Peace and Justice Post

Information Clearing House

By Richard Sanders

How easy it is to make people believe a lie, and how hard it is to undo that work again! – Mark Twain

18/02/08 “CommonGround” — – On March 25, 2003, during the “shock and awe” bombardment of Iraq, then US Ambassador Paul Cellucci admitted that “… ironically, Canadian naval vessels, aircraft and personnel… will supply more support to this war in Iraq indirectly… than most of those 46 countries that are fully supporting our efforts there.”

Cellucci merely scratched the surface of Canada’s initial “support” for the Iraq War, but he had let the cat out of the bag. As then Secretary of State Colin Powell had explained a week earlier, “We now have a coalition of the willing… who have publicly said they could be included in such a listing…. And there are 15 other nations, who, for one reason or another, do not wish to be publicly named but will be supporting the coalition.”

Canada was, and still is, the leading member of this secret group, which we could perhaps call CW-HUSH, the “Coalition of the Willing to Help but Unwilling to be Seen Helping.” The plan worked. Most Canadians still proudly believe that their government refused to join the Iraq War. Nothing could be further from the truth. Here are some of the ways in which we joined the fray:
Escorting the US Navy: Thirteen hundred Canadian troops aboard Canada’s multibillion dollar warships escorted the US fleet through the Persian Gulf, putting them safely in place to bomb Iraq.

Continued . . .

David Morrison, The Electronic Intifada, 14 February 2008

A woman carries a sign reading “No to the presence of the occupation at the crossing” as women Hamas supporters demonstrate against the border closure at the Rafah crossing between Egypt and the Gaza Strip, 2 February 2008. (Wissam Nassar/MaanImages)

How is Israel able to strangle the Gaza Strip when there is supposed to be an international crossing between Gaza and Egypt not controlled by Israelis?

Certainly, free movement was the promise held out in the comprehensive Agreement on Movement and Access, signed more than two years ago by Israel and the Palestinian Authority (PA). The first of the six components of this agreement was that there would be a crossing between Gaza and Egypt at Rafah, controlled by the PA and Egypt. At the time, this was hailed as an historic step on the road to a Palestinian state — for the first time, it was said, Palestinians would have access to the outside world free from Israeli control.

So, how was Israel still able to impose a suffocating blockade on the Strip, home to almost 1.5 million Palestinians, eighty percent of them refugees? After Palestinian forces opened the border wall on 23 January, breaking the siege, many Palestinians blamed Egypt for not doing the same much earlier to relieve the suffering and deprivation that had brought Gaza to within days of running out of food and medicine. But however complicit Egypt may have been it was not alone.

Continued . . . 

Paul Craig Roberts | Antiwar, Feb. 18, 2008

Americans traditionally thought of their country as a “city upon a hill,” a “light unto the world.” Today only the deluded think that. Polls show that the rest of the world regards the U.S. and Israel as the two greatest threats to peace.

This is not surprising. In the words of Arthur Silber:

“The Bush administration has announced to the world, and to all Americans, that this is what the United States now stands for: a vicious determination to dominate the world, criminal, genocidal wars of aggression, torture, and an increasingly brutal and brutalizing authoritarian state at home. That is what we stand for.”

Addressing his fellow Americans, Silber asks the paramount question: “why do you support” these horrors?

His question goes to the heart of the matter. Do we Americans have any honor, any humanity, any integrity, any awareness of the crimes our government is committing in our name? Do we have a moral conscience?

How can a moral conscience be reconciled with our continuing to tolerate our government which has invaded two countries on the basis of lies and deception, destroyed their civilian infrastructures and murdered hundreds of thousands of men, women, and children?

The killing and occupation continue even though we now know that the invasions were based on lies and fabricated “evidence.” The entire world knows this. Yet Americans continue to act as if the gratuitous invasions, the gratuitous killing, and the gratuitous destruction are justified. There is no end of it in sight.

If Americans have any honor, how can they betray their Founding Fathers, who gave them liberty, by tolerating a government that claims immunity to law and the Constitution and is erecting a police state in their midst?

Continued . . .

Counterpunch, Weekend Edition, Feb. 16/ 17, 2008

Take It From Achilles, Heroism is a Hoax

By DIANE CHRISTIAN

War licenses destruction, breaking the bodies and land and will of the enemy. War is a condition that suspends human respect and care and authorizes destruction.

