Just International

News From Syria And France

News on Syria is being disseminated in a charged style. A news tilted as part of disinformation signifies preparation for deeper and more forceful involvement by external actors in the Middle Eastern country. At the same time, Turkey’s plan for a buffer zone inside Syria, the war game in the region, and incidents in France, far away from Syria, are no less annoying. Are not these preludes to a gathering storm in the Middle East?

ABC News said on March 19, 2012: An “anti-terror squad” from the Russian Marines and two Russian ships have arrived in Syria. ABC and a section of media headlined the news in their preferred manner – Russian troops in Syria.

ABC cited Russian news reports and Al Arabiya, and Al Arabiya referred to an Israel-based open-source military intelligence website. However, ABC pointed out that Russia’s Defense Minister Anatoly Serdyukov denied the reports.

On the other hand, citing Russian officials The New York Times reported with a restrained tone: The “Russian officials denied an ABC News report that one of their warships had docked in the Syrian port of Tartus with a squad of Russian antiterror marines; the report fed speculation that Russia was actively helping Mr. Assad by supplying military experts. A spokesman for the Defense Ministry was quoted by the Interfax news service as saying he was perplexed by the report, which he said might have referred to […] a Russian tanker that had docked in Tartus 10 days earlier. He said security guards were aboard the [tanker] because it supplies fuel to Russian ships participating in international anti-piracy patrols in the Gulf of Aden.”

Associated Press also reported the same. It said the tanker is carrying a civilian crew and a team of servicemen protecting it.

A comparison of the three news-reports, of ABC, and of NYT and AP, expose a style of a section of media to fan up tension by presenting news in tilted and confusing manner.

Reuters reported: Syria’s arms imports surged nearly 6-fold between 2007 and 2011.

However, El Pais noted that “despite the increase, total arms imports in Syria were not much greater than those to Jordan – a country of 6 million people compared to Syria’s population of 20 million.”

Obviously, size of population does not always provide rational for quantity of arms import and production. Despite the fact – a larger Syrian population compared to Jordan – the information provided by El Pais presents a yardstick for comparison in presenting news. A country’s situation due to external intervention is a major logic regarding quantity of arms being imported/produced.

The tilted Russian antiterror marines and surge in arms import news accompany news on a planned move by Turkey.

Turkey is planning to establish a buffer zone inside Syria. It’s a dangerously significant plan to cripple and dismember a country. The materialization of the plan would involve Turkish troops into Syria. The move if implemented carries possibility of escalation of conflict between armies of the two countries. The Turkish government’s call to its nationals to leave Syria reflects a step to initiate the move.

A major development happened in Moscow. Russia and the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) have called for a daily two-hour humanitarian ceasefire in Syria without delay – “a daily humanitarian pause” that would allow convoys to provide medical care and evacuation for the wounded. The ICRC head Kellenberger’s Moscow travel to discuss a Syria-ceasefire clearly shows the need to consider Moscow’s geostrategic position in Syria.

Russia’s geostrategic position regarding Syria is the outcome of its present internal and external world position and Libya-experience. Russia’s choice is to abide by existing contracts to deliver weapons to Syria, and as Russian Deputy Defence Minister Anatoly Antonov said, Russia finds “no reason […] to reconsider it.” The Russian minister dismissed allegations that Russia has sent special forces officers to assist Syrian government forces: “There are no (Russian) special forces with rifles and grenade launchers running around”, he said. “The Syrian people should determine who will lead their country and so the opinion of some of our foreign partners will hardly foster a solution”, Mikhail Bogdanov, Russian deputy foreign minister told a news conference.

But, ultimately, the external players will not allow the Syrian people to determine their path in their own peaceful manner. The world masters’ external intervention is perfectly accomplishing a number of tasks of crisis-ridden world masters.

“Internal Look,” the two-week war game was not assuring for peace. Rather it scares all peace-loving people. Consequences of any confrontation or war in the Middle East will be dire for all.

The killings in France are annoying also. In France, a number of paratroopers not during combat duty were killed a few days ago. The incidents were followed by killing of four persons including three children aged 3, 6, and 8.

