Just International

Israel’s Allies are Using a Maritime Corridor to Support Israel’s “Day After” Plans

Under the guise of easing the starvation of people in the Gaza Strip, the proposed maritime humanitarian corridor and temporary seaport is another tool to weaponize aid, absolve Israel of its responsibilities and obligations, and support Israel in its “day after plans”to eliminate and replace UNRWA and establish a potential mechanism for Palestinian forcible transfer out of the Gaza Strip.

With States not taking any actions to challenge the Israeli closure of crossing borders and restrictions on humanitarian aid, not only are they involved in the genocide, but they are also involved in implementing Israeli “day after plans” drafted in blatant disregard for the Palestinian people’s  right to self-determination. 

On 8 March, the United States of America (USA), the European Union (EU), Cyprus, the United Kingdom and the United Arab Emirates endorsed the activation of maritime humanitarian corridor – completely ignoring the existence of the Rafah border crossing between Egypt and Gaza and the 6 other land checkpoints between 1948 Palestine and Gaza.

“From a humanitarian perspective, from an international perspective, from a human rights perspective, it is absurd in a dark, cynical way,” said the UN Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food. The UN, its agencies and experts have repeatedly called on Israel to allow access at the existing land-based checkpoints citing that ground deliveries are the most effective way to provide urgent and immediate relief.

However, Israel, bolstered by its allies, has not only steadfastly refused to ease its chokehold on the Gaza Strip but has also reduced the amount of aid reaching the starved Palestinian population there, especially in the North and obstructed the work of UNRWA and many other international agencies. In the wake of sabotaged ceasefire negotiations, Israel has repeatedly and clearly stated that nothing will derail its planned invasion of Rafah, regardless of the fact that the outcome will be more genocide and mass forcible transfer.

The EU and the USA, Israel’s most ardent supporters, applauded and inundated the idea of the corridor in the media, instead of pressuring Israel to not only call off the invasion of Rafah but to open the land crossings and checkpoints. Choosing to go with the maritime corridor/temporary port has significant purpose, but it is clear that the purpose is not to end the famine that has begun in the Gaza Strip.

As Egypt and Jordan remain firm in refusing to take on the burden of Palestinian refugees, it is not unreasonable to speculate that the maritime corridor may eventually be used for transferring Palestinians out of the Gaza Strip. If that becomes the case, then it is another indication of colonial western support for Israel’s plans of “voluntary migration,”  which would not be voluntary at all, but rather the international crime of forced transfer.

Both the humanitarian air drops and the maritime corridor/temporary seaport are ways in which colonial western states continue to back Israel and its goals: providing Israel with other ways to manipulate aid by controlling its distribution. The air drop method relies on the local population for distribution and depends on the physical capacity of those attempting to reach the drop area, rather than need. In the case of the Gaza Strip, and a population that is experiencing catastrophic levels of starvation and malnutrition, and the end result is that Palestinians are forced to battle each other for lifesaving aid. Eventually, for Palestinians to survive, they will be coerced to accept  the imposed authority that will control the delivery and distribution of such aid, which will likely be an Israeli colonial entity.

With the maritime corridor, there is no reliable comprehensive registry for beneficiaries – which only UNRWA possesses. Neither is there a viable plan on how to deliver or distribute the aid along the shores of the Gaza Strip, which are too shallow and require the building of a “temporary seaport” that could take two months. Israeli War Minister Gallant stated that Israel would oversee the whole process “to bring aid directly to the residents”, in order to exclude Hamas, but more importantly to exclude international agencies, especially UNRWA.

In both methods, international agencies responsible for ensuring aid and service delivery are taken out of the picture. It will then conveniently become necessary to replace these agencies, either with an Israeli controlled or friendly entity, and/or the local population. Therefore, the air and sea distribution methods support Israel’s goal to eliminate and replace UNRWA as it is the aid agency with the mandate and presence to provide aid.

Discussions among States on the planning, logistics, roles and contributions concerning the maritime corridor overshadow the fact that these same States arm Israel’s genocide. Opening of the existing land crossings is the most practical, feasible, economical and efficient method when compared to air drop missions and the installation of a maritime port.

Furthermore, the introduction of the maritime corridor aims to obscure, and to certain extent, absolve Israel from its international obligation to ensure the safety and security of the Palestinian population in the Gaza Strip, including the provision of unconditional and unrestricted humanitarian aid, and to prevent further genocide as required by the ICJ’s provisional measures. While the situation of famine in Gaza has been intentionally created and maintained by Israel, it has clearly put the responsibility of providing aid on the shoulders of the international community.

In addition to colonial western states complicity and involvement in Genocide, the proposed corridor and temporary port directly serve Israel’s declared goals: ending the role of the UNRWA, establishing a local distribution mechanism using “good” Palestinians, and a potential mechanism for the forcible transfer of Palestinians from the Gaza Strip.

14 March 2024

Source: www.badil.org

The War on Iraq : Five US Presidents, Five British Prime Ministers, More than Thirty Years of Duplicity, and Counting….

By Michel Chossudovsky

Introduction by Michel Chossudovsky on America’s “Humanitarian Wars”, followed by an incisive and carefully documented article by Veteran War Correspondent Felicity Arbuthnot pertaining to The War on Iraq.

America’s “Humanitarian Wars”

“Is it a mere coincidence? In recent history, from the Vietnam war to the present, the month of March has been chosen by the Pentagon and NATO military planners as the “best month” to go to war.

With the exception of the War on Afghanistan (October 2001) and the 1990-91 Gulf War, all major US-NATO and allied led military operations over a period of more than half a century –since the invasion of Vietnam by U.S. ground forces on March 8, 1965– have been initiated in the month of March.

The Ides of March (Idus Martiae) is a day in the Roman calendar which broadly corresponds to March 15. The Ides of March is also known as the date on which Julius Caesar was assassinated in 44 BC.

Lest we forget, the month of March (in the Roman Calendar) is dedicated to Mars (Martius), the Roman God of War.

March 2024 marks the 21st anniversary of the onslaught of the war on Iraq.

The US-NATO led invasion of Iraq started on 20 March 2003 on the pretext that Iraq possessed Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD).

In March 2024, we will also be commemorating the Vietnam War launched on March 8, 1965 following the adoption by the US Congress of the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, which authorized President Lyndon Johnson to dispatch ground forces to Vietnam.

We will also be remembering NATO’s War on Yugoslavia which was launched on March 24, 1999 under Operation “Noble Anvil”.

All these wars, according to the media, are peace-making undertakings. They are tagged as “Humanitarian Wars” under the banner of “Responsibility to Protect (R2P). 

January-February 2024, we commemorated the thirty-third anniversary of so-called Gulf War, namely the first genocidal attack against  Iraq. 

“In Geneva, on 9th January 1991, then Secretary of State James Baker –a “diplomat” who stated: “We will reduce Iraq to a pre-industrial age”– met Iraq’s Foreign Minister, Tareq Aziz, with a letter from Bush Snr., promising the destruction of Iraq, if Kuwait was not withdrawn from by 15th January. Tareq Aziz stated he would not deliver the letter.” (Felicity Arbuthnot)

Sending Countries “Back to the Stone-Age”

Iraq

Secretary of State James Baker stated:

“We will reduce Iraq to a pre-industrial age”

During that first war [Gulf War], Secretary of State James Baker told the Iraqi foreign minister that “we will return you to the pre-industrial age.”

The killing of children was an integral par of U.S military doctrine as confirmed by the My Lai Massacre.

Baker’s words were prophetic. The American-led coalition delivered 88,000 tons of bombs, equivalent … to seven Hiroshima-sized atomic bombs.

The bombing unquestionably set out to destroy the civilian infrastructure, leveling oil refineries, electrical plants and transportation networks. (The Nation, May 28, 2007)

Vietnam

General Curtis LeMay is quoted as saying in relation to North Vietnam:

“they’ve got to draw in their horns and stop their aggression, or we’re going to bomb them back into the Stone Age. ( Curtis Lemay, 1965 autobiography (co-author with MacKinlay Kantor)

Pakistan

“The Bush administration threatened to bomb Pakistan “back to the stone age” after the September 11 attacks if the country did not cooperate with America’s war on Afghanistan,

… General Pervez Musharraf, said the threat was delivered by the assistant secretary of state, Richard Armitage, in conversations with Pakistan’s intelligence director … ‘Be prepared to be bombed. Be prepared to go back to the stone age’,”. … (The Guardian, September 22, 2006, emphasis added)

Israel

“We are fighting against animals”, Israel’s Defense Minister Yoav Gallant

Genocide is Embedded in America’s “Humanitarian Wars”

Is this not what Israel –with the firm support of the Biden Administration– is  carrying out in Palestine?

