Archives: Articles

On July 15, I attended a reception in Washington DC to celebrate the 15th anniversary of the normalization of relations between the United States and Vietnam. Geoff Millard and I spoke to Sen. John McCain. When Geoff introduced himself as chairman of the board of Iraq Veterans against the War, McCain retorted, “You’re too late.  We already won that one.”

McCain is now the second U.S. official to declare “mission accomplished” in a war that continues to ravage the people and land of Iraq. “[I]t would be a huge mistake to see Iraq as either a success story or as stable,” Juan Cole, Professor of Modern Middle Eastern and South Asian History at the University of Michigan, wrote on Informed Comment.  McCain’s declaration of victory in Iraq is as specious as the one George W. Bush made after he strutted across the flight deck of the Abraham Lincoln on May 1, 2003.

Gen. David Petraeus is often credited with reducing the violence in Iraq after the “surge” of 30,000 extra U.S. troops.  But the violence continues unabated.  Every few days there are reports of suicide bombings, car bombs, roadside bombs, and armed attacks in Iraq.  About 300 civilians continue to die each month and more than two million Iraqis continue to live as refugees.

I wonder how McCain defines “victory” in Iraq.  The U.S. mission there has never been clear since the invasion in 2003.  First the search for weapons of mass destruction proved fruitless.  Then it became evident there was no link between Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein.  Finally we were told the U.S. invaded Iraq to accomplish regime change and bring democracy to the Iraqi people.  But if democracy is the goal, there has been no victory.

Neither Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki nor Ayad Allawi won a mandate in Iraq’s March election, which created a power vacuum. ”The shortages of power, which remain a chronic problem seven years after the American invasion, have combined with a near paralysis of Iraq’s political system and violence to create a volatile mix of challenges before a planned reduction of United States forces this summer,” according to the New York Times.  Ryan Crocker, former U.S. ambassador to Iraq, described the “elitist authoritarianism that basically ignores the people.”

Sunni Arab insurgents have taken advantage of the political vacuum to mount “effective bombing campaigns” and target the banks, says Cole. Last month, attackers in military uniforms tried to storm the Central Bank of Iraq in Baghdad, causing explosions and gun battles with soldiers and police. Fifteen people were killed and 50 were wounded.

Most Iraqis have less than six hours of electricity per day. Baghdad’s poorer neighborhoods have as little as one hour per day, leaving them without so much as an electric fan to withstand the blistering heat – 120 degrees in some places. The electricity shortages caused thousands of Iraqis to join street demonstrations in Baghdad last month.

The political situation in Iraq is worse than it was before the U.S. invaded.  Although Saddam Hussein was a tyrant, he nevertheless raised the Iraqi standard of living to a respectable level.  “Saddam [had] improved the school system in Iraq and literacy for women was phenomenal for that of an Arab country at the time,” William Quandt, a professor of Middle East politics at the University of Virginia who has served as an adviser to the American government on Mideast policy, said on the PBS News Hour. “People didn’t go hungry in those days in Iraq,” Quandt added.

“We knew Saddam was tough,” Mr. Said Aburish, author of a biography of Hussein called ‘Secrets of His Life and Leadership,’ noted on PBS Frontline. “But the balance was completely different then. He was also delivering. The Iraqi people were getting a great deal of things that they needed and wanted and he was popular.”

Al Qaeda did not operate in Iraq before Bush’s “Operation Iraqi Freedom.” Now Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia terrorizes Iraqis in areas like Amil in Mosul. “They say you have to slaughter soldiers and police,” Staff Col. Ismail Khalif Jasim told the New York Times.

There is a campaign of assassinations aimed at government officials across Iraq, the Times reported a few weeks ago: “Some 150 politicians, civil servants, tribal chiefs, police chiefs, Sunni clerks and members of the Awakening Council [former Sunni insurgents now aligned with the Iraqi government and U.S. military] have been assassinated throughout Iraq since the election.” Speculation about those responsible includes Shiite militia allies, Sunni extremist groups like Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia, Kurdish political parties, and Iran.

Reconstruction of what we have destroyed in Iraq remains elusive. After six years and $104 million spent on restoring a sewage treatment system in Falluja, U.S. officials are walking away without connecting a single house. American reconstruction officials have also walked away from partially completed police stations, schools and government buildings in the past months. “Even some of the projects that will be completed are being finished with such haste, Iraqi officials say, that engineering standards have deteriorated precipitously, putting  workers in danger and leaving some of the work at risk of collapse,” the Times reported earlier this month.

President Obama is scheduled to reduce the number of U.S. soldiers in Iraq from 80,000 to 50,000 by the end of August.  But that does not mean stability has been attained, nor does it mean the occupation will end.  The U.S. is sending civilian “contractors” – perhaps more accurately called mercenaries – to replace them.

The number of State Department security contractors will more than double – from 2,700 to between 6,000 and 7,000 – according to a July 12 report of the bipartisan Commission on Wartime Contracting. The State Department has requested 24 Blackhawk helicopters, 50 Mine-Resistant Ambush-Protected vehicles, and other military equipment from the Pentagon. The gigantic U.S. embassy and five “Enduring Presence Posts” (U.S. bases) will remain in Iraq. The contractors are simply taking over the duties of the departing soldiers.

Transferring military functions to civilians is “one more step in the blurring of the lines between military activities and State Department or diplomatic activities,” said Richard Fontaine of the Center for a New American Security in Washington D.C.

The U.S. government has changed the language describing military activity in Iraq from combat operations to “stability operations,” but U.S. forces will continue to kill Iraqis. “In practical terms, nothing will change,” Maj. Gen. Stephen Lanza told the Times. “We are already doing stability operations.”

Bush’s war of choice in Iraq has caused 4,413 American deaths. Iraq Body Count estimates that between 97,110 and 105,956 Iraqi civilians have been killed. Untold numbers have been seriously wounded. By September, we will have spent nearly $750 billion on this war and occupation.

John McCain should examine the actual state of affairs in Iraq.  It he does, he might stop declaring victory.

By Marjorie Cohn, War Is A Crime .org

http://warisacrime.org/node/54234

Marjorie Cohn, a professor at Thomas Jefferson School of Law, is immediate past president of the National Lawyers Guild and deputy secretary general of the International Association of Democratic Lawyers. Her books include “Cowboy Republic: Six Ways the Bush Gang Has Defied the Law” and “Rules of Disengagement: The Politics and Honor of Military Dissent” (with Kathleen Gilberd). See www.marjoriecohn.com.

The past few years have proven to be particularly awful for the Palestinian people. The suffocating Israeli siege of Gaza, despite some slight loosening, continues to this day, with Egypt’s active support and Washington’s tacit approval; Israel’s 2008-2009 attack on Gaza, was the single most devastating event for the inhabitants of the Occupied Territories since 1967; Israel’s settlement program proceeds unabated; Israel’s attack on the Gaza Freedom Flotilla has raised the level of violent confrontation further; and Israel’s crackdown on domestic dissent, particularly among its Palestinian citizens, has reached unprecedented levels with the arrest of activists and threatened measures against Arab MPs.

The Israeli Occupation Archive asked Noam Chomsky for his assessment of the current situation and future prospects.

IOA: The Goldstone report, the Abu Dhabi Mossad assassination, the Gaza Flotilla attack: all these have severely weakened Israel’s international reputation — in Europe, in Turkey, in Egypt. How has the US-Israeli relationship fared through all this, and how has this affected the larger US strategic project in the Middle East and its efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan?

Noam Chomsky: I would add the Gaza attack itself, quite apart from the Goldstone report. It was so savage that it led to a substantial change in attitudes among the general population, though not noticeably among the political class or the media. But governmental relations haven’t changed, and no change should have been expected. Washington strongly supported the Gaza attack, and participated directly in it. The attack was clearly timed so that Obama could keep to the hypocritical “there’s only one president so I cannot comment” stance. It ended, surely by plan, at the moment that he took office, so that he could adopt the posture of “let’s look forward and forget the past,” very convenient for partners in crime. The media and commentators — unanimously, to my knowledge — evaded the central fact about the war: the issue was not whether Israel had a right to defend itself from rockets, but whether it had the right to do so by force. It surely did not, because the US-Israel knew that peaceful means were available but refused to pursue them: accepting Hamas’s offer to renew the cease-fire, which Hamas had observed even though Israel did so only partially. That suffices to establish the criminality of the attack. Disproportionality in the use of force is a minor crime by comparison. The other events you mention had little impact in the US, with one exception: there is now some concern in the US military and intelligence that support for Israeli crimes and intransigence may harm military operations in the field. General David Petraeus quickly retracted his comments to this effect, but others are expressing the same concern, among them Bruce Riedel, an influential long-time senior intelligence official and presidential advisor. Israeli intelligence understands this problem very well. Mossad chief Meir Dagan warned the Israeli Knesset that they are treading on thin ice for this reason. That might prove significant.

