Archive for the ‘warmongers’ Category

« Older Entries
Newer Entries »

Fake Faith and Epic Crimes

April 3, 2009

By John Pilger | Information Clearing House, Apri 2, 2009

These are extraordinary times. With the United States and Britain on the verge of bankruptcy and committing to an endless colonial war, pressure is building for their crimes to be prosecuted at a tribunal similar to that which tried the Nazis at Nuremberg. This defined rapacious invasion as “the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole.” International law would be mere farce, said the chief US chief prosecutor at Nuremberg, Supreme Court justice Robert Jackson, “if, in future, we do not apply its principles to ourselves.”

That is now happening. Spain, Germany, Belgium, France and Britain have long had “universal jurisdiction” statutes, which allow their national courts to pursue and prosecute prima facie war criminals. What has changed is an unspoken rule never to use international law against “ourselves,” or “our” allies or clients. In 1998, Spain, supported by France, Switzerland and Belgium, indicted the Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet, client and executioner of the West, and sought his extradition from Britain, where he happened to be at the time. Had he been sent for trial he almost certainly would have implicated at least one British prime minister and two US presidents in crimes against humanity. Home Secretary Jack Straw let him escape back to Chile.

The Pinochet case was the ignition. On 19 January last, the George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley compared the status of George W. Bush with that of Pinochet. “Outside [the United States] there is not the ambiguity about what to do about a war crime,” he said. “So if you try to travel, most people abroad are going to view you not as ‘former President George Bush’ [but] as a current war criminal.” For this reason, Bush’s former defence secretary Donald Rumsfeld, who demanded an invasion of Iraq in 2001 and personally approved torture techniques in Iraq and at Guantanamo Bay, no longer travels. Rumsfeld has twice been indicted for war crimes in Germany. On 26 January, the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture, Manfred Nowak, said, “We have clear evidence that Mr. Rumsfeld knew what he was doing but nevertheless he ordered torture.”

The Spanish high court is currently investigating a former Israeli defence minister and six other top Israeli officials for their role in the killing of civilians, mostly children, in Gaza. Henry Kissinger, who was largely responsible for bombing to death 600,000 peasants in Cambodia in 1969-73, is wanted for questioning in France, Chile and Argentina. Yet, on 8 February, as if demonstrating the continuity of American power, President Barack Obama’s national security adviser, James Jones, said, “I take my daily orders from Dr. Kissinger.”

Like them, Tony Blair may soon be a fugitive. The International Criminal Court, to which Britain is a signatory, has received a record number of petitions related to Blair’s wars. Spain’s celebrated Judge Baltasar Garzon, who indicted Pinochet and the leaders of the Argentinian military junta, has called for George W. Bush, Blair and former Spanish prime minister Jose Maria Aznar to be prosecuted for the invasion of Iraq — “one of the most sordid and unjustifiable episodes in recent human history: a devastating attack on the rule of law” that had left the UN “in tatters.” He said, “There is enough of an argument in 650,000 deaths for this investigation to start without delay.”

This is not to say Blair is about to be collared and marched to The Hague, where Serbs and Sudanese dictators are far more likely to face a political court set up by the West. However, an international agenda is forming and a process has begun which is as much about legitimacy as the letter of the law, and a reminder from history that the powerful lose wars and empires when legitimacy evaporates. This can happen quickly, as in the fall of the Berlin Wall and the collapse of apartheid South Africa — the latter a spectre for apartheid Israel.

Today, the unreported “good news” is that a worldwide movement is challenging the once sacrosanct notion that imperial politicians can destroy countless lives in the cause of an ancient piracy, often at remove in distance and culture, and retain their respectability and immunity from justice. In his masterly Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde R.L. Stevenson writes in the character of Jekyll: “Men have before hired bravos to transact their crimes, while their own person and reputation sat under shelter … I could thus plod in the public eye with a load of genial respectability, and, in a moment, like a schoolboy, strip off these lendings and spring headlong into the sea of liberty. But for me, in my impenetrable mantle, the safety was complete.”

Blair, too, is safe — but for how long? He and his collaborators face a new determination on the part of tenacious non-government bodies that are amassing “an impressive documentary record as to criminal charges,” according to international law authority Richard Falk, who cites the World Tribunal on Iraq, held in Istanbul in 2005, which heard evidence from 54 witnesses and published rigorous indictments against Blair, Bush and others. Currently, the Brussels War Crimes Tribunal and the newly established Blair War Crimes Foundation are building a case for Blair’s prosecution under the Nuremberg Principle and the 1949 Geneva Convention. In a separate indictment, former Judge of the New Zealand Supreme Court E.W. Thomas wrote: “My pre-disposition was to believe that Mr. Blair was deluded, but sincere in his belief. After considerable reading and much reflection, however, my final conclusion is that Mr. Blair deliberately and repeatedly misled Cabinet, the British Labour Party and the people in a number of respects. It is not possible to hold that he was simply deluded but sincere: a victim of his own self-deception. His deception was deliberate.”

Protected by the fake sinecure of Middle East Envoy for the Quartet (the US, EU, UN and Russia), Blair operates largely from a small fortress in the American Colony Hotel in Jerusalem, where he is an apologist for the US in the Middle East and Israel, a difficult task following the bloodbath in Gaza. To assist his mortgages, he recently received an Israeli “peace prize” worth a million dollars. He, too, is careful where he travels; and it is instructive to watch how he now uses the media. Having concentrated his post-Downing Street apologetics on a BBC series of obsequious interviews with David Aaronovitch, Blair has all but slipped from view in Britain, where polls have long revealed a remarkable loathing for a former prime minister — a sentiment now shared by those in the liberal media elite whose previous promotion of his “project” and crimes is an embarrassment and preferably forgotten.

On 8 February, Andrew Rawnsley, the Observer’s former leading Blair fan, declared that “this shameful period will not be so smoothly and simply buried.” He demanded, “Did Blair never ask what was going on?”  This is an excellent question made relevant with a slight word change: “Did the Andrew Rawnsleys never ask what was going on?” In 2001, Rawnsley alerted his readers to Iraq’s “contribution to international terrorism” and Saddam Hussein’s “frightening appetite to possess weapons of mass destruction.” Both assertions were false and echoed official Anglo-American propaganda. In 2003, when the destruction of Iraq was launched, Rawnsley described it as a “point of principle” for Blair who, he later wrote, was “fated to be right.” He lamented, “Yes, too many people died in the war. Too many people always die in war. War is nasty and brutish, but at least this conflict was mercifully short.” In the subsequent six years at least a million people have been killed. According to the Red Cross, Iraq is now a country of widows and orphans. Yes, war is nasty and brutish, but never for the Blairs and the Rawnsleys.

Far from the carping turncoats at home, Blair has lately found a safe media harbour — in Australia, the original murdochracy. His interviewers exude an unction reminiscent of the promoters of the “mystical” Blair in the Guardian of than a decade ago, though they also bring to mind Geoffrey Dawson, editor of The Times during the 1930s, who wrote of his infamous groveling to the Nazis: “I spend my nights taking out anything which will hurt their susceptibilities and dropping in little things which are intended to sooth them.”

