Archive for the ‘War Criminals’ Category

Jerusalem Patriarch: “Gaza destruction greater than portrayed in the media”

March 18, 2009
author Tuesday March 17, 2009 08:59author by IMEMC & Agencies Report this post to the editors

Patriarch Theofilos III, Greek Orthodox Patriarch of Jerusalem, the Holy Land and Jordan, stated on Monday that the destruction in the Gaza Strip from the latest Israeli offensive is far greater than the media has portrayed.

File, Image by Ghassan Bannoura
File, Image by Ghassan Bannoura

Theofilos added that the human suffering in the Gaza Strip exceeds by thousands of times the structural damage which is also unimaginable.

The statements of the Patriarch came after he concluded a visit to the Gaza Strip. He was accompanied by a number of priests and bishops.

The visiting religious delegates were briefed on the conditions of Greek Orthodox Palestinians in Gaza, and the situation all Gazan’s face due to the offensive and the ongoing blockade led by Israel and the United States.

During his visit, he held prayers at the Greek Orthodox Church, in Gaza City, and called on all residents to remain united and to help each other without any discrimination.

Spokesperson of the Greek Orthodox Patriarchate, Father Issa Musleh from Beit Sahour, stated that the Patriarchate denounces the offensive in Gaza, and observes it as a catastrophe and a great destruction innocent civilians had to face.

Father Issa added that the Patriarchate will continue delivering aid, collected by Greek Orthodox Churches to relieve the residents of Gaza.

“They are all our people”, Father Issa said, “we will not abandon them, we will continue to deliver aid.”

Cheney’s Mission Accomplished

March 18, 2009
By Juan Cole | Information Clearing House, March 17, 2009

Dick Cheney: “I guess my general sense of where we are with respect to Iraq and at the end of now, what, nearly six years, is that we’ve accomplished nearly everything we set out to do….”What has Dick Cheney really accomplished in Iraq?

  • An estimated 4 million Iraqis, out of 27 million, have been displaced from their homes, that is, made homeless. Some 2.7 million are internally displaced inside Iraq. A couple hundred thousand are cooling their heels in Jordan. And perhaps a million are quickly running out of money and often living in squalid conditions in Syria. Cheney’s war has left about 15% of Iraqis homeless inside the country or abroad. That would be like 45 million American thrown out of their homes.
  • It is controversial how many Iraqis died as a result of the 2003 invasion and its aftermath. But it seems to me that a million extra dead, beyond what you would have expected from a year 2000 baseline, is entirely plausible. The toll is certainly in the hundreds of thousands. Cheney did not kill them all. The Lancet study suggested that the US was directly responsible for a third of all violent deaths since 2003. That would be as much as 300,000 that we killed. The rest, we only set in train their deaths by our invasion.
  • Baghdad has been turned from a mixed city, about half of its population Shiite and the other half Sunni in 2003, into a Shiite city where the Sunni population may be as little as ten to fifteen percent. From a Sunni point of view, Cheney’s war has resulted in a Shiite (and Iranian) take-over of the Iraqi capital, long a symbol of pan-Arabism and anti-imperialism.
  • In the Iraqi elections, Shiite fundamentalist parties closely allied with Iran came to power. The Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq, the leading party in parliament, was formed by Iraqi expatriates at the behest of Ayatollah Khomeini in 1982 in Tehran. The Islamic Mission (Da’wa) Party is the oldest ideological Shiite party working for an Islamic state. It helped form Hizbullah in Beirut in the early 1980s. It has supplied both prime ministers elected since 2005. Fundamentalist Shiites shaped the constitution, which forbids the civil legislature to pass legislation that contravenes Islamic law. Dissidents have accused the new Iraqi government of being an Iranian puppet.
  • Arab-Kurdish violence is spiking in the north, endangering the Obama withdrawal plan and, indeed, the whole of Iraq, not to mention Syria, Turkey and Iran.
  • Hundreds of thousands of Iraqi women have been widowed by the war and its effects, leaving most without a means of support. Iraqi widows often lack access to clean water and electricity. Aljazeera English has video.

