Posts Tagged ‘Israel’

Israeli troops describe deliberate killing of Gaza civilians

March 20, 2009

• Accounts contradict army version of fighting

• Military chiefs promise inquiry into disclosures

Striking testimony has emerged from Israeli soldiers involved in the recent Gaza war, in which they describe shooting unarmed civilians, sometimes under orders from their officers.

One soldier described how an Israeli sniper shot dead a Palestinian mother and her children, adding that troops believed Palestinian lives were “very, very, less important than the lives of our soldiers”.

The accounts, published in two Israeli newspapers yesterday, gives rare insight into how the soldiers acted. It reinforces Palestinian accounts of disproportionate Israeli force and contradicts the Israeli military’s official version of events.

The accounts come from unnamed soldiers who were graduates of a pre-military course at Oranim Academic college, in Tivon, near Haifa. Their testimony was given in mid-February, and the transcript of the session was published this week.

Ha’aretz newspaper printed one infantry squad leader’s description of the shooting of unarmed civilians: “There was a house with a family inside … We put them in a room … a few days after there was an order to release [them]. There was a sniper position on the roof. The platoon commander let the family go and told them to go to the right. One mother and her two children didn’t understand and went to the left, but they forgot to tell the sharpshooter on the roof they had let them go and it was OK, and he should hold his fire and he … he did what he was supposed to, like he was following his orders.

“The sharpshooter saw a woman and children approaching him, closer than the lines he was told no one should pass. He shot them … In any case, what happened is that in the end he killed them.”

He believed the sniper did not feel regret. “I don’t think he felt too bad about it, because, after all, as far as he was concerned, he did his job according to the orders given. And the atmosphere in general, from what I understood from most of my men who I talked to … I don’t know how to describe it … the lives of Palestinians, let’s say, is something very, very, less important than the lives of our soldiers. So as far as they are concerned they can justify it that way.”

According to a Palestinian human rights group, more than 1,400 Palestinians were killed in the three-week war, which began in late December. Thirteen Israelis were killed in the conflict.

A second squad leader, from the same brigade, related how a commander told troops to shoot a Palestinian woman walking near a house the soldiers had taken over. He added that “to write ‘death to the Arabs’ on the walls, to take family pictures and spit on them” happened “just because you can”. The Israel Defence Forces had “fallen in the realm of ethics”, he said. Another soldier, recalling ransacking Palestinian homes, said: “The entire contents of the house flew out the windows: refrigerator, plates, furniture.”

The head of the Oranim course reported his concerns about the soldiers’ observations to the army chief, Major General Gabi Ashkenazi. Yesterday the Israeli military first denied “any previous knowledge or information” but later said the chief of staff had received a letter from the course head. The military said an investigation would be held into the accounts.

Israel may launch missile strike on Iran, report warns

March 19, 2009

Paul Woodward, Online Correspondent| The National

  • Last Updated: March 18. 2009 10:10AM UAE / March 18. 2009 6:10AM GMT

A leading foreign policy think tank in Washington said a strike by Israel on Iran will give rise to regional instability and conflict as well as terrorism.

A study by the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington said that due to the complexity and risk involved in an air strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities, Israel may opt to strike with ballistic missiles if there are no other means to curtail the Islamic republic’s nuclear programme. The study said that in the event of such an attack a strike on the Bushehr nuclear reactor would cause the immediate death of thousands of people in the area. Thousands or even hundreds of thousands would subsequently die of cancer and radioactive contamination would “most definitely” heavily affect Bahrain, Qatar and the UAE.

During a visit to the United States, Israel Defense Forces Chief of Staff Gabi Ashkenazi said that while Israel was interested in exhausting diplomatic options against Iran’s nuclear programme, the army must nevertheless prepare itself for a military attack, Haaretz reported.

On her blog at Foreign Policy, Laura Rozen reported on US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s trip to Israel earlier this month.

“An Israeli diplomat apprised of Clinton’s recent Jerusalem meeting said that Netanyahu was forthright in telling her that Iran is his top priority.