IOA: The Obama administration announced a Middle East peace initiative following the president’s June 2009 speech in Cairo. What is your assessment of this initiative — what was its original intention and where has it gone, and in what respects does it differ from the policies of previous US administrations?

NC: Obama basically reiterated the terms of the Road Map, which bans Israeli settlement expansion, but with a wink: his spokesperson informed the press that his demands were purely “symbolic” and that unlike Bush I, he would not consider penalties if Israel rejected the demands, as of course it did, in various overt and devious ways. George Mitchell is a reasonable choice as negotiator, but in nominating him Obama made it quite clear that he is not serious about a meaningful political settlement, so that Mitchell’s hands are tied. I wrote about that at the time, and won’t repeat.

IOA: Arab allies of the US remain committed to the Arab League peace initiative. Is a settlement along these lines — a Two-State solution, based on the 1967 borders — consistent with US interests in the region? If so, what is stopping the United States from actually applying pressure on Israel, and not just talking about peace?

NC: The Arab initiative reiterates the longstanding international consensus and goes beyond, calling also for normalization of relations. It is accepted by virtually the entire world, including Iran. Would this be consistent with US interests? It depends on how we understand the phrase “US interests.” In general, it is well to bear in mind that the concept “national interest” is a rather mystical one. There are some shared interests among the population: not to be destroyed by nuclear weapons, for example. But on a great many issues interests differ sharply. The interests of the CEO are not the same as those of the woman who cleans his office. The interests of the huge mass of Christian Zionists or those allied with AIPAC are quite different from yours and mine.

It should hardly be controversial that the operative “national interest” is largely determined by those who control the domestic economy, an observation as old as Adam Smith and amply confirmed since. They seem quite satisfied with US rejectionism. In the media, the most fervent supporter of Israeli actions is the Wall Street Journal, the journal of the business world. Though Jews mostly vote for and fund Democrats, the Republican Party is even more extreme than the Democrats in support for Israeli actions, and is even closer to the business community High tech industry maintains close ties with its Israeli counterparts, and investment continues. For military industry, Israel is a double bonanza: it sells advanced armaments to Israel (courtesy of the US taxpayer) and that induces Saudi Arabia and the Gulf Emirates to purchase a flood of weapons, less advanced, helping to recycle petrodollars and contributing to profits. Close intelligence connections go back to the 1950s. There seems to be no significant domestic force pressing Washington to join the world on this issue. A popular movement might make a difference, but for the present it is too weak and disunited to weigh significantly in the balance. Our primary task should be to change that.

IOA: Recent revelations about Netanyahu’s attempts to trick the US and derail the Oslo “peace process” exposed not his “lack of commitment” to the “peace process” but, rather, his commitment to stop it. How far do you think Israel can go against the publicly-declared positions of the United States before the Obama Administration states its displeasure and backs its words with some action? Do you think Washington has the will, or courage, to block further Israeli actions that are designed to stop the “peace process”?

NC: There is so far no sign that Washington has the will, or that some substantial force is pressing it to change direction.

IOA: Netanyahu’s on-going settlement program prompted the Palestinian Authority to stop negotiations with Israel. The Palestinians are now in a bind: accepting anything short of a complete stop of settlement construction means negotiating while Israel is undermining their future, while refusing to negotiate allows Israel to continue undermining their future. In the face of Netanyahu’s intransigence, what can the Palestinian leadership, current or future, do to extract itself from this predicament? And how can a Palestinian popular movement point its leadership in the right direction?

NC: Israel and its US backers would no doubt prefer for the Palestinian leadership to be immobilized in endless negotiations, while the concrete work of colonization proceeds — the traditional Zionist practice for a century. But the Palestinian leadership has other choices, and to some extent is pursuing them. Among these are boycotting settlements, participating in non-violent protests at Bil’in, Sheikh Jarrah, and elsewhere; construction and development, even in Area C (the area of full Israeli control), and rebuilding when Israel destroys what they do; countering the US-Israeli program since Oslo of splitting the West Bank and Gaza and finding ways to bring together conflicting factions; and vigorously making their case internationally, particularly in the US, which will continue to play a decisive role for the foreseeable future.

This last effort raises what should be the crucial question for those of us in the US. It is not our right or responsibility to lecture the Palestinian leadership on what they should do. That is up to the Palestinians to decide. But it is very definitely our responsibility to focus attention on what we should be doing. Of prime importance is to educate and organize the American public and to develop popular forces that can overcome the dominant propaganda images that sustain the US policies that have been undermining Palestinian rights. Here the tasks are vast. The examples I briefly mentioned are illustrations. On none of these issues is there public understanding beyond extremely narrow circles. Even the absurd doctrine that the US is an “honest broker” desperately seeking to bring together two recalcitrant opponents is reiterated daily with almost no challenge. Thus the US is hailed for conducting “proximity talks” between Netanyahu and Abbas. Departing from doctrinal mythology, some neutral entity should be conducting proximity talks between the US and the world, elementary truths that are next to incomprehensible in the US or much of the West. The same is true on specific issues. Take the invasion of Gaza. It is little understood that it was a US-Israeli invasion. Furthermore, there is virtually no recognition of the crucially important fact that the primary issue was not disproportionality or specific crimes during the military operations, but rather the right to use force in the first place, which was in fact zero, as mentioned. Skirting this central issue, as is done in virtually all commentary and even in the human rights investigations, gives the US-Israel a “free pass,” restricting critique to what are footnotes to the major crime. It is a major failing of the Palestine solidarity movements to have left such myths as these virtually unshaken.

In these and other areas there are important tasks of education and organization that have to be addressed seriously if US policies are to be shifted. They should lead to actions focusing on specific short-term objectives: ending the savage and criminal siege of Gaza; dismantling the illegal “Separation Wall,” by now a de facto annexation wall; withdrawing the IDF from the illegally annexed Golan Heights and from the West Bank (including illegally annexed “Greater Jerusalem”), which would, presumably, be followed by departure of most of settlers, all of whom, including those in East and expanded Jerusalem, have been transferred (and heavily subsidized) illegally, as Israel recognized as far back as 1967; and of course ending all Israeli construction and other actions in the occupied territories. Popular movements in the US should work to end any US participation in these criminal activities, which would, effectively, end them. That can be done, but only if a level of general understanding is reached that far surpasses what exists today. That is not a very difficult task as compared to many others that popular movements have confronted in the past, often with some success. In fact, it pretty much amounts to insistence that we act in conformity with domestic and international law, and that we adopt the “decent respect to the opinions of mankind” called for in the Declaration of Independence. Hardly a radical stance, or one that should be difficult to bring to the general public, with enough effort. This by no means exhausts what should be our concerns. Others include the desperate conditions of refugees outside of Palestine, particularly in Lebanon. An immediate concern is to relieve these conditions, though what we can do in this case is more limited. There is no shortage of immediate tasks to be addressed.

IOA: What is your view of the current approaches of those opposing the Occupation — globally, as well as in the US? Where do you stand on BDS in its various forms? Your position on BDS has, at times, been challenged by anti-occupation activists. Has your position evolved over time? Is BDS more appropriate in Europe than in the US? And, what other strategies and tactics do you think people opposing the Occupation should focus on?

NC: The most important tasks, I think, are those I just briefly sketched, particularly in the US but also in Europe, where illusions are also widespread and far-reaching. There are many familiar tactics and strategies as to how to pursue these crucial objectives. They can also be supplemented by various forms of direct action, such as what is now called “BDS,” though that is only one of many tactical options. Merely to mention one, demonstrations at corporate headquarters, especially when coordinated in many countries, have sometimes been quite effective. And there are many other choices familiar from many years of activism.

As for what is now called BDS, my views are the same as when I was engaged in these actions well before the BDS efforts crystallized, and I am unaware of any challenge to them apart from inevitable disagreement on specific cases that are unclear. BDS is a tactic, one of many, and not a doctrine of faith. Like other tactics, particular implementations of BDS have to be evaluated by familiar criteria. Crucial among them is the likely consequences for the victims. As those seriously involved in anti-Indochina war activities will recall, the Vietnamese strongly objected to Weathermen tactics, which were understandable in the light of the horrendous atrocities but seriously misguided, predictably strengthening support for state violence. The Vietnamese urged nonviolent tactics that would help educate public opinion and increase popular opposition to the wars, and didn’t care whether protesters “feel good” about what they are doing. Similar issues arise constantly, in the case of BDS as well. Some implementations have been highly constructive, both in educating the public here — a primary consideration always — and in raising the costs of participation in ongoing crimes. Good examples are boycotting settlement products and US corporations that are engaged in support for the occupation. Such actions both impose costs and help educate the public here, by emphasizing what should be our prime concern: our own major role in these criminal actions, which is what we can hope to influence. It would be sensible to go far beyond: for example, to join the appeal of Amnesty International for termination of all military aid to Israel, which violates international law as AI observes, and domestic law as well. Unfortunately, there have been other initiatives that were poorly formulated and played directly into the hands of hardliners, who of course welcome them. Again it is easy to identify examples. We should at least be able to learn from ample experience, as well as to understand the reasons for these different consequences.