  • $32 billion were wasted on Iraq reconstruction, and most of it cannot even be traced. I repeat, Cheney gave away $32 bn. to anonymous cronies in such a way that we can’t even be sure who stole it, exactly. And you are angry at AIG about $400 mn. in bonuses! We are talking about $32 billion given out in brown paper bags.
  • Political power is being fragmented in Iraq with big spikes in the murder rate in some provinces that may reflect faction-fighting and vendettas in which the Iraqi military is loathe to get involved.
  • The Iraqi economy is devastated, and the new government’s bureaucracy and infighting have made it difficult to attract investors.
  • The Bush-Cheney invasion helped further destabilize the Eastern Mediterranean, setting in play Kurdish nationalism and terrifying Turkey.Cheney avoids mentioning all the human suffering he has caused, on a cosmic scale, and focuses on procedural matters like elections (which he confuses with democracy– given 2000 in this country, you can understand why). Or he lies, as when he says that Iran’s influence in Iraq has been blocked. Another lie is that there was that the US was fighting “al-Qaeda” in Iraq as opposed to just Iraqis. He and Bush even claim that they made Iraqi womens’ lives better.The real question is whether anyone will have the gumption to put Cheney on trial for treason and crimes against humanity.

  • Juan Cole teaches Middle Eastern and South Asian history at the University of Michigan. His most recent book Napoleon’s Egypt: Invading the Middle East (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2007) has just been published. He has appeared widely on television, radio and on op-ed pages as a commentator on Middle East affairs, and has a regular column at Salon.com. He has written, edited, or translated 14 books and has authored 60 journal articles. His weblog on the contemporary Middle East is Informed Comment.

    Rage on the streets in Calgary as Bush visit begins

    March 18, 2009

    by Bill Graveland and Shannon Montgomery | Daily Herald-Tribune, Alberta, March 17, 2009

    CALGARY – The rage on the man’s face was evident as he berated police officers preventing him from entering the building where former U.S. president George W. Bush was making a speech Tuesday.

    [A woman holds a protest sign outside the Calgary convention centre where former U.S. President George Bush was making a speech to the business community in Calgary, Alberta March 17, 2009. (REUTERS/Todd Korol)]A woman holds a protest sign outside the Calgary convention centre where former U.S. President George Bush was making a speech to the business community in Calgary, Alberta March 17, 2009. (REUTERS/Todd Korol)

    ‘‘There is a war criminal upstairs that has committed murder,” screamed the man, who identified himself only as Splits the Sky. ‘‘If I try to get in there you will arrest me. What is wrong with you?‘‘I am going in there and make a citizen’s arrest,” he said as he attempt to push past police. ‘‘Arrest George Bush. Arrest George Bush.”

    A few minutes later he was handcuffed and hustled past a long line of Calgary’s business elite waiting to get inside the Telus Convention Centre.

    Protest organizers say at least four demonstrators were arrested at Tuesday’s event.

    About 60 Calgary police officers were on duty outside to control between 200 and 300 people carrying signs that read ‘‘No to U.S. Crimes Against Humanity,” ‘‘Indict Bush For War Crimes” and ‘‘Canada Is Not Bush Country.”

    Another sign read ‘‘Shoe Him The Door” – a reference to the Iraqi journalist who threw his shoe at Bush during a news conference in Baghdad in December.

    Two Calgary men showed up at the demonstration to support the former U.S. president. Their signs read ‘‘The World Is Safer Because of George W. Bush.”

    ‘‘Thank you, George Bush. Thank you, George Bush,” they chanted.

    ‘‘He doesn’t sit down and negotiate with terrorists,” shouted one of the men, who identified himself as Merle.

    ‘‘Try doing this in Cuba,” he said as he pointed to the jeering protesters.

    There were shoes everywhere during the protest. A young woman wearing a hood, orange jumpsuit and a name tag that said ‘‘Club Gitmo” was pulling a shoe cannon along with a target festooned with pictures of Bush.

    An obviously amused police officer told her to leave.

    Some of those opposed to Bush’s visit have said he should be arrested as a war criminal because of alleged torture at military prisons in Iraq and Guantanamo Bay.

    Tuesday’s speech was one of the first public appearances Bush has made since leaving the presidency in January with a dismal approval rating and much of the blame for his country’s collapsing economy. The speech was closed to the media.

    ‘‘It’s not too late to turn back. Walk away,” the demonstrators yelled to some of the 1,500 guests invited to hear Bush speak to the Calgary Chamber of Commerce.

    A couple of hundred people lined up early to go through a special security screening room before entering the hall where Bush was speaking.

    A few said the former president has to take some of the responsibility for what has happened in the United States, but also has the right to talk about his administration.

    Desmond Tutu demands Gaza war crimes inquiry

    March 16, 2009

    Leading human rights figures including Archbishop Desmund Tutu have called for the United Nations to launch a war crimes inquiry into the conduct of both Israel and Hamas in the recent fighting in Gaza.

    By Dina Kraft in Tel Aviv | Telegraph.co.uk
    Last Updated: 2:12AM GMT 16 Mar 2009

    The letter, supported by Amnesty International, called for “a prompt, independent and impartial investigation”.