” ‘Netanyahu brought up Iran,’ the Israeli diplomat told Foreign Policy. ‘He told her it was the be all and end all. And [he said] that there is a reverse link: If [Washington] wants anything to move on the Palestinian front, we need to take head on the Iranian threat, diplomatically, with sanctions, and beyond that.’

“Clinton responded, ‘I am aware of that,’ the Israeli diplomat relayed.

” ‘They both had a perfect excuse not to say anything blunt,’ the diplomat continued, ‘Until Iran gets through the elections in June, nothing can be done.’…

” ‘As for substance, there is no policy, which is more or less in a mild way, something she admitted,’ in her meeting with Netanyahu, the diplomat said. ‘Again, not in those very words. She was there to let those there understand that the Obama administration is in an exploration phase. You’ve got to give her credit for one thing. There is nothing new here. The players are the same. The plot is the same. The solutions are the same.’ ”

The Washington Times reported that a man tipped to become one of Mr Netanyahu’s closest advisers is seen as a security risk.

“Uzi Arad, who is expected to serve as national security adviser in the next Israeli government, has been barred from entering the United States for nearly two years on the grounds that he is an intelligence risk.

“Mr Arad, a former member and director of intelligence for the Mossad, Israel’s spy service, is mentioned in the indictment of Lawrence Franklin, a former Pentagon analyst who pleaded guilty in 2005 to providing classified information about Iran in a conversation with two employees of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee…

“The choice of Mr Arad for national security adviser has been reported in the Israeli press and was confirmed by sources close to Mr Netanyahu, who has been tasked with forming the next government.”

In a UPI two years ago, Mr Arad was said to advocate “maximum deterrence” towards Iran.

“Israel should threaten to strike ‘everything and anything of value,’ he said.

“Should Israel threaten to hit their leadership? Yes. Their holiest sites? Yes. Everything together? Yes, Arad recommended.”

When interviewed on Israel National News TV last year and asked whether it was time for Israel to abandon the pursuit of a two-state solution, Mr Arad said: “We want to relieve ourselves of the burden of the Palestinian populations – not territories. It is territory we want to preserve but populations we want to rid ourselves of.”

Meanwhile, the likely member of Mr Netanyahu’s soon to be formed cabinet who has gained widest international attention is the ultra-nationalist, Avigdor Lieberman, who is expected to become Israel’s new foreign minister.

“On Sunday, Lieberman’s Yisrael Beiteinu party became the prime minister-designate’s first official coalition partner,” JTA reported.

“The agreement gives Lieberman’s hawkish, mainly Russian-immigrant party no less than five ministries – foreign affairs, internal security, infrastructure, tourism and immigrant absorption – as well as Lieberman-approved candidates for justice minister, deputy foreign minister and chair of the Knesset Law, Constitution and Justice Committee.

“Some analysts already are calling the emerging government the ‘Biberman administration’ – a combination of Netanyahu’s nickname, Bibi, and Lieberman…

“Lieberman also calls for strengthening executive power in Israel through government reform. He advocates a system that in an emergency allows the president to override Knesset legislation. Some critics see the idea as the thin end of a wedge that could lead to dictatorship in Israel.”

The Los Angeles Times noted: “Lieberman’s ascent to Israel’s top diplomatic post could complicate its ties with other countries. He is viewed by many abroad as a xenophobe, having risen to prominence by advocating loyalty oaths for Israel’s Arab citizens and a redrawing of borders to exclude some Arab communities from the country.

“Although neither proposal is likely to be implemented, Lieberman’s appointment would solidify Israel’s shift to the right and away from commitment to achieving a peace accord that would give the Palestinians an independent state.

“Javier Solana, the European Union’s foreign policy chief, signaled his concern Monday.

” ‘We will be ready to do business as usual, normally, with a government in Israel that is prepared to continue talking and working for a two-state solution,’ he told reporters in Brussels. ‘If that is not the case, the situation would be different.’