The act of killing cannot be considered part of political fight. An environment of hatred and fear distorts and hinders political fight, and strengthens forces of reaction. Targeting children cannot be considered part of political fight. Rather, it weakens the moral standing of political fight.

With further escalation of external financed and armed intervention in Syria, the first victim will be people’s democratic struggle in the region, in Syria, in Turkey, Israel, Jordan and Lebanon. Imperialist intervention and war effort under guise of democratic movement will push back democratic movement. A further escalation of killing spree in France will charge an environment with hatred, suspicion, will push back urgent questions related to working people’s suffering due to financial crisis.

By Farooque Chowdhury

20 March 2012

@ Countercurrents.org

Farooque Chowdhury is a Dhaka-based freelancer.

New Bid For UN Resolution Aimed At Syrian Regime-Change Fails

On Monday, Russia and China refused to sign a new draft resolution put before the United Nations Security Council condemning the regime of Bashir al-Assad, on the grounds that it could be used to justify military intervention in support of the Syrian opposition.

This was despite private talks between US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov. Clinton, Britain’s William Hague and France’s Alain Juppe all bitterly denounced Moscow and Beijing at a special session of the Security Council on the “Arab Spring.”

Russia and China know very well that a UN imprimatur would immediately shift the balance of forces in favour of a plan for regime-change.

Lavrov denounced “risky recipes of geo-political engineering which can only result in a spread of the conflict.” China’s UN envoy, Li Baodong, said, “No external parties should engage in military intervention in Syria and push for regime-change.”

Plans for military intervention have come up against the difficulties posed by any attempt at regime-change in Syria. But all of Washington’s efforts are focused on overcoming the present stalemate, while continuing its campaign of political, military and economic destabilization of the Syrian regime. Behind the moral posturing and talk of diplomatic initiatives, the US and its European and regional allies are seeking to assemble the proxy forces necessary for intervention, while ruining Syria economically and breaking off a section of the Syrian bourgeoisie with whom they can work to oust Assad and install a client government.

For the US, the removal of Assad is seen as a major blow to his ally Iran, opening the way to military intervention and regime-change in Tehran.

An obstacle to implementing the schemes for military intervention against Assad is the weakness of the opposition Syrian National Council (SNC) and Free Syrian Army (FSA). This is bound up with widespread hostility in Syria towards the sectarian Sunni insurgency.

In addition, there are rising concerns among the regional anti-Syrian forces, led by Turkey and the Gulf states, that they cannot count on the divided US political and military elite to provide the resources needed for an attack.

Last week Defence Secretary Leon Panetta and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Martin Dempsey told Congress that plans had been drawn up for military intervention, but they cautioned against a unilateral US intervention and warned that any military effort would be more difficult than last year’s US-NATO intervention to overthrow the Gaddafi regime in Libya.

The US has a range of possibilities—air strikes, arming the opposition, agreeing to guard a “humanitarian corridor” established under the auspices of Turkey and the Gulf states. But at last week’s hearing, Panetta and Dempsey faced off demands led by Republican Senator John McCain for immediate air strikes.

Dempsey said that preliminary estimates of what would be required to mount a military intervention, beginning with establishing no-fly zones, had been made at President Barack Obama’s request. But he described a well-armed Syria, with air defences five times more sophisticated than Libya’s. An intervention would need “an extended period of time and a great number of aircraft,” he said.

Democratic Senator Jack Reed warned that creating safe havens would “imply that someone would have to go in and organize training and organize, literally, an army.”

A senior US Defence Department official over the weekend added that creating safe havens would mean, “looking at a serious contingent of US ground troops.”

Michèle A. Flournoy, a former top Pentagon official, warned, “If we jump in with purely military instruments as the US, absent a broader strategy, we could very quickly hasten reactions from others, namely Iran and Russia, to bolster the regime and start us down a road towards greater confrontation.”

Three senior US intelligence officials spoke anonymously to the Washington Post, also describing Syria as a formidable military power, with 330,000 soldiers on active-duty, surveillance drones and sophisticated air defences. The army also has 4,500 tanks and 500 aircraft, including armed helicopters.