    It said: “We have seen at first hand the importance of investigating the truth and delivering justice for the victims of conflict and believe it is a precondition to move forward and achieve peace in the Middle East.”

    It is signed by 16 judges and investigators into human rights crimes committed in conflicts around the world including the former Yugoslavia, Kosovo, Darfur and Rwanda.

    Since a three-week massive Israeli assault against Hamas militants in Gaza ended in mid-January there have been questions about the nature of the fighting that occurred on the ground.

    Israel launched the operation, officials said, in response to ongoing cross-border rocket fire into southern Israel by Hamas and other militant groups but the assault in small, densely populated Gaza where there was nowhere to escape the warplanes and tanks, took a heavily civilian toll.

    Some 1,300 Palestinians were killed, and officials say at least half of them were civilians. Thirteen Israelis were killed, among them three civilians from rocket-fire.

    “We urge world leaders to send an unfaltering signal that the targeting of civilians during conflict is unacceptable by any party on any count,” said the letter.

    The Israeli foreign ministry said the call for an enquiry sounded one-sided.

    “Only an NGO like Amnesty International that has no political responsibility has allowed itself to make such allegations based on very partial enquiries and to launch a call to the UN on the basis of partial testimonies and newspaper clippings is totally irresponsible,” said Yigal Palmor, a foreign ministry spokesman.

    Israeli officials said repeatedly that troops did their upmost to limit civilian casualties and complained that Hamas fighters hid among civilians on purpose.

    Memo that told Blair aides Saddam Hussein posed no imminent threat

    March 13, 2009

    MI5 to blame for torture – claim…..   G20 deal hopes in the balance…..   Warning over fault on several jets…..   Campaigners lose Stansted battle…..   Last farewell to murdered policeman…..   Questions over ‘blind trust’ use…..   Call to ban sale of ‘e-cigarettes’…..   Hospital injection errors ‘common’…..   Prince reveals Mother’s Day sadness…..   Ailing Jade enjoys time with family…..

    Tony Blair

    Weapons warning: Tony Blair published the WMD dossier in September 2002 which critics believe paved the way for war

    Intelligence experts explicitly warned Tony Blair‘s aides that Britain was not in “imminent danger of attack” from Saddam Hussein, a confidential memo revealed today.

    The row over claims that the Government “spun” its way into war with Iraq is likely to be reignited after the release of the document by the Cabinet Office.

    The memo, released after a long-running Freedom of Information battle, shows Mr Blair’s officials knew seven years ago that the threat from Saddam was not immediate.

    Despite the warning, the Government’s dossier on Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction included a claim that Baghdad was ready to launch an attack within “45 minutes”.

    Lord Hutton cleared the Government in 2004 of the charge that it tried to manipulate intelligence to pave the way for war.

    But today Whitehall released a memo from former Cabinet Office defence expert Desmond Bowen, who later won promotion to policy director at the Ministry of Defence, which shows he disagreed Saddam posed an immediate threat.

    The September 2002 memo, written to then Joint Intelligence Committee chairman John Scarlett and copied to Alastair Campbell, provides comments on an early draft of the government dossier on Iraq.

    Mr Bowen wrote: “The question which we have to have in the back of our mind is ‘why now?’ I think we have moved away from promoting the idea that we are in imminent danger of attack and therefore intend to act in a pre-emptive self defence.”

    Another email published today underlines ministers’ focus on how to get their message across in the media.

    A memo from then Foreign Secretary Jack Straw‘s office stresses the dossier had to be shown on the Sky News video “wall”.

    The email from Mr Straw’s private secretary Mark Sedwill suggests the dossier needed a “very simple table”.

    Mr Sedwill wrote: “This should be brief enough to get onto the Sky wall ie no more than 5 bullets.”

    Another email, apparently from an intelligence official, says a part of the dossier on chemical and biological weapons would be “likely to give a misleading impression”.

    A further email, from unnamed officials, says “there is nothing we can point to that we know for sure is going to the BW [Biological Weapons] programme”.

    Mr Blair published the WMD dossier in September 2002, which critics believe paved the way for war the following spring.

    An inquiry by Lord Butler found blunders in its compilation, with the “45 minutes” claim based on unreliable evidence.

    A separate “dodgy dossier” was published in early 2003. It was discovered to have sections copied off the internet.