“Riad Malki, foreign minister of the West Bank-based Palestinian Authority, called the emerging Israeli government ‘anti-peace.’ Ahmed Tibi, an Israeli Arab member of parliament, called for an international boycott of Lieberman. ‘No minister should meet him,’ he said, ‘especially no Arab minister.’ ”

The Financial Times said: “If Mr Lieberman is confirmed as foreign minister it would represent Arabs’ worst fears about the direction they perceive Israel to be taking: Mr Lieberman is regarded in the Arab world as racist towards Arabs and someone who has no intention of making peace with the Palestinians.

“Arab leaders, due to meet at an Arab League summit at the end of this month, had already been warning that while an Arab peace initiative, sponsored by Saudi Arabia, was still on the table it would not remain there forever. The initiative offers Israel normal relations with Arab states if it returns all lands occupied during the 1967 war.

“Mr Lieberman’s appointment would cause particular problems for Egypt and Jordan, the two Middle East states that have formal relations with Israel. Egypt, which came under severe pressure during the Gaza onslaught because of its ties to the Jewish state, has played a vital role mediating between Israel and Palestinian factions. But Cairo is likely to be loath to have to deal with Mr Lieberman as foreign minister.”

Israel arrests Hamas members

March 19, 2009
Al Jazeera, March 19, 2009

Gilad Shalit has been held in Gaza since he was captured in a cross-border raid in June 2006 [AFP]

Israel has detained at least 10 senior Hamas members in the occupied West Bank, according to officials from the Palestinian group.

Nasser al-Shaer, a former Palestinian deputy prime minister, was among the men held on Thursday.

The arrests took place in the West Bank cities of Hebron, Bethlehem and Nablus.

The Israeli army confirmed the arrests, saying the men were wanted by Israeli security and intelligence services and that they “were taken in for questioning”.

Hamas says the detainees include four Hamas politicians, three of whom have already served time in Israeli custody.

The wife of al-Shaer told Al Jazeera that Israeli occupation forces stormed their home at dawn, placed her husband under arrest and took him to an undisclosed location.

‘Failed’ Shalit deal

The Israeli military said in a statement: “These men have been the leaders of the ongoing effort to restore the administrative branch of the Hamas terror organisation in the region, while attempting to strengthen the power and influence of Hamas.”

“These arrests are an angry reaction by Israel because of the failure of the Shalit deal”

Mahmoud Musleh,
Hamas politician

Thousands of Palestinians are held in Israeli jails.

The latest detentions are being seen as an effort to pressure Hamas to release an Israeli soldier captured by Hamas-linked fighters near the Gaza border in June 2006.Egyptian efforts to mediate the release of of the soldier, currently being held in the Gaza Strip, in return for the release of hundreds of Palestinians, collapsed this week.

Mahmoud Musleh, a Hamas politician, told the Reuters news agency: “These arrests are an angry reaction by Israel because of the failure of the [Gilad] Shalit deal.

“This won’t do Israel any good.”

In depth

Analysis and features from after the war

An Israeli military spokesman denied the detentions were connected.Ehud Olmert, the outgoing Israeli prime minister, had hoped to secure the release of the soldier before leaving office.

Israeli arrests are part of daily incursions and raids in the villages and towns of the West Bank.

Hamas has been demanding the release of more than 400 Palestinian prisoners.

SELECTIVE VISION: IRAN, ISRAEL AND NUCLEAR ARMS

March 18, 2009

Media Lens, March 17, 2009

Gullible’s (Endless) Travels

Have journalists learnt nothing from recent history? It truly is a wonder when a reporter can assert in public, on the BBC News no less, that “Tony Blair passionately believed that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and posed a grave threat.” (BBC1, Six O’Clock News, February 24, 2009). When BBC reporter Reeta Chakrabarti was challenged on this remarkable display of naïveté, she compounded her grievous error by responding:

“I said Mr Blair passionately believed Iraq had wmd because he has consistently said so. When challenged he has stuck to his guns.” (Email posted on the Media Lens Message Board, March 2, 2009)

So when a demonstrably mendacious leader claims he “passionately believed” in a lie, the media has to take him at his word. This is the same brand of journalistic gullibility that has had such tragic consequences for the people of Iraq. This is the endless, uncritical obedience to power that boosted the warmongering agenda of London and Washington, allowing them to fit ‘facts’ to a pre-ordained policy of launching a war of aggression. Such an act, sold by the BBC as Blair’s “passionate belief”, is the supreme international crime, as judged by the 1946 Nuremberg Tribunal.