With his words as a citation, the finalists for the Geoffrey Dawson Prize for Journalism (Antipodes) are announced. On 8 February, in an interview on the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, Geraldine Doogue described Blair as “a man who brought religion into power and is now bringing power to religion.” She asked him: “What would the perception be that faith would bring towards a greater stability …[sic]?” A bemused and clearly delighted Blair was allowed to waffle about “values.” Doogue said to him that “it was the bifurcation about right and wrong that what I thought the British found really hard” [sic], to which Blair replied that “in relation to Iraq I tried every other option [to invasion] there was.” It was his classic lie, which passed unchallenged.

However, the clear winner of the Geoffrey Dawson Prize is Ginny Dougary of the Sydney Morning Herald and the Times. Dougary recently accompanied Blair on what she described as his “James Bondish-ish Gulfstream” where she was privy to his “bionic energy levels.” She wrote, “I ask him the childlike question: does he want to save the world?” Blair replied, well, more or less, aw shucks, yes. The murderous assault on Gaza, which was under way during the interview, was mentioned in passing. “That is war, I’m afraid,” said Blair, “and war is horrible.” No counter came that Gaza was not a war but a massacre by any measure. As for the Palestinians, noted Dougary, it was Blair’s task to “prepare them for statehood.” The Palestinians will be surprised to hear that. But enough gravitas; her man “has the glow of the newly-in-love: in love with the world and, for the most part, the feeling is reciprocated.” The evidence she offered for this absurdity was that “women from both sides of politics have confessed to me to having the hots for him.”

These are extraordinary times. Blair, a perpetrator of the epic crime of the 21st century, shares a “prayer breakfast” with President Obama, the yes-we-can-man now launching more war. “We pray,” said Blair, “that in acting we do God’s work and follow God’s will.” To decent people, such pronouncements about Blair’s “faith” represent a contortion of morality and intellect that is a profanation on the basic teachings of Christianity. Those who aided and abetted his great crime and now wish the rest of us to forget their part — or, like Alistair Campbell, his “communications director,” offer their bloody notoriety for the vicarious pleasure of some — might read the first indictment proposed by the Blair War Crimes Foundation: “Deceit and conspiracy for war, and providing false news to incite passions for war, causing in the order of one million deaths, 4 million refugees, countless maiming and traumas.”

These are indeed extraordinary times.

Tags:, , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Commentary, imperialism, Peace Movement, Uncategorized, USA, War Criminals, warmongers | Leave a Comment »

Beyond Afghanistan: Choosing Nonviolence

April 3, 2009

Published on Thursday, April 2, 2009 by CommonDreams.org

War Resisters League

As we approach the April 4 anniversary of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.’s great 1967 “Beyond Vietnam” speech in New York City’s Riverside Church, the War Resisters League reiterates King’s urgent cry for nonviolence­ and nonviolent resistance. The parallels between the war in Afghanistan and the U.S. war against Vietnam fill us with foreboding. While we adamantly oppose continued U.S. military intervention in Afghanistan and Pakistan, we also call upon people of conscience to think beyond Afghanistan and challenge, as King did, “the giant triplets of racism, extreme materialism, and militarism.”

Others have laid out reasons­from Afghanistan’s topography to the U.S. economic crisis­ that would make an expanded war in Afghanistan “unwinnable.” But WRL does not base our opposition on such arguments. While they may be correct, we challenge the very idea of a “winnable” war and oppose this one as we oppose all war: not solely for practical and strategic reasons, but because of our, and King’s, decades-long commitment to nonviolence.

Purveyor of Violence

Much has changed in the 40-plus years since King made that speech, yet the United States remains, as he named it then, “the greatest purveyor of violence in the world.” WRL stands, as he did, against that violence, which is not only wrong in itself, but cures nothing and rebounds on its perpetrators.

King declared that the people of Vietnam “must see Americans as strange liberators.” The assessment applies today to the people of Afghanistan. Afghanistan has lost more than two million civilian lives to war in the last 30 years alone, and the toll is rising again, in a dreadful example of the ways in which violence boomerangs and warfare begets only devastation and more warfare (including attacks by groups like Al Qaeda). For centuries that battered land has been subject to imperial aggression and intervention. The Taliban rose to power with the support of the U.S. and Pakistani intelligence services, intervening against the USSR’s invasion. Today, Afghanistan’s infrastructure is destroyed. Each year, pregnancy and childbirth kill 25,000 women, and diarrhea kills 85,000 children. Landmines planted in turn by troops of the Soviet Union, the Northern Alliance, and the Taliban kill 600 people per year and maim so many that manufacturing artificial limbs is a major industry. The infamous U.S. “detention center” at Bagram continues to hold more prisoners than Guantánamo. Rather than bombing and shelling Afghanistan­and maintaining a prison there ­the United States could promote economic development, public health, education, food security, women’s empowerment, and de-mining efforts.

The Enemy of the Poor

War wreaks its devastation within our own country as well. In this period of increased global instability and recession, the world is undergoing a tectonic shift in its assumptions about the institutions of capitalism. That re-evaluation must include its assumptions about the institution of war.

“I knew that America would never invest the necessary funds or energies in rehabilitation of its poor so long as adventures like Vietnam continued to draw men and skills and money like some demonic, destructive suction tube,” King said in 1967. Substitute “Iraq and Afghanistan” for Vietnam, and the sentence is equally, terribly true today.

Here as abroad, war remains, as King called it, the “enemy of the poor.” While the Pentagon pours billions of tax dollars into implements of destruction and rains down bombs on poor civilians in Afghanistan, our own infrastructure crumbles, and our own people are struggling without decent schools, healthcare, and employment. The funds that we need to provide housing and care at home end up diverted into killing people thousands of miles away, and people of color, immigrants, and lower-income whites are targeted by military recruiters to do the killing. Massive bailouts line the pockets of bankers, unemployment skyrockets, and military recruiters are having the easiest time meeting their quotas in years.

Nonviolence in Afghanistan and at Home

Despite the monumental obstacles they face, many in Afghanistan and Pakistan are working nonviolently for peace and to repair the ravages of war and warmaking. In Afghanistan, Parliamentarian Malalai Joya­despite illegal suspension from Parliament and assassination attempts ­has continued to denounce the warlords and call for human rights, women’s rights, and governmental accountability. Thousands of peace advocates in northern Pakistan and southern Afghanistan have met in the assemblies called jirgas to imagine and formulate peace and reconstruction initiatives. The lawyers’ campaign in Pakistan has mobilized thousands, despite beatings and arrests, to reverse the military’s control over the courts. Others are building schools and countering the bitter legacy of violence against women. U.S. peace advocates should be promoting and publicizing these nonviolent actions to rebuild Afghan and Pakistani society in the midst of war, devastation, warlordism, and patriarchal control.

In our own country as well, there are increasingly loud voices against war and for a reordering of our priorities­for affordable housing, universal healthcare, gender justice, disability rights, clean energy, quality education, restorative justice, fair food, and an anti-racist society. Among these allies are newcomers to the United States, people who have survived and resisted wars and challenged immigration policies that facilitate the extraction of profits from cheap labor, even while being criminalized, imprisoned, deported, and denied citizenship. Some of those most forsaken by the U.S. government have continued to build organizations and networks for those with no safety net.