    Richard Falk: Israel’s War Crimes

    March 13, 2009

    Calls for investigation into Gaza attacks

    Richard Falk | Le Monde Diplomatique (France),March 12, 2009

    Israel blamed its earlier wars on the threat to its security, even that against Lebanon in 1982. However, its assault on Gaza was not justified and there are international calls for an investigation. But is there the political will to make Israel account for its war crimes?

    For the first time since the establishment of Israel in 1948 the government is facing serious allegations of war crimes from respected public figures throughout the world. Even the secretary general of the United Nations, Ban Ki-moon, normally so cautious about offending sovereign states – especially those aligned with its most influential member, the United States – has joined the call for an investigation and potential accountability. To grasp the significance of these developments it is necessary to explain what made the 22 days of attacks in Gaza stand shockingly apart from the many prior recourses to force by Israel to uphold its security and strategic interests.

    In my view, what made the Gaza attacks launched on 27 December different from the main wars fought by Israel over the years was that the weapons and tactics used devastated an essentially defenceless civilian population. The one-sidedness of the encounter was so stark, as signalled by the relative casualties on both sides (more than 100 to 1; 1300-plus Palestinians killed compared with 13 Israelis, and several of these by friendly fire), that most commentators refrained from attaching the label “war”.

    The Israelis and their friends talk of “retaliation” and “the right of Israel to defend itself”. Critics described the attacks as a “massacre” or relied on the language of war crimes and crimes against humanity. In the past Israeli uses of force were often widely condemned, especially by Arab governments, including charges that the UN Charter was being violated, but there was an implicit acknowledgement that Israel was using force in a war mode. War crimes charges (to the extent they were made) came only from radical governments and the extreme left.

    The early Israeli wars were fought against Arab neighbours which were quite literally challenging Israel’s right to exist as a sovereign state. The outbreaks of force were of an inter-governmental nature; and even when Israel exhibited its military superiority in the June 1967 six day war, it was treated within the framework of normal world politics, and though it may have been unlawful, it was not criminal.

    But from the 1982 Lebanon war this started to change. The main target then was the presence of the Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO) in southern Lebanon. But the war is now mainly remembered for its ending, with the slaughter of hundreds of unarmed Palestinian civilians in the refugee camps of Sabra and Shatila. Although this atrocity was the work of a Lebanese Christian militia, Israeli acquiescence, control and complicity were clearly part of the picture. Still, this was an incident which, though alarming, was not the whole of the military operation, which Israel justified as necessary due to the Lebanese government’s inability to prevent its territory from being used to threaten Israeli security.

    The legacy of the 1982 war was Israeli occupation of southern Lebanon and the formation of Hizbullah in reaction, mounting an armed resistance that finally led to a shamefaced Israeli withdrawal in 1998. This set the stage for the 2006 Lebanon war in which the announced adversary was Hizbullah, and the combat zone inevitably merged portions of the Lebanese civilian population with the military campaign undertaken to destroy Hizbullah. Such a use of hi-tech Israeli force against Hizbullah raised the issue of fighting against a hostile society with no equivalent means of defending itself rather than against an enemy state. It also raised questions about whether reliance on a military option was even relevant to Israel’s political goals, as Hizbullah emerged from the war stronger, and the only real result was to damage the reputation of the IDF as a fighting force and to leave southern Lebanon devastated.

    The Gaza operation brought these concerns to the fore as it dramatised this shift away from fighting states to struggles against armed resistance movements, and with a related shift from the language of “war” to “criminality”. In one important respect, Israel managed to skew perceptions and discourse by getting the media and diplomats to focus the basic international criminal law question on whether or not Israeli use of force was “disproportionate”.

    This way of describing Israeli recourse to force ignores the foundational issue: were the attacks in any legal sense “defensive” in character in the first place? An inquiry into the surrounding circumstances shows an absence of any kind of defensive necessity: a temporary ceasefire between Israel and Hamas that had been in effect since 19 July 2008 had succeeded in reducing cross-border violence virtually to zero; Hamas consistently offered to extend the ceasefire, even to a longer period of ten years; the breakdown of the ceasefire is not primarily the result of Hamas rocket fire, but came about mainly as a result of an Israeli air attack on 4 November that killed six Hamas fighters in Gaza.

    Continued >>

    Canada should bar or prosecute Bush: lawyer

    March 13, 2009
    Foreign Affairs stays silent on upcoming Calgary visit

    As George W. Bush’s St. Patrick’s Day visit to Calgary draws near, the federal government is facing pressure from activists and human rights lawyers to bar the former U.S. president from the country or prosecute him for war crimes and crimes against humanity once he steps on Canadian soil.