And a similar tragic fate may yet befall the people of Iran, if the corporate media portrayal of Iran as a rogue state lorded over by “ruling mullahs”, desperate to get their hands on nuclear weapons, goes unchallenged.

A Nuclear Programme Under Close Surveillance

At the end of 2007, a thorough assessment by the United States concluded that Iran’s nuclear weapons programme had already halted in 2003. The National Intelligence Estimate was the consensus view of all 16 US spy agencies. (Mark Mazzeti, ‘U.S. Says Iran Ended Atomic Arms Work,’ New York Times, December 3, 2007)

In its latest report on Iran, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) strengthened this assessment when it stated it had “been able to continue to verify the non-diversion of declared nuclear material [for possible military purposes] in Iran.” (IAEA, ‘Introductory Statement to the Board of Governors by IAEA Director General Dr. Mohamed ElBaradei,’ March 2, 2009; http://www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/ Statements/2009/ebsp2009n002.html)

READ FULL ALERT http://www.medialens.org/media/arrow.gif


What is Media Lens?

Media Lens is our response to the unwillingness, or inability, of the mainstream media to tell the truth about the real causes and extent of many of the problems facing us, such as human rights abuses, poverty, pollution and climate change.
CONTINUE

Zionism is the problem

March 16, 2009

The Zionist ideal of a Jewish state is keeping Israelis and Palestinians from living in peace.

By Ben Ehrenreich | Los Angeles Times, March 15, 2009

It’s hard to imagine now, but in 1944, six years after Kristallnacht, Lessing J. Rosenwald, president of the American Council for Judaism, felt comfortable equating the Zionist ideal of Jewish statehood with “the concept of a racial state — the Hitlerian concept.” For most of the last century, a principled opposition to Zionism was a mainstream stance within American Judaism.

Even after the foundation of Israel, anti-Zionism was not a particularly heretical position. Assimilated Reform Jews like Rosenwald believed that Judaism should remain a matter of religious rather than political allegiance; the ultra-Orthodox saw Jewish statehood as an impious attempt to “push the hand of God”; and Marxist Jews — my grandparents among them — tended to see Zionism, and all nationalisms, as a distraction from the more essential struggle between classes.

To be Jewish, I was raised to believe, meant understanding oneself as a member of a tribe that over and over had been cast out, mistreated, slaughtered. Millenniums of oppression that preceded it did not entitle us to a homeland or a right to self-defense that superseded anyone else’s. If they offered us anything exceptional, it was a perspective on oppression and an obligation born of the prophetic tradition: to act on behalf of the oppressed and to cry out at the oppressor.

For the last several decades, though, it has been all but impossible to cry out against the Israeli state without being smeared as an anti-Semite, or worse. To question not just Israel’s actions, but the Zionist tenets on which the state is founded, has for too long been regarded an almost unspeakable blasphemy.

Yet it is no longer possible to believe with an honest conscience that the deplorable conditions in which Palestinians live and die in Gaza and the West Bank come as the result of specific policies, leaders or parties on either side of the impasse. The problem is fundamental: Founding a modern state on a single ethnic or religious identity in a territory that is ethnically and religiously diverse leads inexorably either to politics of exclusion (think of the 139-square-mile prison camp that Gaza has become) or to wholesale ethnic cleansing. Put simply, the problem is Zionism.