The Choice

The War Resisters League urges everyone to join us in organizing, protesting, and demanding the closing of Bagram prison (and all such “detention centers”) and an end to military actions in Afghanistan and Pakistan and across the globe. Organizing against military recruitment is as important as ever now that ­the military is preying on those most affected by the battered economy. Support the voices and actions of the survivors of war. Listen to veterans of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars; create space for their heartbreaking stories of remorse and harrowing accounts of the worst kinds of violence and dehumanization. Stop funding war – ­become a war tax resister. Instead of paying to train men and women to kill, foster ways to help all of us rebuild our communities.

The so-called “war on terrorism,” with its occupations and detentions, its torture and carnage, has failed because military action can never lead to security. We don’t have easy answers, but we know that the cycle of violence has to end, and we have to help end it. While thousands of people in Afghanistan and Pakistan are finding the courage to risk their lives to work for nonviolent solutions, we have a responsibility to lift our voices. We must reject the notions of good wars and bad wars, legal or illegal wars, winnable and unwinnable wars. We must decide whether our identity as a nation will be based on a culture of cultivating life or dealing death. As King declared, “A nation that continues year after year to spend more money on military defense than on programs of social uplift is approaching spiritual death. … We still have a choice today: nonviolent coexistence or violent co-annihilation.” Together, let’s choose the path of nonviolence.

For suggestions for actions opposing war in Afghanistan, see United for Peace and Justice, the antiwar coalition to which WRL belongs, www.unitedforpeace.org/article.php?id=4044..

The United States’ oldest secular pacifist organization, the War Resisters League has been resisting war at home and war abroad since 1923. Our work for nonviolent revolution has spanned decades and has been shaped by the new visions and strategies of each generation’s peacemakers.

Tags:, , , , , , ,
Posted in Afghanistan, Commentary, Peace Movement, USA, warmongers | Leave a Comment »

“Af-Pak: Obama’s War”

April 3, 2009

by Immanuel Wallerstein ,  commentary No. 254, April 1, 2009

Af-Pak is the new acronym the U.S. government has invented for Afghanistan-Pakistan. Its meaning is that there is a geopolitical concern of the United States in which the strategy that the United States wishes to pursue involves both countries simultaneously and they cannot be considered separately. The United States has emphasized this policy by appointing a single Special Representative to the two countries, Richard Holbrooke.

It was George W. Bush who sent U.S. troops into Afghanistan. And it was George W. Bush who initiated the policy of using U.S. drones to bomb sites in Pakistan. But, now that Barack Obama, after a “careful policy review,” has embraced both policies, it has become Barack Obama’s war. This comes as no enormous surprise since, during the presidential campaign, Obama indicated that he would do these things. Still, now he has done it.

This decision is likely to be seen in retrospect as Obama’s single biggest decision concerning U.S. foreign policy, one that will be noticed by future historians as imprinting its stamp on his reputation. And it is likely to be seen as well as his single biggest mistake. For, as Vice-President Biden apparently warned in the inner policy debate on the issue, it is likely to be a quagmire from which it will be as easy to disengage as the Vietnam war.

There are therefore two questions. Why did he do it? And what are likely to be the consequences during his term of office?

Let us begin with his own explanation of why he did it. He said that “the situation is increasingly perilous,” that “the future of Afghanistan is inextricably linked to the future of its neighbor, Pakistan,” and that “for the American people, [Pakistan’s] border region [with Afghanistan] has become the most dangerous place in the world.”

And why is it so dangerous? Quite simply, it is because it is a safe haven for al-Qaeda to “train terrorists” and to “plot attacks” – not only against Afghanistan and the United States but everywhere in the world. The fight against al-Qaeda is no longer called the “war on terrorism” but is hard to see the difference. Obama claims that the Bush administration had lost its “focus” and that he has now installed a “comprehensive, new strategy.” In short, Obama is going to do this better than Bush.

What then are the new elements? The United States will send more troops to Afghanistan – 17,000 combat troops and 4000 trainers of the Afghan forces. It will send more money. It proposes to give Pakistan $1.5 billion a year for five years to “build schools and roads and hospitals.” It proposes to send “agricultural specialists and educators, engineers and lawyers” to Afghanistan to “develop an economy that isn’t dominated by illicit drugs.” In short, Obama says that he believes that “a campaign against extremism will not succeed with bullets or bombs alone.”

However, implicitly unlike Bush, this will not be a “blank check” to the two governments. “Pakistan must demonstrate its commitment to rooting out al Qaeda and the violent extremists within its borders.” As for Afghanistan, the United States “will seek a new compact with the Afghan government that cracks down on corrupt behavior.” The Afghan and Pakistani governments are pleased to be getting the new resources. They haven’t said that they will meet Obama’s conditions. And Obama hasn’t said what he will do if the two governments don’t meet his conditions.

As for the way forward, Obama asserts that “there will be no peace without reconciliation with former enemies.” Reconciliation? Well, not with the “uncompromising core of the Taliban,” or with al-Qaeda, but with those Taliban “who’ve taken up arms because of coercion, or simply for a price.” To do this, Obama wants assistance. He proposes to create a new Contact Group that will include not only “our NATO allies” but also “the Central Asian states, the Gulf nations and Iran, Russia, India and China.”

The most striking aspect of this major commitment is how little enthusiasm it has evoked around the world. In the United States, it has been applauded by the remnants of the neo-cons and McCain. So far, other politicians and the press have been reserved. Iran, Russia, India, and China have not exactly jumped on the bandwagon. They are particularly cool about the idea of reconciliation with so-called moderate Taliban. And both the Guardian and McClatchy report that the Taliban themselves have reacted by creating unity within their hitherto divided ranks – presumably the opposite of what Obama is trying to achieve.

So, where will we probably be six months from now? There will be more U.S. troops in Afghanistan, and the U.S. commanders will probably say that the 21,000 Obama is sending are not enough. There will be further withdrawals of NATO troops from there – a repeat of the Iraq scenario. There will be further, perhaps more extensive, bombings in Pakistan, and consequently even more intensive anti-American sentiments throughout the country. The Pakistani government will not be moving against the Taliban for at least three reasons. The still very influential ISI component of the Pakistani army actually supports the Taliban. The rest of the army is conflicted and in any case probably too weak to do the job. The government will not really press them to do more because it will only thereby strengthen its main rival party which opposes such action and the result may be another army coup.

In short, the “clear and focused goal” that Obama proposes – “to disrupt, dismantle and defeat al Qaeda in Pakistan and Afghanistan, and to prevent their return to either country in the future” – will probably be further than ever from accomplishment. The question is what can Obama do then? He can “stay the course” (shades of Rumsfeld in Iraq), constantly escalate the troop commitment, while changing the local political leadership (shades of Kennedy/Johnson and Ngo Dinh Diem in Vietnam), or he can turn tail and pull out (as the United States finally did in Vietnam). He is not going to be cheered for any of these choices.

I have the impression that Obama thinks that his speech left him some wiggle room. I think he will find out rather how few choices he will have that are palatable. I think therefore he made a big, probably irreparable, mistake.