    Bush is scheduled to speak at the Telus Convention Centre March 17, but Vancouver lawyer Gail Davidson says that because Bush has been “credibly accused” of supporting torture in Iraq and Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, Canada has a legal obligation to deny him entry under Canada’s Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. The law says foreign nationals who have committed war crimes or crimes against humanity, including torture, are “inadmissible” to Canada.

    ”The test isn’t whether the person’s been convicted, but whether there’s reasonable grounds to think that they have been involved,” says Davidson, who’s with Lawyers Against the War (LAW). “…It’s now a matter of public record that Bush was in charge of setting up a regime of torture that spanned several parts of the globe and resulted in horrendous injuries and even death. Canada has a duty.”

    In February, Davidson sent a letter to Prime Minister Stephen Harper and other cabinet ministers asking the Canadian government to either bar Bush from Canada, prosecute him once he arrives, or have the federal attorney general consent to a private prosecution by LAW against the Texan. She hasn’t received a response, and concedes she’s fighting “an uphill battle” with “terrific challenges.” Davidson laid torture charges against Bush during his visit to Vancouver in 2004, but a judge quashed them within days.

    The federal government is keeping silent on the upcoming visit. “We have no comments to offer on the visit of Mr. George W. Bush to Calgary,” said Foreign Affairs spokesperson Alain Cacchione in an e-mail to Fast Forward. When told about Davidson’s letter, a spokesperson with the Canadian Border Services Agency said “we wouldn’t comment on something like that.”

    Davidson is one of many voices around the world calling for Bush’s prosecution. Earlier this year, Manfred Nowak, the UN’s Special Rapporteur on Torture, said the U.S. has a “clear obligation” to prosecute Bush and former secretary of defence Donald Rumsfeld for authorizing torture — a violation of the UN Convention on Torture. “Obviously the highest authorities in the United States were aware of this,” Nowak told a German TV station in January.

    Joanne Mariner, terrorism and counterterrorism director for Human Rights Watch, says that while there’s legally “all the reason in the world” to prosecute decision-makers in the Bush administration, “it’s a different story” politically. “The Obama administration certainly has not given much in the way of encouraging signals for such a prosecution,” says Mariner, who’s based in New York. “Obama has consistently said that he wants to look forward.” Mariner says that while a U.S. justice department investigation is unlikely, a congressional investigation is more probable — and “that could lead to recommendations for prosecution.”

    Mariner’s not expecting a Canadian prosecution against Bush. “Obviously the Canadian government would have to be in favour of it, and that seems rather unlikely,” she says.

    Calgary activists, meanwhile, are organizing a number of events for the week of Bush’s visit, culminating in a noontime rally outside the Telus Convention Centre during Bush’s speech. “We want to give him the welcome that he deserves — which is we want him to go back to the States, or we want him arrested,” says organizer Collette Lemieux. Activist Julie Hrdlicka, who visited Iraq twice during the American occupation, agrees. “We need to send a clear message to him that he’s not welcome,” she says.

    Lemieux is hopeful that Bush will eventually be prosecuted. “Do I think that it’s going to happen very soon? No,” she says. “But I think that it’s very important that we keep the pressure up…. We have to make it clear that there’s accountability.”

    The Plaza Theatre, meanwhile, is screening three Bush-themed documentaries for a “Bush Bash Film Fest” the night of the visit. Half the box office proceeds will go to the United Way.

    MIDEAST: Border Areas Bombed Again

    March 13, 2009

    By Adam Morrow and Khaled Moussa Al-Omrani | Inter Press Service

    CAIRO, Mar 12 (IPS) – Almost two months after the war on the Gaza Strip, the border area between the battered coastal enclave and Egypt continues to come under frequent Israeli aerial bombardment. Israeli officials say the strikes target cross-border tunnels used to smuggle weapons to Palestinian resistance factions.

    “Israel is still regularly launching air strikes on the border area,” Ibrahim Mansour, political analyst and executive editor-in-chief of independent daily Al-Dustour told IPS. “Such attacks represent a violation of all international rules and agreements, including the Egypt-Israel Camp David peace agreement.”

    Throughout the course of Israel’s recent assault on the Gaza Strip (Dec. 27 to Jan. 17), the border zone between Egypt and Gaza was pummelled by hundreds of Israeli air strikes. Sources in the area also say that Egyptian airspace was repeatedly violated by Israeli aircraft during the campaign.

    The onslaught officially ended with a unilateral ceasefire announcement by Israel. Since then, however, Israel has continued to strike at targets both inside the Gaza Strip – governed by Palestinian resistance faction Hamas – and along the strip’s 14-kilometre border with Egypt’s Sinai Peninsula.