It has been argued that Zionism is an anachronism, a leftover ideology from the era of 19th century romantic nationalisms wedged uncomfortably into 21st century geopolitics. But Zionism is not merely outdated. Even before 1948, one of its basic oversights was readily apparent: the presence of Palestinians in Palestine. That led some of the most prominent Jewish thinkers of the last century, many of them Zionists, to balk at the idea of Jewish statehood. The Brit Shalom movement — founded in 1925 and supported at various times by Martin Buber, Hannah Arendt and Gershom Scholem — argued for a secular, binational state in Palestine in which Jews and Arabs would be accorded equal status. Their concerns were both moral and pragmatic. The establishment of a Jewish state, Buber feared, would mean “premeditated national suicide.”

The fate Buber foresaw is upon us: a nation that has lived in a state of war for decades, a quarter-million Arab citizens with second-class status and more than 5 million Palestinians deprived of the most basic political and human rights. If two decades ago comparisons to the South African apartheid system felt like hyperbole, they now feel charitable. The white South African regime, for all its crimes, never attacked the Bantustans with anything like the destructive power Israel visited on Gaza in December and January, when nearly1,300 Palestinians were killed, one-third of them children.

Israeli policies have rendered the once apparently inevitable two-state solution less and less feasible. Years of Israeli settlement construction in the West Bank and East Jerusalem have methodically diminished the viability of a Palestinian state. Israel’s new prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, has even refused to endorse the idea of an independent Palestinian state, which suggests an immediate future of more of the same: more settlements, more punitive assaults.

All of this has led to a revival of the Brit Shalom idea of a single, secular binational state in which Jews and Arabs have equal political rights. The obstacles are, of course, enormous. They include not just a powerful Israeli attachment to the idea of an exclusively Jewish state, but its Palestinian analogue: Hamas’ ideal of Islamic rule. Both sides would have to find assurance that their security was guaranteed. What precise shape such a state would take — a strict, vote-by-vote democracy or a more complex federalist system — would involve years of painful negotiation, wiser leaders than now exist and an uncompromising commitment from the rest of the world, particularly from the United States.

Meanwhile, the characterization of anti-Zionism as an “epidemic” more dangerous than anti-Semitism reveals only the unsustainability of the position into which Israel’s apologists have been forced. Faced with international condemnation, they seek to limit the discourse, to erect walls that delineate what can and can’t be said.

It’s not working. Opposing Zionism is neither anti-Semitic nor particularly radical. It requires only that we take our own values seriously and no longer, as the book of Amos has it, “turn justice into wormwood and hurl righteousness to the ground.”

Establishing a secular, pluralist, democratic government in Israel and Palestine would of course mean the abandonment of the Zionist dream. It might also mean the only salvation for the Jewish ideals of justice that date back to Jeremiah.

Ben Ehrenreich is the author of the novel “The Suitors.”

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.

Palestinian FM: Israel on brink of ‘anti-peace’ government

March 16, 2009

By Barak Ravid, Haaretz Correspondent and Haaretz Service (Israel), March 16, 2009

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/images/0.gif
Palestinian Foreign Minister Riad Malki said Sunday that Israel is on the verge of forming an “anti-peace” government that will make future Middle East talks impossible.

“It is very clear from what we have heard, and from what we expect, that we are going to see a far-right Israeli government, an anti-peace government,” Malki said at the start of talks with European Union officials in Brussels.

“And if that is the case, all efforts and all expectations for the renewal of negotiations between Israel and Palestine will be totally wasted,” Malki said.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/images/0.gif

t

The foreign minister called on the international community to pile diplomatic pressure on the next Israeli government, saying, “We have to declare that, sadly, there is no partner on the Israeli side to negotiate with.”

His comments came a day after Benjamin Netanyahu’s right-wing Likud party and Tzipi Livni’s centrist Kadima reopened talks on forming a coalition
government in the aftermath of the close result in the country’s
February 10 parliamentary elections.

Meanwhile, an aide to Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas on Sunday lambasted Prime Minister Ehud Olmert over his assertion that Israel had been prepared to sign a peace agreement, but was held up the Palestinians’ “weakness and lack of courage.”