All U.S. led wars have targeted hospitals and schools, with a view to killing children.

I recall 25 years ago in the early hours of March 24, 1999, when NATO began the bombing of Belgrade under Operation “Allied Force ”,

“the children’s hospital was the object of air attacks. It had been singled out by military planners as a strategic target”. (Michel Chossudovsky)

The conduct of war crimes and genocide is integral part of what is euphemistically call “US Foreign Policy”.

The history of US-led wars confirms that murdering of millions of civilians is an integral part of America’s global military agenda.

From Dresden to Gaza (1945-2024): The Death of 40+ Million People

During and since World War II , the United States has killed more than 40 million people in a number of countries, “most of them civilians, either directly or through proxy by its puppet regimes”:

  • GermanyWorld War II: (several cities bombed by U.S. including Dresden, Nuremberg, Hamburg, Cologne); Number of people killed: 600,000 (according to Israeli official’s recent statement)

Dresden 1945, Gaza, 2023

  • Korean War 1950-53: Up to thirty percent of North Korea’s population were killed. by U.S. bombing.

“After destroying North Korea’s 78 cities and thousands of her villages, and killing countless numbers of her civilians, [General] LeMay remarked,

“Over a period of three years or so we killed off – what – twenty percent of the population.”

It is now believed that the population north of the imposed 38th Parallel lost nearly a third its population of 8 – 9 million people during the 37-month long “hot” war, 1950 – 1953, perhaps an unprecedented percentage of mortality suffered by one nation due to the belligerance of another.” (Brian Willson)

Vietnam War (1962-1975): 3.8 million civilianskilled by U.S. bombing and invasion.

My Lai Massacre

  • Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos (1962-1975): A total of 4.3 million people killed by U.S. in all three countries.
  • Iraq War (2003): Three million Iraqiskilled by U.S 2003 invasion.
  • The U.S.’ so-called “War on Terrorism” has killed up to 4.6 million people in Iraq, Afghanistan, Yemen, Libya, Syria, Somalia and Pakistan according to a Brown University report.
  • Pakistan 1971: Up to three million ethnic Bengalis killed by the Pakistan army (a U.S. proxy) in East Pakistan (the country’s biggest province). Due to this East Pakistan separated from Pakistan and became Bangladesh.
  • The invasion of the Democratic Republic of the Congo by U.S. proxies Rwanda and Uganda beginning in 1998 has killed more than 6.9 million civilians. This genocide continues.

The above is a partial list which does not include Afghanistan, Sudan, Yemen, Libya, Palestine, Indonesia, Angola, Mozambique, not to mention Latin America’s “Dirty War” (Guerra Sucia)

Also of relevance are deaths resulting from famines and mass poverty resulting from IMF-World Bank “strong economic medicine” coupled with US sanctions (Global Research)

The article below by Iraq veteran war correspondent and CRG Research Associate Felicity Arbuthnot was first published by Global Research in August 2010.

Michel Chossudovsky, Global Research, March 10, 2024

***

The War on Iraq : Five US Presidents, Five British Prime Ministers,

More than Thirty Years of Duplicity, and Counting…

by Felicity Arbuthnot

“Out of the mirror they stare, Imperialism’s face and the international wrong.” (W.H. Auden, 1907-1973, writing in 1939.)

Twenty years ago this August, with a green light from America, Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait. He had walked into possibly the biggest trap in modern history, unleashing Iraq’s two decade decimation, untold suffering, illegal bombings, return of diseases previously eradicated and what can also only be described as UN-sponsored infanticide.

The reason for the Kuwait invasion, has been air brushed out of the fact books by Britain and America, and been presented as the irrational and dangerous act of a belligerent tyrant who was a threat to his neighbours. He had, they pointed out piously, attacked, then fought an eight year war with Iran, and exactly two years to the month, after the 20th August 1988 ceasefire, invaded Kuwait, on 2nd August 1990.

It was, of course, not quite that simple. After the US engineered the fall of the democratic government of Mossadegh, in Iran, resultant from his nationalizing the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company (now BP) in 1953. After two years of economically ravaging sanctions, The US installed Shah Reza Pahvlavi (whose savage state police, SAVAK, were trained by General Norman Schwartzkopf, Snr., father of General “Storming” Norman Schwartzopf of the 1991 Gulf war, who famously declared at the time of the ceasefire:

“… no one left to kill ..”

Under the Shah, oil arrangements satisfactory to the United States were, of course, restored.

Five years later, across the border in Iraq, the British installed monarchy was overthrown and the popular leader of the anti-British uprising, Abdel Karim Kassem, began nationalizing the country’s Western assets. It took the CIA just five more years to bring about his overthrow. They picked the wrong collaborators, the nascent Ba’ath Party, with Saddam Hussein as Vice President, embarked on nationalizing the oil industry.

President Nixon and National Security Advisor Henry Kissinger schemed with Iran to arm the Kurds and weaken the Iraqi government. Iraq was placed on list of supporters of terrorism.

Interestingly, Saddam, and the Shah quietly came to a US-excluded, mutually beneficial agreement – and aid to the Kurds was cut.

In 1980, the year after the Shah was overthrown, to grass roots Iranian jubilation, President Jimmy Carter announced the “Carter Doctrine”, with breath taking political arrogance, granting the US the unilateral right to intervene in the Persian Gulf region to protect US oil demands.

With (broadly) a US political nod and wink, Iraq invaded Iran – the US aiding both sides in a war where the million lives estimated lost equal that of Rwanda and  Armenia, each which have been cited as a genocide.

Iraq was also perceived as a more secular buffer again fundamentalist tendencies in Iran, under Ayatollah Khomeni. (Ironically, now, Iraq is largely politically dominated by fundamentalist Iranian-backed factions, which came in with the invasion, due, seemingly, to blind ignorance of the region by the British and Americans, their useless “diplomats” and unemployable “Middle East experts.”)

Carter won the 2002 Nobel Peace Prize. His Carter Center blurb informs:

“President Carter has been committed to peace in the Middle East since his White House days (and) advancing human rights, accountability and the rule of law”, in the region. Devotion is to : “Peace with Justice”; “Waging Peace.”

In 1984, President Reagan ordered the sharing of top secret intelligence with Iraq – and also with Iran. The following year, Colonel Oliver North of Iran-Contra infamy, informed Iranian authorities that the US would help Iran overthrow Saddam Hussein.

Subsequently, when Iraq looked vulnerable in America’s (arguably) proxy bloodbath, US military hardware and other assistance was ratcheted up. Breathtaking duplicity being the order of the decade, General Norman Schwartzkopf, then head of CENTCOM quietly intervened by re-flagging Kuwaiti tankers (with US flags) thus if attacked, it would be deemed an attack on the United States. The US began bombing Iranian oil platforms.

The scales tipped for Iraq, and in August 1988 the ceasefire was signed – and the (US) Center for Strategic and International Studies immediately began a two years study on the outcome of a war between the United States and Iraq. The following year, with much of Iraq’s youth “stone dead ..”, terribly wounded or imprisoned in Iran, it’s Air Force near wiped out, and the country financially on its knees, the US renamed War Plan 1002 – dreamt up to counter a Soviet confrontation –  War Plan 1002-90, designating Iraq the new threat.

Iraq, needing to recoup the $billions the war had cost, now addressed the problem of Kuwait’s alleged systematic “slant drilling” under the Iraq/Kuwait border, in to Iraq’s Rumeila oil field, syphoning off, claimed Iraq, millions of $’s worth of oil. Iraq wanted – and desparately needed – reparation.

Not in dispute is that over the eight years of war, Kuwait had moved its borders northwards in to Iraq by some considerable distance, by establishing encroaching settlements. Iraq wanted its territory back. Kuwait and the Gulf states were also manipulating oil prices, to hard pressed Iraq’s disadvantage, with Washington’s backing, claimed Iraq, with some justification.

