Archive for June, 2010

Abuse of Palestinians ‘widespread’

June 14, 2010
Al Jazeera, June 14, 2010
B’Tselem said the blockade shattered Gaza’s economy and caused blackouts and pollution [Reuters]

The death toll in Israel and the occupied Palestinian territories was “much lower” in 2009 than previous years, but human rights abuses against Palestinians remain widespread, according to a new report from the Israeli human rights group B’Tselem.

The number of Palestinians killed by Israeli forces dropped by more than 80 per cent last year, the report pointed out on Monday.

But human rights abuses still run rampant in the Palestinian territories, particularly in the Gaza Strip, where B’Tselem blamed Israel’s blockade for “the collapse of the economy”.

The report noted that 95 per cent of Gaza’s factories have closed, that 98 per cent of residents suffer from blackouts, and that 93 per cent of Gaza’s water is polluted.

Continued

Blum: Bad guys and good guys

June 14, 2010
By William Blum, Foreign Policy Journal, June 12, 2010

0diggsdigg

In Lahore, Pakistan, reported the Washington Post on May 29, “Militants staged coordinated attacks … on two mosques of a minority Muslim sect, taking hostages and killing at least 80 people. … At least seven men armed with grenades, high-powered rifles and suicide vests stormed the mosques as Friday prayers ended.”

Nice, really nice, very civilized. It’s no wonder that decent Americans think that this is what the United States is fighting against — Islamic fanatics, homicidal maniacs, who kill their own kind over some esoteric piece of religious dogma, who want to kill Americans over some other imagined holy sin, because we’re “infidels”. How can we reason with such people? Where is the common humanity the naive pacifists and anti-war activists would like us to honor?

And then we come to the very last paragraph of the story: “Elsewhere in Pakistan on Friday, a suspected U.S. drone-fired missile struck a Taliban compound in the South Waziristan tribal area, killing eight, according to two officials in the region.”

Continues,

Neocons Have Disturbing Amounts of Influence Over Obama

June 13, 2010

For those who thought the end of the Bush Administration spelled doomsday for the neoconservative movement, think again.

By Allen McDuffee, AlterNet, June 10, 2010

For those who thought the end of the Bush Administration spelled doomsday for the neoconservative movement, think again.

According to a May report (pdf) from the Brookings Institution, a Washington, DC think tank, neoconservatives associated with prominent figures like former Assistant Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz, Weekly Standard Editor Bill Kristol and pundit Richard Perle are still broadly active, despite policy failures associated with the 2003 invasion of Iraq.

Continues >>

American drone strike killed 15 in Pakistan

June 13, 2010

Irish Sun,  Friday 11th June, 2010
(IANS)

The toll in the US drone strike in Pakistan’s North Waziristan tribal area has risen to 15 while 10 were wounded in the incident Friday, media reports said.

The drone fired four missiles at a house in Datta Khel area, killing four people on the spot, Xinhua quoted a news channel as saying.

The injured were rushed to a hospital as 11 people succumbed to injuries later, the private Geo News channel reported, citing local sources. Several others were in critical condition.

Continues >>

Saudi Arabia gives Israel clear skies to attack Iranian nuclear sites

June 13, 2010

June 12, 2010

Saudi Arabia has conducted tests to stand down its air defences to enable Israeli jets to make a bombing raid on Iran’s nuclear facilities, The Times can reveal.

In the week that the UN Security Council imposed a new round of sanctions on Tehran, defence sources in the Gulf say that Riyadh has agreed to allow Israel to use a narrow corridor of its airspace in the north of the country to shorten the distance for a bombing run on Iran.

To ensure the Israeli bombers pass unmolested, Riyadh has carried out tests to make certain its own jets are not scrambled and missile defence systems not activated. Once the Israelis are through, the kingdom’s air defences will return to full alert.

“The Saudis have given their permission for the Israelis to pass over and they will look the other way,” said a US defence source in the area. “They have already done tests to make sure their own jets aren’t scrambled and no one gets shot down. This has all been done with the agreement of the [US] State Department.”

Sources in Saudi Arabia say it is common knowledge within defence circles in the kingdom that an arrangement is in place if Israel decides to launch the raid. Despite the tension between the two governments, they share a mutual loathing of the regime in Tehran and a common fear of Iran’s nuclear ambitions. “We all know this. We will let them [the Israelis] through and see nothing,” said one.

The four main targets for any raid on Iran would be the uranium enrichment facilities at Natanz and Qom, the gas storage development at Isfahan and the heavy-water reactor at Arak. Secondary targets include the lightwater reactor at Bushehr, which could produce weapons-grade plutonium when complete.