“The fact that we haven’t reached [a peace agreement] so far is due to the weakness and lack of courage on the part of the Palestinian leaders,” Olmert told ministers during his last weekly cabinet meeting in Jerusalem. “Everything else is just excuses and efforts to derail the talks.”

“We were ready to sign a peace deal but the Palestinians unfortunately did not have the courage to do so,” he said.

Abbas’ aide Nabil Abu Rudeina told AFP that Olmert’s assertion was “completely false.”

“The proposals did not include conditions for the creation of an independent Palestinian state on all Palestinian territory occupied in 1967 with East Jerusalem as its capital,” he said. “Israel did not present a single map and not a single serious position that could lead to a real peace on the base of two states.”

Mere days before the end of his term, Olmert used the platform of the weekly cabinet meeting Sunday morning to present an overview of his administration’s achievements.

Addressing the peace process with the Palestinians, Olmert said that his government had “gone further in the peace negotiations than any previous government.”

He voiced hope that the decades long conflict between Israel and the Palestinians would be resolved in the near future, saying “I have no doubt that the negotiations I’ve held with the Palestinian Authority will result in a peace accord.”

“But we’ll have to make dramatic concessions in order to reach a point of signing an agreement,” he remarked.

Olmert also broke down the achievements of his administration to the cabinet ministers, mentioning “two well known military efforts” referring to the 2006 Second Lebanon War and the recent Operation Cast Lead in Gaza.

“The event in the north [Lebanon border] brought about an unprecedented achievement of quiet in that region of Israel,” the prime minister declared. “In regard to Gaza, we made an important effort that hasn’t been completed yet and we have yet to achieve the full list of goals that we set out to achieve, but we have brought back to the global awareness the might of the Israel Defense Forces and its power of deterrence.”

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 >>

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 .

What Israeli Peace Process?

March 12, 2009

By Franklin Spinney | Counterpunch, March 12, 2009

On March 2, 2009, the Israeli advocacy group Peace Now issued a report saying that the Israeli housing ministry plans to build 73,ooo housing units in the West Bank. Peace Now said 15,ooo of these units had already been approved, with another 58,000 awaiting approval. On March 7, 2009, the Guardian reported that a confidential report issued by the EU said Israel continues to annex property in East Jerusalem. It said Israeli housing authorities had submitted plans for 5,500 new housing units (3,000 of which have already been approved) since the Annapolis “peace” conference in November 2007. Readers may recall that the Annapolis conference was supposed to resuscitate George W. Bush’s moribund so-called Road Map to Peace. Assuming these housing plans are implemented, and only 2.5 Israelis on average inhabit each new unit, the entire program could add as many as 196,ooo Israelis to the 490,000 Israelis already living in the West Bank and East Jerusalem. Yet as recently as September 30, 2008, Israeli Prime Minister Olmert said Israel should withdraw from almost all of the Occupied Territories, including East Jerusalem in order to achieve peace. Of course, Olmert’s profession of normative behaviour would be deemed gratuitous nonsense in an international court of law, because all these settlements are clearly illegal under the Fourth Geneva Convention. So what gives?

Nothing. What you see is what you get — simply business as usual. There is no real peace process, only an illusion of one, but an illusion that has been and continues to be used cynically by the Israelis to ethnically cleanse the best land for Eretz Israel (“best” by definition includes access to the water in the West Bank aquifers — more on that later) by relentlessly creating irreversible “facts on the ground.”

All one has to do is look at the historical record. For the last 20 years, the U.S government and its wholly owned subsidiaries in the thinktanks, academia, and the media have promoted the soothing vision of an ongoing Arab-Israeli peace process. This process has been centered on the ideal of attaining a two-state solution — namely, establishing a Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza. Dutifully, the mainstream media in the United States (MSM) has inundated the American people with stories describing how the ongoing peace process is a road leading to a resolution of the Arab-Israeli conflict. But to date, that road has led into the nightmare of the West Bank’s roadblocked cantons and the hellish Gaza Ghetto, and the preponderance of MSM reporting, at least in the United States, leans toward blaming the Palestinians for their fate.