Tactical priorities should be somewhat different in Europe and the US, because of their different roles. The US stand is a decisive factor in implementing Israel’s policies, and therefore tactics here should aim to bring to the fore the US role, which is what activists can hope to influence most effectively. Tactics in Europe should be directed to what Europeans should know about and can directly influence: their own role in perpetuating the crimes against Palestinians.

IOA: Finally, what are the prospects for Palestinians under occupation in the West Bank and under siege in Gaza?

NC: One is along the lines I outlined earlier: withdrawal of the IDF from the occupied territories, ending the siege of Gaza and the efforts to separate it from West Bank, etc. That would probably lead to some variant of the international consensus on a two-state settlement, perhaps along the lines almost reached in the Taba negotiations of January 2001 (called off prematurely by Israel, another important matter virtually swamped by propaganda here) or the Geneva Accord presented in December 2003, welcomed by most of the world, rejected by Israel, ignored by Washington.

There is much discussion of what is often taken to be the alternative to a two-state settlement: “hand over the keys” of the territories to Israel, and then wage a civil rights/anti-apartheid struggle within the whole of Palestine. But there is no reason to suppose that the US-Israel would accept the keys, because they have another alternative that doesn’t leave them with a “demographic problem”: continue the US-backed Israeli programs of takeover of what is valuable in the occupied territories, leaving Palestinians in unviable cantons, with an island of elite prosperity in Ramallah, basically adopting the Sharon plan (essentially Olmert’s “convergence” of 2006) and the advice of Israeli industrialists years ago to shift policy from colonialism to neo-colonialism. The basic outlines are familiar, and by now Israel has effectively taken over more than 40% of the West Bank, isolating it from Gaza — with decisive US military, economic, diplomatic and ideological support throughout.

By Noam Chomsky

There has been a strong revival in recent years of support among Palestinians for a one-state solution guaranteeing equal rights to Palestinians and Israeli Jews throughout historic Palestine.

One might expect that any support for a single state among Israeli Jews would come from the far left, and in fact this is where the most prominent Israeli Jewish champions of the idea are found, though in small numbers.

Recently, proposals to grant Israeli citizenship to Palestinians in the West Bank, including the right to vote for the Knesset, have emerged from a surprising direction: right-wing stalwarts such as Knesset speaker Reuven Rivlin, and former defense minister Moshe Arens, both from Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s Likud party. Even more surprising, the idea has been pushed by prominent activists among Israel’s West Bank settler movement, who were the subject of a must-read profile by Noam Sheizaf in Haaretz (“<“http://www.haaretz.com/magazine/friday-supplement/endgame-1.302128“>Endgame,” 15 July 2010).

Their visions still fall far short of what any Palestinian advocate of a single state would consider to be just: the Israeli proposals insist on maintaining the state’s character — at least symbolically — as a “Jewish state,” exclude the Gaza Strip, and do not address the rights of Palestinian refugees. And, settlers on land often violently expropriated from Palestinians would hardly seem like obvious advocates for Palestinian human and political rights.

Although the details vary, and in some cases are anathema to Palestinians, what is more revealing is that this debate is occurring openly and in the least likely circles.

The Likudnik and settler advocates of a one-state solution with citizenship for Palestinians realize that Israel has lost the argument that Jewish sovereignty can be maintained forever at any price. A status quo where millions of Palestinians live without rights, subject to control by escalating Israeli violence is untenable even for them. At the same time repartition of historic Palestine — what they call Eretz Yisrael — into two states is unacceptable, and has proven unattainable — not least because of the settler movement itself.

Some on the Israeli right now recognize what Israeli geographer Meron Benvenisti has said for years: historic Palestine is already a “de facto binational state,” unpartionable except at a cost neither Israelis nor Palestinians are willing to pay. The relationship between Palestinians and Israelis is not that of equals however, but that “between horse and rider” as one settler vividly put it in Haaretz.

From the settlers’ perspective, repartition would mean an uprooting of at least tens of thousands of the 500,000 settlers now in the West Bank, and it would not even solve the national question. Would the settlers remaining behind in the West Bank (the vast majority under all current two-state proposals) be under Palestinian sovereignty or would Israel continue to exercise control over a network of settlements criss-crossing the putative Palestinian state? How could a truly independent Palestinian state exist under such circumstances?

The graver danger is that the West Bank would turn into a dozen Gaza Strips with large Israeli civilian populations wedged between miserable, overcrowded walled Palestinian ghettos. The patchwork Palestinian state would be free only to administer its own poverty, visited by regular bouts of bloodshed.

Even a full Israeli withdrawal from the West Bank — something that is not remotely on the peace process agenda — would leave Israel with 1.5 million Palestinian citizens inside its borders. This population already faces escalating discrimination, incitement and loyalty tests. In an angry, ultra-nationalist Israel shrunken by the upheaval of abandoning West Bank settlements, these non-Jewish citizens could suffer much worse, including outright ethnic cleansing.

With no progress toward a two-state solution despite decades of efforts, the only Zionist alternative on offer has been outright expulsion of the Palestinians — a program long-championed by Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman’s Yisrael Beitenu party, which has seen its support increase steadily.

Israel is at the point where it has to look in the mirror and even some cold, hard Likudniks like Arens apparently don’t like what they see. Yisrael Beitenu’s platform is “nonsensical,” Arens told Haaretz, and simply not “doable.” If Israel feels it is a pariah now, what would happen after another mass expulsion of Palestinians?

Given these realities, “The worst solution … is apparently the right one: a binational state, full annexation, full citizenship” in the words of settler activist and former Netanyahu aide Uri Elitzur.

This awakening can be likened to what happened among South African whites in the 1980s. By that time it had become clear that the white minority government’s effort to “solve” the problem of black disenfranchisement by creating nominally independent homelands — bantustans — had failed. Pressure was mounting from internal resistance and the international campaign of boycott, divestment and sanctions.

By the mid-1980s, whites overwhelmingly understood that the apartheid status quo was untenable and they began to consider “reform” proposals that fell very far short of the African National Congress’ demands for a universal franchise — one-person, one-vote in a nonracial South Africa. The reforms began with the 1984 introduction of a tricameral parliament with separate chambers for whites, coloreds and Indians (none for blacks), with whites retaining overall control.

Until almost the end of the apartheid system, polls showed the vast majority of whites rejected a universal franchise, but were prepared to concede some form of power-sharing with the black majority as long as whites retained a veto over key decisions. The important point, as I have argued previously, is that one could not predict the final outcome of the negotiations that eventually brought about a fully democratic South Africa in 1994, based on what the white public and elites said they were prepared to accept (“Israeli Jews and the one-state solution,” The Electronic Intifada, 10 November 2009).

Once Israeli Jews concede that Palestinians must have equal rights, they will not be able to unilaterally impose any system that maintains undue privilege. A joint state should accommodate Israeli Jews’ legitimate collective interests, but it would have to do so equally for everyone else.

The very appearance of the right-wing one-state solution suggests Israel is feeling the pressure and experiencing a relative loss of power. If its proponents thought Israel could “win” in the long-term there would be no need to find ways to accommodate Palestinian rights. But Israeli Jews see their moral currency and legitimacy drastically devalued worldwide, while demographically Palestinians are on the verge of becoming a majority once again in historic Palestine.

Of course Israeli Jews still retain an enormous power advantage over Palestinians which, while eroding, is likely to last for some time. Israel’s main advantage is a near monopoly on the means of violence, guaranteed by the United States. But legitimacy and stability cannot be gained by reliance on brute force — this is the lesson that is starting to sink in among some Israelis as the country is increasingly isolated after its attacks on Gaza and the Gaza Freedom Flotilla. Legitimacy can only come from a just and equitable political settlement.

Perhaps the right-wing proponents of a single state recognize that the best time to negotiate a transition which provides safeguards for Israeli Jews’ legitimate collective interests is while they are still relatively strong.