Tags:, , , , , , , ,
Posted in Afghanistan, Commentary, US policy, warmongers | Leave a Comment »

U.S. Weighs Putting 70,000 Troops in Afghanistan

April 2, 2009

By Yochi J. Dreazen | The Wall Street Journal, April 1, 2009

WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama is weighing whether to deploy 10,000 more troops to Afghanistan but lawmakers on both sides of the aisle are questioning an increased commitment and seeking specific measures of progress against the deteriorating conditions in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

When President Obama took office, the U.S. had about 38,000 troops in Afghanistan. The White House has announced plans to send 21,000 reinforcements in coming months, increasing the tally to almost 60,000.

Mr. Obama will decide this fall whether to order 10,000 more troops to Afghanistan next year, senior Pentagon officials told a Senate panel Wednesday, bringing the total to almost 70,000.

[A U.S. Marine patrols with his squad past destoyed houses in Now Zad in Helmand province Afghanistan on Wednesday.] Getty Images

A U.S. Marine patrols with his squad past destoyed houses in Now Zad in Helmand province Afghanistan on Wednesday.

Lawmakers sought benchmarks on U.S. efforts in the area. “How will we know if we’re winning?” asked Sen. Susan Collins (R., Maine).

The hearing before the Senate Armed Services Committee came days after the Obama administration rolled out its new strategy for Afghanistan. The strategy is designed to counter the Taliban’s resurgence as an effective fighting force capable of exerting day-to-day control over many rural parts of the country.

The White House plan calls for deploying 4,000 troops and hundreds of civilian officials, expanding U.S. counternarcotics efforts in southern Afghanistan, and giving billions of dollars in development aid to Pakistan.

Lawmakers from both parties expressed skepticism about Pakistan’s willingness — or ability — to take effective measures against its militants.

Sen. John McCain of Arizona, the panel’s ranking Republican, faulted Pakistan for striking a peace treaty with Taliban militants in the Swat Valley that allows for the implementation of strict Islamic law there.

Sen. McCain also said the Pakistani government and military need to exert greater control over the country’s Inter-Services Intelligence arm, which has long been suspected of providing covert assistance to the Taliban and other Islamist extremists.

Gen. David Petraeus, who runs the military’s Central Command, and Michele Flournoy, the Pentagon’s undersecretary of defense for policy, said Pakistan hadn’t yet fully committed to the counterterrorism fight.

“Many Pakistani leaders remain focused on India as Pakistan’s principal threat, and some may even continue to regard Islamist extremist groups as a potential strategic asset,” Gen. Petraeus said.

The Pentagon officials said they think their new strategy is the best way to stabilize Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Gen. Petraeus said the Afghan Taliban are “growing in strength” and expanding their influence over portions of the country. Militants in Pakistan pose a serious risk to that country’s survival, he added.

“The Pakistani state faces a rising — indeed, an existential — threat,” he said. “In Afghanistan, the situation is deteriorating.”

In a reminder of the Taliban’s resurgence, militants from the group assaulted a government office in the southern city of Kandahar, killing at least 13 people.

The attack began when a suicide bomber detonated a car bomb at the gates to a provincial council building, clearing the way for a trio of heavily armed militants in Afghan army uniforms to storm the compound. The four militants also died in the assault.

A senior Pentagon official said in an interview that commanders in Afghanistan want to deploy the 10,000 additional forces to southern Afghanistan, a Taliban stronghold that is also one of the largest drug-producing regions in the world. The extra forces would provide an additional brigade of combat troops as well as a new American division headquarters in southern Afghanistan, the official said.

—Peter Spiegel contributed to this article.

Write to Yochi J. Dreazen at yochi.dreazen@wsj.com

Tags:, , ,
Posted in Commentary, imperialism, Uncategorized, USA, warmongers | Leave a Comment »

No to War, No to NATO

April 2, 2009

by Katrina vanden Heuvel | The Nation, March 31, 2009

With President Obama announcing his new strategy for US/NATO escalation in Afghanistan, the April 3-4 NATO Summit in Baden-Baden and Kehl, Germany, and in Strasbourg, France, takes on added urgency — as will the demonstrations by thousands of protestors from over 20 European countries and the US.

Member states will attempt to use the summit as an occasion to celebrate the alliance’s 60th anniversary, France’s return to NATO, and perhaps offer a new “Strategic Concept” as an interventionist force around the world. Activists will articulate an alternative vision focused on securing global peace and confronting domestic challenges at home, including a call for the dissolution of NATO.

Beginning April 1, a diverse coalition of activists will participate in training camps, demonstrations, conferences, workshops, and non-violent blockades. At a moment when international cooperation on economic and human security interests is needed more than ever, the protestors view a US-led, expansionist NATO as destabilizing and dangerous. What was originally designed as a defense alliance against the Warsaw Pact has taken on a very different post-Cold War, global interventionist role.

Activists see a NATO with bases on every continent; a military force that organizers say accounts for more than 75 percent of global military expenditures and drains resources that might otherwise address needs like education, job creation, and poverty; “out of area” operations in Kosovo, Afghanistan, the Mediterranean Sea, and a training mission in Iraq; a destabilizing presence pushing a “missile defense” system, ignoring international law, expanding to Russia’s doorstep, and maintaining a first-strike option — all fueling a renewed arms race. (Recently, popular opposition to the proposed Czech-based radar system for US missile defense was a key factor in bringing down the ruling government there. Peace activist Jan Tamas led a hunger strike that galvanized opposition and he will be speaking at the “counter summit” in Strasbourg.)

Elsa Rassbach, a US citizen and filmmaker who has lived much of the time in Berlin since the mid-1990s, is a member of the International Coordinating Committee that is planning many of the activities of this broad coalition. She said that the need to respond to the occasion of NATO’s 60th anniversary has brought “a lot of different strands” together to collaborate since last June. “For example,” she said, “in the German peace movement — not only the large peace organizations and some Members of the German Parliament, but also smaller groups concerned about military bases used to conduct US/NATO wars, people concerned about atomic weapons…the social movements — the fact that militarization is costing too much. German youth and people concerned with soldier resistance and conscientious objector issues…. We’re bringing disparate movements and organizations together — both large and small — for the NATO action.”

Participants will include national and international groups representing the peace, human rights and anti-globalization movements, as well as students and youth groups. Also represented are trade unions, parliamentary Left and Green parties, and Attac. In all, 600 organizations from 33 countries — including Iraq, Afghanistan, Japan, Georgia, Brazil, Guinea, the Philippines and Turkey — have endorsed the campaign’s “No to War, No to NATO” appeal.

US participants include United for Peace and Justice (UFPJ), Code Pink, American Friends Service Committee (AFSC), Iraq Veterans against the War (IVAW), Peace Action, the Institute for Policy Studies (IPS) and others.

Perhaps no issue will be more prominent at the Summit and the protests than the War in Afghanistan and Pakistan. EU and NATO troops and resources are key to President Obama’s new plan for escalation, and most Europeans are strongly opposed to the war (though many favor humanitarian aid, reconstruction projects, etc.) In Germany, for example, surveys suggest opposition as high as 70 percent.

Andreas Speck, member of the International Coordination Committee, and also the War Resisters’ International which is participating in non-violent, civil disobedience, said: “This Summit is really important to NATO for taking its next step in becoming a global intervention force — obviously, NATO’s operation in Afghanistan will be an important topic. We want to show that Afghanistan is no better than Iraq — it’s a war that is not justified and we are completely opposed to this military operation.”