Americans accept the idea of war; we launch war on poverty and war on terror-invoking an abstraction seen as good to kill abstractions seen as bad. If poverty and terror should be destroyed why and how is war the the weapon? War corrupts, breaks, ruptures, ruins. It does not build, nurture, create. It destroys, some argue, in order to create. It transforms its acts of terror and cruelty by that good intention into good and reasonable actions. The figure invokes sanitation or surgery or violence as cleansing in itself.

So for many war is a noble self-sacrificing action, heroic. Killing and dying and maiming and ruining and ravaging, burned children, tortured innocents, fold into a drama of metaphysical good and evil. Individuals are melded and subsumed into abstract objectives and tactics. War is humanity’s most persistent madness.

Why do we admire it? Why praise it, why say we must win? Plato said all wars came from the body, from greed to own and feed. Plato blamed the body and trusted mind which more surely causes war by its will to dominate.

Why, more to the point, do we believe destruction is good? Perhaps it’s a deep birth metaphor: bloodiness, pain, and labor produce a child when the struggle is over. Aztecs thought warriors who died in battle and women who died in childbirth were entitled to special recognition in the afterworld. Warriors who face death before their natural time are counted noble when they die. Americans want to see the dead from the Iraq war as heros even when they die by friendly fire or accident or doing their job as soldiers. Achilles in the Greek underworld chides Odysseus who praises him as the most honored warrior of all. Achilles says he’d rather be a live slave than a dead hero. And this very sobering line is cited by Plato as one of the dangers of poets. Such sentiments aren’t good for society he says. How will we persuade young men to fight, he asks, when the greatest national hero says heroism’s a hoax?

Our politicians are afraid to be anti-war. Being willing to kill and attack are thought required postures. They pose like strongman Saddam, thinking that to show ‘weakness’ about warring will invite the aggression of those who brandish better. The cowboy diction of taking out the bad guy infects all. We know now that nuclear war over Cuba was averted over 45 years ago by a Russian submarine officer who countermanded a direct order to shoot nuclear missiles at the American embargo ships. It was very close, it almost happened.

War not only destroys bodies and land and community of the ‘enemy’. It corrupts the human conscience of the aggressor. This is why warmongers always argue their war as righteous, revenging attack, as the action of victims not violators. Intentions do not change the acts.

Diane Christian is SUNY Distinguished Teaching Professor at University at Buffalo and author of the new book Blood Sacrifice. She can be reached at: engdc@acsu.buffalo.edu

The Palestine Chronicle, Feb. 17, 2008

By Uri Avnery

Every people elevate the profession in which they excel.

If a person in the street were asked to name the area of enterprise in which we Israelis excel, his answer would probably be: Hi-Tech. And indeed, in this area we have recorded some impressive achievements. It seems as if hardly a day passes without an Israeli start-up company that was born in a garage being sold for hundreds of millions. Little Israel is one of the major hi-tech powers in the world.

But the profession in which Israel is not only one of the biggest, but the unchallenged Numero Uno is: liquidations.

This week this was proven once again. The Hebrew verb “lekhassel” – liquidate – in all its grammatical forms, currently dominates our public discourse. Respected professors debate with academic solemnity when to “liquidate” and whom. Used generals discuss with professional zeal the technicalities of “liquidation”, its rules and methods. Shrewd politicians compete with each other about the number and status of the candidates for “liquidation”.

Indeed, for a long time now there has not been such an orgy of jubilation and self-congratulation in the Israeli media as there was this week. Every reporter, every commentator, every political hack, every transient celeb interviewed on TV, on the radio and in the newspapers, was radiant with pride. We have done it! We have succeeded! We have “liquidated” Imad Mughniyeh!

Continued . . .

· Prime minister defends actions against Gaza
· UN envoy fails to secure meeting on five-day visit

• Toni O’Loughlin in Jerusalem
• The Guardian, Monday February 18 2008

The UN’s top humanitarian, Sir John Holmes, said yesterday that the deteriorating economic and humanitarian situation in the Palestinian territory was a “political crisis” that needed a “political solution”. He spoke as the Israeli prime minister, Ehud Olmert, said the people of Gaza could not live normal lives while Israelis across the border were constantly targeted by rockets.