That proposals for a single state are coming from the Israeli right should not be so surprising in light of experiences in comparable situations. In South Africa, it was not the traditional white liberal critics of apartheid who oversaw the system’s dismantling, but the National Party which had built apartheid in the first place. In Northern Ireland, it was not “moderate” unionists and nationalists like David Trimble and John Hume who finally made power-sharing under the 1998 Belfast Agreement function, but the long-time rejectionists of Ian Paisley’s Democratic Unionist Party, and the nationalist Sinn Fein, whose leaders had close ties the IRA.

The experiences in South Africa and Northern Ireland show that transforming the relationship between settler and native, master and slave, or “horse and rider,” to one between equal citizens is a very difficult, uncertain and lengthy process. There are many setbacks and detours along the way and success is not guaranteed. It requires much more than a new constitution; economic redistribution, restitution and restorative justice are essential and meet significant resistance. But such a transformation is not, as many of the critics of a one-state solution in Palestine/Israel insist, “impossible.” Indeed, hope now resides in the space between what is “very difficult” and what is considered “impossible.”

The proposals from the Israeli right-wing, however inadequate and indeed offensive they seem in many respects, add a little bit to that hope. They suggest that even those whom Palestinians understandably consider their most implacable foes can stare into the abyss and decide there has to be a radically different way forward.

We should watch how this debate develops and engage and encourage it carefully. In the end it is not what the solution is called that matters, but whether it fulfills the fundamental and inalienable rights of all Palestinians.

By Ali Abunimah

Ali Abunimah is co-founder of The Electronic Intifada and author of One Country: A Bold Proposal to End the Israeli-Palestinian Impasse. This article first appeared on Al-Jazeera English and is republished with permission.

Israel is planning a major land-grab in East Jerusalem worth tens of billions of dollars.

Attorney General Yehuda Weinstein has informed the Supreme Court that the state plans to apply the law on abandoned properties in East Jerusalem. This will mean that Israel can “legally” take over thousands of acres and buildings that are the property of Palestinians, some of whom fled to what the state claims were “enemy states” during the Israeli “War of Independence” and others who have property in East Jerusalem but reside in the Occupied Territories.

The issue was brought before the Supreme Court after four cases were tried in the Jerusalem District Court, which ruled in favour of the owners in two cases and against in two. A special legal panel later ordered the Attorney General to tell the District Court whether it intended to apply a 1950 law to properties in East Jerusalem.

The total worth of the property belonging to the four applicants that was seized in Abu Ghneim mountain is estimated at $10 billion—equivalent to the Israeli defence budget for a year.

The Israeli newspaper Ha’aretz noted that a legal shift was underway. In 1968, “Meir Shamgar, who was attorney general at the time, presented a legal opinion in which he concluded that the law should not apply to properties of Palestinians in East Jerusalem whose owners lived in the territories.” He wrote, “We did not see any justification that annexation of East Jerusalem should in itself bring about taking over properties of persons who were not essentially absent, but rather were present at the time their property came under our control.”

In 2005 Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu, who at the time was finance minister and whose department was in charge of abandoned properties, was warned by then Israeli Attorney General Menachem Mazuz “that applying the law vis-a-vis to residents of the territories could have serious international consequences.”

Mazuz enlarged on these remarks by saying, “The interest of the State of Israel is to avoid opening new fronts on the international scene in general, and in international law in particular.”

Ha’aretz quoted him telling Netanyahu that there was no logic in applying the law to East Jerusalem properties: “The properties became abandoned due to a unilateral action taken by the State of Israel … at a time when both the properties and their owners were under the control of the state … Essentially these are ‘present owners,’ whose rights to their property were stripped because of a broad, technical formulation of the law.”

Netanyahu clearly feels he is in a better position internationally to carry through annexations. The four owners in the Jerusalem District Court cases have been ordered to submit formal requests to a special committee on abandoned properties, asking for the properties to be released. The statement makes clear that “the deliberation will be held on the basis of the view of the state and the custodian of the properties that they are indeed abandoned.”

In addition to confiscating land claimed to be vacant, and demolishing Palestinian homes built without permits that are almost impossible to secure, Israel has for many years used the excavation and reclamation of Jewish historical sites as a reason for the removal of Arab dwellings within East Jerusalem.

In recent weeks, Jerusalem Mayor Nir Barkat has pushed through plans for a biblical recreational park in the Silwan district of East Jerusalem through the Jerusalem Planning and Building Committee. It will mean the destruction of 22 Palestinian homes declared illegal by the Jerusalem municipality. Hundreds of Arab and Jewish Israelis marched through the Silwan neighbourhood in protest against the park, in what was claimed by the organisers to be the biggest demonstrations against the takeover of East Jerusalem by Israeli settlers.

In March, Barkat dismissed United States Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s request for a halt to the demolitions, but was told to hold his plans in abeyance by Netanyahu.

At the time President Barack Obama had been forced to rebuke Netanyahu after Israel announced the building of 1,600 more Jewish homes while Vice President Joseph Biden was visiting Jerusalem. A “partial freeze” was declared by Netanyahu in order to alleviate Obama’s embarrassment and allow the Arab states to continue their own collusion with Washington.

This freeze runs out in September, but since then Obama has done everything possible to champion Netanyahu’s government and legitimise its plans to seize East Jerusalem and vast swathes of the West Bank. On July 7, Obama praised Netanyahu as a man who is “willing to take risks for peace” at a White House meeting, just five weeks after the May 31 raid on the Mavi Marmara Gaza aid convoy in which Israeli forces murdered eight Turkish activists and a dual Turkish-US national. He echoed Netanyahu’s demand that the Palestinian Authority resume face to face talks with Israel, while saying nothing about Israel’s intention to resume in full its settlement construction drive.

The “absent property” case being brought before the Supreme Court and the pushing through of the recreation park project is the payoff for Obama’s endorsement, alongside the renewed bulldozing of Palestinian homes in East Jerusalem.

Netanyahu’s government insists that Jerusalem must remain the undivided capital of Israel and opposes the demand of the Palestinians that East Jerusalem should be the capital of their putative state. A quarter of a million Palestinians are estimated to live in East Jerusalem. Since the Israeli capture of Jerusalem in the 1967 war an estimated 200,000 Jewish settlers have moved into the area. This influx breaches international laws concerning the colonisation of an occupied territory.

Such was the haste in pushing through the Silwan park plan that no less than 250 defects were found by the departments empowered to inspect building plans. Jerusalem City Engineer Shlomo Eshkol put forward a separate list of 30 criticisms, including demands for major changes. The municipality’s legal advisor also found it did not meet the legal standards necessary. Barkat dismissed the legal arguments by hiring a private lawyer to oversee the plan on behalf of the municipality. He dismissed his Deputy Mayor Pepe Alalo of the Meretz Party for voting against the Silwan Plan and threw out the remaining three Meretz councillors. Meretz advances itself as a pro-peace party. The municipal coalition is now dominated even more by ultra-Orthodox partners. Meretz now forms a rump four-man opposition alongside Meir Turgeman of the Lma’an Yerushalem party.

The proposed park is being given such priority status because it is the start of a bigger plan to force out the Palestinian communities, providing a centre for an upmarket bar and restaurant area.

A few days later, a blueprint was released for the whole of East Jerusalem that will include plans to expand Jewish neighbourhoods. Most of the land earmarked for development is privately owned by Arabs. Ha’aretz reported that when the plans were first touted, right wing elements complained to the Interior Ministry that it would mean large residential areas for the city’s Arab population. The protesters said that land earmarked for recreational use and for Jewish residents would be lost. On the orders of the Mayor, changes were made in line with broadening the Jewish presence in the Holy Basin of East Jerusalem. It claims that a non-governmental organization, The Elad, that is close to Barkat, bought up homes in the village of Silwan in order to “Judaize” the area.

By Danny Richardson

Source: WSWS.org via Countercurrents.org

On June 2, the UN Human Rights Council (HRC) approved formation of an international committee (like the Goldstone Commission) to probe the Flotilla attack, saying it will include lawyers and international law and human rights experts, its findings to be presented in September (during the Council’s three week session in Geneva) after visiting Gaza and contacting Israel, Turkey, Greece, and the Freedom Flotilla coalition.

HRC’s panel includes:

— Desmond de Silva, a UK lawyer and former chief prosecutor for the Sierra Leone Special Court investigation into widespread killings there;

— Karl Hudson-Phillips, a former International Criminal Court (ICC) judge and former Trinidad and Tobago attorney general and parliament member; and

— Malaysia’s Mary Shanthi Dairiam, active in gender equality issues, including on the UN Development Program’s gender equity task force.