The analysts were forced to note that none of the defectors from Assad’s regime have been part of its inner circle. This is a reflection of a broader pattern of support for the current government, including not only the Alawite business elite, but also the Christian, Kurd and Druze minorities, all of which fear persecution by a Sunni regime.

The analysts were scathing towards the Syrian opposition, which they described as being made up of over a hundred disparate and fractious groups.

Turkey is the key country slated to head any proxy intervention against Syria. It would rely on US backing behind the scenes, but fears that open association with Washington would be detrimental to its efforts to secure its own regional interests.

To offset this political danger, Turkish President Abdullah Gul and Tunisian President Moncef Marzouki issued a joint statement last week opposing intervention “from outside the region.” But Turkey has made clear that it could accept the endorsement of either the Arab League or the Friends of Syria group assembled by Washington as a cover for military action. Foreign Minister Ahmet Davuto&;lu declared, “Turkey is ready to discuss every option in order to protect its national security.”

Tunisian President Marzouki said Tunisia would be willing to send troops to Syria as part of an Arab peacekeeping force.

Qatar and Saudi Arabia have been unequivocal in their calls for intervention led by the Arab League. On Saturday, Qatari Prime Minister Hamad Bin Jasim al-Thani told a meeting of the League’s foreign ministers in Cairo, attended by Lavrov, “The time has come to apply the proposal to send Arab and international troops to Syria.”

“When we went to the Security Council, we did not get a resolution because of the Russian-Chinese veto, which sent a wrong message to the Syrian regime,” he added. “Our patience and the patience of the world has run out.”

Saudi Arabian Foreign Minister Saud al-Faisal denounced the prospect of more “hollow resolutions and… spineless positions.”

Lavrov rejected calls for Assad to step down and the League’s ministers were forced to agree in a joint statement that there should be no foreign intervention in Syria. The statement, which called for an end to the violence “whatever its source,” also demanded “unhindered humanitarian access,” which could yet be cited to justify Arab League intervention.

The Syrian National Council has issued a statement calling for immediate military intervention, including a no-fly zone, safe corridors, and a buffer zone policed by the imperialist powers, coupled with “an organized and speedy operation to arm the Free Syrian Army.” SNC foreign affairs spokesman Radwan Ziadeh, who enjoys intimate ties to Washington, stressed that the US need no longer be restrained by fears of a divided opposition. “I think the divisions are over,” he said.

By Chris Marsden

14 March 2012

@ WSWS.org

 

 

Nervous Attack of High-Ranking Commanders

Although news about ruthless killing of 16 innocent Afghan women and children by a US soldier in Kandahar has shocked the world, the incident was by no means unexpected. A statement issued by NATO head command in that region noted that the assailant committed the crime in a fit of nervous breakdown.

A mother, whose young child was killed in the incident, was crying out asking if her two-year child has been a Taliban fighter to deserve such a death? The bereaved mother knew better than NATO commanders that the attack was not the result of a nervous breakdown, but the result of Islamophobia to which this region, especially Afghanistan, has been a victim during the past 10 years. This process of Islamophobia can be clearly seen in the disastrous events which have befallen Afghanistan in the past few months.

Just a few weeks ago, there were images of NATO soldiers on international media showing those soldiers urinating on dead bodies of the victims of Afghan war. Those images shocked the entire world, but let’s not forget that the people of Afghanistan are daily victims of similar cases of violence. Many of these cases are never caught on camera and are regularly denied. Nobody will believe that this has been the first or even the last case of NATO soldiers urinating on dead bodies; they have done this both in Afghanistan and elsewhere in the world.

The catastrophic burning of the Quran at NATO military base in Bagram has upset Muslims across the world. They claimed that it had been just a mistake and the Quran pages have been burned along with useless papers on mistake. The question is why so many volumes of the Quran have been included among useless papers at that military base? Had NATO soldiers collected those Qurans from people’s homes or Afghan prisoners as examples of dangerous books promoting violence before consuming them by fire? Who believes that NATO soldiers give a damn about religious values of their victims?