Iraq, additionally, wanted to negotiate to lease two islands, Warbah and Bubiyan, from Kuwait, for additional access to the Gulf, which would also have reduced residual tensions with Tehran.* Tiny Kuwait, population at the time, under two million – “an oil company masquerading as a country”, as one commentator remarked unkindly – confident of mighty Washington’s backing, refused negotiation – as it had in 1975 and 1980.

After two years of attempts to resolve the problems with Kuwait, in late July, 1990, Saddam Hussein met with US Ambassador to Iraq, April Glaspie. With the border tensions mounting, she told him that:”I have direct instruction from the President (Bush Snr.,) to seek better relations with Iraq.” She even expressed the United States apology for a critical article on Iraq by the American Information Agency, designating resultant broadcasted comments: “..cheap and unjust.” Adding that : “President Bush … is not going to declare an economic war against Iraq.”

She continued:

“I admire your extraordinary efforts to rebuild your country. I know you need funds. We understand that and out opinion is that you should have the opportunity to rebuild your country.” (How arrogantly, patronisingly kind.)

Then:

“But we have no opinion on Arab-Arab conflicts, like your border dispute with Kuwait.”

Her conversation followed on from a meeting the previous April, between Glaspie and President Saddam, with five US Senators, Robert Dole, Alan Simpson, Howard Metzenbaum, James McClure and Frank Murkowski, who had travelled to Iraq, with President Bush’s blessings, ostensibly to form better relations and trade relations with Iraq and to assure that President Bush would oppose any suggestion of sanctions on Iraq.

President Saddam commented later to Glaspie that anyway:

“There is nothing left for us to buy from America except wheat.

Every time we want to buy something they say it is forbidden. I am afraid, one day, you will say ‘You are going to make gunpowder out of wheat.’ ” (1)

The response to the invasion of Kuwait, was, of course, an embargo of unique severity, imposed on Hiroshima Day (6th August) 1990 (UNSCR 661.)

All overseas assets were frozen, as were oil sales, thus, effectively all imports in a country which imported two thirds of absolutely everything (on advice given by the United Nations via their UN Food and Agriculture Organization.)

Iraq faced famine. Infant mortality doubled in just four months, by December 1990.

Advice to any country when outside consultants counsel relinquishing self-sufficieny : Don’t do it.  The day before the embargo was imposed, President H.W. Bush stated:

“What’s emerging is nobody seems to be showing up as willing to accept anything less than total withdrawal from Kuwait of the Iraqi forces, and no puppet regime. We’ve been down that road, and there will be no puppet regime that will be accepted by any countries that I’m familiar with. And there seems to be a united front out there that says Iraq, having committed brutal, naked aggression, ought to get out, and that this concept of their installing some puppet — leaving behind — will not be acceptable. … There is no intention on the part of any of these countries to accept a puppet government, and that signal is going out loud and clear to Iraq. I will not discuss with you what my options are or might be, but they’re wide open, I can assure you of that.”

Britain’s then Prime Minister, Margaret Thatcher – whose son, Mark, was allegedly doing arms deals across the Middle East, using his mother’s status – pitched in on Hiroshima Day :

” … I think it is quite different when you have a nation which has violated all rules of United Nations Charter, which has gone in with guns and tanks to take and invade another country, which would have far-reaching consequences if it were left like that for every other country in the world … ” (Given America’s British-backed, bombings, invasions, imposed, useless, corrupt, foreign passport holding puppet governments, imposed since the Balkans in 1999 alone, irony is redundant.)

Without Congressional approval, Bush ordered forty thousand US troops to “defend Saudi Arabia”, despite no sign of any intention by Iraq to attack the Kingdom. Washington lied that Iraq’s troops were massing on Saudi’s border. They were not.

Entirely forgotten, is that just ten days after the invasion, Saddam Hussein, a staunch supporter of Palestinian rights, announced that Iraq would withdraw from Kuwait, if Israel withdrew from Israeli occupied Palestinian territories.

The United States rejected the offer, out of hand. Subsequently Iraq proposed withdrawal without the stipulation relating to Palestine. Washington rejected it as “a complete nonstarter.”

For Washington, seemingly, war, war, is ever preferable to jaw, jaw.

Heaven forbid peace should ever reign, the military industrial complex’s billion $s munitions bonanza would dry up and the remnants of the US economy with it. (For graphic unravelling of the unholy conspiracy in this, between media, military and politics, see: “The Global Economic Crisis – The Great Depression of the XXI Century”,

The US having refused all negotiation, then dispatched an extra three hundred and sixty thousand US troops to the Gulf at the end of November, the UN Security Council passed UNSCR 678, threatening force against Iraq if it did not withdraw by January 15th – Iraq having offered to withdraw, albeit with conditions on August 12th., and without conditions a short time later.

In Geneva, on 9th January 1991, then Secretary of State James Baker —a “diplomat” who stated:

“We will reduce Iraq to a pre-industrial age”— met Iraq’s Foreign Minister, Tareq Aziz, with a letter from Bush Snr., promising the destruction of Iraq, if Kuwait was not withdrawn from by 15th January. Tareq Aziz stated he would not deliver the letter.

On 17th January the forty two day assault on Iraq began, as now well documented, deliberately destroying all infrastructure necessary to sustain society, including the deliberate targeting of all water purification facilities, with an exact time line of how long it would take Iraq’s complex water system “to fully degrade” issued to all NATO Command Headquarters.(2) Somewhere in Iraq’s ashes lay all the painstakingly crafted legal Treaties, Conventions and Principles, on war crimes and treatment of civilians in conflict, never to surface again, as far as the US and UK were concerned, arguably now officially signed up to “rogue state” status.

On 21st February, the USSR stated that Iraq had agreed to a complete withdrawal, without conditions. The United States rejected unless they had left by mid-day on 23rd. Interestingly, on the rare occasions the US and UK moot a withdrawal, the public is told, ad nauseum, that this is a complicated process which takes time and can not be achieved overnight. The US ground assault, however, almost could be. It started on 23rd February. Three days later, when the Iraqi troops did withdraw, they with civilians, were strafed mercilessly from both ends of the road to Basra, resulting in a massacre, or for  General Norman Schwartkopf, a seemingly psychologically disturbed individual :

“A turkey shoot.”

The ceasefire was finally agreed  by America on February 28th., five months and sixteen days of decimation, after Saddam Hussein had first offered to withdraw.

Two days later, the US killed thousands more, heading from the south, towards Baghdad. Another war crime of enormity, for which no one has ever faced trial.

In the light of the near-unprecented illegality of all which has happened to Iraq, before 1991 and subsequently, the thirteen years of bombings, the famine-style deprivation, and then the illegal invasion built on lie, upon lie, it is worth returning to Margaret Thatcher, who quoted the fine words of St Francis (“Where there is discord, may we bring harmony, where there is error, may we bring truth … and where there is despair, may we bring hope”) from the steps of Downing Street, on 4th May 1979, the day she took office.

Further, in  Afghanistan’s invasion and ongoing massacres by the occupiers, a gate crashing daily more resembling the towering illegality of that of Iraq, here are more of the 1990 Hiroshima Day’s now laughable lauding of the values and integrity of the US and UK:

“The West is dealing with a  person who, without warning, has gone into the territory of another state with tanks, aircraft and guns, has fought and taken that state against international law, against the will of that state, and has set up a puppet regime. That is the act of an aggressor which must be stopped. While a person who will take such action on one state will take it against another state if he is not stopped.”

“President Saddam Hussein and Iraq are aggressors. They have invaded another country, they have taken it by force—that is not the way we do things in this world. Other countries have rights, they have their right to their nationhood, they have the right to their territorial integrity. He has been rightly branded as an aggressor, contrary to international law, and it is not a question of taunting, it is a question of earning the condemnation of the world and the appropriate action which follows”

The “Iron lady” Thatcher, was as subservient to Bush Snr., as her slippery successor, Blair was to Clinton and baby Bush.

On the 21st August, Thatcher  opined:

“I think it is as well to remind ourselves how this whole position started. It started because Saddam Hussein substituted the rule of force for the rule of law and invaded an independent country and that cannot be allowed to stand.”

This August, an estimated three million dead later, in Iraq, as the bell now tolls ever louder for Iran, with the near identical sleights of hand and word being played out, as were against Iraq. Farcical, were it not so sinisterly demented, Iran is (says the US and UK) hell bent on making “weapons of mass destruction”, remember them? The one’s the crazies are still searching for in Iraq? The ones Iraq accounted for not having in 11,800 pages, delivered to the UN in December 2002 and stolen by the US mission to the UN?