In emergency session, the HCR criticized Israel’s “outrageous attack on aid ships attempting to breach a blockade on the Gaza Strip,” calling it “piracy, (an) act of aggression, (a) brutal massacre, (an) act of terrorism, (a) war crime, (a) crime against humanity -unprovoked….unwarranted….atrocious, (and) brutal,” calling activists “peaceful…innocent…noble…unarmed, (and) defenseless,” setting the tone for what’s to come, HRC president Sihasak Phuangketkeow saying:

“This is not about finger-pointing. It’s about establishing the facts of what took place because the incident was a humanitarian tragedy and it’s in the interests of everyone. So I’m hopeful and I’m urging all the parties concerned to render their full cooperation, because it is in their interests and it’s in the interests of the international community as a whole.”

“The expertise, independence and impartiality of the members of the mission will be devoted to clarifying the events which took place that day and their legality.”

Israel’s response was expected, a foreign ministry official saying the HRC acted in haste as part of its “obsession against Israel. The Israeli probe, conducted with transparency, makes the organization’s probe completely unnecessary.”

Israel, of course, won’t cooperate, and plans a whitewash like its July 20 Gaza Operational Investigations: Second Update, responding to the Goldstone Commission and other reports of widespread Cast Lead crimes of war and against humanity.

No serious investigation was conducted, the report citing only four criminal indictments – two for using a minor as a human shield, one regarding an attack on a family waving a white flag, and the other for credit card theft.

Hundreds of other serious crimes weren’t addressed, including high level culpability, a few low-level soldiers marginally hung out to dry to absolve government and IDF officials – Israel’s usual coverup of appalling war crimes.

Evidence of the Report’s Whitewash

On January 4, 2009, the Abu Hajjaj family was attacked, despite carrying clearly visible white flags, resulting in two deaths, Majeda Abu Hajjaj and Raya Abu Hajjaj, mother and sister. Yet Israel “found gaps between (soldiers and Palestinian) testimonies,” making it “impossible to make a criminal connection between the described incident,” relying instead on soldier versions to whitewash the crime’s severity. In addition, investigators gave no credibility to complainants’ sworn affidavits, or requested corroborating evidence to confirm them.

Willfully killing civilians is murder, a grave Fourth Geneva violation. One soldier was charged with manslaughter for shooting a “man,” yet none were killed, only a mother and her sister.

On January 3, Israeli forces attacked the Al-Maqadma mosque near the Jabalia camp, an air-to-ground anti-personnel missile carrying small cube-shaped fragments for maximum effect killing 15 civilians and injuring 40 others. Israel claimed it targeted a “terror operative” spotted firing rockets.

Yet sworn affidavits and investigations showed no hostilities or military activity in the area, a conclusion Israel didn’t contest, saying collateral casualties were unintentional. However, both the attack’s timing, shortly after sunset prayers, and the weapon used disproves the IDF’s claim, the Goldstone Commission concurring, another grave Fourth Geneva violation.

Yet the officer in charge was merely disciplined even though he willfully attacked a mosque at prayer time.

On January 5, Israeli forces fired two tank shells with flechette darts at a condolence ceremony, killing five civilians and injuring 17 others. Yet according to the commander and his forces, no civilians were present, just “visually identified….terrorist operatives,” attacked while loading a “Grad rocket” on “open terrain.”

None were there, just a clearly identifiable condolence tent on a sidewalk about 10 meters wide on a road around 22 miles long in a residential area, not “open terrain” as claimed. Many civilians were present, ones soldiers claimed weren’t seen, saying combatants were attacked – a bald-faced lie, proved by dead and injured civilians, one of hundreds of grave Fourth Geneva violations during Cast Lead, preceded and succeeded seamlessly by many others.

Yet no investigations were conducted, no assailants charged, and no justice rendered, including by Israel’s whitewash investigation, the same kind examining the Flotilla massacre.

Israeli Cast Lead Coverup

The Goldstone Commission exposed and condemned numerous Israeli war crimes, concluding that:

“the Israeli military operation was directed at the people of Gaza as a whole, in furtherance of an overall and continuing policy aimed at punishing the (entire) population, and in a deliberate policy of disproportionate force aimed at (civilians. These are war crimes because) no justifiable military objective” was pursued.

Yet on July 6, IDF Military Advocate General, Maj. Gen. Avichai Mendelblit reported only the following:

— a Lt. Colonel was summoned to a disciplinary hearing “for having deviated from military directives pertaining to the prohibition on the use of civilians for operational activity;” a mild reprimand resulted despite serious Fourth Geneva breaches;

— a staff sergeant was indicted for manslaughter, absolving him of cold-blooded murder; his punishment will be minimal;

— a criminal investigation was ordered “to clarify the circumstances of a specific incident;” expect no prosecutions to result; and

— a captain was disciplined for “his failed professional judgment in authorizing an attack against a (claimed) terror operative,” killing and injuring only civilians.

Gen. Mendelblit claimed over 150 incidents were examined and nearly 50 investigations launched since Cast Lead’s conclusion.

Only mild disciplinary actions resulted besides one manslaughter indictment, despite a 23 day rampage, committing extensive crimes of war and against humanity, killing over 1,400, injuring over 5,000, many permanently disabled, (civilians in most cases affected), and inflicting massive destruction and devastation, unaddressed or relieved under siege. Gen. Mendelblit instead said:

“Operation Cast Lead was limited in the scope of fire and forces used. IDF soldiers operated in crowded urban areas while Hamas made deliberate and cynical use of the Palestinian population (they were protecting), creating a complex security situation. Hamas operated from within civilian homes, schools, kindergartens, mosques, hospitals and UN facilities (bald-faced lies) while the population in the Gaza Strip was made hostage” – not by Hamas, its legitimate government, by Israeli marauders, rampaging, killing and destroying lawlessly, omitted from the general’s account.

Israel’s Inquiry Commission – Whitewashing the Flotilla Massacre

On June 14, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu announced its formation, an internal probe to suppress truths, its members including:

— former Israeli Supreme Court Justice, Jacob Turkel, heading it, a man with little inquiry commission experience;

— Amos Horev, a retired Israeli major general, a prominent military-industrial complex figure; and two non-voting foreign observers:

— David Trimble, head of Northern Ireland’s Ulster Unionist Party, First Minister of the Good Friday Agreement’s power-sharing government, Conservative Party life peer, earlier involved with loyalist death squads and Royal Ulster Constabulary killers (RUC); and

— Former Canadian General Ken Watkin, earlier involved in whitewashing Canada’s role in committing Somalia atrocities in the early 1990s.

A June 15 Haaretz editorial was unimpressed, saying:

“….the committees membership nor its authority is suited to meet the challenges posed by the affair. (It’s more) a public relations tool (than a body appointed) to bring justice to bear on those found responsible. It would have….been better if the (committee) had never been born, sparing us the deceptive appearance of a real investigation,” what the commission will scrupulously avoid, its findings to be willful coverup, blaming the victims, not their assassins or culpable high-level officials.

An Israeli military inquiry was also conducted, headed by retired Major General Giora Eiland, his released July 12 findings calling the Flotilla attack justified, according to an official summary made public – Eiland submitting a classified 150 page report to IDF Chief of the General Staff, Lt. Gen. Gabi Ashkenazi, and Ehud Barak, Israel’s Defense Minister. Its conclusions were as follows:

Claim:

“….there were no wrongdoings and no negligences in any fundamental areas during a complicated and complex operation.”

Fact Check:

Nonviolent unarmed activists were delivering humanitarian aid to besieged Gazans. In an operation planned weeks in advance, they were willfully attacked in international waters, up to 15 murdered in cold blood, commandos given names and photos of targets, incriminating evidence found on board the mother ship, the Mavi Marmarra.

Claim:

— “But on the other hand, there were mistakes that were made in decisions, including some taken at relatively high levels, which meant that the result was not as had been initially anticipated.”

Fact Check:

The “anticipated” result was hostile interdiction, assassinating nonviolent activists, seizing their cargo, arresting participants on board, treating them harshly in detention, expelling them from Israel, concealing murder and barbarism in international waters, and blaming victims for their attackers’ crimes.

Assassinations and related violence were carried out as planned, using commandos, trained killers as the assault force, not Israel’s equivalent of America’s Coast Guard, charged with maritime law enforcement, search, rescue, and other non-combat functions.

Claim

— “not all possible intelligence gathering methods were fully implemented and (the) coordination between Navy Intelligence and the Israeli Defense Intelligence was insufficient.” In addition, “the anticipated level of violence used against the forces was underestimated.”

Fact Check

Faced with worldwide condemnation, the inquiry blamed intelligence failures, not a well-rehearsed operation conducted as planned.

Claim

“the operation relied excessively on a single course of action.” No other was prepared for in “the event of more dangerous scenarios.”

Fact Check

The attack was carried out as planned, every detail rehearsed for precision, including the pre-attack filming on a ship resembling the Mavi Marmarra, showing commandos were attacked, not activists – fiction, not fact.