Speaking in Jerusalem at a gathering of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organisations, Olmert said Israel’s military had a “free hand” to hit Gaza militants. “We will reach out for anyone involved in terrorism against Israelis and will not hesitate to attack them,” he said. “That applies to everyone, first and foremost Hamas.”

Speaking separately at a briefing to journalists, Holmes said: “The problems won’t be removed without a political solution.” But the under secretary general for humanitarian affairs and emergency relief coordinator, who is on a five-day visit to the region, said that as a humanitarian he had limited control over the UN’s key political decision-making body, the security council. “I don’t come expecting to work miracles. The situation is extremely difficult, the politics extremely difficult.”

Continued . . .

The unholy trinity of arms manufacturers, the Pentagon, & Congress

By Rupert  Cornwell | Global Research, Feb. 17, 2008

Obscured by the great Obama-Hillary battle and the drama of Super Tuesday, the final budget of the Bush era was published last week. It covers the 2009 financial year, and contains one startling fact. If this President has his way, the US will next year be spending more on its military (adjusted for inflation) than at any time since the Second World War.

Continued . . . 

By Bill Van Auken | World Socialist Web Site, 16 February 2008

On the eve of his weeklong trip to Africa, US President George W. Bush Friday delivered an open defense of his administration’s criminal record of torture and repression, acts that have blatantly violated international law and turned the US into a pariah nation.

Bush’s intervention followed a carefully orchestrated propaganda campaign by administration officials aimed at legitimizing the use of torture by US intelligence agencies, and in particular defending the procedure known as waterboarding in which a prisoner under interrogation is strapped down and subjected to induced drowning by having water poured over his mouth and nose.

The intention of the campaign being waged by Bush and his aides is to consolidate during the little less than a year remaining to the administration the sweeping repressive measures that it has imposed since September 2001. At the same time, it has clearly signaled its desire to put terror back on the front burner of American politics with the aim of terrorizing the American people in the run-up to the 2008 election.

Continued . . .

Palestine Information Center

February 16, 2008

NABLUS, (PIC)– A Palestinian human rights advocate was subjected to torture in the Israeli detention center of Petah Tikwa that included sleep deprivation and forcing her to sit in an awkward position for three consecutive days, legal sources said.

Ahlam Jawher, 30, told the lawyer of the Nafha society defending human and prisoners’ rights that she was under constant pressure by Israeli interrogators to “confess”.

Jawher was arrested at the IOF Hawara roadblock south of Nablus city on 23/1/2008 after two hours detention. She was not allowed to see a lawyer until recently in a clear violation of the law.

The Nafha society appealed to the human and women rights organizations to save Jawher along with more than 100 other Palestinian women held in Israeli captivity and to pressure the Israeli occupation authority to improve their incarceration conditions.

Meanwhile, the same society reported that the IOA renewed administrative detention of MP Sheikh Hamed Al-Beitwai, 64, for three more months without trial or charge.

The IOA also ordered the administrative custody of Islamic Jihad leader Yousef Haj Mohammed, 65, for six months. He was released only a few weeks ago from three years of administrative detention. Both suffer from several diseases and are in need of constant medical care.

The IOA renewed the administrative detention of 18 Palestinians for periods ranging from one to six months.

The Independent, Feb. 17, 2008

By Ian Griggs and Brian Brady

The government official who wrote the first draft of the “dodgy dossier” that helped propel Britain into war in Iraq today admits, “We were wrong.”

John Williams, a former Foreign Office aide, said last night that publication of his document would expose how members of Tony Blair’s team were locked in a mindset that made military action inevitable.

On Wednesday, ministers will hit a deadline for publishing the 2002 document, after years of resistance.

The Williams draft was written in September 2002, only days after Mr Blair, then Prime Minister, announced that the Government would publish a dossier of intelligence showing that Saddam Hussein threatened the world with his weapons.

The draft was not disclosed at the Hutton inquiry into the death in 2003 of the former Iraq arms inspector David Kelly. The scientist had suggested the dossier was exaggerated to justify the UK joining the 2003 invasion.

Continued . . .