The substitution of “the rule of force for the rule of law”, seemingly imminent, are there governments, statesmen and women, world bodies and institutions, unions; is there enough people power to halt the juggernaut on the Armageddon highway?

With the United Nations, as ever, either complicit, or asleep at the wheel, can “We the people” finally “.. save succeeding generations from the scourge of war”, and the equivalent unimaginable horrors of the equivalent of multiple Hiroshimas and Nagasakis.

References

Geoff Simons details these complexities with clarity : “From Sumer to Saddam.” : http://www.amazon.com/Iraq-Sumer-Saddam-Geoff-Simons/dp/1403917701

As does : “The Fire this Time”, Ramsey Clark, with eagle-eyed witness account, background : http://www.amazon.com/Fire-This-Time-U-S-Crimes/dp/1560250712

Both with invaluable time-lines.

1. Simons p 314-316.

2.http://www.commondreams.org/headlines/091700-01.htm

Michel Chossudovsky is an award-winning author, Professor of Economics (emeritus) at the University of Ottawa, Founder and Director of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG), Montreal, Editor of Global Research.

10 March 2024

Source: michelchossudovsky.substack.com

Hypocrisy: Dropping Bombs and Bread on Gaza

By Amy Goodman and Denis Moynihan

7 Mar 2024 – Dramatic images of US airdrops of food into the Gaza Strip made headlines in recent days. The US Air Force and the Royal Jordanian Air Force dropped over 70,000 meals in total along the Gaza coastline and in northern Gaza, amounting to a fraction of what is needed on an ongoing basis there. While the US has been airdropping food, it has also been delivering bombs to Israel to be dropped on Gaza as well. The Washington Post revealed this week that the Biden administration has conducted more than 100 separate weapons transfers to Israel over the last five months, with thousands of so-called precision guided munitions, bombs and more–while skirting legally-required reports to Congress.

“It is absurd and hypocritical to publicly profess horror at Netanyahu’s inhumane war,” Vermont Independent Senator Bernie Sanders said on the Senate floor on Wednesday, referring to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, “While…we ship tens of thousands of bombs to his army. It is absurd to criticize Netanyahu’s war in one breath and provide him another $10 billion to continue that war in the next.” Sanders reportedly met privately with President Biden this week.

Individual senators have significant power to delay legislation, including foreign military aid, but only if a senator actually learns about a proposed arms sale in advance. As the Washington Post reported, “in the case of the 100 other transactions, known in government-speak as Foreign Military Sales or FMS, the weapons transfers were processed without any public debate because each fell under a specific dollar amount that requires the executive branch to individually notify Congress.”

Josh Paul knows a lot about U.S. arms sales to Israel. He worked for over 11 years at the State Department, most recently as director in the Bureau of Political-Military Affairs, overseeing international arms deals. He resigned in October, citing the U.S.’s “blind support” for Israel during its assault on Gaza.

“The President continues to facilitate the flow of arms to Israel, despite a change in tone,” Josh Paul said on the Democracy Now! news hour. “We have certainly heard the administration call for more humanitarian assistance or at least a temporary ceasefire. But at the same time, it continues to provide the arms that enable Israel to continue its operations.”

On February 8th, Biden issued a “National Security Memorandum,” NSM-20, reminding government agencies of their legal requirements regarding these official arms transfers. A new report from Refugees International, titled, “Siege and Starvation: How Israel Obstructs Aid to Gaza,” includes the recommendation,

“Given the widespread indications of systematic Israeli violations of International Humanitarian Law [IHL] (which even the President has characterized as ‘indiscriminate’ and ‘over the top’), the Biden administration should pause further offensive security assistance to Israel pending a thorough review of the credibility of Israel’s adherence to IHL, as mandated by NSM-20.”

Refugees International President Jeremy Konyndyk is a former top USAID official, where he ran the Obama administration’s Office of U.S. Foreign Disaster Assistance and coordinated the Biden Administration’s international COVID response. He said this week on social media, “Biden admin has had the reports predicting looming famine for two and a half months. Where was the urgency? What did they do to pressure (not plead with) Bibi to drastically ramp up humanitarian access? Why the change in tone only now? And why, still, no use of US leverage?”

Not only is Israel clearly in violation of international humanitarian law, which alone should be enough to stop the flow of arms and ammunition from the US; Israel has been found to be plausibly responsible for genocide in Gaza, in a preliminary ruling from the International Court of Justice in The Hague. South Africa, which brought the case to the World Court, has just asked the court to take additional emergency measures, stating, “The threat of all-out famine has now materialized. The court needs to act now to stop the imminent tragedy.”

Josh Paul is in touch with State Department staffers who still work on arms transfers to Israel. “I’m still hearing from people… ‘I feel sick to my stomach of being involved in this,’ and ‘I’m trying to make changes, and it’s just not working.’ I think the internal pressure, the internal disgust, frankly, is still there.”

Josh Paul is now working with Democracy for the Arab World Now, or DAWN. In a statement, he said, “No number of airdropped pallets can come close to the relief that Gaza needs most: an end to Israel’s bombardment…conducted with American weapons paid for by American dollars. [T]he U.S. has immense leverage to push Israel to agree to a cease-fire and open wide the gates of Gaza so humanitarian assistance can flow in.”

Amy Goodman is the host of “Democracy Now!” a daily international TV/radio news hour airing on more than 900 stations in North America.

Denis Moynihan is the co-founder of Democracy Now! Since 2002, he has participated in the organization’s worldwide distribution, infrastructure development, and the coordination of complex live broadcasts from many continents.

11 March 2024

Source: transcend.org

3 Things to Know about the Current Crisis in Haiti

By Eyder Peralta

6 Mar 2024 – Haiti is entering its second day of a state of emergency, after gangs attacked the capital city’s most important prisons over the weekend, releasing thousands of inmates. The country’s airport is under siege, and on Monday evening, it was still not clear whether Haiti’s de facto prime minister had made it back into the country.

Monique Clesca, a well-known activist in Haiti, says the weekend represented “three days of terror.”

“Gangs paraded throughout Port-au-Prince with their arms openly,” she told NPR. “It wasn’t done at night and the police was nowhere to be found.”

Almost three years after the assassination of President Jovenel Moïse, Haiti has been in free-fall. Elections haven’t been held since 2017, so the term for every elected official has expired; security services are overwhelmed and millions are going hungry.

Here are three things you should know about this latest bout of violence in the country:

It marks the overt involvement of gangs in politics

Robert Fatton, who studies Haiti at the University of Virginia, says other bouts of violence in Haiti were marked by fights between gangs.

This time, he says, the gangs in Haiti have forged an alliance and at least one of the big gang leaders, Jimmy Chérizier, who is nicknamed Barbecue, has said explicitly that the point of this violence is to overthrow the government.

Fatton says working together, the gangs have flexed a powerful muscle. They already controlled most of the capital city, but over the past week, they shot at airplanes at the international airport in Port-au-Prince. International airlines stopped their flights, something that rarely happened in the past. The gangs also overpowered police at two of the main prisons and managed to release thousands of inmates.

This is a critical moment for Haiti, Fatton says.

“The situation is on the verge of a real collapse of any and every institution that remains in the country,” he says.

In other words, he says, there is a possibility the gangs could become the dominant force in Haiti.

Haiti’s de facto prime minister is not in the country

Haiti’s de facto Prime Minister Ariel Henry traveled to Kenya last week. Last year, the East African country agreed to lead a multinational force in Haiti, but Kenyan courts have delayed the deployment. Henry was in the country trying to close that deal.

When the violence broke out, it was Patrick Boisvert, the country’s finance minister who was acting as prime minister, who signed the emergency declaration.

Haiti’s Prime Minister Ariel Henry gives a public lecture at the United States International University in Nairobi, Kenya, on Friday. Henry said elections in his country need to be held as soon as possible to bring stability to the troubled Caribbean nation.  Andrew Kasuku/AP

At a press briefing, the U.S. State Department said Henry was “returning to the country.”

“We think it’s important that he do so and that he be allowed to do so,” State Department spokesperson Matthew Miller said, declining to say more.