Rassbach agreed. “We want Americans to understand that the reason this opposition to NATO is emerging is that NATO — originally supposed to be a defensive alliance — is being converted into a very aggressive force to intervene around the world, and Afghanistan is a prime example,” she said. “Afghanistan is a key test for the ‘out of area’ intervention concept.”

The current schedule calls for: a camp near Strasbourg April 1-5; a conference on NATO and Human Rights on April 1; a hearing on the War in Afghanistan in Karlsruhe, Germany on April 2; a congress/counter summit of leading intellectuals, activists, and representatives of European political parties in Strasbourg on April 3 and April 5; actions in Baden-Baden on April 3 in conjunction with German Chancellor Merkel’s dinner for the heads of state; and also on the morning of April 4 in Strasbourg when a photo-op is scheduled at the pedestrian bridge Passerelle des deux Rives, and the NATO Summit begins in the Palais De La Musique Et Des Congres; the climactic international demonstration in Strasbourg on the afternoon of April 4.

The organizing challenges are enormous.

Just for the civil disobedience coalition — “Block NATO“, which is smaller than the broader coalition — Speck said there will be thousands of people coming in from Germany, France, Spain, Belgium, the Netherlands, Sweden, Finland, Britain “and a few other countries.”

“It’s a big challenge for us in terms of communication — during the actions, the trainings, and the conference” he said. “Because we will need translation for a lot of these things.”

The coalition has also reached out to the French police to let them know they will be protesting non-violently. They will meet with them on the morning of April 1.

“We fear that the police will not act non-violently against us, so we want them to know that there’s no threat from our side,” Speck said. “The problem is we never know what the police will do and also if they will use agent provocateurs to create the images that they want.”

Perhaps even more pressing is the proposed route for the larger demonstration. The French authorities have relegated it to the outskirts far from the cordoned off Strasbourg city center where the Summit will be held. (The security within the city is extreme and controversial. The French court is currently hearing complaints from residents who are already being asked by police to take down peace flags hanging from their balconies, and who will be forced to wear badges during the summit to move about the city.) Under French law, there are no opportunities to appeal the demonstration route but organizers continue to press their case.

“Nobody’s demanding that we demonstrate very close to the Summit, just something reasonably close,” Speck said. “My fear is that if it’s very far out then people will not accept this…. And maybe that’s what [the authorities] want — a confrontation. Because then you have people upset, trying to make their way to the center of the city, and that will give the police the opportunity to provoke some violent confrontation. I hope that’s not going to happen, we don’t want this to happen.”

(Speck said people in the US can help by writing the French Embassy and speaking out against this infringement on the human right to freedom of expression and assembly.)

Of course, there will be no such negotiations regarding time and place for acts of civil disobedience. “The aim is… to effectively blockade the NATO summit venue basically with our bodies… And to obstruct the functioning of the summit by cutting off the leaders from the infrastructure that they need. There will be no material-blockades or actions which, for example, attack the police.”

Joanne Landy, co-director of the Campaign for Peace and Democracyin the US, said these events and the fervor surrounding them are something the US should be paying attention to. “NATO is very much part and parcel to how the US tries to marshal other countries to do some of the heavy-lifting for an imperial policy,” she said. “This imperial policy is catastrophic for us…. it completely distorts our resources, and it’s just fundamentally the wrong relationship to have with the rest of the world. I would like to have a world in which we could actually be in solidarity with labor movements and women’s movements and so forth. But right now whatever the US does is suspect and for good reason. So you really need a very different foreign policy all together in which the military wouldn’t play the role that it does now, and where the US could really support the needs of ordinary people everywhere.”

“American activists can see this anti-NATO protest as how Europe is protesting the Afghanistan War,” Rassbach said. “But it’s also more than that. It’s against all the military costs and the military bases in Europe and NATO’s nuclear first-strike policy that includes the proposed missile defense shield in Poland and the Czech Republic. The Cold War is over, so why should NATO continue?”

There is another important achievement here that the American peace movement is working towards as well.

“For many people it’s new to work in such a broad coalition,” Speck said. “Sometimes there is quite a bit of tension in the international committee. But on the other hand, everyone wants to work together, with our differences, to counter what NATO is doing, what the EU is doing, and all the militarization that we see going on…. That’s what our work in diverse movements is about, to deal with the differences. We want to create a much more diverse and democratic society so we need to learn to live with these kinds of differences.”

Katrina vanden Heuvel is editor of The Nation.

Tags:, , , , , ,
Posted in Commentary, Peace Movement, USA, warmongers | Leave a Comment »

The Absurdity of Spending US Tax Dollars on Israel

March 31, 2009

Paul J. Balles argues that if enough ordinary Americans “feel the pinch and connect the dots between their own financial losses and America’s continued unbridled support of Israel’s devastating war machine, Israel could be forced to make peace with the Palestinians”.

By PAUL J. BALLES | South Lebanon, March 31, 2009

The philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer once quipped that a person is not conscious of his or her little toe until the shoe pinches. Likewise, one typically is not conscious of an event or situation that can have great impact on one’s life until it has a direct affect.

In an article I wrote in September 2007 on “Overcoming the apathy, fear and listlessness of Americans“, I pointed out that, “liberties and freedoms may be squeezed … but until ‘the shoe pinches’, the squeezing won’t hurt most people enough to get them to act”. In short, most people pay little, if any, attention to politics, social issues, environmental problems, economic concerns or military events until they hurt directly.

The things that are now painfully connected to the recent financial crisis in America include health care costs that people are unable to meet, home foreclosures, job losses, excessive credit debt and loss of pay.

Is it possible that an economic catastrophe in America might have a surprisingly positive effect? An article by Jane Stillwater entitled “Our dual-citizenship Congress” suggested an unforeseen result that could be very good for the whole world.

First, Jane’s article reveals that the shoe is pinching ordinary Americans. She writes:

I turned on the television last night and listened to the local news anchor tell me, “The State of California is currently facing bankruptcy.” I live in California.

This is not good news. Plus California’s jobs are drying up, homes are being foreclosed on, stores are going out of business, schools are laying off teachers, banks are eliminating branches. The eighth-largest economy in the world is about to tank. Boy could we use some financial help from the feds.

Then, after asking, “But will we get it?” she concludes, “Probably not.” While California and other states are not receiving bailouts like the banks that will help ordinary people, Jane concludes:

But Congress still continues to enthusiastically pour billions of our taxpayers’ dollars into the Israeli economy each year. What’s with that? Do our Congressional representatives hold dual citizenship with the United States and Israel or what? When are they going to stop voting pork for Israel and start voting bailout money for CA?

Are we Californians going to have to start firing Qassam rockets at Washington to get their attention or what?

After getting Jane’s permission, I sent her article to my Congressman and cc’d it to everyone I know in California. The next day, I received several comments that echoed Jane’s complaint. Why are we continuing to send US taxpayer money to support Israel’s slaughter of innocents in Gaza while we don’t have enough money to support our own economy?

My daughter wrote, “It infuriates me to think that they are spending our tax $$$ for Israel instead of our own country and state. Yes, we are feeling the pain of it too!”

Her husband, a fire captain in Southern California, has just lost 10 per cent of his pay due to the governor’s budget cuts.