Claim

“….as far as is currently known, no country in the world holds the ability to stop a vessel at sea in a non hostile manner.”

Fact Check

The US Coast Guard and comparable agencies elsewhere do it routinely as necessary, seldom encountering violence and not initiating it themselves.

Claim

“….alternative courses of action could have existed had the process of preparation begun enough time in advance….”

Fact Check

Preparations began weeks in advance, including detailed intelligence on the number of ships and activists, their names and home countries, photos of targets to be assassinated, dates of departure and expected arrival, and a well-rehearsed commando interdiction operation.

Claim

The inquiry “determined that the Navy Commando soldiers operated properly, with professionalism, bravery and resourcefulness and that the commanders exhibited correct decision making….the use of live fire was justified and that the entire operation is estimable.”

Fact Check

Commandos are elite combat forces trained to kill “professionally.” They followed precise orders assassinating nonviolent activists in international waters – a lawless cowardly act against unarmed civilians.

Claim

The inquiry “noted with favor the various stages of medical evacuation of the injured by air and by sea, including the injured passengers of the Mavi Marmarra.”

Fact Check

Commandos treated activists harshly, firing from helicopters before boarding, followed by gas bombs, other weapons, beatings, and dumping some bodies overboard. There was no provocation and no warning given. The attack was premeditated and vicious, some passengers shot multiple times in the head at point blank range.

Dozens were injured, at least 20 seriously. Everyone was taken prisoner. The few commandos hurt were treated by the ship’s doctor. He was shot in the arm while aiding victims. Wounded passengers were searched and handcuffed like the others. Throughout the ordeal, soldiers were hostile and abusive, injured activists further mistreated, kicked, struck with weapons, and in some cases shot again.

No compassion whatever was shown. Some wounded passengers weren’t taken to the hospital on arrival at Israel’s Ashdod Port. Although hurt, bleeding and needing treatment, they were kept on board, doctors prevented from helping them.

From interdiction to assault to seizure to detention to deportation, the entire procedure was harsh, demeaning, and degrading, the slightest reaction met by blows, some unharmed activists injured en route to the airport for deportation. Others, before and during detention, were seriously beaten, some tortured. Five stayed behind hospitalized, too injured to leave. The whereabouts of some remains unknown.

General Eiland said “the issue should be viewed with perspective,” believing Israel won’t incur long-term damage, saying:

“….there’s a tendency to draw general conclusions based on a single incident….(In addition), the fact that the IDF examines itself and others do not, results in that only the ‘errors’ of the IDF are publicized.”

America, Britain and other nations do self-examine, as shamelessly as the above account using coverup to suppress the truth and avoid accountability. And when abuses are too great to hide, one or more low-level soldiers are charged to absolve chain of command crimes, including high-level civilians, how Israel, America and other nations duck responsibility for lawless acts of violence, ones carefully planned in advance.

Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago and can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net. Also visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com and listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network Thursdays at 10AM US Central time and Saturdays and Sundays at noon. All programs are archived for easy listening.

http://www.progressiveradionetwork.com/the-progressive-news-hour/

By Stephen Lendman

29 July, 2010

Countercurrents.org

The late Howard Zinn’s new book “The Bomb” is a brilliant little dissection of some of the central myths of our militarized society. Those who’ve read “A Terrible Mistake: The Murder of Frank Olson and the CIA’s Secret Cold War Experiments,” by H.P. Albarelli Jr. know that this is a year for publishing the stories of horrible things that the United States has done to French towns. In that case, Albarelli, describes the CIA administering LSD to an entire town, with deadly results. In “The Bomb,” Zinn describes the U.S. military making its first use of napalm by dropping it all over another French town, burning anyone and anything it touched. Zinn was in one of the planes, taking part in this horrendous crime.

In mid-April 1945, the war in Europe was essentially over. Everyone knew it was ending. There was no military reason (if that’s not an oxymoron) to attack the Germans stationed near Royan, France, much less to burn the French men, women, and children in the town to death. The British had already destroyed the town in January, similarly bombing it because of its vicinity to German troops, in what was widely called a tragic mistake. This tragic mistake was rationalized as an inevitable part of war, just as were the horrific firebombings that successfully reached German targets, just as was the later bombing of Royan with napalm. Zinn blames the Supreme Allied Command for seeking to add a “victory” in the final weeks of a war already won. He blames the local military commanders’ ambitions. He blames the American Air Force’s desire to test a new weapon. And he blames everyone involved — which must include himself — for “the most powerful motive of all: the habit of obedience, the universal teaching of all cultures, not to get out of line, not even to think about that which one has not been assigned to think about, the negative motive of not having either a reason or a will to intercede.”

When Zinn returned from the war in Europe, he expected to be sent to the war in the Pacific, until he saw and rejoiced at seeing the news of the atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima, 65 years ago this August. Only years later did Zinn come to understand the inexcusable crime of the greatest proportions that was the dropping of nuclear bombs in Japan, actions similar in some ways to the final bombing of Royan. The war with Japan was already over, the Japanese seeking peace and willing to surrender. Japan asked only that it be permitted to keep its emperor, a request that was later granted. But, like napalm, the nuclear bombs were weapons that needed testing. The second bomb, dropped on Nagasaki, was a different sort of bomb that also needed testing. President Harry Truman wanted to demonstrate nuclear bombs to the world and especially to Russia. And he wanted to end the war with Japan before Russia became part of it. The horrific form of mass murder he employed was in no way justifiable.

Zinn also goes back to dismantle the mythical reasons the United States was in the war to begin with. The United States, England, and France were imperial powers supporting each other’s international aggressions in places like the Philippines. They opposed the same from Germany and Japan, but not aggression itself. Most of America’s tin and rubber came from the Southwest Pacific. The United States made clear for years its lack of concern for the Jews being attacked in Germany. It also demonstrated its lack of opposition to racism through its treatment of African Americans and Japanese Americans. Franklin D. Roosevelt described fascist bombing campaigns over civilian areas as “inhuman barbarity” but then did the same on a much larger scale to German cities, which was followed up by the destruction on an unprecedented scale of Hiroshima and Nagasaki — actions that came after years of dehumanizing the Japanese. Zinn points out that “LIFE magazine showed a picture of a Japanese person burning to death and commented: ‘This is the only way.'” Aware that the war would end without any more bombing, and aware that U.S. prisoners of war would be killed by the bomb dropped on Nagasaki, the U.S. military went ahead and dropped the bombs.

Americans allowed these things to be done in their name, just as the Germans and Japanese allowed horrible crimes to be committed in their names. Zinn points out, with his trademark clarity, how the use of the word “we” blends governments together with peoples and serves to equate our own people with our military, while we demonize the people of other lands because of actions by their governments. “The Bomb” suggest a better way to think about such matters and firmly establishes that

By David Swanson

David Swanson is the author of “Daybreak: Undoing the Imperial Presidency and Forming a More Perfect Union”

Today July 6th of 2010 is the day that Chris Busby, Malak Hamdan Entesar Ariabi released their epidemiological study on the health problems the people of Fallujah are suffering from. The full study can be downloaded here, free of charge. You may not have heard of these men yet, but I am quite sure their names will be found in the history books. The reason for this is that they have gathered scientific evidence of the genocide the people of Fallujah are suffering from at the hands of the imperialists that invaded Iraq. Unfortunately, they have not yet raised much attention to their discoveries, and thus I feel compelled to help with this myself.

A few days ago, on 2 July, they released a press release on Uruknet that showed some of their findings. It was entitled “Genetic damage and health in Fallujah Iraq worse than Hiroshima”. In April, they announced preliminary findings on Global Research, a site I suspect most of you are familiar with. Please realize that when people discover horrendous atrocities, that the mainstream media refuses to touch, they come to you, the Truth movement, and it is you that are responsible for this information becoming public. Before 2003, before the invasion of Iraq war, the slaughter of Fallujah, and so much more, you were trying to raise awareness of Gulf War Syndrome, the epidemics of cancer and birth defects in Southern Iraq due to Depleted Uranium, and were generally met with ridicule and disbelief.

Now that the horrors you warned of are slowly being revealed to the world, all of you have reason to be proud of your hard work. Not just the main activists (Leuren Moret, Doug Rokke, and many others) but all of you who contributed in their own way by reposting their stories to blogs, forums, writing to politicians, and everything else you did to raise awareness to this atrocity. If people listened to you much of it could have been prevented. I find it important you realize you should be proud of yourselves for the effort you took while most people around you did nothing.