On Tuesday night, however, several news outlets were reporting that Henry had touched down in Puerto Rico. Citing tracking data, The Associated Press reported that Henry’s flight had originated in New Jersey and was heading toward Dominican Republic, which shares with Haiti the island of Hispaniola. His plane circled mid-flight before diverting to Puerto Rico.

Kenyan police are still seen as the way out of this crisis

Speaking to reporters the State Department’s Miller said the crisis “underscores the urgency” of finalizing the Kenyan-led mission.

Clesca, who was part of a civil society group that has promoted a holistic approach to ending the Haitian crisis, says part of the problem is that Prime Minister Henry has been solely focused on a military solution. Henry, she says, could have ordered a state of emergency from the time he came to power, allowing the police to bring the gangs under control and at the same time plan for elections.

“Instead, a few months after [he came to power], he went to the United Nations and said ‘send me some troops’ and then crossed his arms,” Clesca says. “And that’s all they did — wait and wait and wait.”

On Friday, Henry and Kenyan President William Ruto witnessed the signing of a bilateral agreement authorizing the deployment of 1,000 Kenyan police officers to Haiti. Kenya’s government believes the agreement satisfies the objections of the Kenyan courts, which had stopped the deployment.

“It is a mission for humanity,” Ruto said. “It is a mission in solidarity with our brothers and sisters in Haiti.”

Ruto said the signing of the agreement was the “final step” and that his police force would “be there at the earliest opportunity that is possible.”

Correction March 5, 2024:  This story was updated to reflect Haiti’s de facto Prime Minister Ariel Henry arriving in Puerto Rico.

Eyder Peralta is an international Mexico City correspondent since 2022.

11 March 2024

Source: transcend.org

Yanis Varoufakis Blasts Europe’s Complicity in Genocide

By Yanis Varoufakis

“In Germany today you can only talk about Genocide if you support it.”

Yanis Varoufakis BLASTS Europe’s Complicity in Genocide

Yanis Varoufakis, a member of the Greek Parliament and a former finance minister of Greece, is leader of the MeRA25 Party, professor of economics at the University of Athens, and co-founder of DiEM25 (Democracy in Europe Movement). He is the author of ‘And the Weak Suffer What They Must? Europe’s Crisis and America’s Economic Future’; ‘Adults in the Room: My Battle with the European and American Deep Establishment’; and, most recently, the novel ‘Another Now’.

11 March 2024

Source: transcend.org

Canada and Sweden Restore UNRWA Funds as Report Accuses Israel of Torturing Agency Staff

By Jon Queally

“The work that UNWRA does cannot be overstated,” said Canadian lawmaker Salma Zahid. “It will save lives as we have seen the visuals of children dying of hunger in Gaza. The need for immediate aid is non-negotiable.”

9 Mar 2024 – The governments of Canada and Sweden have announced they will resume funding for the United Nation’s agency that provides humanitarian aide and protection to Palestinians living in Gaza and elsewhere—a move that other powerful nations, including Israel’s most powerful ally the United States, continue to refuse.

Calling the lack of humanitarian relief inside Gaza “catastrophic,” Canadian Minister of International Development Ahmed Hussen said Friday his nation would restore funding for the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA) in order to help address the “dire” situation on the ground living.

Sweden made its announcement Saturday and said a $20 million disbursement would be made to help UNRWA regain its financial footing.

The restoration of funds follows weeks of global criticism and protest for the decision by many Western nations to withhold UNRWA funds after Israel claimed, without presenting evidence, that a few members of the agency—the largest employer in the Gaza Strip—had participated in the Hamas-led attacks of October 7.

As a result, UNRWA has said its ability to provide aid and services to Gaza—where over 100,000 people have been killed or wounded in five months of constant bombardment and blockade by the Israeli military—has been pushed to the “breaking point” as malnutrition and starvation has been documented among the displaced population of over 2 million people.

“Canada is resuming its funding to UNRWA so more can be done to respond to the urgent needs of Palestinian civilians,” Hussen said. “Canada will continue to take the allegations against some of UNRWA’s staff extremely seriously and we will remain closely engaged with UNRWA and the UN to pursue accountability and reforms.”

“I welcome Canada lifting the pause on funding for UNWRA,” said Canadian MP Salma Zahid, a member of the Liberal party representing Scarborough Centre in the House of Commons. “The work that UNWRA does cannot be overstated. It will save lives as we have seen the visuals of children dying of hunger in Gaza. The need for immediate aid is non-negotiable.”

Earlier this week, UNRWA Commissioner-General Philippe Lazzarini told a special meeting of the U.N. General Assembly the agency was “facing a deliberate and concerted campaign” by Israel “to undermine its operations, and ultimately end them.”

On Friday, Reuters reported on an internal UNRWA report that included testimony of employees who said they were tortured by Israeli officers while in detention to make false admissions about involvement in the October 7 attack.

According to the reporting:

UNRWA communications director Juliette Touma said the agency planned to hand the information in the 11-page, unpublished report to agencies inside and outside the U.N. specialised in documenting potential human rights abuses.

“When the war comes to an end there needs to be a series of inquiries to look into all violations of human rights,” she said.

The document said several UNRWA Palestinian staffers had been detained by the Israeli army, and added that the ill-treatment and abuse they said they had experienced included severe physical beatings, waterboarding, and threats of harm to family members.

Michael Bueckert vice president of Canadians for Justice and Peace in the Middle East, said the new report was “more evidence that Canada’s political decision to suspend UNRWA funding was based on false allegations obtained through torture.”

“While the resumption of UNRWA aid is certainly welcome,” said Bueckert, “there needs to be accountability for the harm that Canada’s actions have caused.”

Jon Queally is managing editor of Common Dreams.

11 March 2024

Source: transcend.org

South Africa Requests ICJ Emergency Orders to Halt “Unspeakable” Gazan Genocide

By John Menadue

7 Mar 2024 – “Israel is now massacring desperate, starving Palestinians seeking to obtain food for their slowly-dying children.” The situation in Gaza is now so terrifying as to be unspeakable, writes South Africa in an urgent request for the International Court of Justice to issue additional provisional measures to stop Israel’s genocide.

South Africa today filed an urgent request with the International Court of Justice for the indication of additional provisional measures and the modification of the Court’s Order of 26 January 2024 and decision of 16 February 2024 in the case concerning Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide in the Gaza Strip (South Africa v. Israel), according to the ICJ in a press release dated 6 March.

In its request, South Africa states that it is “compelled to return to the Court in light of the new facts and changes in the situation in Gaza — particularly the situation of widespread starvation — brought about by the continuing egregious breaches of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide . . . by the State of Israel . . . and its ongoing manifest violations of the provisional measures indicated by this Court on 26 January 2024”.

It requests the Court to indicate further provisional measures and/or to modify the provisional measures indicated it its Order of 26 January 2024, pursuant to Article 41 of the Statute of the Court and Article 75, paragraphs 1 and 3, and Article 76, paragraph 1, of the Rules of Court, respectively, “in order urgently to ensure the safety and security of 2.3 million Palestinians in Gaza, including over a million children”. It urges the Court to do so without holding a hearing, in light of the “extreme urgency of the situation”.

The situation in Gaza described by the ICJ as “perilous” on 16 February, “is now so terrifying as to be unspeakable… justifying — and indeed demanding — the indication of further provisional measures of protection,” argued South Africa.

South Africa’s has requested that the ICJ make the following additional provisional measures and modification to existing measures:

  1. “All participants in the conflict must ensure that all fighting and hostilities come to an immediate halt, and that all hostages and detainees are released immediately.
  2. “All Parties to the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide must, forthwith, take all measures necessary to comply with all of their obligations under the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide.
  3. “All Parties to the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide must, forthwith, refrain from any action, and in particular any armed action or support thereof, which might prejudice the right of the Palestinians in Gaza to be protected from acts of genocide and related prohibited acts, or any other rights in respect of whatever judgment the Court may render in the case, or which might aggravate or extend the dispute before the Court or make it more difficult to resolve.
  4. “The State of Israel shall take immediate and effective measures to enable the provision of urgently needed basic services and humanitarian assistance to address famine and starvation and the adverse conditions of life faced by Palestinians in Gaza, by: (a) immediately suspending its military operations in Gaza; (b) lifting its blockade of Gaza; (c) rescinding all other existing measures and practices that directly or indirectly have the effect of obstructing the access of Palestinians in Gaza to humanitarian assistance and basic services; and (d) ensuring the provision of adequate and sufficient food, water, fuel, shelter, clothing, hygiene and sanitation requirements, alongside medical assistance, including medical supplies and support.
  5. “The State of Israel shall submit an open report to the Court on all measures taken to give effect to all provisional measures ordered by the Court to date, within one month as from the date of this Order.”