How can this possibly have a positive outcome? The economic crisis in both state and federal budgets has already pinched many shoes. Americans are very upset at the damage done to their financial conditions.

If enough people feel the pinch and connect the dots between their own financial losses and America’s continued unbridled support of Israel’s devastating war machine, Israel could be forced to make peace with the Palestinians.

How could that happen? Israel would no longer be able to ignore the Arab peace initiative first proposed in 2002 that offers pan-Arab recognition of Israel in exchange for Israel’s withdrawal from lands captured in 1967.

Paul J. Balles is a retired American university professor and freelance writer who has lived in the Middle East for many years. For more information, see http://www.pballes.com.

Tags:, , , , ,
Posted in Commentary, Peace Movement, USA, warmongers, Zionist Israel | Leave a Comment »

Pentagon war spending hits $685.7 billion – GAO

March 31, 2009

Reuters, March 30, 2009

WASHINGTON, March 30 (Reuters) – Pentagon spending on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and to fight terrorism elsewhere has reached $685.7 billion since 2001, a U.S. government watchdog agency said on Monday.

The Government Accountability Office, or GAO, said the Iraq war accounted for $533.5 billion in Defense Department spending obligations through last December, while spending on operations in Afghanistan, the Horn of Africa and the Philippines totaled $124.1 billion.

The remaining $28.1 billion was for operations to defend the U.S. mainland, the GAO said in a letter to Congress dated March 30.

The spending total equals about 85 percent of the $808 billion that Congress has appropriated for military operations in the global war on terrorism since the Sept. 11 attacks on New York and Washington, the GAO said.

The $122.3 billion difference reflects multiyear contracts for procurement, military construction, research, development and other programs, the watchdog agency said.

GAO figures show the rise in Pentagon obligations slowing from 40 percent hikes between 2005 and 2007 to a 33 percent increase in 2008. Obligations for 2008 totaled $162.4 billion.

Congress has appropriated $65.9 billion for 2009 so far and the Obama administration is seeking another $75.5 billion, suggesting $141.4 billion in total appropriations for the year, down from 2008.

Pentagon spending in the first three months of fiscal year 2009 — from Oct. 1 to Dec. 31, 2008 — equaled about $31 billion, of which $25 billion went to the war in Iraq and nearly $6 billion to operations in Afghanistan, the Horn of Africa and the Philippines.

The Army accounted for $21.5 billion of war on terrorism obligations during the same period, followed by the Air Force at $3.7 billion. (Reporting by David Morgan, editing by Patricia Zengerle)

Tags:, ,
Posted in imperialism, USA, warmongers | Leave a Comment »

Israel’s Ethnic Cleansing Policy and Land Day: Palestinian Uprising and Resistance

March 31, 2009
Written by Ahmad Jaradat, Alternative Information Center (AIC)
Monday, 30 March 2009
Land Day: March 30th 1976, Palestinians took to the streets to protest Israel’s land confiscations orders. They were met by police and soldiers who opened fire on protesters, killing six of them and injuring many others.

pdf land_day_–_list_of_actions 10.61 Kb

On March 30, 1976, six young Palestinians were killed and dozens injured in mass demonstrations that took place in many towns and villages.  Twenty-eight years before, Palestinians lost 78% of their land to the Zionists during the months before and after Israel declared itself a State in 1948.   Not until 1966 did Palestinians, who remained in what became Israel, receive citizenship, living under military rule in the 20 year interim, much like Palestinians of the West Bank and Gaza live today.  These years were marked by continued land theft and the activation of Israel’s policy of “Judeazation” of the Galilee, and other areas where indigenous Palestinians remained on their lands.

The State of Israel continues its policies of land theft.  But on this day, March 30th 1976, Palestinians took to the streets to protest Israel’s land confiscations orders. They were met by police and soldiers who opened fire on protesters, killing six of them and injuring many others.

The brave young men who were killed, and the many others who continue to protest Israel’s policies of land confiscation, have done more than fight for their rights and the rights of all Palestinians.  They have revealed the true face of Israel; a racist state whose aim, carried out through its policies of land confiscation, is to ethnically cleanse the land of all Palestinians, including Palestinians who are now citizens of Israel.

Palestinians everywhere commemorate Land Day, March 30th.   Not only to remember those who were killed in struggle but to unite in their message: Our land is the cornerstone of our struggle, it is the land on which we can exercise our rights and self determination.

In the West Bank, Israel’s goal of theft and control plays out through the building of more illegal Jewish-only settlements and “security” infrastructure to support them, including bypass roads and, of course, the monstrous Apartheid Wall.  The effect on Palestinian life is crushing.  This is the real aim of the occupation.  As Palestinians continue standing on their land and resisting against the occupation, they are resisting Israel’s policy of “silent deportation.”

In 2009, the commemoration of the Land Day is particularly poignant   Suffering Gazans are still being kept under siege as the world continues to watch.  1,400 Gazans were killed during Israel’s 23 day massive assault and another 5,000 were injured.  It is estimated that 30% of dead and wounded are children. Tens of thousands have been made homeless. There are reports of Israel having used white phosphorus weapons against the civilians.

This year’s land day comes at a time when massive deportation is taking place in east Jerusalem through the demolition of houses.

Of course, when we talk about settlers and settlement projects we are talking about a struggle for land. The usurpation and confiscation of Palestinian land involves more constraints and difficulties at all levels. Politically, it is an attempt to create an argument “facts on the ground” used to prevent Palestinians from implementing their rights in a state. It means Palestinians losing the revenues from their own land. Since 2000, one million trees where uprooted to expand settlements and to build the Apartheid wall.

Since the Oslo Accords, the supposed peace process signed in 1993, the number of settlers increased from 150,000 to 500,000 and the number of houses in the settlements increased five times. In some Palestinian cities or towns, like Hebron downtown, the number of settlers increased from 150 in 1993 to 500 in 2009.

Dozens of villages and towns have become virtual prisons, as they are completely surrounded by settlements. This is the case of Nahhaleen, in the west of Bethlehem.
The occupation displacement policy is daily implemented in the West Bank, according to district reports.

In south hills of Hebron, thousands of citizens were deported from their villages. In the north valleys, more than 6 villages like Aqaba, Madam and Bardallah are facing a displacement policy that includes demolition of their homes or confiscation of their land; such policies are to facilitate the development and expansion of the illegal settlements.  Many villages close to the Jerusalem Municipality border were illegally annexed to the city during the eighties.  However, the residents still hold West Bank identity cards. This is the case of Al-Walaja, Alkas, and Alon’man, in the Bethlehem district.  These towns  are now closed off by barrier fences.  Their residents are absolutely prevented from building new houses because, as West Bank residents, they cannot request the Jerusalem Municipality for building permits.

Land Day 2009, Global day
The Land Day as a symbol of the struggle in Palestine has become a day of solidarity with Palestinian people in their struggle for their rights.  At the World Social Forum, held in Brazil this past January, an initiative was launched calling for March 30 to be a Global Day of Action for Palestine and the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions campaign to end the Israeli occupation and apartheid.

This is a very important step forward towards real solidarity for Palestine.  It is provides a way to put real pressure on the International Community to seriously and clearly address creating a real and fair peace in Palestine. The Land Day, and actually the land of Palestinians, has become not only a Palestinian symbol of struggle but also a symbol of solidarity movements and of all powers who work for peace in Palestine. Demonstrations, meetings, exhibitions, conferences, etc. have been prepared around the world to commemorate the Day of Land.