    “Air strikes on the border zone have continued on and off since the end of Israel’s war on Gaza,” Hatem Al-Bulk, local journalist and political activist told IPS. “Some weeks see as many as three or four strikes on the area.”

    The last week has been no exception. According to Israeli daily Haaretz, Israeli aircraft bombed alleged smuggling tunnels on Sunday March 8  in retaliation against three rockets fired into Israel earlier the same day by Gaza-based resistance factions. On Wednesday (Mar. 11) Israeli warplanes again bombed the border area, injuring two Palestinians, according to Palestinian Health Ministry sources.

    Local sources near Rafah, which straddles the border between Egyptian Sinai and the Gaza Strip, say the effects of the blasts are frequently felt on the Egyptian side of the divided town.

    “Israel is using earth-penetrating munitions against targets in the border zone, explosions from which cause damage on the Egyptian side,” said Al- Bulk, a resident of Al-Arish, located some 40 kilometres west of the border. “Since the beginning of Israel’s assault on Gaza until now, hundreds of homes in Egyptian Rafah have been damaged as a result of Israeli bombardments.

    “There are also suspicions that Israel might be using depleted uranium in some of these munitions, which could have a catastrophic effect on the local environment,” added Al-Bulk.

    On Jan. 16 – a day before Israel’s unilateral ceasefire – the U.S. and Israel signed a memorandum of understanding with the ostensible aim of combating alleged arms smuggling into the Gaza Strip. In general terms, the accord commits Washington to “accelerate its efforts to provide logistical and technical assistance and to train and equip regional security forces in counter-smuggling tactics.”

    Egypt, which was not a signatory to the document, quickly rejected it as an infringement of its sovereignty. “We are not bound by anything except the safety and national security of the Egyptian people and Egypt’s ability to protect its borders,” Foreign Minister Ahmed Aboul-Gheit said Jan. 17.

    The agreement did not expressly call for international peacekeepers or monitors to be deployed to Egypt’s border with the Gaza Strip. But on the same day, Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak felt it necessary to stress Egypt’s refusal of “any foreign presence or monitors” on Egyptian territory. “This is a red line no one will be permitted to cross,” Mubarak said in a televised speech.

    Since then, however, Egypt – anxious to prove its capacity for policing its borders – has beefed up security throughout the Sinai Peninsula, while new surveillance cameras have been set up along the border.

    “Within the last two months, Egypt has installed advanced surveillance equipment in the area, which it received from the U.S.,” said Al-Bulk. “Egyptian security officers are also receiving training in the U.S. on how to search for and destroy smuggling tunnels.”

    Inspections of the sensitive border area by U.S. officials have become commonplace since the end of the recent Gaza crisis.

    “An official delegation from the U.S. embassy comes to inspect the border about once every five days. In the last six weeks, there have been roughly eight such visits,” said Al-Bulk. “They examine the Rafah crossing with Gaza, visit the Al-Auja and Kerem Abu Saalim border crossings (with Israel) and are shown tunnels discovered by Egyptian authorities.”

    According to Mansour, the new border security measures come as a direct result of pressure on Egypt from Israel and the U.S.

    “Israel constantly complains to Washington that Egypt ‘isn’t doing enough’ to thwart arms smuggling into Gaza,” said Mansour. “This translates into constant U.S. pressure on Egypt to tighten security on the border. Egypt is therefore accepting advanced surveillance equipment from the U.S. and allowing regular inspections of the border by U.S. officials in order to prove its commitment to combating smuggling.”

    Some commentators say most tunnels are used for smuggling basic commodities that have become increasingly scarce due to the longstanding embargo on the Hamas-run Gaza Strip. Ever since the resistance group won Palestinian legislative elections in early 2006, the Gaza Strip has been hermetically sealed, with both Israel and Egypt keeping their borders with the territory tightly shut to people and goods.

    “Most of the tunnels are of a commercial nature,” said Al-Bulk. “Some specialise in transporting livestock and poultry and others are equipped with railways to carry heavier goods. But relatively little is known about tunnels allegedly used for arms smuggling.”

    “Most of the tunnels are used to transport everyday goods such as food and fuel, in order to offset the depravations of the three-year-old siege,” agreed Mansour. “If the siege was lifted, and Gazans had access to basic supplies, most smuggling activity would evaporate overnight.”

    Over the regular Israeli air strikes on the border zone, Mansour questioned the lack of official reaction from Egypt.

    “Egypt isn’t raising any objections at all to these regular strikes,” he said. “This raises questions about the covert relationship between Egypt and Israel – and even suggests the possibility that Egypt is tacitly permitting the strikes.”