I also have a lot of respect for the team of 11 people that went house to house in Fallujah to gather the data. People in Fallujah are suspicious of authorities (they have every reason to), and they were suspected of being part of a secret-service operation. In one case they were unfortunately met with physical violence. The team nonetheless completed the survey, despite the risk they faced from both the threat of physical violence, and of course by simply being in such an unhealthy environment.

With that said, let me move on to the study itself. As shocking as the information announced in the press release and the preliminary findings was, the complete results they showed in their study are worse. The press release mentioned that: “infant mortality was found to be 80 per 1000 births which compares with a value of 19 in Egypt, 17 in Jordan and 9.7 in Kuwait”. What the press release did not mention was that this is the period of 2006 until 2010. Unfortunately, from 2006 to 2010, the infant mortality continued to rise.

As the full study mentions, when we only look at 2009, and the first two months of 2010, we find that the infant mortality rate now is not at a level of 80 children out of 1000 that die within a year, but at a horrific rate of 136 per 1,000 births. When we look at the table in the study, we find that in 2008, 6 infants (age 0-1) died, compared to 0 in 2005, and only 1 in 2004. In 2009, 10 infants died. However, in the first two months of 2010 that the scientists studied, they found that 6 infants had died. Thus, in only the first two months of 2010, as many infants died as in the entirety of 2008. If the rate for 2010 were to continue (and this is not guaranteed, it could be lower, but due to the rising trend it is more likely to increase further), in 2010, 36 infants will die, compared to only 1 in 2004.

Although I should have known better, I had hoped that the situation was easing in Fallujah, or at least not getting worse, because I had not heard much news recently, but instead, the situation is only getting worse as we speak. A further finding the scientists made was that in the category of children aged 0-4, there are only 860 boys per 1000 girls. A normal ratio is 1050 boys per 1000 girls. This is evidence of genetic mutations.

The reason for this is that girls have two X-chromosomes, while boys only have a single X-chromosome. Thus, if one of a girl’s X-chromosomes suffers from a genetic mutation, the girl still has another functional copy. However, if a boy’s X-chromosome suffers from the same genetic mutation, he has no functional copy of the same gene left, and this can cause the boy’s death. However, the skewed birth ratio can also be (partly) caused by another effect the scientists didn’t mention in their study: The endocrine disrupting effect of Uranium.

At levels below the EPA standard, Uranium is a potent endocrine disruptor. Endocrine disruptors are chemicals that have a hormonal effect on humans, and Uranium works as an estrogen (female hormone) in the human body. This causes a lower number of male children to be born. Thus, the skewed birth ratio could be the result of the hormonal effect of Depleted Uranium as well, besides being caused by an increase in genetic mutations.

Another fact the researchers have discovered needs to be mentioned as well. Their study has found there has been a sharp decline in the birth rate. As they mention: “It is clear that the 0–4 population, born in 2004–2008, after the fighting, is significantly 30% smaller than the 5–9, 10–14 and 15–19 populations.” This is what I call depopulation in action.

Unfortunately there is an epidemic of cancer in Fallujah as well. This is to be expected, but it has not received a lot of attention so far. There are 4.2 times more cases of cancer than you would expect for the region. For childhood cancer, there is a 12.6 relative risk. Brain cancer, breast cancer and lymphoma are all particularly higher than you would expect, but worst of all is the epidemic of Leukemia, at a 22.2 times relative risk, and 38.5 in the age category 0–35. These are the exact types of cancers we would expect if the cause was radiation exposure. Veterans exposed to Depleted Uranium also suffer from epidemics of Leukemia for example. Children are most sensitive to the effects of radiation due to their rapidly dividing cells.

All evidence shows the disaster is caused by Depleted Uranium. It’s not stopping, but only getting worse, and will continue to get worse. We are now in 2010, and the intense fighting happened in 2004. In Basra, the intense fighting happened in 1991. In 1998, the increase in birth defects began to get seriously noticeable, and in 2001, ten years later, it had gone through the roof. In 2005, the cancer rate was still rising in Basra. Thus there is little reason to believe the situation is going to get better anytime soon unfortunately.

I would not wish what is happening to my worst enemy. Then surely I would not wish it upon the great people of Iraq, who managed to build a first world country in the desert, where people of different faiths intermarried, and Muslims and Christians ran the secular government together. Women were in university, and did not have to hide their beauty. Now they will cover their bodies, to hide the scars of cancer and birth defects that will plague the great people of Iraq for decades to come. Those left 50 years from now will still ask themselves when they get cancer if the Depleted Uranium could be responsible. They suffer every bit as much as you and I would if this were to happen to us. Therefore I do not see the survivors of this genocide forgiving us anyday soon.

I do not think we would forgive and want to be friends with people that send their soldiers to invade our countries, destroyed our DNA with their radioactive weapons, and do not show an ounce of regret or guilt either. When we saw what they had done to our children, born deformed and suffering from cancer, we would fight the invaders until they were all dead, or had all left our country. Do not interpret this as a call for violence, I am merely stating the obvious: If you harm someone’s children, they will fight you until death, without a moment of doubt in their mind. When you mourn the 4.400 dead American veterans, or the hundreds from other countries, think about that. They can not point at their commanders, they have an own responsibility to do no harm to others, and they failed to live up to it. At all times, tell anyone you know in the military to desert when they get the chance. It’s never too late to return from evil.

And this evil unfortunately seems to be quite out in the open. When Israel bombed Gaza, they called it “Operation Cast Lead”, a poetic description of Depleted Uranium (Uranium generally being described as being denser than lead, which is supposedly why it’s used). When Americans took over Fallujah, they called their slaughter, Operation Phantom Fury. I would again call this a poetic description of what they did to the people of Fallujah. The American military establishment was furious about the death of 4 of its elite warriors, the Blackwater contractors whose bodies were hung from a bridge. Thus, they unleashed their “phantom fury”. The invisible radiation that human senses can not detect, that destroys every living thing it touches. If poisoning an entire city with radiation is not a form of “Phantum Fury”, I don’t know what is.

Any possibility for reconciliation is not helped by the reaction I see from people on the Internet to these stories. “Wow, all this for hanging the bodies of burned dead American contractors from the bridges and desecrating them. I do not feel very sorry for them.” Is what one individual responded. When news of an epidemic of blood cancer in the Gaza Strip due to Operation Cast Lead was revealed, someone responded with: “With any luck maybe they will stop breeding on the strip.” Dr. Daud Miraki posted a number of images of the children born in Afghanistan and wrote in an e-mail to Jeff Rense about the response he got: “For the past few days, I have been going through hell receiving rotten and hate-filled email from some of the sick and stupid people in America. They make fun of the babies…and they curse Islam and I and my family.

I do not know what kind of sick individuals it takes to say such things. It seems to be predominantly those in the middle of the political spectrum, the people who believe that the Democrats and Republicans give them a choice, and who believe what they see on TV.

Communists, Anarchists, White Nationalists, Black Nationalists, Islamists, they are all appalled by the use of Depleted Uranium and oppose it. These are the people who the media calls extremists, because they don’t fit into the controlled opposition, and who we are taught to fear. Instead, the people I find who ignore, or worse encourage this genocide are those from the political mainstream. If there is anyone I fear, it is those in the political mainstream, composed of people too scared to think for themselves and who think nothing will happen to them if they cheer for those in power. They are the people who make this genocide possible.

(David Rothscum)

The razing of a Bedouin village by Israeli police shows how far the state will go to achieve its aim of Judaising the Negev region Israeli police razed the Bedouin village of al-Arakib, destroying around 45 homes, in just three hours

A menacing convoy of bulldozers was heading back to Be’er Sheva as I drove towards al-Arakib, a Bedouin village located not more than 10 minutes from the city. Once I entered the dirt road leading to the village I saw scores of vans with heavily armed policemen getting ready to leave. Their mission, it seems, had been accomplished.

The signs of destruction were immediately evident. I first noticed the chickens and geese running loose near a bulldozed house, and then saw another house and then another one, all of them in rubble. A few children were trying to find a shaded spot to hide from the scorching desert sun, while behind them a stream of black smoke rose from the burning hay. The sheep, goats and the cattle were nowhere to be seen – perhaps because the police had confiscated them.

Scores of Bedouin men were standing on a yellow hill, sharing their experiences from the early morning hours, while all around them uprooted olive trees lay on the ground. A whole village comprising between 40 and 45 houses had been completely razed in less than three hours.

I suddenly experienced deja vu: an image of myself walking in the rubbles of a destroyed village somewhere on the outskirts of the Lebanese city of Sidon emerged. It was over 25 years ago, during my service in the Israeli paratroopers. But in Lebanon the residents had all fled long before my platoon came, and we simply walked in the debris. There was something surreal about the experience, which prevented me from fully understanding its significance for several years. At the time, it felt like I was walking on the moon.