In reality, however, in order to attack a country, you should first fan the flames of hatred toward that country so high that the military will be ready to embark on war with no guilty conscience. Perhaps, the soldier who has attacked poor people in a remote village using his automatic gun thought why they should wait a number of years and see those children grow into mature men who would take up arms to fight them. So, he concluded, it would be better to nip that violence in the bud. Didn’t the US defense secretary under President Ronald Reagan once say that the United States should eradicate Iranians as a nation? Aren’t Israelis making daily calls on the United States to wage a new war in the Middle East? Aren’t the US presidential candidates engaged in a hot race over putting more pressure on and waging a military attack on Iran?

At a time that this is the mentality at the highest decision-making level in the United States, how a simple soldier, who is facing horrors in Kandahar instead of having a good time in Florida, can be expected not to go down with a nervous breakdown? A closer look will show us that his nervous fit was, in fact, a result of similar nervous fit of high-ranking commanders who wage wars and call it fight on terror, or struggle against proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. The real person with nervous fit is the US president, who instead of insisting on freeing the Middle East from nuclear weapons, takes pride in his heartfelt love for and strategic alliance with Israel which already possesses the most destructive arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in the Middle East. When the US Joint Chiefs of Staff threatens the entire region with war and constantly talks about a military option to solve the United States’ domestic and international problems, it is him who has gone down with a nervous breakdown.

What happened from Abu Ghraib Prison to Bagram airbase and from Bagram airbase to Kandahar and from Kandahar to arrogant urination of NATO troops on dead bodies of bearded men, all convey the same message of Islamophobia. From the viewpoint of American strategists, Islam is the most important identity element in the Muslim Middle East. The call of “God is the greatest,” is heard in all Muslim countries many times a day. Therefore, killing of Afghan children should not be simplistically reduced to nervous attack of an American soldier, but should be construed within broader framework of Islamophobic policies and strategies of the West.

No show of power and military deployment can destroy Islam, but it simply draws NATO into the vortex of a deadly whirlpool. The best way of interaction between Islam and the West is not through fanning the flames of war, but is opening up some space for dialogue. Islamophobia will only give birth to catastrophic violence. The sole way of interaction between Islam and the West is through dialogue based on understanding as well as cooperation away from dictatorship and bullying and founded on justice and freedom.

By Gholamali Khoshroo

14 March 2012

@ iranreview.org

Gholamali Khoshroo is the Senior Editor of the Encyclopedia of Contemporary Islam.

Murder Is Not An Anomoly In War

The war in Afghanistan—where the enemy is elusive and rarely seen, where the cultural and linguistic disconnect makes every trip outside the wire a visit to hostile territory, where it is clear that you are losing despite the vast industrial killing machine at your disposal—feeds the culture of atrocity. The fear and stress, the anger and hatred, reduce all Afghans to the enemy, and this includes women, children and the elderly. Civilians and combatants merge into one detested nameless, faceless mass. The psychological leap to murder is short. And murder happens every day in Afghanistan. It happens in drone strikes, artillery bombardments, airstrikes, missile attacks and the withering suppressing fire unleashed in villages from belt-fed machine guns.

Military attacks like these in civilian areas make discussions of human rights an absurdity. Robert Bales, a U.S. Army staff sergeant who allegedly killed 16 civilians in two Afghan villages, including nine children, is not an anomaly. To decry the butchery of this case and to defend the wars of occupation we wage is to know nothing about combat. We kill children nearly every day in Afghanistan. We do not usually kill them outside the structure of a military unit. If an American soldier had killed or wounded scores of civilians after the ignition of an improvised explosive device against his convoy, it would not have made the news. Units do not stick around to count their “collateral damage.” But the Afghans know. They hate us for the murderous rampages. They hate us for our hypocrisy.