“Palestinian children are starving to death as a direct result of the deliberate acts and omissions of Israel — in violation of the Genocide Convention and of the Court’s Order. This includes Israel’s deliberate attempts to cripple the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (‘UNRWA’), on whom the vast majority of besieged, displaced and starving Palestinian men, women, children and babies depend for their survival,” write South Africa.

The latest death toll from Israel’s assault on Gaza stands at 30,717 people killed, including more than 12,300 children and 8,400 women. More than 72,156 Palestinians have been injured.

Read the full text of South Africa’s submission to the International Court of Justice here:

APPLICATION OF THE CONVENTION ON THE PREVENTION AND PUNISHMENT OF THE CRIME OF GENOCIDE IN THE GAZA STRIP (SOUTH AFRICA V. ISRAEL)

John Menadue has had a senior professional career in the media, public service and airlines.

11 March 2024

Source: transcend.org

How the ‘Fight against Antisemitism’ Became a Shield for Israel’s Genocide

By Jonathan Cook

Western capitals no longer treat Israel like a state, a political actor capable of slaughtering children, but rather as a sacred cause. So any opposition has to be a blasphemy.

7 Mar 2024 – If you read the establishment media, you might conclude that a serious battle is being waged by Israel and its most ardent supporters to tackle an apparent new wave of antisemitism in the West.

In article after article, we are told how Israel and western Jewish leadership bodies are demanding our concern, and outrage, at a rise in anti-Jewish hate incidents. Organisations such as the Community Security Trust in the UK and the Anti-Defamation League in the US produce lengthy reports on the relentless increase in antisemitism, especially since 7 October, and warn that action is urgently required.

Undoubtedly, there is a real threat of antisemitism and, as ever, it comes largely from the far right. Israel’s actions – and its false claim to be representing all Jews – only help to stoke it.

This moral panic is transparently self-serving. It directs our attention away from the pressing, all-too-concrete evidence that Israel is committing a genocide in Gaza – one that has slaughtered and maimed many tens of thousands of innocents.

It redirects our attention instead towards tenuous claims of a deepening antisemitism crisis, one whose tangible effects appear limited and for which the evidence is all too clearly exaggerated.

After all, a rise in “Jew hatred” is all but inevitable if you redefine antisemitism, as western officials have recently done via the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s new definition, to include antipathy towards Israel – and at the moment when Israel appears, even to the World Court, to be carrying out a genocide.

The logic of Israel and its supporters runs something like this:

Many more people than usual are expressing hatred of Israel, the self-declared state of the Jewish people. There is no reason to hate Israel unless you hate what it represents, which is Jews. Therefore, antisemitism is on the rise.

This argument makes sense to most Israelis, to its partisans, and to the overwhelming majority of western politicians and career-minded establishment journalists. That is: the very same people who interpret calls for equality in historic Palestine – “from the river to the sea” – as a demand for a genocide against Jews.

The singer Charlotte Church, for example, found herself accused of antisemitism by the entire establishment media after a “pro-Palestinian chant” to raise money for Gaza’s children being starved by an Israeli aid blockade. The offending song had included the lyric “From the river to the sea”, calling for the liberation of Palestinians from decades of Israeli oppression.

At the weekend, Chancellor Jeremy Hunt once again suggested marches calling for a ceasefire were antisemitic because they supposedly “intimidated” Jews. In fact, Jews are prominent at those marches. He was referring to Zionists who excuse the slaughter in Gaza.

Similarly, in the wake of George Galloway’s overwhelming byelection win “for Gaza” in Rochdale last week, a BBC reporter berated former Labour MP Chris Williamson for using the word “genocide” to describe Israel’s actions.

The reporter was worried that the term “might offend some people”, despite the World Court finding the accusation of genocide plausible.

A ghoulish phenomenon

But the ambition of these Israel zealots runs much deeper than mere deflection. Israel’s leaders and most of its citizens are not ashamed of their genocide, it seems, and neither are their overseas backers.

If my social media feeds are any guide, the slaughter in Gaza is not discomfiting these apologists, or even giving them pause for thought. They appear to revel in their support for Israel as the world looks on in horror.

Every Palestinian child’s bloodied body, and the outrage it provokes from onlookers, fuels their self-righteousness. They entrench, they do not retreat.

They appear to be finding a strange reassurance – comfort even – in the wider public’s anger and indignation at the extinguishing of so many young lives.

It mirrors very precisely Israeli officials’ own reaction to the International Court of Justice’s verdict that there is a plausible case Israel is committing genocide in Gaza.

Many observers assumed that Israel would seek to placate the judges and world opinion by toning down its atrocities. They could not have been more wrong. In defying the court, Israel became even more brazen, as attested to by its horrifying assault on the Nasser hospital last month and its lethal attack on Palestinians scrambling to reach an aid convoy last week.

Israel’s war crimes – broadcast on every social media platform, including by its own soldiers – are even more in our faces than before the World Court ruling.

Video shows Israeli military stripping naked Palestinians in northern Gaza

This phenomenon needs explaining. It looks ghoulish. But it has an internal logic that shines a light on why Israel has become an emotional crutch for many Jewish people, both inside the country and abroad, as well as for others.

It is not just that Jews and non-Jews who strongly subscribe to the ideology of Zionism identify with Israel. It runs deeper still. They are utterly dependent on a worldview – long cultivated in them by Israel and by their own community leaders, as well as by oil-grabbing western establishments – that places Israel at the centre of the moral universe.

They have been drawn into what looks more like a cult – and a very dangerous one at that, as the horrors of Gaza are revealing.

Albatross, not sanctuary

The claim they have internalised – that Israel is a necessary sanctuary in a future time of trouble from the supposedly innate, genocidal impulses of non-Jews – should have come crashing down on their heads over the past five months.

If the price of reassurance – of having a “just-in-case” bolthole – is the slaughter and maiming of many tens of thousands of Palestinian children, and the slow starvation of hundreds of thousands more, then that bolthole is not worth preserving.

It is not a sanctuary; it is an albatross. It is a stain. It must go, to be replaced by something better for Jews and Palestinians in the region – “from the river to the sea”.

So why have these Israel partisans not been able to reach a conclusion so morally self-evident to everyone else – or at least those not suborned to the interests of western establishments?

Because like all cult members, hardcore Zionists are immune to self-reflection. Not only that, but their reasoning is inherently circular.

Israel, Zionism’s creation, is not in the least concerned with providing a solution to antisemitism, as it professes. Quite the reverse. It feeds on antisemitism and needs it.

Antisemitism is its lifeblood, the very reason for Israel’s existence. Without antisemitism, Israel would be redundant, there would be no need for it as a sanctuary.

The cult would be over, and so would the endless military aid, the special trading status with the West, the jobs, the land grabs, the privileges and the sense of importance and ultimate victimhood that allows for the dehumanisation of others, not least the Palestinians.

Like all true believers, Israel’s partisans overseas – who proudly call themselves “Zionists” but are now pressuring social media platforms to ban the term as antisemitic, as the movement’s goals become more transparent – have too much to lose from self- and communal doubt.

The fight against antisemitism means nothing else can take priority – not even genocide. Which, in turn, means no greater evil can be acknowledged, not even the mass murder of children. No bigger threat, however pressing, however urgent, can be allowed to come to the fore.

And to keep the doubt at bay, more antisemitism – more supposed existential threats – must be generated.

Racism in new garb

In recent years, the biggest difficulty facing Zionism has been that the true racists – on the right, often in power in western capitals – have also served as Israel’s strongest allies. They have dressed up their traditional racist ideologies – that once fed antisemitism, and could again – in new garb: as Islamophobia.

In Europe and the United States, Muslims are the new Jews.

Which is ideal for Israel and its partisans. A supposed “global, civilisational war” – ideological cover to justify continuing western domination of the oil-rich Middle East – always places Israel, the regional attack dog, on the side of the angels, firmly alongside the white nationalists.