This time the impact of the destruction sank in immediately. Perhaps because the 300 people who resided in al-Arakib, including their children, were sitting in the rubble when I arrived, and their anguish was evident; or perhaps because the village is located only 10 minutes from my home in Be’er Sheva and I drive past it every time I go to Tel Aviv or Jerusalem; or perhaps because the Bedouins are Israeli citizens, and I suddenly understood how far the state is ready to go to accomplish its objective of Judaising the Negev region; what I witnessed was, after all, an act of ethnic cleansing.

They say the next intifada will be the Bedouin intifada. There are 155,000 Bedouins in the Negev, and more than half of them live in unrecognised villages without electricity or running water. I do not know what they might do, but by making 300 people homeless, 200 of them children, Israel is surely sowing dragon’s teeth for the future.

By Neve Gordon

28 July 2010

Guardian.co.uk

Early morning on 27 July, Israeli bulldozers, flanked by helicopters and throngs of police, demolished the entire Bedouin village of al-Araqib in the northern Negev desert. Despite their land rights cases still pending in the court system, hundreds of al-Araqib villagers were instantly made homeless a month after Israeli police posted demolition orders.

Eyewitness reports say the police were accompanied by several busloads of right-wing Israeli civilians who cheered during the demolitions.

The Electronic Intifada spoke with Dr. Yeela Ranaan of the Regional Council for Unrecognized Villages (RCUV) in the Negev, who was in al-Araqib all day long during the demolitions.

“Approximately 1,500 Israeli police came at 5:30 in the morning and evacuated everyone from their beds,” Ranaan said. “They brought tear gas and water cannons, but didn’t use them. There was a handful of Israeli peace activists who had come the night before to stay with the villagers, and the police beat them up and detained them. Once they evacuated everyone in the village, they started to demolish it. It took three hours to flatten the village. For the people of al-Araqib, it was a nightmare to see their village destroyed.”

Since the establishment of the State of Israel in 1948, al-Araqib villagers have been fighting for recognition in the courts. Ranaan told The Electronic Intifada that in the early 1950s, after they were forcefully expelled from their land by Israeli forces, villagers were fined for “trespassing” in their own homes by the Israeli government. Israel has refused to acknowledge al-Araqib villagers’ land deeds and receipts of land taxes paid to the Ottoman authorities well before Israel’s establishment.

“As we speak, the fate of al-Araqib hasn’t been decided in a court,” Ranaan said. “Despite this, Israel came and demolished the homes. Israel is not just changing the facts on the ground, it’s erasing them.”

“Israel is treating us like cockroaches”

More than 110,000 Palestinian Bedouin live in dozens of so-called “unrecognized villages” throughout the State of Israel, and nearly 80 percent live in the Negev. Since 1948, Israel has refused to acknowledge the villages, and therefore deny basic services such as water, electricity, roads, schools and waste management.

During the demolitions yesterday, Sulaiman abu Mdian, a 29-year-old father of four who works as a chicken farmer, told CNN that “the State of Israel is treating us like cockroaches.”

In an emailed press release following the destruction of al-Araqib, RCUV admonished the Israeli government’s policies of accelerating home demolitions against Palestinian Bedouin communities across the state.

“The destruction’s declared aim is to facilitate plans by the Jewish National Fund to plant a [forest] on the site,” the release stated. “We regard this demolition as a criminal act. Bedouin citizens of Israel are not enemies, and forestation of the Negev is not a reasonable pretext for destroying a community which is more than 60 years old, dispossessing its residents and violating the basic rights of hundreds of Israeli civilians, men, women and children.”

“This act by the state authorities is no ‘law enforcement’ — it is an act of war, such as is undertaken against an enemy,” RCUV added. “This act cannot be dissociated from yesterday’s statement by Prime Minister [Benjamin] Netanyahu, who at the cabinet meeting sounded a warning about ‘a situation in which a demand for national rights will be made from some quarters inside Israel, for example in the Negev, should the area be left without a Jewish majority. Such things happened in the Balkans, and it is a real threat.’ Presenting the Bedouin citizens of Israel as ‘a real threat’ gives legitimacy to the expulsion of Israel’s Bedouin citizens from the Negev in order to ‘Judaize’ it. We call on all who care for democracy to give their support to this threatened community.”

The Electronic Intifada asked Ranaan if the situation in al-Araqib will look similar to what’s happening in the nearby Bedouin village of Twail abu Jarwal, which has been demolished more than forty times in the last few years.

“These are the two villages that the Israeli government wants to beat, to make an example of,” Ranaan remarked. “The government is experimenting with these villages. People in al-Araqib and Twail abu Jarwal have more determination and more resources than other villages. Israel wants to find out how much force is needed to evacuate and erase a village. They want to replicate the methods. And they want villagers elsewhere to see what’s happening here as a threat.”

Ranaan told The Electronic Intifada that solidarity actions are being planned as villagers of al-Araqib set up temporary housing on their land.

“They already put up a few tents, and they’ll be staying at different locations until every family will put up a makeshift home on their land,” she said. “But they know that their homes will be demolished again and again. People should put pressure on the Israeli government. International pressure is important. Activists can come and visit, and they can join villagers on their land for Friday prayers. The more people in solidarity, the stronger they are. Once their resistance breaks, then we’ve lost everything.”

More al-Walaja land confiscated

Meanwhile, in the occupied West Bank, Israel announced construction of at least 100 settlement colony units in the Bethlehem district as Israeli bulldozers and construction vehicles confiscated more Palestinian land in al-Walaja. At the same time, Israeli occupation forces demolished homes in Area C, continuing a pattern of increased demolitions and rights violations there in the last few months.

The 1995 Israeli-Palestinian Interim Agreement on the West Bank and Gaza Strip (also known as Oslo II) categorized land in the West Bank into areas A, B and C. According to the agreement, Area A is under the control of the Palestinian Authority (PA) and Area B under the joint control of Israel and the PA. Approximately 95 percent of the Palestinian population live in these two areas, though they make up only 40 percent of the land area. Israel has full military control over Area C.

Secretary General of al-Mubadara Palestinian National Initiative Dr. Mustafa Barghouti told the Bethlehem-based Maan News Agency that Israeli forces began bulldozing land and constructing barbed wire fence on al-Walaja land in “an attempt to thwart Palestinian land owners from protesting the confiscation” (“Barghouthi: 100 settlements underway in Beit Jala,” 18 July).

Barghouti reported that the work began in secret to “avoid the exposure of the Netanyahu government’s false claims of freezing settlement construction.”

Israel is also finishing construction of its wall in the Bethlehem suburb of Beit Jala, next to al-Walaja. When finished, the wall will completely encircle the Bethlehem area and will cut off thousands of Palestinians from their land. Israel began building the wall in the Bethlehem district in 2004.

Palestinian residents of al-Walaja and Beit Jala, accompanied by international human rights activists, have been trying to resist the ongoing encroachment of the wall and settlements in the area. Protesters have been fired upon by Israeli forces using stun grenades and tear gas.

Property destruction in Jordan Valley

And last week, Israeli forces destroyed Hmayyir and Ein Ghazal in the Farasiya region of the Jordan Valley, demolishing approximately 55 homes, livestock pens, tents, clay ovens, bathrooms and storage structures. More than a hundred Palestinians were displaced, including 52 children. The villages had been declared “live fire zones” by Israeli officials last month, and eviction orders were posted on the homes of families in the village, according to Amnesty International.

Amnesty stated in a press release that along with the Farasiya villages, families living in the smaller villages of Ein al-Hilwe and Ein al-Beida — also in Area C — were served with eviction and demolition orders.

Philip Luther, Amnesty’s Deputy Director for the Middle East and North Africa, stated in the press release that “these recent demolitions intensify concerns that this is part of a government strategy to remove the Palestinian population from the parts of the West Bank known as Area C, over which Israel has complete control in terms of planning and construction” (“Israel intensifies West Bank home demolitions,” 21 July 2010).

Amira Hass reported for the Israeli daily Haaretz that during the past year, the Israeli military had set up “hundreds of warning signs” near Palestinian villages and farming areas, marking them as “closed military areas … Such a sign was set up at the entrance to Farasiya” (“IDF destroys West Bank village after declaring it military zone,” 21 July 2010).

Haaretz spoke to a coordinator with the popular committee in the Jordan Valley who reported that Israel has consistently cut off Palestinian farmers and villagers from their water sources, destroyed drinking and irrigation pipes from streams and prohibited them from using water wells that the Israeli water company Mekorot had established in the region.

“Since 1967, Israel has prevented Palestinian communities in the Jordan Valley from growing, whether by cutting off their water supply, declaring large areas as live fire zones or banning all construction,” Hass reported.