The scale of our state-sponsored murder is masked from public view. Reporters who travel with military units and become psychologically part of the team spin out what the public and their military handlers want, mythic tales of heroism and valor. War is seen only through the lens of the occupiers. It is defended as a national virtue. This myth allows us to make sense of mayhem and death. It justifies what is usually nothing more than gross human cruelty, brutality and stupidity. It allows us to believe we have achieved our place in human society because of a long chain of heroic endeavors, rather than accept the sad reality that we stumble along a dimly lit corridor of disasters. It disguises our powerlessness. It hides from view the impotence and ordinariness of our leaders. But in turning history into myth we transform random events into a sequence of events directed by a will greater than our own, one that is determined and preordained. We are elevated above the multitude. We march to nobility. But it is a lie. And it is a lie that combat veterans carry within them. It is why so many commit suicide.

“I, too, belong to this species,” J. Glenn Gray wrote of his experience in World War II. “I am ashamed not only of my own deeds, not only of my nation’s deeds, but of human deeds as well. I am ashamed to be a man.”

When Ernie Pyle, the famous World War II correspondent, was killed on the Pacific island of Ie Shima in 1945, a rough draft of a column was found on his body. He was preparing it for release upon the end of the war in Europe. He had done much to promote the myth of the warrior and the nobility of soldiering, but by the end he seemed to have tired of it all:

But there are many of the living who have burned into their brains forever the unnatural sight of cold dead men scattered over the hillsides and in the ditches along the high rows of hedge throughout the world.

Dead men by mass production—in one country after another—month after month and year after year. Dead men in winter and dead men in summer.

Dead men in such familiar promiscuity that they become monotonous.

Dead men in such monstrous infinity that you come almost to hate them.

These are the things that you at home need not even try to understand. To you at home they are columns of figures, or he is a near one who went away and just didn’t come back. You didn’t see him lying so grotesque and pasty beside the gravel road in France.

We saw him, saw him by the multiple thousands. That’s the difference.

There is a constant search in all wars to find new perversities, new forms of death when the initial flush fades, a rear-guard and finally futile effort to ward off the boredom of routine death. This is why during the war in El Salvador the death squads and soldiers would cut off the genitals of those they killed and stuff them in the mouths of the corpses. This is why we reporters in Bosnia would find bodies crucified on the sides of barns or decapitated. This is why U.S. Marines have urinated on dead Taliban fighters. Those slain in combat are treated as trophies by their killers, turned into grotesque pieces of performance art. It happened in every war I covered.

“Force,” Simone Weil wrote, “is as pitiless to the man who possesses it, or thinks he does, as it is to its victims; the second it crushes, the first it intoxicates.”

War perverts and destroys you. It pushes you closer and closer to your own annihilation—spiritual, emotional and finally physical. It destroys the continuity of life, tearing apart all systems—economic, social, environmental and political—that sustain us as human beings. In war, we deform ourselves, our essence. We give up individual conscience—maybe even consciousness—for contagion of the crowd, the rush of patriotism, the belief that we must stand together as a nation in moments of extremity. To make a moral choice, to defy war’s enticement, can in the culture of war be self-destructive. The essence of war is death. Taste enough of war and you come to believe that the stoics were right: We will, in the end, all consume ourselves in a vast conflagration.

A World War II study determined that, after 60 days of continuous combat, 98 percent of all surviving soldiers will have become psychiatric casualties. A common trait among the remaining 2 percent was a predisposition toward having “aggressive psychopathic personalities.” Lt. Col. Dave Grossman in his book “On Killing: The Psychological Cost of Learning to Kill in War and Society,” notes: “It is not too far from the mark to observe that there is something about continuous, inescapable combat which will drive 98 percent of all men insane, and the other 2 percent were crazy when they go there.”

During the war in El Salvador, many soldiers served for three or four years or longer, as in the U.S. wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, until they psychologically or physically collapsed. In garrison towns, commanders banned the sale of sedatives because those drugs were abused by the troops. In that war, as in the wars in the Middle East, the emotionally and psychologically maimed were common. I once interviewed a 19-year-old Salvadoran army sergeant who had spent five years fighting and then suddenly lost his vision after his unit walked into a rebel ambush. The rebels killed 11 of his fellow soldiers in the firefight, including his closest friend. He was unable to see again until he was placed in an army hospital. “I have these horrible headaches,” he told me as he sat on the edge of his bed. “There is shrapnel in my head. I keep telling the doctors to take it out.” But the doctors told me that he had no head wounds.