Because Israel and its apologists cannot expose the true racists and antisemites in power, they must create new ones. And that has required changing antisemitism’s definition beyond recognition, to refer to those who oppose the colonial domination project into which Israel is profoundly integrated.

In this upside-down worldview, one that prevails not only among Israel partisans but in western capitals, we have arrived at a nonsense: to reject Israel’s oppression of Palestinians – and now even its genocide of them – is supposedly to reveal oneself as antisemitic.

Palestinians dehumanised

This was precisely the position in which Francesca Albanese, the United Nations special rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the occupied Palestinian territories, found herself last month after she criticised French President Emmanuel Macron.

Israel has, as a consequence, declared it is banning her from entry to the occupied territories to record its human rights abuses.

But notably, as Albanese pointed out, nothing has changed in practice. Israel has excluded all UN rapporteurs from the occupied territories for the past 16 years, during its siege of Gaza, so they cannot witness the crimes that foregrounded the attack on 7 October.

Last month, Macron made a patently preposterous statement, though one promoted by Israel and treated seriously by the western media. He described Hamas’ attack on Israel as the “biggest antisemitic massacre of our century” – that is, he claimed it was driven by hatred of Jews.

One can criticise Hamas for how it carried out its attack, as Albanese has done: undoubtedly, its fighters committed many violations of international law that day in killing civilians and taking them hostage.

Exactly the same kind of violations, we should note in the interests of balance, that Israel has committed day in, day out for decades against the Palestinians forced to live under its military occupation.

Palestinian prisoners, seized by an occupying Israeli army in the middle of the night, held in military jails and denied proper trials, are no less hostages.

But to ascribe antisemitism as Hamas’ motivation is intended to scrub out those many decades of oppression. It airbrushes out the very abuses faced by the Palestinians that Hamas and the other Palestinian militant factions were established to resist.

That right of resistance to belligerent military occupation is enshrined in international law, even if the West rarely acknowledges the fact.

Or as Albanese put it: “The victims in the October 7 massacre were not killed because of their Judaism, but in response to Israeli oppression.”

Macron’s ridiculous remark also wiped out the past 17 years of the siege of Gaza – a slow-motion genocide that Israel has now put on steroids.

And he did so precisely because western colonial interests – just like Israel’s interests – must rationalise the dehumanisation of Palestinians and their supporters as racists and barbarians, in the West’s pursuit of domination and old-fashioned resource control in the Middle East.

But it is Albanese, not Macron, now fighting to save her reputation. She is the one being smeared as a racist and antisemite. By whom? By Israel and the genocide-supporting leaders of Europe.

Sacred cause

Israel needs antisemitism. And armed with a ludicrous redefinition adopted by western allies that classifies as Jew hatred any opposition to its crimes – any rejection of its bogus claims of “self-defence” as it crushes resistance to its occupation and its oppression of Palestinians – Israel has every incentive to commit more crimes.

Every atrocity produces more outrage, more resentment, more “antisemitism”. And the more resentment, the more outrage, the more “antisemitism”, the more Israel and its supporters can present the self-declared Jewish state as a sanctuary from that “antisemitism”.

Israel is no longer treated as a state, as a political actor capable of committing crimes and slaughtering children, but as an article of faith. It is transformed into a belief system, one immune to criticism or scrutiny. It transcends politics to become a sacred cause. And any opposition must be damned as wicked, as blasphemy.

Which is precisely the state to which western politics has devolved.

This battle against “antisemitism” – or rather, the battle being waged by Israel and its partisans – is to turn the meaning of words, and the values they represent, on their head. It is a fight to crush solidarity with the Palestinian people, and leave them friendless and naked before Israel’s campaign of genocide.

It is a moral duty to defeat these “antisemitism” warriors and assert our shared humanity – and the right of all to live in peace and dignity – before Israel and its apologists pave the way to an even greater slaughter.

Jonathan Cook is an award-winning British journalist based in Nazareth, Israel, since 2001.

11 March 2024

Source: transcend.org

The World Must Calculate the Real Gaza Death Toll

By Ralph Nader

With virtually no healthcare left, no medications, and infectious diseases spreading especially among infants, children, the infirm, and the elderly, can anybody believe that the fatalities have just gone over 30,000?

6 Mar 2024 – Since the Hamas raid penetrated the multi-tiered Israeli border security on October 7, 2023 (an unexplained collapse of Israel’s defensive capabilities), 2.3 million utterly defenseless Palestinians in the tiny crowded Gaza enclave have been on the receiving end of over 65,000 bombs and missiles plus non-stop tank shelling and snipers.

The extreme right-wing Netanyahu regime has enforced its declared siege of, in its genocidal words, “no food, no water, no electricity, no fuel, no medicine.”

The relentless bombing has destroyed apartment buildings, marketplaces, refugee camps, hospitals, clinics, ambulances, bakeries, schools, mosques, churches, roads, electricity networks, critical water mains—just about everything.

It matters greatly whether the aggregate toll so far, and counting, is three, four, five, six times more than the Health Ministry’s undercount.

The U.S.-equipped Israeli war machine has even uprooted agricultural fields, including thousands of olive trees on one farm; bulldozed many cemeteries; and bombed civilians fleeing on Israeli orders, while obstructing the few trucks carrying humanitarian aid from Egypt.

With virtually no healthcare left, no medications, and infectious diseases spreading especially among infants, children, the infirm, and the elderly, can anybody believe that the fatalities have just gone over 30,000? With 5,000 babies born every month into the rubble, their mothers wounded and without food, healthcare, medicine, and clean water for any of their children, severe skepticism about the Hamas Health Ministry’s official count is warranted.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Hamas, which he helped over the years, have a common interest in lowballing the death and injury toll. But for different reasons. Hamas keeps the figures low to reduce being accused by its own people of not protecting them, and not building shelters. Hamas grossly underestimated the savage war crimes by the vengeful, occupying Israeli military superpower fully and unconditionally backed by the U.S. military superpower.

The Health Ministry is intentionally conservative, citing that its death toll came from reports only of named deceased by hospitals and morgues. But as the weeks turned into months, blasted, disabled hospitals and morgues cannot keep up with the bodies, or cannot count those slain laying on roadsides in allies and beneath building debris. Yet the Health Ministry remains conservative and the “official” rising civilian fatality and injury count continues to be uncritically reported by both friend and foe of this devastating Israeli state terrorism.

It was especially astonishing to see the most progressive groups and writers routinely use the same Hamas Health Ministry figures as did the governments and outside groups backing the one-sided war on Gaza. All this despite predictions of a human catastrophe in the Gaza Strip almost every day since October 7, 2023 by arms of the United Nations, other besieged international relief agencies on the ground, eyewitness accounts by medical personnel, and many Israeli human rights groups and brave local journalists in that strip, the geographic size of Philadelphia. (Unguided Western and Israeli reporters and journalists are not allowed to enter Gaza by the Israeli government.) (See the open letter, titled “Stop the Humanitarian Catastrophe,” to President Joe Biden on December 13, 2023 by 16 Israeli human rights groups that also appeared as a paid notice in TheNew York Times.)

Then came the December 29, 2023 opinion piece in The Guardian by the chair of global public health at the University of Edinburgh, Devi Sridhar. She predicted half a million deaths in 2024 if conditions continue unabated.

In recent days, the situation has become more dire. In the March 2, 2024 Washington Post, reporter, Ishaan Tharoor writes:

The bulk of Gaza’s more than 2 million people face the prospect of famine—a state of affairs that constitutes the fastest decline in a population’s nutrition status ever recorded, according to aid workers. Children are starving at the fastest rate the world has ever known. Aid groups have been pointing to Israel restricting the flow of assistance into the territory as a major driver of the crisis. Some prominent Israeli officials openly champion stymying these transfers of aid.

Tharoor quotes Jan Egeland, chief of the Norwegian Refugee Council: “We must be clear: civilians in Gaza are falling sick from hunger and thirst because of Israel’s entry restrictions,” and “Life-saving supplies are being intentionally blocked, and women and children are paying the price.”

Martin Griffiths, the United Nations lead humanitarian officer, said “Life is draining out of Gaza at terrifying speed.”

U.N. Secretary-General António Guterres, according to the Post, warned of an “‘unknown number of people’—believed to be in the tens of thousands—lying under the rubble of buildings brought down by Israeli strikes.”

