The address on Wednesday was the second keynote address of ASIS 2012, a gathering of up to 25,000 security professionals organized by ASIS International, which was formerly known as the American Society for Industrial Security, founded in 1955.

On Wednesday, Robert Gates provided insight and analysis of threats to American interests around the world - in relation to Afghanistan, Iran, and China - and also detailed how he expanded the role of the Secretary of Defense in to domestic politics, and how, with Janet Napolitano, as Secretary of Homeland Security, he authorized the NSA to assume jurisdiction over domestic surveillance.

On Afghanistan

As someone who has dedicated his career to the covert operations of the CIA, Gates expressed continued commitment to the necessity of unofficial and nonmilitary operatives in the service of American military and intelligence. This position is evidenced by the current US strategy in Afghanistan, which Gates drafted and began implementing two and a half years ago, to train an Afghan security force of 100,000 soldiers by 2014 in addition to private security, and a Mining Protection Unit. On Wednesday, Gates said that with this program, he believes that “we finally got the strategy right” in Afghanistan.

On Iran

Gates provided insight into the possibility of a war with Iran. First, Gates described his meeting in 1979 with then-National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski, and Iranian officials in Algiers, in which, following the Iranian revolution, he and Brzezinski refused to give the Shah to the Iranians, as he was being treated in the United States.

Then Gates testified as to why the Iranians may want a nuclear weapon, saying that they “see themselves surrounded by nuclear-armed countries,” and have witnessed the way in which the US military has removed Saddam Hussein, in Iraq, and Muammar Gaddafi, in Libya, from power. By contrast, the US “has been far more cautious dealing with the North Korean regime.”

Further, Gates said the Israelis “feel themselves on a shorter timeline than the US with respect to military action” because of the “geography and history” of Israel, and the rhetoric of the Iranian regime. He stated that, “some elements of the Israeli government.. have been making noises about a potential military strike.. possibly before the US presidential election in an effort to box US President Obama in to supporting it,” naming Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Ehud Barack in particular. Yet, “the Israeli military, however formidable, does not have the capacity to destroy all of the buried nuclear facilities at such a long range,” as “the Iranians have dispersed their nuclear program to multiple sites, many of them in urban areas, many of them deep underground.” Then Gates said, “let there be no doubt - an Israeli attack would be seen in the region and in the Muslim world more broadly as being sanctioned and underwritten by the United States, with the same consequences that would attach to a direct American attack.”

If Israel and the United States do not attack Iran, Gates said, the prospect of a nuclear-armed Iran would threaten Israel and Europe, and “ignite a nuclear arms race” in the Middle East. He did not mention the nuclear weapons program of Israel.

Gates said that the current set of sanctions imposed by the United Nations are “our best chance going forward” to pressure the Iranian leadership to abandon any aspirations for a nuclear weapons program, and that “we must make it clear to the.. Israeli government that they do not have a blank check to take actions which could do grave harm to American vital interests and security in that region.”

On China

In relation to China, Gates said, “The only source of legitimacy for the governing elite [of China] is a steadily improving standard of living that requires nine to ten percent annual GDP growth, and the creation of at least twenty million new jobs every year,” and that “the credibility of the Chinese government and the quiescence of the Chinese people depends on sustaining an economic performance that is fundamentally unsustainable.”

In light of these conditions, Gates said, there is growing nationalism and xenophobia in China, and “[t]hey’re becoming more and more aggressive in pursuing China’s interests and defending exaggerated territorial claims.”

Further, “[w]e can expect more belligerence over the months to come as China looks to an immensely important generational transfer of power,” as “no aspiring leader would want to look weak when it comes to defending China’s interests.” Gates notes that China is investing trillions of dollars in foreign cash reserves in new military capabilities and technologies - “anti-ship ballistic and cruise missiles, anti-satellite weapons, electronic warfare assets” - “which could alter the balance of military power in the Pacific, which has for all practical purposes been an American lake for our navy since the end of World War II.”

On cyber security and NSA expansion

An integral part of the ASIS 2012 conference was (ISC)2 - a concurrent seminar focusing on cyber security. Noting the capabilities of computer viruses such as STUXNET and the “Love bug” to have drastic consequences, Gates stressed the importance of cyber security. He goes on, “One of the keys to any military success going forward is ensuring that information crucial to operations reaches the widest appropriate audience. I know this is one of the challenges [which] the military and industry face working together, namely how to provide the maximum possible protections and information assurance without undermining one of the traditional strengths of the American way of war - just to push data and decision-making down to the lowest possible level of authority - and to do so without a repeat of the Wikileaks fiasco.”

Then Gates described the decision for the NSA - “a military support agency” - to have jurisdiction over surveillance programs in the United States. Citing “very limited assets, capability, and experience” at the Department of Homeland Security,” Gates said that it “isn’t plausible” “to fashion a brand new, ACLU-approved homeland version of the NSA for domestic surveillance and cyber security;” thus, through a memorandum of understanding drafted by Gates and Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano in the summer of 2010, the NSA support for DHS was approved by President Obama.

As an integral part of the passage and implementation of this surveillance program, Gates noted that, as Secretary of Defense, he established a “good rapport between [himself] and first Secretary Rice and Secretary Clinton,” whereas for most of his public life and career the two positions - Secretary of Defense and Secretary of State - neither spoke with one another nor collaborated. 

Robert Gates:

‘Thank you very much, and my thanks to ASIS International for the invitation to address you this morning, bright and early. Hope everyone has had their coffee. Its a pleasure to be here in Philadelphia, though I must tell you, being just a couple of hours drive from Washington D.C. still gives me the shakes, even more than a year after leaving. Such a trip would entail - going from Philadelphia to Washington - going from the City of Brotherly Love to the only city where you can see a person walking down lover’s lane holding his own hand. Its a place I tried to retire from - to escape from - on a number of different occasions. And that was just during the Obama Administration. Like most of you, I spent most of my professional life in what broadly could be defined as the security business. It began of course with the CIA, and, I would say, in a not so particularly auspicious way. 

After joining the agency, one of my first training assignments was to practice street surveillance. I was assigned to a team attempting to secretly follow a woman CIA officer around downtown Richmond, Virginia, at eight o’clock in the morning. Now, all I can tell you is that in 1968, there weren’t very many people on the streets of Richmond, Virginia, at eight o’clock in the morning. And, when you add to that [the fact] that our team wasn’t very stealthy, eh, someone reported to the police that three disreputable looking men - that would be our CIA team - were stalking this poor woman. My two colleagues were soon picked up by the police, and the only reason I didn’t get arrested was because I lost sight of her long before the police came in to the picture. Not long after, I - and the CIA - decided that I should stick to analysis, and leave the clock and dagger to the others.

When I later became the Deputy CIA Director in the 1980s, operations came in to my portfolio. While in that position, I recall being briefed on a plan to help bring down the Gaddafi regime in Libya. The plan involved launching balloons that would drop leaflets, telling the people to overthrow their government. And after getting briefed on this scheme, I told the planners to be sure that the leaflets specifically said it was Gaddafi who should be overthrown. I could imagine strong westerly winds carrying the balloons right across Libya in to Egypt. And I didn’t think President Mubarak would be too thrilled.

Just a few years later, the Cold War was over, and we entered a period of transition and optimism. Flush with victory in the Cold War and the first Gulf War, the United States stood supreme, militarily, to be sure, but also in terms of our economic power, credibility, and influence around the world - those elements that would later be called “soft power.” There was even the naive hope, on the part of some, that the apparent triumph of democratic values and free market economics portended the end of history, in all its chaotic and tragic dimensions. 

Twenty years later, the world’s security, the world’s situation belies that naive idealism. Today, even as this country’s political class and citizenry are understandably focused inwardly on our own economic problems and political paralysis in dealing with it, the rest of the world continues to march on, becoming only more turbulent, more complex, and in some instances more dangerous. So I’d like to share my perspective on some of the main security challenges the US faces around the globe, including areas that are of interest to this conference, such as homeland and cyber security. 

It will soon be clear that the messy post-Cold War world does not lend itself to immutable doctrines and grand strategies, much less insightful assessments about the intentions of other nations and peoples we barely understand. In fact, I would confess to you that after a lifetime spent in the national security arena, I have become quite honest with respect to grandiose pronouncements and forecasts about the future and our ability to discern it. As the noted American historian Gordon Wood has written, “History does not teach lots of little lessons. In so far as it teaches any lessons, it teaches only one thing: that nothing ever works out quite like the managers intended.” Wood’s observation seems especially appropriate in the wake of yesterday’s eleventh anniversary of 9/11 attacks that defied expectation and imagination, and humbled the national security apparatus of our entire government in the process. 