I saw other soldiers in other conflicts go deaf or mute or shake without being able to stop.

War is necrophilia. This necrophilia is central to soldiering just as it is central to the makeup of suicide bombers and terrorists. The necrophilia is hidden under platitudes about duty or comradeship. It is unleashed especially in moments when we seem to have little to live for and no hope, or in moments when the intoxication of war is at its highest pitch. When we spend long enough in war, it comes to us as a kind of release, a fatal and seductive embrace that can consummate the long flirtation with our own destruction.

In his memoir “Wartime,” about the partisan war in Yugoslavia, Milovan Djilas wrote of the enticement that death held for the combatants. He stood over the body of his comrade, the commander Sava Kovacevic, and found:

“… dying did not seem terrible or unjust. This was the most extraordinary, the most exalted moment of my life. Death did not seem strange or undesirable. That I restrained myself from charging blindly into the fray and death was perhaps due to my sense of obligation to the troops or to some comrade’s reminder concerning the tasks at hand. In my memory, I returned to those moments many times with the same feeling of intimacy with death and desire for it while I was in prison, especially during my first incarceration.”

War ascendant wipes out Eros. It wipes out delicacy and tenderness. Its communal power seeks to render the individual obsolete, to hand all passions, all choice, all voice to the crowd.

“The most important part of the individual life, which cannot be subsumed in communal life, is love,” Sebastian Haffner wrote in “Defying Hitler.” “So comradeship has its special weapons against love: smut. Every evening in bed, after the last patrol round, there was the ritual reciting of lewd songs and jokes. That is the hard and fast rule of male comradeship, and nothing is more mistaken than the widely held opinion that this is a safety valve for frustrated erotic or sexual feelings. These songs and jokes do not have an erotic, arousing effect. On the contrary, they make the act of love appear as unappetizing as possible. They treat it like digestion and defecation, and make it an object of ridicule. The men who recited rude songs and used coarse words for female body parts were in effect denying that they ever had tender feelings or had been in love, that they had ever made themselves attractive, behaved gently. …”

When we see this, when we see our addiction for what it is, when we understand ourselves and how war has perverted us, life becomes hard to bear. Jon Steele, a cameraman who spent years in war zones, had a nervous breakdown in a crowded Heathrow Airport after returning from Sarajevo.

Steele had come to understand the reality of his work, a reality that stripped away the self-righteous, high-octane gloss. When he was in Sarajevo he was “in a place called Sniper’s Alley, and I filmed a girl there who had been hit in the neck by a sniper’s bullet,” he wrote. “I filmed her in the ambulance, and only after she was dead, I suddenly understood that the last thing she had seen was the reflection of the lens of the camera I was holding in front of her. This wiped me out. I grabbed the camera, and started running down Sniper’s Alley, filming at knee level the Bosnians running from place to place.”

A year after the end of the war in Sarajevo, I sat with Bosnian friends who had suffered horribly. A young woman, Ljiljana, had lost her father, a Serb, who refused to join the besieging Serb forces around the city. A few days earlier she had to identify his corpse. The body was lifted, water running out of the sides of a rotting coffin, from a small park for reburial in the central cemetery. Soon she would emigrate to Australia—where, she told me, “I will marry a man who has never heard of this war and raise children that will be told nothing about it, nothing about the country I am from.”

Ljiljana was young. But the war had exacted a toll. Her cheeks were hollow, her hair dry and brittle. Her teeth were decayed and some had broken into jagged bits. She had no money for a dentist; she hoped to have them fixed in Australia. Yet all she and her friends did that afternoon was lament the days when they lived in fear and hunger, emaciated, targeted by Serb gunners on the heights above. They did not wish back the suffering. And yet, they admitted, those may have been the fullest days of their lives. They looked at me in despair. I had known them when hundreds of shells a day fell nearby, when they had no water to bathe in or wash their clothes, when they huddled in unheated flats as sniper bullets hit the walls outside.