    Homage to Gaza’s Martyred Children

    March 12, 2009

    ICONS OF INNOCENCE

    Dom Martin

    vittime1.jpeg

    urknet.info, March 9, 2009

    Death is an awful thought — lachrymose indeed! Yet, the imprint of death on the faces of the children killed in Israel’s 2008/2009 devastating siege on Gaza, dons an angelic aura. They appear asleep in eternity’s embrace — never again to be awoken or traumatized by the apocalypse of sonic booms, DIMES, artillery shells and phosphorous incinerations.

    This poem is dedicated to the Children of Gaza, who were deprived the gift of existence and the realization of ordinary bliss.

    — Dom Martin

    ICONS OF INNOCENCE

    Coexistence
    Is humanity’s Title Deed
    To survival!

    In human greed
    Comes the revival
    Of belligerence!

    There’s protectorate
    In the electorate
    To incorporate error
    With power
    And power
    With terror!

    Death is aimed
    The mother framed
    The cradle claimed!

    Survival is maimed
    Existence walled
    Justice stalled!

    *

    In eternity’s sanctuary
    No obituary!
    The children are awake
    In ageless play
    Watching reincarnation display
    A sovereign stake!

    *

    Death
    Has been our annual aid
    To date!

    Hope
    Is Gaza’s yoke
    Through our roadblocks!

    In Gaza’s carnage
    Is the Quartet’s entourage
    And the viserage
    Of international laws
    And outlaws!

    Silence, alas
    Is the quilt
    Of our guilt:
    The ballast
    Of our conscience
    And omniscience!

    – Dom Martin

    Dom Martin is a surrealist artist, poet and writer. He is the author of GENOCIDE: The New Order of Imperialism (2008) and COEXISTENCE: Humanity’s Wailing Wall (2006). His prophetic imagery of the 2008/2009 Gaza Genocide can be seen at www.propheticimagery.com .

    War Crimes and Double Standards

    March 8, 2009

    Robert Parry | Consortiumnews.com, March 5, 2009

    New York Times columnist Nicholas D. Kristof – like many of his American colleagues – is applauding the International Criminal Court’s arrest order against Sudanese President Omar Hassan al-Bashir for his role in the Darfur conflict that has claimed tens of thousands of lives.

    In his Thursday column, Kristof describes the plight of an eight-year-old boy named Bakit who blew off his hands picking up a grenade that Kristof suspects was left behind by Bashir’s forces operating on the Chad side of the border with Sudan.

    “Bakit became, inadvertently, one more casualty of the havoc and brutality that President Bashir has unleashed in Sudan and surrounding countries,” Kristof wrote. “So let’s applaud the I.C.C.’s arrest warrant, on behalf of children like Bakit who can’t.”

    By all accounts, Kristof is a well-meaning journalist who travels to dangerous parts of the world, like Darfur, to report on human rights crimes. However, he also could be a case study of what’s wrong with American journalism.

    While Kristof writes movingly about atrocities that can be blamed on Third World despots like Bashir, he won’t hold U.S. officials to the same standards.

    Most notably, Kristof doesn’t call for prosecuting former President George W. Bush for war crimes, despite hundreds of thousands of Iraqis who have died as a result of Bush’s illegal invasion of their country. Many Iraqi children also don’t have hands – or legs or homes or parents.

    But no one in a position of power in American journalism is demanding that former President Bush join President Bashir in the dock at The Hague.

    Tortured Commission

    As for the unpleasant reality that Bush and his top aides authorized torture of “war on terror” detainees, Kristof suggests only a Republican-dominated commission, including people with close ties to the Bush Family and to Bush’s first national security adviser Condoleezza Rice.

    “It could be co-chaired by Brent Scowcroft and John McCain, with its conclusions written by Philip Zelikow, a former aide to Condoleezza Rice who wrote the best-selling report of the 9/11 commission,” Kristof wrote in a Jan. 29 column entitled “Putting Torture Behind Us.”

    “If the three most prominent members were all Republicans, no one on the Right could denounce it as a witch hunt — and its criticisms would have far more credibility,” Kristof wrote.

    “Democrats might begrudge the heavy Republican presence on such a commission, but surely any panel is better than where we’re headed: which is no investigation at all. …

    “My bet, based on my conversations with military and intelligence experts, is that such a commission would issue a stinging repudiation of torture that no one could lightly dismiss.”

    In an earlier formulation of this plan, Kristof suggested that the truth commission be run, in part, by Bush’s first Secretary of State Colin Powell.