The 9/11 attacks made tragically apparent the drift and neglect with respect to our government’s handling of intelligence, homeland security, and terrorism. One of the things I have observed over these many years is that democratic governments of all stripes seem to have great difficulty summoning the will and the resources to deal with with threats that are obvious and likely inevitable, much less threats that are more complex and over the horizon. There is, however, no inherent flaw in human nature that keeps us from preparing for potential challenges and dangers by taking far-sighted actions with long-term benefits. We do this all the time as individuals, but collectively the tendency is to postpone our drastic problems until they reach crisis points, which is what happened with respect to terrorism on 9/11. And in all of our political institutions before 9/11, there was no apparent Churchillian voice sounding the alarm forewarning. After the most serious failure of intelligence and law enforcement in American history on 9/11, our lead government agencies with those responsibilities - the FBI, Immigration and Naturalization Service, the Federal Aviation Administration, the intelligence community and all of its elements - all had a lot of tough questions to answer. 

I would argue so did American political leaders of both political parties during the 1990s. Our intelligence agencies during that period were denied any real budget increase for nearly fifteen years, and yet were later chastised for not connecting the dots, or not having enough human resources or foreign language experts to translate signal intercepts. In response to political pressure, the CIA was required to put a higher priority on foreign agents having clean human rights records than having valuable information about our enemies, yet politicians would later criticize the intelligence community for not having spies within terrorist cells, where of course nearly everyone has bloody hands. 

At the end of the Cold War, it was apparent the CIA needed many more field officers operating under deep cover independently of American embassies. After all, the kind of sources we needed to learn about -  terrorism, narco-trafficking, weapons of mass destruction - were probably not going to be found on the diplomatic cocktail and tennis circuit. The programs that I used to tutor and develop hundreds of these kinds of non-official cover officers were gutted in the mid-1990s, and in fact within three years of my leaving the CIA in 1993, the agency would have twenty-five percent fewer people, and the situation at the National Security Council, and the National Security Agency, was arguably worse. Other agencies responsible for protecting America’s homeland - the Coast Guard, Border Patrol, the military command responsible for protecting US air space - all suffered from budgetary shortfalls and cutbacks as well. This is not meant to excuse the real failures of leadership and execution that took place, but to realize that these failures must be understood in the context of those agencies being denied adequate resources to do all of the things that are expected of them. And I mention all of this because I think its important to keep our history in mind as our political system careens towards the so-called fiscal cliff later this year - a scenario that will result in deep, damaging cuts to the national defense and homeland security capabilities of our government.

The death of Osama bin Laden last year was obviously a huge step forward in the fight against al Qaeda. Especially when coupled with significant success killing other al Qaeda leaders over the last several years. While al Qaeda is on its heals, to be sure, particularly in the Afghan-Pakistani border area, it is certainly not out. The organization has metastasized beyond that border area to Iraq, North and East Africa, Nigeria, and Yemen. Further, al Qaeda has increasingly turned to alienated indigenous muslims outside of the greater Middle East to launch attacks in their home lands, especially in the United Kingdom and the United States. You’re familiar with other attempts that failed - the so-called airline shoe bomber, the underwear bomber, the Times Square bomb that literally fizzled - but the massacre at Fort Hood carried out by a disaffected Muslim American Army officer also illustrates the dangers posed by individuals who radicalize themselves on the internet, limited in their capabilities to conduct a mass 9/11-type attack, but still able to sow fear and disruption. 

Now, eleven years ago today, on September 12, 2001, no one would have predicted there would not be another terrorist attack on American soil for the next decade. At one level we’ve been lucky. A number of plots that could have caused great damage have failed. In some cases because of the blundering and amateurish attempts by the would-be terrorists, but there is also no question that our military operations in Afghanistan and our growing counter-terrorism and intelligence capabilities improved cooperation within our own government and with other governments, as well as the heightened awareness of our own citizenry, have all dramatically improved America’s ability to thwart terrorist attacks. But in considering the terrorist threat a little over a decade after 9/11, we have to be honest with ourselves. We can no more eliminate the risk from terrorism altogether than we can eliminate crime. To expect that the government will be able to stop any and all kinds of future terror attacks is completely unrealistic, especially in a large, open country with 300 million people. We can and we must and we are pursuing vigorous measures to manage and minimize this risk, as have other countries that have dealt with terrorist threats for decades. We must do so without sacrificing our dignity, our privacy, and our individual rights. 

Preventing a major terrorist attack here at home continues to require an aggressive campaign against violent extremist groups abroad, hitting them on their ten-yard line before they come to our ten-yard line. In this respect, Central Asia, Afghanistan, and Pakistan in particular continue to be a critically important region for our national security. Its a region in which our country remains very much at war, despite the evident wish of most Americans and their elected leaders for the conflict and the threat simply to go away. Though much of the news and commentary coming out of Afghanistan continues to be quite negative, I continue to believe that after nearly a decade of distraction and neglect, two and a half years ago we finally got the strategy right and dedicated the necessary resources to achieve our long term objectives there. We should remain focused on the main purpose of this campaign, which is not to stay in Afghanistan in large numbers forever or even after 2014. We’re to turn the country into a modern centralized state. Our goal is to build just enough Afghan security and governing capacity to enable the Afghans to control their own territory, contain the Taliban, and prevent al Qaeda and other extremist Muslim groups from launching attacks against the United States and our allies. And all of that with minimal direct military support from the US and others. The transition to Afghan security responsibility is already under way. Our strategic agreements should signal to the Afghans, the Taliban, and the neighborhood that the US will not repeat the mistake of the early 1990s, when we essentially abandoned the country to [unintelligible] the Soviets. Still, I am concerned that a premature [unintelligible] before the Afghan government and its security forces are ready, would lead to a Taliban takeover of Afghanistan, and likely it would [inaudible]. Taliban-ruled areas could once again become in short order sanctuary for al Qaeda as well as a staging area for a real resurgent militant groups on the offensive in Pakistan. It would be perceived as a victory for violent Islamic extremists, boosting the morale and the  ambitions of terrorist networks all around the world. 

Less than five years after the last Soviet tank crossed the Termez Bridge out of Afghanistan in 1988, and we turned our backs on that country, Islamic radicals based in that region struck the World Trade Center in New York for the first time. This mistake we must not make again. And while the world of terrorists and other violent extremists, insurgents, and IEDs is with us for the long haul, I also recognize that another world has emerged. 

“Growing numbers of countries and even non-state actors are employing the most advanced and increasing accessible technologies, to put the United States at risk in unpredictable ways. Hybrid and high-end asymmetrical capabilities are becoming available at affordable cost to smaller and mid-size powers as well as non-state groups. In August of 2008, the Russians preceded their armored invasion of Georgia with a highly sophisticated cyber attack. The militant group Hezbollah in Lebanon has some 40,000 missiles and rockets, more than most nation-states. And then there’s the vexing security challenge posed by America’s old nemesis, the Islamic Republic of Iran. In some respects, Iran is my old nemesis as well. In November 1979, just nine months after the Iranian revolution, I accompanied then-National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski to Algiers. He was representing the US at the 25th anniversary of the Algerian revolution, and I was there as his special assistant. While we were in Algiers, the Iranian delegation asked to meet with Brzezinski. I accompanied him as the note-taker. He offered the three Iranian ministers official recognition of their revolution. He told them we would sell them all of the arms we had contracted to sell [to] the Shah. He told them that we have a common enemy to your north, the Soviet Union, and there is no reason we cannot work together. The Iranians weren’t interested. They only wanted us to give them the dying Shah, then being treated in the United States. It went back and forth like this for a while. Brzezinski finally refused, standing up and saying, “For us to give you the Shah is incompatible with our national honor. That ended the meeting. Three days later came word that our embassy in Tehran had been seized, and two weeks after that, the three people we had dealt with - the prime minister, the defense minister, and the foreign minister - were all out of their jobs and/or in jail. Thus began my more than three decade long quest for the elusive Iranian moderate. I have long been convinced that Iran is determined to develop a nuclear weapons capability, a nationalist aspiration that predates the Islamic revolution. The Iranians see themselves surrounded by nuclear-armed countries. They also realize that the US easily removed Saddam Hussein, who had no nuclear weapons. Then a rag-tag rebel army with western air support was able to take down Gaddafi. By contrast, we and our allies have been far more cautious dealing with the North Korean regime, which has at least a primitive nuclear capability. The country most immediately threatened by Iran’s nuclear program is Israel. The Israelis, given their geography and history, not to mention the vicious rhetoric of the Iranian regime, understandably see the threat more urgently than the United States. Consequently, the Israeli government, primarily Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Ehud Barack, feel themselves on a shorter timeline than the US with respect to military action. Recently, some elements of the Israeli government - both hawks and doves - have been making noises about a potential military strike sooner, rather than later, possibly before the US presidential election, in an effort to box US President Obama in to supporting it. The Israeli military, however formidable, does not have the capacity to destroy all of the buried nuclear facilities at such a long range. After seeing how easily Israel destroyed Iraq’s Sirac reactor in 1981, the Iranians have dispersed their nuclear program to multiple sites, many of them in urban areas, many of them deep underground, and I’m confident there are some we have not yet identified. At best, the Israelis can delay the Iranian program by a couple of years. And let there be no doubt - an Israeli attack would be seen in the region and in the Muslim world more broadly as being sanctioned and underwritten by the United States, with the same consequences that would attach to a direct American attack. And what would those consequences be? While the US military could undoubtably do more severe damage to the Iranian nuclear program than the Israelis, and set it back several years, such an attack, mind you, would make a nuclear-armed Iran inevitable. They would just bury the program deeper, and go more covert. Further, 700 million Iranians currently unrest and unhappy with their government would rally behind the Mullahs. While the Iranians have virtually no military capability to directly attack the United States, and won’t for the foreseeable future, they do have the capacity to disrupt oil shipments through the Persian Gulf, and launch a wave of terror across the Middle East and potentially here at home as well. They could destroy vital oil facilities around the Gulf, including in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait. And its hard to over-estimate Iran’s ability to dramatically worsen the situation in Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan, and Lebanon. The results of an American or an Israeli military strike on Iran could prove catastrophic, haunting us for generations in that part of the world. But if the Iranian government does not change its policies, and there is no attack on their nuclear facilities, we will very likely face a catastrophe of a different sort: a nuclear-armed Iran, with missiles that can reach Israel and eventually Europe. An Iran that likely would ignite a nuclear arms race in the most volatile region of the world. An Iran emboldened to behave even more aggressively in Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, and all across the region. Through the good work of your other keynote speaker, Mohammed El Baradei, the world is on notice with respect to the progress of the Iranian nuclear program. The most recent set of sanctions imposed by the UN with American leadership are really starting to bite and to impact the average Iranian. And that’s our best chance going forward: to ratchet up the economic pressure and diplomatic isolation to the point where the Iranian leadership concludes that it actually hurts Iranian security to go forward with the bomb, and to pursue nuclear weapons.