From all indications, Land Day 2009 will again focus on the so-called peace process of the Oslo Accords, on the fight of Palestinian people for their rights on their land, and on the creation of real solidarity at an international level. Last year, we wrote an article for the occasion called: “Land Day 2008: Eyewitness on the failure of Oslo Agreement”. In 2009, everybody knows well what happened: War Against Gaza, Settlements Expansion, Displacement Policy, Home Demolishing, Land Confiscation, Assassination policy, Detentions, etc. All of these point to the same conclusion: while the occupation continues its policy of ethnic cleansing, Palestinians will continue to struggle for their land and their rights.

Tags:, , ,
Posted in Palestine, warmongers, Zionist Israel | Leave a Comment »

Report: Israel carried out 3 attacks on Sudan arms smugglers

March 29, 2009

By Haaretz Service and The Associated Press | Haaretz, Israel, March 28, 2009

Israel has carried out three air strikes since January against what was believed to be Iranian arms shipments passing through Sudan on their way to Gaza, the American news network ABC reported on Friday.

Earlier this week Sudanese officials confirmed that in January, in the wake Israel’s assault on Hamas-ruled Gaza, unidentified aircraft attacked a convoy of 17 trucks heading north through eastern Sudan. CBSNews reported on Thursday that the Israel Air Force was apparently behind the attack.

A U.S. official confirmed to ABC that there were actually three attacks in total. This information matches reports from Sudanese officials of two strikes on truck convoys on January 27 and February 11, and the sinking of a suspected arms ship in the Red Sea.

According to the report, 39 people riding in the 17-truck convoy were killed, while a number of civilians in the area were injured.

The Lebanese militant group Hezbollah denounced on Saturday the alleged airstrikes.

In a statement, Hezbollah called the airstrikes a new ‘Israeli crime’ and urged Arab leaders meeting in Qatar next week to craft a response denouncing them.

Israeli officials declined to confirm or deny whether Israel had been involved in an air strike in Sudan.

However, outgoing Prime Minister Ehud Olmert hinted on Thursday at Israel’s suspected role in the reported air-strike.

“We operate everywhere where we can hit terror infrastructure – in close places, in places further away, everywhere where we can hit terror infrastructure, we hit them and we hit them in a way that increases deterrence,” said Olmert, speaking at a conference in Herzliya.

“It was true in the north in a series of incidents and it was true in the south, in a series of incidents,” he added. “There is no point in going into detail, and everybody can use their imagination. Those who need to know, know. And those who need to know, know that there is no place where Israel cannot operate. There is no such place.”

Continued >>

Tags:, ,
Posted in warmongers, Zionist Israel | Leave a Comment »

Taking Off the Blinders in the U.S.

March 28, 2009

By A.M. Khan | ZNet, March 28. 2009

A.M. Khan’s ZSpace Page


“There has been anti-Semitism, the Nazis, Hitler, Auschwitz but was that their [the Palestinians] fault? They only see one thing: We have come here and stolen their country.”

–David Ben-Gurion, one of the founders of Israel and the first Prime Minister

Now that Israel’s bombardment of Gaza is off the front page and the Gazans are left to deal with the aftermath outside of world media attention, it makes sense to step back and review how the Israel-Palestine conflict is depicted in U.S. mainstream media. This depiction shapes how the U.S. public views the recent events in Gaza. It also shapes how the public understands what constitutes a just resolution to the conflict.

The nature of U.S. mainstream media coverage of events in Gaza and of the Israel-Palestine conflict renders Americans grossly misinformed. U.S. media representations are largely absent of historical context and omit the fact that for decades Israel has committed human rights violations against the Palestinian people and occupied their land. The media lens in mainstream U.S. coverage (print and television) obscures core issues and creates a false framework of the conflict. In the U.S., the Israel-Palestine conflict is framed as “a cycle of violence” between two adversaries of equal power engaged since millennia in a conflict based on religious and ethnic difference.  Not a single element of this frame is true.

Myth Number 1: The conflict has been ongoing since millennia.

The conflict is less than 100 years old. Before 1900, Jews, Christians, and Muslims lived together in the Holy Land mostly peacefully in a quiet agrarian society. While some European Jews immigrated in the late 1800’s to what was then Ottoman Empire-controlled Palestine, their numbers were small. In 1917, as World War I was coming to a close, the British government became the colonial power in control of historic Palestine (the area known today as Israel, the West Bank, and the Gaza Strip). With the 1917 “Balfour Declaration” the British made clear their support for a Jewish state in Palestine. After 1917, immigration of European Jews to Palestine escalated, increasing each year as time wore on. Many of these new immigrants were in flight from anti-Semitism in Europe.

As the Nazis came to power in Germany in the early 1930’s and began their oppression and later genocide of European Jews, the numbers of European Jewish immigrants to Palestine increased dramatically. Through these early decades of the 20th century, between the British commitment to creating a Jewish state in Palestine and as more European Jews flooded in, tensions between the European newcomers and the native Palestinian Arabs began and increased over time. After the genocide and near annihilation of European Jewry by the Nazis during World War II, the movement to make a Jewish homeland in Historic Palestine found understandable sympathy. The fly in the ointment was the fact that another people already lived in that land.

In 1948 the state of Israel was established by these European Jewish immigrants, adherents of an ideology called “Zionism.” There were different opinions among Zionist leaders as to how to deal with the native Palestinian Arabs. Some advocated peaceful co-existence and others advocated dispossession and expulsion. There were also positions in between. In the end, the more regressive positions prevailed. In their writings, Zionist leaders like David Ben-Gurion, the first Prime Minister of Israel, were explicit and unapologetic about their aim to expel the native Palestinian Arabs and take their land.

The 1948 nation building of Israel was premised on dispossession of the natives, including a premeditated campaign of ethnic cleansing and massacre. In 1948, Zionist military forces expelled about 750,000 Palestinians from 78% of Historic Palestine into the West Bank, Gaza Strip, and exile abroad. After statehood, these Zionist forces became the Israeli army. In 1967, again through military means, Israel took control of the remaining 22% of historic Palestine (i.e., the West Bank and Gaza Strip). The Palestinians driven into the West Bank and Gaza Strip in 1948 (as well as those already there) came under Israeli military occupation in 1967, where they remain today 41 years later. Thus, in 1948 Israel proper was created on 78% of historic Palestine and since 1967 Israel has occupied the remaining 22% of historic Palestine.

Myth Number 2: The conflict is a cycle of violence between adversaries of similar power

The Israel-Palestine conflict is between two parties vastly unequal in power. Israel, the nuclear-armed occupier, has the fourth most powerful army in the world and cutting edge military weaponry. The Palestinians, an occupied and stateless people, are largely unarmed. The Palestinians have no army, no air force, no planes, no tanks, no gunships, and no nuclear weapons. This is why we see pictures of Palestinians throwing stones at tanks. If you possessed anything more powerful, would a stone really be your weapon of choice against a tank?