    One of the obvious problems with Kristof’s timid proposal is that Rice and Powell were among the senior Bush officials who allegedly sat in on meetings of the Principals Committee that choreographed the abuse and torture of specific detainees.

    Zelikow remained a close associate of Rice even after she replaced Powell as Secretary of State. And Scowcroft was President George H.W. Bush’s national security adviser and one of Rice’s key mentors.

    It’s also not true that any investigation is always better than no investigation. I have witnessed cover-up investigations that not only failed to get anywhere near the truth but tried to discredit and destroy whistleblowers who came forward with important evidence. [For examples, see Secrecy & Privilege.]

    In other words, bogus and self-interested investigations can advance bogus and self-interested history, which only emboldens corrupt officials to commit similar crimes again.

    No Other Context

    Kristof’s vision of having President Bush’s friends, allies and even co-conspirators handle the investigation of Bush’s crimes would be considered laughable if placed in any other context.

    But Kristof’s cockeyed scheme passes almost as conventional wisdom in today’s Washington.

    On Wednesday, the Washington Post assigned its satirical writer, Dana Milbank, to cover – and mock – Sen. Patrick Leahy’s Judiciary Committee hearing on his own plan for a truth commission to examine Bush-era abuses.

    Milbank’s clever article opened with the knee-slapping observation: “Let’s be truthful about it. Things aren’t looking so good for the Truth Commission.”

    The derisive tone of the article also came as no surprise. Milbank has made a cottage industry out of ridiculing anyone who dares think that President Bush should be held accountable for his crimes.

    In 2005, when the Democrats were in the minority and the Republicans gave Rep. John Conyers only a Capitol Hill basement room for a hearing on the Downing Street Memo’s disclosures about “fixed” intelligence to justify the Iraq War, Milbank’s column dripped with sarcasm.

    “In the Capitol basement yesterday, long-suffering House Democrats took a trip to the land of make-believe,” Milbank wrote. “They pretended a small conference room was the Judiciary Committee hearing room, draping white linens over folding tables to make them look like witness tables and bringing in cardboard name tags and extra flags to make the whole thing look official.”

    And the insults – especially aimed at Conyers – kept on coming. The Michigan Democrat “banged a large wooden gavel and got the other lawmakers to call him ‘Mr. Chairman,’” Milbank wrote snidely. [For details, see Consortiumnews.com’s “Mocking the Downing Street Memo.”]

    Then, last July, Milbank ridiculed a regular House Judiciary Committee hearing on Bush’s abuses of presidential power. The column ignored the strong case for believing that Bush had violated a number of international and domestic laws, the U.S. Constitution, and honorable American traditions, like George Washington’s prohibition against torture.

    Instead, it was time to laugh at the peaceniks. Milbank opened by agreeing with a put-down from Rep. Lamar Smith, R-Texas, calling the session “an anger management class.” Milbank wrote: “House Democrats had called the session … to allow the left wing to vent its collective spleen.”

    Milbank then insulted Rep. Dennis Kucinich, who had introduced impeachment resolutions against Bush, by calling the Ohio Democrat “diminutive” and noting that Kucinich’s wife is “much taller” than he is.

    What Kucinich’s height had to do with an issue as serious as abuses of presidential power was never made clear. What Milbank did make clear, through his derisive tone and repeated insults, was that the Washington Establishment takes none of Bush’s crimes seriously.

    So, Milbank’s mocking of Leahy’s latest initiative fits with this pattern of the past eight years – protecting Bush from the “nut cases” who think international law and war-crimes tribunals should apply to leaders of big countries as well as small ones.

    The pattern of “American exceptionalism” also can be seen in Kristof cheering the application of international law against an African tyrant but suggesting that Bush’s offenses should be handled discreetly by his friends.

    Journalist Murray Waas often used the saying, “all power is proximate.” I never quite understood what he meant, but my best guess was that Waas was saying that careerists – whether journalists or from other professions – might have the guts to take on someone far away or who lacked power, while ignoring or excusing similar actions by someone close by with the power to hurt them.

    That seems to be especially true about Washington and its current cast of “respected” journalists. They can be very tough on President Bashir but only make excuses for President Bush.

    Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories in the 1980s for the Associated Press and Newsweek. His latest book, Neck Deep: The Disastrous Presidency of George W. Bush, was written with two of his sons, Sam and Nat, and can be ordered at neckdeepbook.com. His two previous books, Secrecy & Privilege: The Rise of the Bush Dynasty from Watergate to Iraq and Lost History: Contras, Cocaine, the Press & ‘Project Truth’ are also available there. Or go to Amazon.com.