The targets lie as far as 1,400 miles (2,250km) from Israel; the outer limits of their bombers’ range, even with aerial refuelling. An open corridor across northern Saudi Arabia would significantly shorten the distance. An airstrike would involve multiple waves of bombers, possibly crossing Jordan, northern Saudi Arabia and Iraq. Aircraft attacking Bushehr, on the Gulf coast, could swing beneath Kuwait to strike from the southwest.

Passing over Iraq would require at least tacit agreement to the raid from Washington. So far, the Obama Administration has refused to give its approval as it pursues a diplomatic solution to curbing Iran’s nuclear ambitions. Military analysts say Israel has held back only because of this failure to secure consensus from America and Arab states. Military analysts doubt that an airstrike alone would be sufficient to knock out the key nuclear facilities, which are heavily fortified and deep underground or within mountains. However, if the latest sanctions prove ineffective the pressure from the Israelis on Washington to approve military action will intensify. Iran vowed to continue enriching uranium after the UN Security Council imposed its toughest sanctions yet in an effort to halt the Islamic Republic’s nuclear programme, which Tehran claims is intended for civil energy purposes only. President Ahmadinejad has described the UN resolution as “a used handkerchief, which should be thrown in the dustbin”.

Israeli officials refused to comment yesterday on details for a raid on Iran, which the Prime Minister, Binyamin Netanyahu, has refused to rule out. Questioned on the option of a Saudi flight path for Israeli bombers, Aharaon Zeevi Farkash, who headed military intelligence until 2006 and has been involved in war games simulating a strike on Iran, said: “I know that Saudi Arabia is even more afraid than Israel of an Iranian nuclear capacity.”

In 2007 Israel was reported to have used Turkish air space to attack a suspected nuclear reactor being built by Iran’s main regional ally, Syria. Although Turkey publicly protested against the “violation” of its air space, it is thought to have turned a blind eye in what many saw as a dry run for a strike on Iran’s far more substantial — and better-defended — nuclear sites.

Israeli intelligence experts say that Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Jordan are at least as worried as themselves and the West about an Iranian nuclear arsenal.Israel has sent missile-class warships and at least one submarine capable of launching a nuclear warhead through the Suez Canal for deployment in the Red Sea within the past year, as both a warning to Iran and in anticipation of a possible strike. Israeli newspapers reported last year that high-ranking officials, including the former Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, have met their Saudi Arabian counterparts to discuss the Iranian issue. It was also reported that Meir Dagan, the head of Mossad, met Saudi intelligence officials last year to gain assurances that Riyadh would turn a blind eye to Israeli jets violating Saudi airspace during the bombing run. Both governments have denied the reports.

Kashmir democracy under the barrel of Indian guns

June 12, 2010

By Yasmin Qureshi, ZNet, June 12, 2010

Change Text Size a- | A+

Yasmin Qureshi’s ZSpace Page

I had wanted to go to Kashmir ever since I visited Palestine in 2007. There are many similarities in the nature of the occupation as well as the struggles, both being nearly 63 years old.  One difference is that while Israel is seen as an external occupying force in Palestine, the Kashmir issue is considered an ‘internal’ matter or a conflict between Pakistan and India and the voice of Kashmiris is often lost. As a result there are fewer international organizations monitoring the region and little information about the extent and impact of the occupation gets out.

Continues >>

The Three Amigos: India, America, Israel

June 12, 2010

By Badri Raina , ZNet, June 12, 2010

Change Text Size a- | A+

Badri Raina’s ZSpace Page

That both under the erstwhile  NDA regime, led by Atal Bihari Vajpai of the right-wing Hindu BJP (1998-2004) and the UPA regime (s) led by Manmohan Singh of the Congress Party (2004-2009, and since) a central feature of India’s foreign policy has been to draw closer to both the United States and Israel is not such a hidden feature of India’s post-reforms history anymore.

The more than considerate attentiveness to the interests of American corporates of course has been a long-term constant.

What I seek to do here is not so much to detail these histories as to draw a   skein related to diverse episodes,   one that seems intricately revelatory of a  coherent  macro policy intent, always latent among the Indian ruling classes but now more than ever in full bloom.

Continues >>

Obama’s License to Kill

June 11, 2010

Obama blurs the line between warfare and summary execution.

Reason Magazine,  June 9, 2010

Nearly a decade after the September 11 attacks, we still have not settled the question of how to deal with terrorism suspects. Should they be in military or civilian custody? Should they receive trials, and if so what kind? After years of acrimonious debate, President Obama is offering a way to settle this argument once and for all: Why not just kill them?