Meanwhile, on the military side, the United States must retain robust air, naval, and missile defense capabilities in the Gulf region. We have to pursue partnerships with Gulf nations most vulnerable to an Iranian attack and intimidation. And we must make the Israelis understand clearly that we share their sense of alarm and urgency. But we must also make it clear to the most hawkish elements of the Israeli government that they do not have a blank check to take actions which could do grave harm to American vital interests and security in that region. After all, we’re all in this together, and this is perhaps the most difficult and challenging national security problem that I have seen since joining the government over forty-five years ago.

Iran represents the lower to middle portion of the threat spectrum, then there’s the higher end challenge: those by rising powers that are upgrading their capabilities and their militaries, developing technologies that could over time pose a challenge to the United States. They are developing asymmetric means that take advantage of new technologies and our vulnerabilities to sever lines of communication and block freedom of movement, and in so doing narrow our military options and strategic choices. Now, because I am no longer in government, I can come out and say we’re actually talking about China. I don’t need to educate this audience about the impact of China with respect to global trade, commerce, and the balance of payments. Where I think there is less understanding, mainly because of the opaqueness of the Chinese themselves, is the global security implications of China’s growing wealth and influence. As a result, there are many exaggerated claims of the Chinese military threat and imperial intentions on one side of the spectrum, while others cling to what I would regard as the naive view that financial self interest will keep the Chinese quiescent for the foreseeable future. In spite of China’s growing power and influence, their leadership continues to exhibit paranoia and hypersensitivity to the smallest international criticism or internal political challenge. China’s leaders are keenly aware that the country’s bullish macroeconomic numbers conceal major underlying weaknesses. The only source of legitimacy for the governing elite is a steadily improving standard of living that requires nine to ten percent annual GDP growth, and the creation of at least twenty million new jobs every year. Much of China’s phenomenal growth has been driven by exports, but as the Japanese, European, and American economies struggle, such a high growth level is becoming harder to sustain. In summary, the credibility of the Chinese government and the quiescence of the Chinese people depends on sustaining an economic performance that is fundamentally unsustainable. Lacking the legitimacy that comes from democratic governance and political freedom, the Chinese leaders, like many authoritarian regimes before them, are increasingly turning to nationalism, to xenophobia. They’re becoming more and more aggressive in pursuing China’s interests and defending exaggerated territorial claims vis-a-vis its neighbors. In the case of Japan, inflaming resentments left over from the second world war. This is increasing the likelihood of armed confrontation on disputed islands and at sea, conflicts that could draw in the United States given our military alliances in that part of the world. We can expect more belligerence over the months to come as China looks to an immensely important generational transfer of power this year. Given intense internal politics, no aspiring leader would want to look weak when it comes to defending China’s interests. We know China is investing a portion of its huge foreign cash reserves, now in the trillions of dollars, in new military capabilities and technologies that could alter the balance of military power in the Pacific, which has for all practical purposes been an American lake for our navy since the end of World War II. Having learned from the demise of a bankrupted Soviet Union, the Chinese are not seeking to build their own trillion-dollar version of the US military, fighter to fighter, ship to ship, tank to tank. Instead, they’re focusing defense investments on capabilities - anti-ship ballistic and cruise missiles, anti-satellite weapons, electronic warfare assets - that could effectively blind US forces and deny them ability to maneuver and strike in defense of our allies and interests. With good reason, Chinese military strategists have called this portfolio of related capabilities “assassin’s mace.”

Asymmetric tactics are also spreading beyond the traditional domains of armed conflict. The US military and economy relies on information to function, which has created new vulnerabilities. While China and Russia continue to be the source of many sophisticated cyber attacks, those wishing to cause us harm no longer need an industrial complex to martial deadly force. Advanced weapons systems like stealth fighters or carrier battle crews require tens of billions of dollars of research, development, and production - a significant technological base. In contrast, cyber capabilities have low barriers to entry. A small number of highly trained programmers using off-the-shelf equipment can develop toxic tools and deploy them to great effect. And when a teenage hacker in the Philippines can reap ten billion dollars in damage to the US economy over night by planting a virus, as happened ten years ago with the “Love bug,” imagine what a sophisticated, well-funded effort to attack the computer base of our economy could accomplish. To date, we’ve seen - primarily seen - cyber tools used to exploit information or disrupt networks. We are now beginning to see cyber tools used to cause physical effects, such as the reported havoc reaped by the STUXNET virus on Iran’s nuclear facilities. Presently, the highest levels of cyber capabilities reside in nation-states. But because US military power provides a strong deterrent, most nation-states in conducting an easily traceable and highly destructive cyber attack than they do a conventional military attack. The risk for them is too great. Terrorist groups, however, have no such hesitation. With few assets to strike back at, they are hard to deter. If a terrorist group gains a disruptive and destructive capability, we have to assume they will strike with no hesitation. So in cyber, we have a small window of opportunity to act before the most malicious actors acquire the most destructive technologies. For this reason, cyber is one of the few parts of the defense enterprise to see its budget mostly protected in future years, although all bets are off in the event of [unintelligible] administration. One of the keys to any military success going forward is ensuring that information crucial to operations reaches the widest appropriate audience. I know this is one of the challenges [which] the military and industry face working together, namely how to provide the maximum possible protections and information assurance without undermining one of the traditional strengths of the American way of war - just to push data and decision-making down to the lowest possible level of authority - and to do so without a repeat of the wikileaks fiasco. Our government, working with partners in the private sector and overseas, must continue to move aggressively to protect our military, government, and critical infrastructure networks. One effort that began on my watch as Defense Secretary was a pilot program to extend dot mill network protections to select companies in the US defense industry, frequently a target for cyber snooping and hacking attacks. 

Which brings me to one of the thorniest political and bureaucratic associated with cyber security, and that’s the question of which agency should have authority and jurisdiction over various facets of cyber defense and data collection. The administration’s position is [that] the Department of Homeland Security should have authority to regulate the cyber security of vital systems, such as power grids and transportation networks. But there remains squeamishness over the prospect of a military support agency like NSA prowling around private data networks within the continental United States. As policy-makers, we faced a situation where the Defense Department, the cyber command, NSA, and other related organizations had nearly all of the assets and the capability in cyber with limited authority outside of the war-fighting realm overseas. Correspondingly, the Homeland Security Department - assigned to lead in this area - has very limited assets, capability, and experience. To fashion a brand new, ACLU-approved homeland version of the NSA for domestic surveillance and cyber security isn’t plausible. There isn’t time, there isn’t enough money, and there isn’t enough human capital. And when Congress takes it upon itself to remedy past deficiencies by cobbling together new organizations, well, that’s how we ended up with DNI (Director of National Intelligence) and DHS in the first place. So the US government had and continues to have a real dilemma reconciling competing values and priorities when it comes to cyber security. 

