India.
.
.
.
At this point, this elegant theory advanced by Dr. Jayasumana and colleagues can only be considered hypothesis-generating. Further scientific studies will need to confirm the hypothesis that CKDu is indeed due to glyphosate-heavy metal toxicity to the kidney tubules. For the present, this may be the best explanation for the epidemic.
.
.
.
Glyphosate-resistant seeds are engineered to allow the farmer to drench his fields in the herbicide to kill off all of the weeds. The glyphosate resistant crop can then be harvested. But if the combination of glyphosate and the heavy metals found in the groundwater or the soil destroys the farmer’s kidneys in the process, the whole house of cards falls apart. This may be what is happening now.

I wouldn’t worry about this.  The connection hasn’t been proven yet, and we are talking about an unimportant organ, your kidneys.  (Although the word fatal might have grabbed your attention.) So it seems like a small risk to take to keep your weeds under control.  See that he-man in the television ads; he isn’t doubled over with pain from his kidneys, so why worry?

Warning: Sarcasm in the above paragraph, in case you didn’t notice it.

The Nation has the article What Does the Democratic Party Actually Believe? by William Greider

Only the people themselves can dig themselves out of this trap. My personal hunch is that Democratic office holders will not find the courage to embrace the future and the reform vision that some of their colleagues are advocating until their party feels threatened by its own constituencies. That is, the Dems need to experience more of the surprise rebellions that took down some old bulls in the GOP. If the people cannot get either major party to lead the way, maybe they will need to create a new party that will.

If you are part of the Democratic constituency and you aren’t threatening the party, then you may be part of the problem.  I support the Elizabeth Warren/Sherrod Brown wing as mentioned in the above article.  If the rest of them don’t come around, I am not giving them more support than they are giving me.  Unlike Elizabeth Warren, the rest of them seem willing to quit after any setback.  Those people don’t get my support either.

Don’t take your lessons on negotiation skills from Barack Obama.  Stop negotiating with yourself to figure out what is the least you can ask of your party before you even ask for what you actually want.

Thanks to Michael Horan for posting this on his Facebook page.  He has some interesting things to say about this article.

The Daily Kos has created a web page, Write and send an email to the FCC: Create real net neutrality rules, to facilitate your sending a message to the FCC.

Two months ago, because of enormous amounts of grassroots activism opposed to FCC Chairman Tim Wheeler’s proposal to allow internet “fast lanes,” the Chairman held a small meeting with open internet advocates, including Daily Kos.

In that meeting, Chairman Wheeler made it clear that personal comments from real people, telling real stories about how the end of net neutrality would impact them personally, are the comments he reads and gives the most credence to.

The deadline for comments is July 15, 2014.  If you don’t want to use the web page on The Daily Kos, you can write or email by yourself.

Open Internet Comments
Phone:1-888-225-5322
Email:openinternet@fcc.gov
Docket number: 14-28 protecting an open internet

Below is the comment that I sent.

Net neutrality is absolutely essential for the survival of this country.  I am able to read news from a wide variety of sources that only publish on the internet.  These are independent sources of the news that are not focused on promoting corporate interests.

These are the only sources that can check the power of corporations to control our laws and our economy.

If we let corporations decide who gets access and who does not on the internet just as they have managed to do in the print and broadcast media, then any chance of rescuing this nation by non-violent means may be lost.

Does the FCC realize the important balance that they hold in their hands?  You might be able to tell your children  and grandchildren that you were the last bastion, you stood for the people, and you saved the nation.