Myth Number 3: The conflict is based on religious and ethnic differences

The Israel-Palestine conflict is about possession and control of a small piece of land approximately the size of New Jersey. Israel believes itself entitled to all of the land because in the Bible God promised all of historic Palestine to the Jews. Since 1967, in violation of international law, Israel has moved 500,000 of its citizens into the West Bank. These settlers are connected to Israel through Israeli-only roads that crisscross the West Bank. West Bank Palestinians are not allowed to use these roads and must take circuitous routes on older roads in order to go around Israeli settlements, often adding hours to their journeys.

Regarding the “peace process,” Israel’s talk of making peace has been a rhetorical screen. Behind this screen each and every Israeli government since 1967,whether its flavor was left, right, or center, has continued the campaign begun in 1948, of land grab, human rights violations, and imprisonment of the Palestinians into multiple separate enclaves within the Occupied Territories of the West Bank and Gaza Strip. Since 1967 every Israeli government has continued a national construction project (based on a plan created in the late 1960’s by Labor Minister Yigal Allon)to separate, isolate, and enclose every Palestinian city and most towns and villages by surrounding them with Israeli settlements. Today, that project is essentially complete. In addition to the settlement building, Israel’s construction of the Wall (86% of which is in the West Bank rather than along the 1967 border) and ongoing annexation of land and water resources have created facts on the ground establishing Israel’s dominance over all of historic Palestine. Today, Israel’s mission of total dominance is near completion.

In 1988, the Palestine Liberation Organization (as representative of the Palestinian people) agreed to recognize Israel, forego claim to 100% of historic Palestine, and accept a nation on 22% of their original land (i.e., on the West Bank and Gaza Strip). Israel has never agreed to this. Israel has made clear that it wants a future Palestinian state to be a version of 80% of 22% of 100%. Such a “state” would be a non-contiguous series of disconnected cantons. Israel’s Wall cuts deep into the West Bank and incorporates into Israel West Bank settlements and aquifers. This is the desert after all, and water is treasure. The Wall and settlements segment the West Bank and make a contiguous Palestinian state unlikely, if not impossible. Israel also wants control over exit and entry from that 80% of 22% of 100%. An analogy for this: imagine that in each of the rooms of your house you can do as you wish but that someone with guns controls all the hallways between the rooms. Is this a viable structure for life?

What holds all this in place and allows it to continue is that Israel has the multibillion dollar per year financial support and diplomatic cover of the most powerful nation in history, the United States. The U.S. has agreed to provide Israel with $30 billion dollars in military aid over the next 10 years and has provided billions upon billions of dollars in aid to Israel in the past. For decades, Israel has been the largest recipient of U.S. foreign aid and receives one-third of the total U.S. foreign aid budget. The U.S., a veto-wielding member of the United Nations Security Council, has also vetoed each and every resolution put forward by the United Nations in response to Israel’s multiple violations of international law. In each of the U.N. votes on these resolutions against Israeli government actions, year after year, the U.S. and Israel (and a few small Pacific Island nations) stand alone against the rest of the international community in siding with Israel against international law and world opinion.

All of the facts above are available from easily accessible public sources. The facts are not in dispute. However, they have been obscured by a web of misinformation that hides the truth. Because the facts are what they are, when Israel is criticized, its proponents, who cannot rely on facts to support their cause, resort to personal attacks and charges of “anti-Semitism.” Their charges of anti-Semitism presuppose that all criticism of Israel as a state actor and all efforts to hold Israel, which is after all a nation state like any other, accountable for its actions are inherently anti-Semitic. When the truth cannot be bent to their narrative, proponents of Israeli government actions, no matter what those actions are, resort to the cudgel of anti-Semitism to silence and censor criticism of the actions of the state of Israel. So far, this method of silencing critics has proven highly effective in the U.S. Publicly criticizing Israel has cost academics their jobs and members of congress political office. These examples keep the rest of us in line as well.

Decades of misinformation and a mythical story (i.e., a land without a people for a people without a land), as well as the daily falsehoods we continue to be fed, can make the situation in Israel-Palestine seem more murky, complicated, and relativistic than it actually is.

When the American colonists were dispossessing the Native Americans, there was violent resistance. A people being dispossessed will resist. They resist because of their dispossession (not because they are crazy, evil, or filled with hate because of their religion). And, of course, violent native resistance hurts the occupier and harms innocents. However, when the occupier casts itself as the victim and says it is acting only in “self-defense” against native “attack”, it has turned logic on its head. Israel’s propaganda campaign over the last 41 years, casting itself as the only and perpetual victim, has been extremely successful in making this bizarre topsy-turvy spin seem logical and correct. It is yet another example of the effectiveness of saying the same thing over and over again until people start believing it is true.

There are many situations in history where two opposing perspectives are not of equal moral weight. The colonial campaign China continues in Tibet, the former British Empire’s actions around the globe, the apartheid system in South Africa, Belgium’s enslavement and killing of 10 million Congolese for natural resources, the genocide of the Jews by the Nazis, the genocide of the Armenians by Turkey all come to mind. The moral equation in Israel-Palestine is as simple and clear.

While discussion of U.S. national interest and geopolitical strategy take up much space in newspapers and conversation among the pundit class, the dimension of morality, the concern with doing the right thing, rarely enters our public discourse. In the end, the situation in the Occupied Territories of Gaza and the West Bank calls on our moral sense. It calls on our humanity, compassion, and sense of fairness. Our silence and complicity in Israel’s dispossession of the Palestinians and its ongoing human rights abuses over decades is a moral lapse of huge proportion.

Americans have a larger stake in this issue than citizens of other countries because we foot the bill to the tune of $8 million a day in aid to Israel. All of us who pay U.S. income taxes funded the recent atrocities in Gaza. We paid to drop white phosphorus on civilians. We paid to level homes, clinics, and schools. We paid to kill children and whole families as they slept in their beds. We are complicit in the bloodbath in Gaza. We are complicit in children starving to death laying next to their dead mothers buried in rubble as the International Red Cross documented in Gaza. We fund acts of state terror in which people watch their beloved daughter, son, father, mother be literally torn apart. We pay for a military machine that maims, kills, and holds captive an unarmed civilian population of men, women, and children, enclosing them in prison-like cantons within the West Bank and Gaza. For decades, we have been paying for the slow annihilation of a society and people who have done absolutely nothing to us.

So what can we do as individual citizens? Call your congresspeople to demand an even-handed U.S. policy in Israel-Palestine. Call the Obama White House to do the same. Learn about the growing Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions campaign against Israel (modeled on the anti-apartheid campaign against South Africa). Don’t buy Israeli products. Tell your local grocer you won’t shop there until they stop carrying Israeli products. Educate your neighbor. Educate yourself. Watch the documentary film “Occupation 101.” Read “The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine” by Israeli historian Ilan Pappe. Read the writings of Palestinian intellectuals Edward Said and Rashid Khalidi. Go to www.endtheoccupation.org to find a political group in your area working for justice in Israel-Palestine. Most of all, do something. Do not be silent. Do not be complicit.

A.M. Khan is an Indian American psychologist by day and an activist and beginning documentary filmmaker by night. She welcomes correspondence on her work and can reached at: amkhan601@gmail.com.

Tags:, , , , , , , ,
Posted in Commentary, Human rights, Palestine, USA, warmongers, Zionist Israel | Leave a Comment »

« Older Entries
Newer Entries »