And at this point, let me note parenthetically that one of the reasons Texas A&M government professors never invited me to speak to their class is because the first thing I would tell the students is that everything their professor was teaching them about how government works is wrong. Whatever the [unintelligible] or broader socio-political-economic trends, success or failure almost always boils down to personal relationships. For example, its rather difficult to execute a national security strategy successfully when the Secretaries of State and Defense aren’t speaking to one another, as was the case for most of my career and public life. That was one of the reasons I made it a priority once I became Defense Secretary to establish a good rapport between myself and First Secretary Rice and Secretary Clinton. It certainly helps when the Defense Secretary does not aspire to be the chief spokesperson for the United States’ foreign policy. Indeed, the reason we were able to make the misbegotten DNI structure work pretty well under both Bush 43 and Obama is because of frequent consultation and communication between me, the DNI, and the CIA director. We found a way to iron out the various inconsistencies and statutory shortcomings through signed agreements and secret meetings. Furthermore, our subordinates knew that it was not career-enhancing to stir up inter-agency disputes and try to get us to fight with one another. Likewise, during the Obama Administration I made it a priority to establish a solid relationship with Janet Napolitano, your keynote speaker on Monday. We both agreed it would be a lot faster and a lot cheaper to make sure NSA is supporting DHS effectively, than to expect Homeland Security to try to replicate the NSA capabilities, for all the reasons I described. As a result, and with the inter-agency apparatus mired in bureaucratic squabbles and stalemate, Janet and I got together, and by the summer of 2010 worked out a memorandum of understanding between our departments. The broad purpose was to align and enhance America’s capabilities to protect against threats to critical civilian and military computer networks. The concept was similar to that used when the military is called on for natural disasters like hurricanes or wildfires, in which case a presidential order dispatches the military forces, working under the control of FEMA. Under Napolitano’s and my proposal, and with new rules and some modest bureaucratic changes, DHS could pass NSA in real time. The goal was to ensure a rapid response to a cyber threat while balancing concerns that civil liberties might be at risk should the military take over such domestic operations. The privacy purists and organizations like the Electronic Freedom Foundation weren’t satisfied, but its hard to imagine a workable scenario in which they would be. We took the memo straight to the president, and to our pleasant surprise he signed it within three weeks despite the inevitable gnashing of teeth by past members of the White House staff and other departments of the government. Now, I wish I could stand here and proclaim that we achieved a great success. As you all know better than most, the proof is always in the implementation. And as crazy as it may sound to someone not in government, just because the president of the United States, the Secretary of Defense, and the Secretary of Homeland Security want something done, doesn’t actually mean that it will get done. At least not without sustained pressure from above, especially when the first instinct of folks in the middle and upper levels of the agencies may be to renew old turf battles or climb on old hobby horses.

My final observation in dealing with some of these security challenges is the need to maintain a sense of balance and proportion. In particular, avoiding in the virtual world some of the excesses of our government in the areas of facilities and force protection. For example, as a reaction to the bombings in the late nineties of our embass[ies] in Africa and Saudi Arabia barracks, we now have a situation where many new American diplomatic facilities abroad resemble medieval fortresses, communicating an image of fear and isolation rather than confidence and a desire to engage with the people in the host country. The point of even having an embassy in the first place is fundamentally undermined. And as we know, misconduct and overbearing tactics by some private security contractors has done real harm to relations with the local populations in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere. So I’m pleased that ASIS is working with the Defense Department and other agencies to develop quality assurance standards for the use of PSCs in the future.

When it comes to information assurance, we should avoid protocols and procedures so [unintelligible] that they incentivize circumvention or avoidance of secure networks altogether, just so people can get their work done. Hence the need to accept the fact that some breaches and lapses will inevitably occur, and to build resilience in to the system, rather than aspiring to perfection that cannot be achieved without unacceptable cost and unintended consequences. The quote attributed to Frederick the Great applies here: “He who would defend everything defends nothing.”

Let me close with a quote from Sir William Stevenson from the introduction to his book, A Man Called Intrepid. He wrote, “Perhaps a day will dawn when tyrants can no longer threaten the liberty of any people. When the function of all nations, however varied their ideologies, will be to enhance life, not to control it. If such a condition is possible, it is in a future to far distant to foresee. Until that safer, better day, the democracies will avoid disaster and possibly total destruction only by maintaining their defense.” Stevenson continued, “Safeguards to prevent abuse must be devised, revised, and rigidly applied, but as in all enterprises, the character and wisdom of those to whom it is entrusted will be decisive. In the integrity of that guardianship lies the hope of free people to endure and to prevail.” Thank you very much.

[Kabul] is a very hard city for children. It was so cold in the winter in Afghanistan. There were one hundred recorded deaths of children under five who froze to death. Twenty-six children in Kabul froze to death, and many were infants. They never knew a day of warmth, some of them, in their entire life. Eight of them were children in one particular refugee camp that I visited, a wretched, squalid place. There are four hundred new refugees every single day in Afghanistan.

'on the economic level and the political level, the situation is getting worse [since the uprising], I'm afraid. In terms of social services, for example, and the market, things haven't changed for the better. But actually, it's getting worse. But overall, I think people are much more critical of the military council and the president and people in charge in general, compared to how it was before the revolution, or at the very beginning of the uprising.'

'the problems that we are facing right now didn't just start with Hosni [Mubarak] becoming president, but [originate from] the establishment of the military dictatorship in Egypt the [1950's], so you're talking about 60 years and not just three decades.
 

'It's not about the [courage] of the Egyptian people or their will to change. You are involved in this. Your government is involved in this. Your tax money is getting sent overseas to Egypt to the Egyptian military to support all of these violations. I think this money could be... invested in a better way, whether in Egypt or the United States.'
 

The power of the Gulf sovereigns is increasing, although the sovereigns are less stable. The people have already been through the stages of al-mithaq (the pact) and al-hiwar (the dialogue). Far more is wanted. Night descends. The mukhabarat [political police] and the mutaween [religious police] are on the move. There is gunfire. There are shrieks. There is silence.

In this historic document, we Palestinian Christians declare that the military occupation of our land is a sin against God and humanity, and that any theology that legitimizes the occupation is far from Christian teachings because true Christian theology is a theology of love and solidarity with the oppressed, a call to justice and equality among peoples. 
 

Urgent Call for Action

We call upon you to exert all possible influence and pressure on the Israeli Authorities to immediately release detainee Khader Adnan, whose life is in immediate danger as he has been on a hunger strike for the past 64 days.

The arbitrary detention of Adnan commenced on 17 December 2011, when he was kidnapped from his home in the northern West Bank village of Arrabe, during a nightly raid carried out by Israeli soldiers. His two young daughters and pregnant wife were witness to this.

Adnan initiated his current hunger strike on 18 December, protesting being detained without charges or being notified of the reason for his detention. He is being detained without charge or trial under a four-month administrative detention order, which could be indefinitely renewed for the duration of six months.

For the past decades Israel has applied the procedure of administrative detention on a large scale, systematically imprisoning thousands of Palestinians, as a tool of political oppression. This is a grave violation of the fourth Geneva Convention as well as the Convention on Civil and Political Rights, and the Convention Against Torture. 

Khader Adnan has the law on his side. His life should be saved and the law should be respected. We urge you to make direct contact with the responsible Israeli officials and authorities, demanding the immediate release of Khader Adnan, in a critical attempt to save his life.

Finally, please adopt this call and spread the appeal from your respective capacity and/or organization.

It is time to act. Tomorrow might be too late.

Al Dameer Association for Human Right, Al Mezan Center for Human Rights, and the Palestinian Centre for Human Rights

Whom to contact:

Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Defence

Ehud Barak

Ministry of Defence

37 Kaplan Street, Hakirya

Tel Aviv 61909, Israel

Fax: +972 3 69 16940 / 62757

Military Judge Advocate General

Brigadier General Danny Efroni

6 David Elazar Street

Hakirya, Tel Aviv, Israel

Fax: +972 3 569 4526

Email: evimn@idf.gov.il

Commander of the IDF in the West Bank

Major-General Avi Mizrahi

GOC Central Command

Military Post 01149

Battalion 877, Israel Defense Forces, Israel

Fax: +972 2 530 5724

Minister of Justice

Yaakov Neeman

29 Tsalch Adin Street

Jerusalem 91490

Telephone:  +972 2 646-6666

Fax:  +972 2 670-6357

E-mail: pniot@justice.gov.il

From the article:

We call upon our brothers and sisters of color in the US to stand in solidarity with the Palestinian movement for self-determination. Our struggles against white supremacy and imperialism across the globe are linked. We must do the hard work of witnessing one another's struggles so that we can be effective and knowledgeable allies across those struggles. Falling prey to the Israeli government's Zionist project works against all of our interests. Let us work together to stop this occupation and the US government's long history of supporting and financing of it. As a quote from an aboriginal woman so aptly states 'If you have come to help me you are wasting your time. But if you have come because your liberation is bound with mine, than let us work together.'