Volker Turk, the U.N. high commissioner for human rights, said, “All people in Gaza are at imminent risk of famine. Almost all are drinking salty and contaminated water. Healthcare across the territory is barely functioning,” and “Just imagine what this means for the wounded, and people suffering infectious-disease outbreaks… many are already believed to be starving.”

UNICEF, the International Rescue Committee, the Palestinian Red Crescent, and Doctors Without Borders are all relating that the same catastrophic conditions are getting worse fast.

Yet, and get this, in this article, the Post still stuck with the “more than 30,000 people in Gaza have been killed since the ongoing war began.”

Just like the entire mass media, many governments, even the independent media and critics of the war would have us accept that between 98% and 99% of Gaza’s entire population has survived—albeit the sick, injured, and more Palestinians about to die. This is lethally improbable!

From accounts of people on the ground, videos and photographs of deadly episode after episode, plus the resultant mortalities from blocking or smashing the crucial necessities of life, a more likely estimate, in my appraisal, is that at least 200,000 Palestinians must have perished by now and the toll is accelerating by the hour.

Imagine Americans, if this powerful U.S.-made weaponry was fired on the besieged, homeless, trapped people of Philadelphia, do you think that only 30,000 of that city’s 1.5 million people would have been killed?

Daily circumstantial evidence of the deliberate Israeli targeting of civilians and civilian infrastructures requires more reliable epidemiological estimates of casualties.

It matters greatly whether the aggregate toll so far, and counting, is three, four, five, six times more than the Health Ministry’s undercount. It matters for elevating the urgency for a permanent cease-fire, and direct and massive humanitarian aid by the U.S. and other countries, bypassing the sadistic cruelty against innocent families of the Israeli siege. It matters for the columnists and editorial writers who have been self-censoring themselves, with some, like the Post’s Charles Lane, fictionally claiming that Israel’s military doesn’t “intentionally target civilians.” It matters for accountability under international law.

Above all, it lets weak Secretary of State Antony Blinken and duplicitous President Biden be less servile when Netanyahu dismisses the low death toll by taunting them: What about Dresden, Hiroshima, and Nagasaki?

As a percentage of the total population being killed, Gaza can expose the Israeli ruling racist extremists to a stronger rebuttal for ending U.S. co-belligerent complicity in this never-to-be-forgotten slaughter of mostly children and women. (The terrifying PTSD on civilians, especially children, will continue for years.)

Respecting the more accurate casualty toll of Palestinian children, mothers, and fathers presses harder for permanent cease-fires and the process of recovery and reparations for the survivors of their holocaust.

Ralph Nader is a US political activist, author, lecturer, and attorney noted for his involvement in consumer protection, environmentalism, and government reform causes.

11 March 2024

Source: transcend.org

Achieving the Two-State Solution in the Wake of Gaza War

By Jeffrey D. Sachs and Sybil Fares

5 Mar 2024 – Peace can come through the immediate implementation of the two-state solution, making the admission of Palestine to the United Nations the starting point, not the ending point.

The two-state solution is enshrined in international law and is the only viable path to a long-lasting peace. All other solutions—a continuation of Israel’s apartheid regime, one bi-national state, or one unitary state—would guarantee a continuation of war by one side or the other or both. Yet the two-state solution seems irretrievably blocked. It is not. Here is a pathway.

The Israeli government strongly opposes a two-state solution, as does a significant proportion of the Israeli population, some on religious grounds (“God gave us the land”) and some on security grounds (“We can never be safe with a State of Palestine”). A significant proportion of Palestinians regard Israel as an illegitimate settler-colonial entity, and in any event distrust any peace process.

How then to proceed?

The usual recommendation is the following six-step sequence of events: (1) ceasefire; (2) release of hostages; (3) humanitarian assistance; (4) reconstruction; (5) peace conference for negotiations between Israel and Palestine; and finally (6) establishment of two states on agreed boundaries. This path is impossible. There is a perpetual deadlock on steps 5 and 6, and this sequence has failed for 57 years since the 1967 war.

The failure of Oslo is the paradigmatic case in point. There are irreconcilable differences, such as the status of East Jerusalem. Israeli zealots would force from power any Israeli politician who dares to give up East Jerusalem to Palestinian sovereignty and Palestinian zealots would do the same with any Palestinian leader who gave up sovereignty over East Jerusalem. We should relinquish the continuing illusion that Israel will ever reach agreement, or that Palestine would ever have the negotiating power to engage meaningfully with Israel, especially when the Palestinian Authority is highly dependent on the US and other funders.

The correct approach is therefore the opposite, starting with the establishment of two states on globally agreed boundaries, notably the boundaries of June 4, 1967 as enshrined in UN Security Council and UN General Assembly resolutions. The UN member states will have to impose the two-state solution, instead of waiting for yet another Palestinian-Israeli failed negotiation.

Thus, the settlement should follow this order: (1) establishment of Palestine as 194th member state within two-state solution framework on June 4, 1967 borders; (2) immediate ceasefire; (3) release of hostages; (4) humanitarian assistance; (5) peacekeepers, disarmament and mutual security; and (6) negotiation on modalities (settlements, return of refugees, mutually agreed land-swaps, and others; but not boundaries).

In 2011, the State of Palestine (now recognized by 140 UN member states but not yet as a UN member state itself) applied for full UN member status. The UN Security Council Committee on New Members (constituted by the UN Security Council) recognized the legitimacy of Palestine’s application, but as is utterly typical in the “peace process,” the US government prevailed on the Palestinian Authority to accept “observer status,” promising that full UN membership would soon follow. Of course, it did not.

The Security Council, backed by the UN General Assembly, has the power under the UN Charter to impose the two-state settlement. It can do so as a matter of international law, following decades of relevant resolutions. It can then enforce the solution through a combination of carrots (economic inducements, reconstruction funding, UNSC-backed peacekeepers, disarmament, border security, etc.) and sticks (sanctions for violations by either party).

The only conceivable border for creating the two-state solution is that of June 4, 1967. Starting from that border, the two sides might indeed negotiate a mutually agreed swap of land for mutual benefit, but they would do so knowing that the “best alternative to a negotiated agreement” (BATNA) is the June 4, 1967 border.

It is quite possible, indeed likely, that the US would initially veto the proposed pathway. After all, the US has already used its veto multiple times to block merely a ceasefire. Yet, the process of eliciting the US veto and then securing a large majority vote in the UN General Assembly will be salutary for three reasons.

First, US politics is shifting rapidly against Israeli policies given the US public’s growing understanding of Israel’s war crimes and Israel’s political extremism. This shift in public opinion makes it far more likely that the US leaders will sooner rather than later accept the basic approach outlined here because of US domestic political dynamics. Second, the increasing US isolation in the UN Security Council and UN General Assembly is also weighing heavily on US leaders, and forcing the US leadership to reconsider its policy positions in view of geopolitical considerations. Third, a strong vote in the UNSC and UNGA for the two-state solution on June 4, 1967 borders will help to strengthen international law and the terms of the eventual settlement as soon as the US veto is lifted.

For these reasons, there is a realistic prospect that the UN will finally exercise its international legal and political authority to create the conditions for peace.

Twenty-two years ago, Arab and Islamic leaders affirmed in the 2002 Arab Peace Initiative that that the only pathway to peace is through the two-state solution. On February 7, 2024, the Saudi Ministry of Foreign Affairs reasserted that a comprehensive peace will only be achieved by recognizing an independent Palestinian state on the 1967 borders and East Jerusalem as the capital. The Arab states and the world community generally shouldn’t buy into another vague peace process that is likely doomed to fail, especially given the urgency caused by the ongoing genocide in Gaza and the bad-will accumulated over the past 57 years of a fruitless “Peace Process.”

Peace can come through the immediate implementation of the two-state solution, making the admission of Palestine to the UN the starting point, not the ending point. Two sovereign states, on the boundaries of June 4, 1967, protected initially by UN-backed peacekeepers and other guarantees, will be the starting point for a comprehensive and just peace not only between Israel and Palestine—and also a regional peace that would secure diplomatic relations across the Middle East and end this conflict that has burdened the inhabitants, the region, and the world, for more than a century.

Jeffrey D. Sachs, Professor of Sustainable Development and Professor of Health Policy and Management at Columbia University, is Director of Columbia’s Center for Sustainable Development and the UN Sustainable Development Solutions Network.

11 March 2024

Source: transcend.org