Last week U.N. investigator Philip Alston delivered a report on “targeted killings” in which the U.S. government plays a starring role. Under a policy secretly initiated by George W. Bush and expanded by Obama, the CIA and the Joint Special Operations Command track and kill people, including U.S. citizens, based on their alleged ties to Al Qaeda or its allies. The killings, typically carried out by missiles fired from drone aircraft, dangerously blur the line between warfare and summary execution.

As Alston noted, targeted killings “are permitted in armed conflict situations when used against combatants…or civilians who directly engage in combat-like activities.” But “they are increasingly being used far from any battle zone”—in places such as Yemen, where the U.S. fires missiles at “high-value targets” such as the American-born radical cleric Anwar al-Awlaki.

Harold Koh, the State Department’s legal adviser, says such attacks are justified by international law and by the Authorization for the Use of Military Force that Congress passed after the September 11 attacks. “The United States is in an armed conflict with Al Qaeda, as well as the Taliban and associated forces,” Koh says. “Individuals who are part of such an armed group are belligerents and, therefore, lawful targets.”

But unlike a conventional war, this “armed conflict” is fought on a “battlefield” that spans the globe by “belligerents” who do not wear uniforms and are not readily identified. Hence Koh’s reasonable-sounding law-of-war argument amounts to claiming that the executive branch has the unreviewable authority to kill enemies that it unilaterally identifies anywhere in the world.

The geographic reach of this license to kill exceeds even that of an old-fashioned tyrant accustomed to shouting, “Off with his head!” Imagine how the U.S. would react if a foreign government claimed it had the right to kill people on the streets of New York because it considered them “belligerents.”

Given the breathtaking scope of the authority claimed by the president, the reassurances of his underlings ring hollow. “Whether a particular individual will be targeted in a particular location,” says Koh, “will depend upon considerations specific to each case, including those related to the imminence of the threat, the sovereignty of the other states involved, and the willingness and ability of those states to suppress the threat the target poses.” This is a long way of saying “trust us.”

Last February, Dennis Blair, then the director of national intelligence, assured members of Congress that “we don’t target people for free speech.” Rather, “we target them for taking action that threatens Americans or has resulted in it.”

Awlaki, for example, is known mainly for his inflammatory yet constitutionally protected sermons. But according to an unidentified “American official” quoted by The New York Times in April, “The danger Awlaki poses to this country is no longer confined to words. He’s gotten involved in plots.”

Before you take the government’s word that Awlaki has been marked for death based on something more than his anti-American tirades, consider its track record in justifying the detention of alleged “belligerents.” Even though the burden of proof is much lighter than it would be in a criminal trial, the American Civil Liberties Union notes, “the government has failed to prove the lawfulness of imprisoning individual Guantanamo detainees in 34 of the 48 cases that have been reviewed by the federal courts thus far.”

Luckily for the government, it does not need to present any evidence against Awlaki or other “high-value targets,” because it does not want to detain them. It only wants to kill them.

Jacob Sullum is a senior editor at Reason and a nationally syndicated columnist.

US Slams Mention of Israeli Nukes at IAEA Meeting

June 11, 2010
Warns Mentioning Israel’s Arsenal Will Harm ‘Nuclear Free Mideast’ Push

by Jason Ditz, Antiwar.com,  June 10, 2010

US officials reacted angrily today at the inclusion of Israel’s nuclear arsenal as a topic of discussion for the IAEA meeting, insisting that it was “untimely and uncalled for.

The meeting is the first IAEA meeting to oficially mention Israel since 1991, and included several Arab nations urging Israel to join the nuclear non-proliferation treaty (NPT). Israel has repeatedly and angrily refused to be a part of the treaty or to submit its arsenal to any international oversight.

Continues >>

Democratic Party defends Israeli attack on aid flotilla

June 11, 2010

By Stephen Zunes, Foreign Policy In Focus, June 10, 2010

Sen. Harry Reid

Tens of thousands of Israelis protested in the streets of Tel Aviv last weekend against their right-wing government’s attack on an unarmed humanitarian aid flotilla sailing in international waters. International condemnation of the raids continued in foreign capitals. Meanwhile, in Washington, Democratic congressional leaders were lining up alongside their Republican colleagues to defend the Israeli assault. Countering the broad consensus of international legal scholars who recognize that the attack was in flagrant violation of international norms, prominent Democrats embraced the Orwellian notion that Israel’s raid, which killed at least nine activists and wounded scores of others, was somehow an act of self-defense.

Continues >>