Lisa and Darnell were no less eloquent on the live radio broadcast.

Also on the program, we had an exclusive interview with Taiseer Khatib, a Palestinian living in Israel who, under a law passed in January, is threatened with having his wife torn from his family. In fact, these are conditions which up to 30,000 Palestinians living in Israel who are married to Palestinians from Gaza or the West Bank face. Taiseer's wife was granted a permit to reside in Israel for the next year, but many Palestinians are not so fortunate. And then there is also the consideration for what the state of Israel will decide for Lana, Taiseer, and their two children next year.

DJ Ev Daddy and Matt are also following closely the case of Sheikh Khader Adnan, who, as of February 10, 2012, had been on a hunger strike for 55 days. For just as long, Khader has been incarcerated by the state of Israel without being charged with any crime. This is the longest individual hunger strike in history, and is just twelve days short of the hunger strike of Bobby Sands and a hundred others of the Irish Republic Army.

Sheikh Khader Adnan is now reported to being throwing up blood. He remains shackled to a hospital bed as he has lost 35 kg and has refused to see doctors.

From Palestine News Network:

After the 42nd day of a hunger strike, it is expected that individuals will begin to lose their hearing and vision, and suffer bleeding of the gums, intestines, and esophagus. The body will eventually stop functioning. After the 45th day, there is a high risk of death due to vascular system collapse and/or cardian arrest.

Please, for the sake of humanity, take action to free Khader Adnan.

On February 2, 2012, Harvard Professor Alan Dershowitz addressed a crowd of over 900 at an event sponsored by the Jewish Federation of Greater Philadelphia and Hillel of Greater Philadelphia.

As one of the presenting speakers, David Cohen, the Chairman of the Board of Trustees of the University of Pennsylvania, read a letter from University of Pennsylvania President Amy Gutmann in response to the Penn BDS Conference:

Dear friends,

While a long-standing commitment in California keeps me from being with you in person this evening, I want you to knw that I am very much with you in spirit and I extend my most sincere thanks for your participation in this evening's program. I cannot begin to convey how pleased I am that Penn Hillel, the Jewish Federation of Greater Philadelphia, and numerous other co-sponsors have stepped forward in the midst of a challenging few weeks on campus to add important voices to the conversations that are occurring about Israel. A commitment to open expression is fundamental to a great university like Penn. Occasionally, that commitment gets tested, and that will cetainly be the case this weekend. We recognize the right of any student or student group to freely express their opinions.

Unfortunately, sometimes it may seem that those words carry this university's endorsement. With regard to the BDS conference this weekend, that could not be further from the truth. It is important that you all knwo that we have been unambiguous in repudiating the positions that are espoused by those that are sponsoring that conference. They run counter to our principles, our ideals, and, importantly, our actions. I am very proud of the active collaborations that Penn has with Israel and hope that we will see those grow in the years ahead. Penn is blessed to have one of the largest and most active Hillel chapters in the country and we are unwavering in our support of the Jewish state. Let me say in the clearest possible words: we do not support the goals or the message of BDS.

To Alan and Sherrie and all the members of the Federation Board, I offer my heartfelt thanks for stepping forward to co-sponsor this wonderful gathering and realizing the importance of a thoughtful, educational response to this weekend's events. I believe that truth and reason will win the day. To Rabbi Uram and my dear friends at Penn Hillel, thank you for your role in creating and facilitating tonight's program and for serving as a powerful beacon for Jewish life at Penn since 1944. I also want to extend my thanks to Alan Dershowitz for coming to speak this evening. I have long admired Alan's intellect and passion, and know his words will inspire you all. Your presence here tonight makes a very important statement. Thanks for doing it the right way. Thanks for supporting the cause of Israel, and thanks for supporting Penn.

Shalom,

Amy Gutmann

Now I must wonder, does President Gutmann disagree with all three goals of BDS? Or which of the three?

The three goals of BDS are:

1. The end of the military occupation of lands taken in June, 1967, and dismantling the wall.

2. Full equality for all Arab-Palestinian citizens of Israel.

3. Respecting, protecting, and promoting the rights of all Palestinian refugees to return to their homes and properties as stipulated in UN Resolution 194.

After getting that insight from President Gutmann, Professor Dershowitz's speech provided a great deal of political and social commentary and insight into the relationship between Israel and the United States.

Professor Dershowitz, when asked what he might say to Prime Minister Netanyahu, hypothetically, if asked for advice on Iran, responded:

"...these are not hypothetical questions. Prime Minister Netanyahu does call me late at night. A couple of weeks ago I had the privilege of having, in one day, a call for Prime Minister Netanyahu and a call from President Obama. Both relating to Iran."

Dershowitz then went on to justify any future Israeli military attack on Iran by saying "Iran has [already] declared war against Israel."

But what sort of advice is Professor Dershowitz giving to the leaders of Israel and the United States?

"...prepare for [a war with Iran] not only militaryily, but prepare for it in the court of public opinion... Israel has tended to win some wars when it came to the military operation but lose them in the court of public opinion."

So in what way may Netanyahu and Obama influence public opinion, if not through policy changes? One way may be through the control of main stream media.

Is Dershowitz suggesting that the administrations manipulate the media and sway the court of public opinion in favor of a military campaign against Iran?

A couple of weeks ago the New York Times published a series of articles written by Israelis which promoted a military strike against Iran. It is just my own speculation, but perhaps these articles relate to the advice that Dershowitz has for Netanyahu and Obama.

At the very end of Dershowitz's speech, one student asked:

So, as you said, Israel supports gay rights. They have also contributed so much to the technological community. But at the same time, if an Arab student comes up to me and says, "You took my land", and I respond back, "Yeah, but we support gay rights". How does that add up?

Dershowitz first responded by denying that the Nakba - the removal of hundreds of thousands of Palestinians from their homes and their lands in 1948 - ever happened

...Israel's birth certificate is cleaner than almost any modern country in the world. Israel was established by law. It was established legally. It was established economically. Its the last country in the world that you can complain about its birth certificate.

Then he went on to berate the editorial staff of the New York Times for publishing an article in November by Sarah Schulman entitled Israel and 'Pinkwashing'.

...the answer is not, "Yes we stole your land, but we're good to gays". That was the article that was in the New York Times a few weeks ago. One of the stupidest articles ever run in the New York Times by this idiot professor that says that the only reason that Israel treats gays well is so that they can treat Palestinians badly. How the Times would allow that piece of drech to slip through the editorial pages is just remarkable to me. I've never seen a lower standard of editorial judgement than that article.

Which is ironic, because, as was related in Mondoweiss, Professor Schulman wrote a 900-word piece with 300 pages of documentation for the New York Times.

The number one take-away from the appearance of Dershowitz at the University of Pennsylvania was the promotion of propaganda in favor of Israel. Dershowitz, in his speech addressed to the Philadelphia Jewish community, implored the audience to advocate for Israel:

you can't sit idly by. You cannot sit idly by. You must do something.

...the basic responsibility is yours. Learn how to respond to the claims of the BDS folks. They're not unintelligent. They make arguments that are persuasive to some. Your obligation is to beat back their arguments with better arguments.

Not once did Dershowitz recommend that students educate themselves about Israel and Palestine. Instead, he recommended that students "learn the case for Israel" and manufacture their own arguments irrespective of reality.

If you're critical of the way that Israel makes its case, do a better job. I don't check my arguments with anybody in Israel. I try to come up with the best arguments that I believe in strongly that are consistent with my liberal values.

In his concluding remarks, Dershowitz reached the same conclusion that Ali Abunimah reached in his keynote address to the Penn BDS conference: the Zionist colonial project in the Middle East is approaching a conclusion.

Dershowitz prescribed student involvement as the only means to saving Israel:

You have to learn how to use social media. You have to learn how to use the internet more effectively. You have to learn how to use Youtube. You have to learn how to use personal contacts. You are the future. And if not for your advocacy, this enterprise will fail. 

On January 25, 2012, tens of thousands of Egyptians flooded the streets of Egypt. Were they commemorating the revolution of 2011, or were they continuing to pressure Mohammed Hussein Tantawi and the military generals of the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces (SCAF) to hand over all of the powers of the Egyptian government to the citizens of the country?

DJ Ev Daddy and Matt Graber discussed the latest on the Egyptian revolution, and urged the people of Egypt to continue to pressure SCAF. Plus, we called out former president Jimmy Carter for his support of the generals in a January 12 New York Time's article. From the article:

"'Full civilian control' is a little excessive, I think," Mr. Carter said, after describing a meeting he had Tuesday with Field Marshal Mohamed Hussein Tantawi, leader of the ruling Supreme Council of the Armed Forces, or SCAF. "I don't think the SCAF is going to turn over full responsibility to the civilian government. There are going to be some privileges of the military that would probably be protected."