To be sure, the MSM also reported about bumps in the road that can be attributed to Israel, especially question of settlements in the Occupied Territories. But such reporting has been usually in the context of the settlements being temporary impediments to a solution, often couched, for example, in vague visions of Israel eventually abandoning most of its settlements, and doing land swaps for others, once the Palestinians renounced terrorism and recognized Israel’s right to exist. In this context, there have been very few reports that put the question of settlements into an easily understood long term perspective, even though the information is widely available on the internet.

To be sure, the Israelis did evacuate 6000+ settlers from Gaza in 2003, and occasionally, the Israeli government evacuates a trivial number of settlers from the so-called “outposts” on the West Bank. But these Israeli moves have been anomalies to their long term pattern of settlement, which has been amazingly consistent since the rate of settlement began to accelerate in the mid 1970s. In fact, as demonstrated in the chart below, the pattern of settlement has been remarkably untouched by the deliberations of the so-called peace processes. It is based on official data produced by the Israeli government and made available to the public by the courageous Israeli human rights organization B’TSelem.

The so-called peace process, which at first was ad hoc, became institutionalized with great optimism in 1993, when the signing of the Oslo Accords ended the First Intifada. But over the next seven years, the Oslo deliberations did not alleviate the economic hardships afflicting the Palestinians, nor did it even slow down the pace of Israeli settlement, as is shown clearly by the pink shaded area of the figure. Oslo effectively ended in in Sept 2000, when Ariel Sharon’s provocative visit to the Al Aqsa Mosque in Jerusalem (Islam’s third holiest site) incited the Palestinian uprising that became known as the Second Intifada and helped to catapult Sharon into the office of Prime Minister.

A re-institutionalization of the formal peace process rose tepidly from the ashes of Oslo in June 2002, with the so-called Road Map to Peace initiated by President George W. Bush. The aim of Bush’s Roadmap was to establish an independent Palestinian state as early as 2005, and central to achieving that aim was a freeze on settlement expansion by May 2003 (called for in Phase I of the roadmap), as well as a reduction in violence and political reform by the Palestinians. The gray area in the figure spans the time of Bush’s so-called road map, and it is clear that his Roadmap, like Oslo, had absolutely no effect on Israel’s pace of settlement. Israel’s murderous assault on the Gaza Ghetto effectively dumped the detritus of Mr. Bush’s illuson into the lap of incoming President Obama in January 2009.

The assault on the Gaza Ghetto, together with a sense of frustration from not being able to weaken Hamas’s grip on Gaza, also helped to accelerate an ongoing political shift toward the radical right among the Israeli people, as became evident in the stunning results of the recent Parliamentary election. It now seems likely that Binyamin Netanyahu — the former prime minister between 1996 and 1999, who worked so assiduously to trash Oslo and increase settlements — will return to power as prime minister, this time with the neo-fascist Avigdor Lieberman as his foreign minister.

So, based on the history depicted in the chart and Netanyahu’s track record, we can expect the rate of settlement in the West Bank and East Jerusalem to continue and probably increase. True to form, in one of his campaign speeches, Netanyahu promised he would not be not bound by Olmert’s empty promise to evacuate the settlements, and any future peace talks would not be about giving up territory, but about achieving an “economic peace” through economic development — whatever that means.

And how has Mr. Obama’s government reacted to date? The most critical comment I have been able to find is Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s remark in Jerusalem that the planned expansion of the settlements cited in the first paragraph would be “unhelpful.”

One thing is certain, we can depend on being put to sleep with more somnolent visions of peace in our time while the Israelis create more facts on the ground.

Franklin “Chuck” Spinney is a former military analyst for the Pentagon. He currently lives on a sailboat in the Mediterranean and can be reached at chuck_spinney@mac.com