Carter also lamented his role in the Camp David Accords:

But he also acknowledged that in retrospect the Egyptian revolution had cast a new light on the alliance he helped forge with Egypt's military-backed strongmen, first President Anwar el-Sadat and then his successor, Mr. Mubarak. Many Egyptians, he said, now complain that for three decades the United States supported a dictatorship at odds with its values to preserve peace with Israel.

"I think that is true, we were," [Carter] said. "And I can't say I wasn't doing that as well."

But  what has been the cost for Palestinians for the preservation of a dictatorship in Egypt complicit with Israel?

The show also featured news on the demolition of the Palestinian town of Anata last Sunday, January 22, 2012, from the Israeli Coalition Against Home Demolitions (ICAHD) and Mondoweiss.

From Jeff Halper of ICAHD on Facebook:

Its 11 at night here on a cold, rainy night in Palestine. I just got a phone call from Salim Shawamreh, a Palestinian comrade, that Israeli army bulldozers have arrived at his home and have begun demolishing it and the home of his neighbor as well. Salim's home, which has been demolished already four times because the Israeli authorities refuse to grant Palestinian building permits, is one of 26,000 homes that Israel has demolished in the Occupied Territories since 1967. I'm rushing out there, but it will probably be destroyed before I get there. There isn't much to do -- you feel so powerless in these circumstances -- but at least you now know. I'll stay in touch with you. The American-European supported Occupation goes on...

Davis offered her own wisdom and reflections for the Occupy movement. I recommend listening to the entire podcast, but here is an excerpt:

I was talking about the problem of language. How can we demonstrate awareness of the word - the term, 'Occupy', 'Occupation' - the damage that word has done historically.

Of course, Occupy Wall Street, Occupy Philadelphia, Occupy Oakland, there are all of these movements saying 'No!' to the colonial occupations of the Americas. And must say no, and express solidarity with native people who are still experiencing the consequences of that genocidal occupation. 

I recently returned from Palestine. Palestine is occupied territory. And settlers have further occupied occupied territory, and they are protected by young kids in the military carrying huge rifles strapped across their chests. And so the point that I am making is that the Occupy Movement can and must redefine the meaning of the very term they chose to designate themselves - by creating solidarity not only among themselves, but with communities suffering under the violence of military occupation.

The Local Community Radio Act is a radical departure from the status quo of media ownership in the United States. The bill prioritizes non-commercial radio programming, allowing for communities to broadcast local news, highlight independent music and arts, and provide diverse programming not heard on commercial radio. This comes as the media landscape is dominated by just a handful of corporations. Check out some existing community radio station profiles.

Community radio is a bridge to internet streaming, social networking, and media-making that connects new and old technologies to amplify voices of social justice. It's a powerful leadership development and organizing tool that has helped groups like the Coalition of Immokalee Workers win major victories for human rights.

When was the last time you heard 'Palestine' on the radio?

Since last October, Evan Hoffman and I have been broadcasting Radio Against Apartheid on West Philadelphia's community radio station, WPEB 88.1 FM. The broadcast reaches thousands of households in the West Philadelphia and Yeadon neighborhoods, and we're providing them with news and stories not heard elsewhere in the media. We have built our local coalition by collaborating with local organizations committed to social justice such as Scribe Video, and the other broadcasters and volunteers at WPEB 88.1 FM. We have had the pleasure of collaborating with artists, journalists, and activists seeking justice to create new media for the air. Just as an example, last week we featured author Ben Ehrenreich, who elaborated on the privileges the state of Israel grants his family for our audience:

"It is completely astounding to me that my father, who is Jewish but completely secular - probably hasn't been to synagogue in thirty years and who has never been to the state of Israel - but if he were to get onto a flight to Tel Aviv, he could declare upon arrival that he wanted to make Aliyah, and would quite quickly be ushered through the bureaucratic procedure and granted full Israeli citizenship. Just by virtue of his cultural heritage. And would thereby be given far more rights than the hundreds of thousands of Palestinians who have ancestries dating back for generations there - voting rights, rights in terms of being able to travel freely, to work, etc. Full citizenship rights that even Palestinians with Israeli citizenship don't enjoy."

Ehrenreich is one of the many courageous voices who have joined us on Radio Against Apartheid. In just those few months, we have brought on the air best-selling author Susan Abulhawa, Karina Goulordava of the Great Book Project, Taher Herzallah of the Irvine 11, Bareeq Barqawi of Playgrounds for Palestine, hip hop artist Omar Offendum, blogger Richard Silverstein, and many others. Radio production allows the possibility to combine media and create a piece of work to engage the public. We were both amateurs when we began, but we are learning quickly.

A Small Window of Opportunity

As early as August, the FCC will be accepting applications for community radio station licenses. The window to submit applications may be as short as one week. Building a radio station from scratch is no small endeavor, but the rewards are absolutely worth it. This is an opportunity to build your coalition and collaborate with like-minded social justice organizations in a collective effort to seize the airwaves. In areas where several groups apply for a single station the process may be very competitive. Therefore it is crucial to prepare the application and build a coalition well in advance. This is a historic chance to build long-term national communications infrastructure that's owned and operated by our movement.

Prometheus Radio Project and their allies, who were pivotal in advocating for the passage of the Local Community Radio Act, are committed to supporting social justice and community organizations throughout the application process. For those individuals and organizations who may be interested in taking advantage of this one-time opportunity, the Prometheus website has a trove of materials on the procedures and requirements.

Prometheus Radio will also be joining us at the University of Pennsylvania for the Penn BDS conference. They will be facilitating a workshop on Sunday, February 5 from 12 to 1:15, where they will come ready to answer any questions and provide guidance for any interested parties.

As blogs such as Mondoweiss, +972 Magazine, and the Electronic Intifada have spurred awareness and debate on Israel and Palestine, we envision radio expansion as the next step in building a broad coalition in the United States spanning many major cities. The possibilities for radio collaboration and coordination could be decisive in ending American support for criminal Israeli policies.

If you want to learn more about starting a station, please visit the Prometheus website, attend the workshop at the Penn BDS conference, or e-mail Jeff Rousset at JRousset@Prometheusradio.org.

Taher Herzallah of the Irvine 11 joined us on this week's Radio Against Apartheid. Taher spoke to us about the Irvine 11. He broke down their motivations for the protest, and spoke about what has happened since he was arrested.

For more information on the Irvine 11, you can go to their website. You can also find them on Twitter and Facebook. 

DJ Ev Daddy reported on Wednesday's attack on Gaza by Israeli forces, which killed Mohammad Abu Awda, aged 23, and Ahmad Za'aneen, 17. That report was from Common Dreams.

We spoke about the report, "False Flag", published by Mark Perry in Foreign Policy Magazine. The report revealed that "A series of CIA memos describes how Israeli Mossad agents posed as American spies to recruit members of the terrorist organization Jundallah to fight their covert war against Iran."

Perry concludes the article by quoting an American intelligence officer as saying:

"This is stupid and dangerous. Israel is supposed to be working with us, not against us. If they want to shed blood, it would help if it was their blood and not ours. You know, they're supposed to be a strategic asset. Well, guess what? There are a lot of people now, important people, who just don't think that's true."

In the week following the report, there have already been schisms between Washington and Tel Aviv. Ha'aretz, a liberal Israeli daily, wrote a story on Tuesday that "Israel and America postpone massive defense drill in fear of escalation with Iran."

Also on the show, some fine tunes by Ziggy Marley, M.I.A., and Stevie Wonder.

Happy MLK Week everybody!

I hold this speech out of belief in peace, justice, freedom, the right to live in dignity, and out of respect for free thought in the absence of Just Laws.

Every time I am called to appear before your courts, I become nervous and afraid. Eighteen years ago, my sister was killed by in a courtroom such as this, by a staff member. In my lifetime, I have been nine times imprisoned for an overall of almost 3 years, though I was never charged or convicted. During my imprisonment, I was paralyzed as a result of torture by your investigators. My wife was detained, my children were wounded, my land was stolen by settlers, and now my house is slated for demolition.

I was born at the same time as the Occupation and have been living under its inherent inhumanity, inequality, racism and lack of freedom ever since. Yet, despite all this, my belief in human values and the need for peace in this land have never been shaken. Suffering and oppression did not fill my heart with hatred for anyone, nor did they kindle feelings of revenge. To the contrary, they reinforced my belief in peace and national standing as an adequate response to the inhumanity of Occupation.

International law guarantees the right of occupied people to resist Occupation. In practicing my right, I have called for and organized peaceful popular demonstrations against the Occupation, settler attacks and the theft of more than half of the land of my village, Nabi Saleh, where the graves of my ancestors have lain since time immemorial.

I organized these peaceful demonstrations in order to defend our land and our people. I do not know if my actions violate your Occupation laws. As far as I am concerned, these laws do not apply to me and are devoid of meaning. Having been enacted by Occupation authorities, I reject them and cannot recognize their validity.

Despite claiming to be the only democracy in the Middle East you are trying me under military laws which lack any legitimacy; laws that are enacted by authorities that I have not elected and do not represent me. I am accused of organizing peaceful civil demonstrations that have no military aspects and are legal under international law.

We have the right to express our rejection of Occupation in all of its forms; to defend our freedom and dignity as a people and to seek justice and peace in our land in order to protect our children and secure their future.

The civil nature of our actions is the light that will overcome the darkness of the Occupation, bringing a dawn of freedom that will warm the cold wrists in chains, sweep despair from the soul and end decades of oppression.

These actions are what will expose the true face of the Occupation, where soldiers point their guns at a woman walking to her fields or at checkpoints; at a child who wants to drink from the sweet water of his ancestors' fabled spring; against an old man who wants to sit in the shade of an olive tree, once mother to him, now burnt by settlers.

We have exhausted all possible actions to stop attacks by settlers, who refuse to adhere to your courts' decisions, which time and again have confirmed that we are the owners of the land, ordering the removal of the fence erected by them.

Each time we tried to approach our land, implementing these decisions, we were attacked by settlers, who prevented us from reaching it as if it were their own.

Our demonstrations are in protest of injustice. We work hand in hand with Israeli and international activists who believe, like us, that had it not been for the Occupation, we could all live in peace on this land. I do not know which laws are upheld by generals who are inhibited by fear and insecurity, nor do I know their thoughts on the civil resistance of women, children and old men who carry hope and olive branches. But I know what justice and reason are. Land theft and tree-burning is unjust. Violent repression of our demonstrations and protests and your detention camps are not evidence of the illegality of our actions. It is unfair to be tryed under a law forced upon us. I know that I have rights and my actions are just.

The military prosecutor accuses me of inciting the protesters to throw stones at the soldiers. This is not true. What incites protesters to throw stones is the sound of bullets, the Occupation’s bulldozers as they destroy the land, the smell of teargas and the smoke coming from burnt houses. I did not incite anyone to throw stones, but I am not responsible for the security of your soldiers who invade my village and attack my people with all the weapons of death and the equipment of terror.

These demonstrations that I organize have had a positive influence over my beliefs; they allowed me to see people from the other side who believe in peace and share my struggle for freedom. Those freedom fighters have rid their conscious from the Occupation and put their hands in ours in peaceful demonstrations against our common enemy, the Occupation. They have become friends, sisters and brothers. We fight together for a better future for our children and theirs.

If released by the judge will I be convinced thereby that justice still prevails in your courts? Regardless of how just or unjust this ruling will be, and despite all your racist and inhumane practices and Occupation, we will continue to believe in peace, justice and human values. We will still raise our children to love; love the land and the people without discrimination of race, religion or ethnicity; embodying thus the message of the Messenger of Peace, Jesus Christ, who urged us to “love our enemy.” With love and justice, we make peace and build the future.

Via the Popular Struggle Coordination Committee

For this week's show, DJ Ev Daddy and I interviewed Ben Ehrenreich. Ben is the author of two novels, "Ether" and "The Suitors", and he has published articles in Harper's Magazine, the London Review of Books, the Los Angeles Times, Alternet, and several other publications. Our discussion focused on two of Ben's articles, "Zionism is the Problem", an op-ed in the LA Times published in 2009; and "Drip, Jordan", his latest for the December issue of Harper's Magazine.

The conversation gave listeners an introduction to Zionism. Then we expanded on the popular Israeli notion of "making the desert bloom", and broke down the contradictions between Israel's agricultural practices and the arid climate of the Middle East; contradictions which leave Palestinians deprived of adequate water supply.

Ben brought wonderful insight based on his own background as well as his reporting from the West Bank:

"It is completely astounding to me that my father, who is Jewish but completely secular - probably hasn't been to synagogue in thirty years and who has never been to the state of Israel - but if he were to get onto a flight to Tel Aviv, he could declare upon arrival that he wanted to make Aliyah, and would quite quickly be ushered through the bureaucratic procedure and granted full Israeli citizenship. Just by virtue of his cultural heritage. And would thereby be given far more rights than the hundreds of thousands of Palestinians who have ancestries dating back for generations there - voting rights, rights in terms of being able to travel freely, to work, etc. Full citizenship rights that even Palestinians with Israeli citizenship don't enjoy."

The conversation then moved on to the popular struggle in the West Bank, where weekly protests occur in many different villages against land and water confiscations and the construction of the wall. We spoke about Nabi Saleh, but this is just one example of many villages rising up and resisting the Israeli occupation. More on this in our next post here at Radio Against Apartheid.

We finished the conversation by asking Ben what gave him hope.

This episode also featured the musical stylings of The Roots, Shadia Monsour, and Mos Def. and the following news stories:

"Western Oil Firms Remain as US Exits Iraq" on Al Jazeera English.

"Iran Accuses Israel, US of Assassinating Nuclear Scientist" from Common Dreams.

"Egypt's Military Rulers Clamp Down on Civil Society" on IPS News.

Love and light to all of you. 

We had such an amazing show this week, bringing some friends into the studio - Kareema Saab, Bareeq Barqawi, Wafai Dias, Rajai Dias, and Yafa Dias! We talked about Obama unfortunately signing the National Defense Authorization Act this weekend, featuring a clip from Democracy Now! , and the repercussions that NDAA will have on Occupy Wall Street! and democracy in the US. We read an open letter from the childen of Gaza about the 3 year anniversary of Operation Cast Lead, Israel's massacre in 2008:

We will never forget the hurt of 3 years ago, the criminal onslaught that we lived through, the blood of over 1400 murdered men, women, and hundreds of children running through the streets of Gaza, between the rubble, soaking our beds and etched on our minds. We will never forget.

We also featured the report, "Drip, Jordan" by Ben Ehrenreich in the December 2011 issue of Harper's Magazine, on Israel's systematic denial of Palestinians with equitable access to water. Ehrenreich met with Bassem Tamimi, one of the lead organizers of the weekly nonviolent protests who was targetted by Israel back when Ehrenreich met with him in early 2011, and who has been imprisoned since March. The connections to the murder of Mustafa Tamimi are obvious - Israel targets Palestinians who demonstrate nonviolently against land theft, imprisoning and murdering them.

Then we talked about all of the amazing work that these five women are doing with Playgrounds for Palestine, Penn BDS, Temple Students for Justice in Palestine, the Philadelphia Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions Coalition and beyond.

Finally, we played some hot tunes, including some Palestinian dance tunes for you to rock the dabka to!

Raise the keffiyeh! 

Abbas highlights the moral necessity of BDS, and invites everybody to attend the conference on February 4th and 5th at the University of Pennsylvania. The conference's keynote speaker is Ali Abunimah of the website Electronic Intifada, and it will focus on teaching attendees more about BDS, and about building a larger network for BDS in the United States. A few examples of workshops for attendees include Professor Eve Troutt-Powell, Helena Cobban, and Bill Fletcher Jr. discussing lessons learned from the anti-apartheid movement in South Africa, Susan Abulhawa and Remi Kanazi discussing BDS and literary expression, and Max Blumenthal and Phil Weiss discussing journalism and the Palestinian struggle.

For more information and to register for the conference, check out the Penn BDS website.

This week's show also featured news coverage relevant to the Middle East and North Africa:

"Iraq War Officially Ends, Leaving Thousands Dead, Millions Displaced, Strong Contractor Presence," on Common Dreams.

"US Alone as Israel Condemned in UN Security Council," on Common Dreams.

"Egypt protests: 8 die and 300 wounded in new clashes in Tahrir Square," at the UK Daily Mail. 

"Bed Bath & Beyond flash mob: Stop Selling Illegal Israeli Settlement Products," at Mondoweiss.net.
And of course, what show would be complete without some hot tunes? If you haven't heard the tracks, we had some amazing tracks by John Legend and the Roots, N.A.S.A., and Talib Kweli.
In solidarity. 

These were just two of the questions we posed to our guest this week, Richard Silverstein.  Richard has been covering the Israeli-Palestinian conflict since 1967, and has been blogging at Tikun Olam since 2003.  His writing has been featured in Haaretz, the Jewish Forward, Los Angeles Times, the Guardian's Comment is Free, and other internationally recognized publications. 

Also on the show, Brendan Work of the Palestine News Network gives us on-the-ground reporting from Bethlehem, a track called 'Film the Police' by B. Dolan, and we have news on Newt Gingrich and Lowe's promoting racism against Muslims and Palestinians.

Finally, our heartfelt condolences go to the family of Mustafa Tamimi, who was murdered by the Israeli Defense Forces at a demonstration last Friday, December 9, in the village of Nabi Saleh.

December 10 was a horrific day for me.  Around 1030 EST, my father, 59 year-old Daniel Graber, passed away due to a massive heart attack.  He had gone out for a bike ride earlier that morning.  During the ride, he had to stop several times because of shortness of breath.  When he came home, he complained to my sister that he was having chest pains.  He got changed out of his biking clothes, and she set out to driving him to the local hospital.

They didn't make it far down the road before my father lost consciousness.  My sister pulled over.  The ambulance came and met my sister and my dad.  They tried everything in the ambulance and at the hospital.  They tried everything.  But it wasn't enough to save my father.

I got the phone call from my mom around noon.  I had to come home to Virginia from Philadelphia.

There is a seven hour difference between Virginia and Palestine, which means that it was about 1730 on Saturday in Palestine when my father passed away.

Less than 24 hours before my father passed away, 28 year-old Mustafa Tamimi passed away in the hospital in Petah Tikva.  Both deaths took our families by surprise.  Nobody saw it coming.  My dad goes for a bike ride every Saturday morning.

The demonstration in Nabi Saleh on Friday, December 9, marked two years of demonstrations against the confiscation of villagers' land.  They also marked the 24th anniversary of the first intifada.  Every week in those two years, the villagers have gone out to demonstrate and to demand an end to land confiscation by the neighboring illegal Israeli settlement of Halamish, and to demand access to their freshwater spring.  And each week, the soldiers of the Israeli Defense Forces have violently quashed the nonviolent demonstrations.

On Friday, Mustafa Tamimi was a part of the demonstration.  He was demanding that his family have access to their land, and his neighbors have access to their land.

And then a young soldier in the IDF shot him in the face with a tear gas canister, opening up a gaping wound that streamed blood.  The IDF detained two of the protesters alongside Mustafa, and prevented others from getting him treatment.  He lay on the ground while others called for a taxi.

It's been six days since last Friday.  We had memorial services for my father yesterday.  Mustafa's memorial service on Sunday was met with tear gas and more violence from the soldiers of the IDF.

It's been a terribly difficult week for me, having lost my father.  I can only imagine the pain of the Tamimi family.

And I wonder...  What's this week been like for the young soldier who opened up the rear door of the military jeep and fired the canister at Mustafa's head?

Does he feel the same way as the spokespeople of the IDF?  Does he feel justified because Mustafa was throwing stones at the vehicle or because Mustafa had a slingshot in his back pocket?

Wherever the soldier is stationed, do they give him high fives and pats on the back?  "Nice shot, dude!", "One less terrorist to deal with!"  

There were several soldiers there, and the IDF obviously knows that they are responsible for Mustafa's murder.  So how do they deal with that?  Will that same soldier be at Nabi Saleh next week?  Will they aim lower, higher, or at the head again?

Does the young soldier who was in the back of the jeep have trouble sleeping at night?  Does he still see the blood pouring out of Mustafa's face and that blood-soaked Palestinian flag waving in the air?  Does he hear the wails of Linah and the others who were there with Mustafa?

Will this act of murder weigh on his conscience until Mustafa's family has justice?

We, a group of Palestinian bloggers and activists raise our voices loud and clear in solidarity with all the prisoners of the Great Syrian Revolution. We stand with all the prisoners, activists, artists, bloggers and others, all who are shouting in the streets or on various platforms demanding freedom and justice, while decrying the huge amount of injustice and oppression practiced by the Syrian regime for more than four decades.

We issue this statement in solidarity with all those Syrian activists, and with the blogger Razan Ghazzawi who was arrested on December 4th, on the Jordanian-Syrian crossing border. Razan was adamant in her support for the Palestinian cause. She was the first to stand in solidarity with the Palestinian bloggers who were not granted a visa to enter Tunisia in order to participate in the Arab Bloggers Conference. Razan posted a blog in 2008 during the massacre on Gaza titled, “The Idea of Solidarity with Gaza.” She wrote, “I understand when Cubans, Brazilians, and Pakistanies stand in solidarity with Gaza. But what I do not understand is when Syrians, Lebanese, Jordanians, and also Palestinians in exile stand in solidarity. What is the meaning of solidarity in this context?”

Not only do we stand in solidarity with Razan and the other prisoners, but we also affirm that our destiny is one, our concerns are one, and our struggle is one. Palestine can never be free while the Arab people live under repressive and reactionary regimes. The road to a free Palestine comes with a free Syria, in which Syrians live in dignity.

Freedom to all of the prisoners in the Syrian regime’s cells. Long live the Syrian Revolution, free from dictatorship, sectarianism, and foreign intervention.

If you wish to help #FreeRazan, repost this on your own blog and spread the call.

Signatories:

Abir Kopty

Abrar Agil

Ahmed Fahoum

Ahmed Nimer

Alaa Abu Diab

Ali Abunimah

Ali AlMasri

Ali Bari

Amal Murtaja

Amani Ighbaria

Amra Amra

Anas Hamra

Asmaa AlGhoul

Bashar Lubbad

Budour Hasan

Dalia Ghorab

Dalia Othman

Deema AlSaafin

Diana Al-Zeer

Doa Ali

Fidaa Abu Assi

Hala AlSafadi

Hamza Elbuhaisi

Hanaa Mahameed

Huwaida Arraf

Ebaa Rezeq

Irene Nasser

Jalal AbuKhater

Khaled AlShihabi

Linah AlSaafin

Maath Musleh

Maha Rezeq

Majd Kayyal

Mariam Al-Barghouti

Meera AlBaba

Mira Nabulsi

Nader Al-Khuzundar

Nadine Darwish

Nalan Al Sarraj

Nihal ElAlami

Nisreen Mazzawi

Ola Anan

Osama Ghorab

Osama Shomar

Rasha Hilwi

Rowan Abu-Shahla

Saed Karzoun

Saleh Dawabsheh

Thameena Husary

Yusra Jamous

Then, Matt has an exclusive interview with Ellie Hutchison of Al Bustan Seeds of Culture. Ellie teaches poetry with Al Bustan at Northeast High School in Philadelphia. Al Bustan teaches Arab language and culture in Philadelphia as a means of increasing understanding between peoples, specifically as Arab Americans immigrate to the United States.

Al Bustan presents Palestinian-American poet Suheir Hammad accompanied by the Philadelphia Arab Music Ensemble this Friday, December 9th at 7:30 at the Trinity Center for Urban Life at 22nd and Spruce Street. This event is free and open to the public. Join the event on Facebook.

Other news from the program:

Brendan Work reporting from the Occupied West Bank with Palestine News Network.

"Death Penalty Dropped Against Mumia Abu-Jamal," Associated Press.

There will be a rally marking 30 years of incarceration this Friday, December 9, at 7:30 at the Constitution Center at 525 Arch Street. The event will feature Dr. Cornell West, Vijay Prashad, Ramona Africa, Michelle Alexander, Immortal Technique, and others. Join the event on Facebook.

"US loses drone over Iran - accident or mobile jamming?" by Annie Robbins at Mondoweiss.net.

This episode also featured news articles from the International Middle East Media Center, +972 Magazine, and Democracy Now!

"French Consul and Family Wounded in Attack on Gaza," IMEMC.org

"IDF, Police Remove Palestinian 'Freedom Riders' From Israeli Bus," 972mag.com

"Palestinian Activists Arrested Riding Jewish-Only Buses," Democracynow.org

For more information about the Great Book Robbery, check out their website at www.thegreatbookroberry.org.

You can find Joseph Dana's writing online regularly at 972mag.com. Dana is an American independent freelance journalist based in Ramallah. His work has appeared in the Nation, Le Monde Diplomatique, London Review of Books, Al Jazeera English, and The Mail & Guardian, among other international publications.

Jesse Rosenfeld is the editor of thedailynuisance.com, an English on-the-ground news and analysis site. Currently based in Jaffa he is a Canadian journalist working in Israel/Palestine since 2007. Rosenfeld's writing has been published in Alternet, Le Monde Diplomatique, The Guardian, and other international publications.

This episode also featured news items from Mondoweiss.net and Democracy Now!:

The interview and tracks with Omar Offendum were recorded at Hip Hop for Palestine at Temple University. Credit to Temple Students for Justice in Palestine.

The interview and tracks with Omar Offendum were recorded at Hip Hop for Palestine at Temple University. Credit to Temple Students for Justice in Palestine.

The interview and tracks with Omar Offendum were recorded at Hip Hop for Palestine at Temple University. Credit to Temple Students for Justice in Palestine.