What they expressed was disillusionment with a sterile, futile and empty present. Peace had again exposed the void that the rush of war, of battle, had filled. Once again they were—as perhaps we all are—alone, no longer bound by a common struggle, no longer given the opportunity to be noble, heroic, no longer sure of what life was about or what it meant. The old comradeship, however false, had vanished with the last shot.

Moreover, they had seen that all the sacrifice had been for naught. They had been, as we all are in war, betrayed. The corrupt old Communist Party bosses, who became nationalists overnight and got them into the mess in the first place, had grown rich off their suffering and were still in power. Ljiljana and the others faced a 70 percent unemployment rate. They depended on handouts from the international community. They understood that their cause, once as fashionable in certain intellectual circles as they were themselves, lay forgotten. No longer did actors, politicians and artists scramble to visit during the cease-fires—acts that were almost always ones of gross self-promotion. They knew the lie of war, the mockery of their idealism, and struggled with their shattered illusions. And yet, they wished it all back, and I did, too.

Later, I received a Christmas card. It was signed “Ljiljana from Australia.” It had no return address. I never heard from her again. But many of those I worked with as war correspondents did not escape. They could not break free from the dance with death. They wandered from conflict to conflict, seeking always one more hit.

By then, I was back in Gaza and at one point found myself pinned down in still another ambush. A young Palestinian 15 feet away was fatally shot through the chest. I had been lured back but now felt none of the old rush, just fear. It was time to break free, to let go. I knew it was over for me. I was lucky to get alive.

Kurt Schork—brilliant, courageous and driven—could not let go. He died in an ambush in Sierra Leone along with another friend of mine, Miguel Gil Moreno. His entrapment—his embrace of Thanatos, of the death instinct—was never mentioned in the sterile and antiseptic memorial service held for him in Washington, D.C. Everyone tiptoed around the issue. But those of us who had known him understood he had been consumed.

I had worked with Kurt for 10 years, starting in northern Iraq. Literate, funny—it seems the brave are often funny. He and I passed books back and forth in our struggle to make sense of the madness around us. His loss is a hole that will never be filled. His ashes were placed in Sarajevo’s Lion Cemetery, for the victims of the war. I flew to Sarajevo and met the British filmmaker Dan Reed. It was an overcast November day. We stood over the grave and downed a pint of whiskey. Dan lit a candle. I recited a poem the Roman lyric poet Catullus had written to honor his dead brother.

By strangers’ costs and waters, many days at sea,

I come here for the rites of your unworlding,

Bringing for you, the dead, these last gifts of the living

And my words—vain sounds for the man of dust.

Alas, my brother,

You have been taken from me. You have been taken from me,

By cold chance turned a shadow, and my pain.

Here are the foods of the old ceremony, appointed

Long ago for the starvelings under the earth:

Take them: your brother’s tears have made them wet: and take

Into eternity my hail and my farewell.

It was there, among 4,000 war dead, that Kurt belonged. He died because he could not free himself from war. He had been trying to replicate what he had found in Sarajevo, but he could not. War could never be new again. Kurt had been in East Timor and Chechnya. Sierra Leone, I was sure, meant nothing to him.

Kurt and Miguel could not let go. They would have been the first to admit it. Spend long enough at war, and you cannot fit in anywhere else. It finally kills you. It is not a new story. It starts out like love, but it is death.

War is the beautiful young nymph in the fairy tale that, when kissed, exhales the vapors of the underworld.

The ancient Greeks had a word for such a fate: ekpyrosis.

It means to be consumed by a ball of fire. They used it to describe heroes.

By Chris Hedges

19 March 2012

@ TruthDig.com

Chris Hedges writes a regular column for Truthdig.com. Hedges graduated from Harvard Divinity School and was for nearly two decades a foreign correspondent for The New York Times. He is the author of many books, including: War Is A Force That Gives Us Meaning, What Every Person Should Know About War, and American Fascists: The Christian Right and the War on America. His most recent book is Empire of Illusion: The End of Literacy and the Triumph of Spectacle.

“Multiculturalism” And Australia ‘s Great Divide

While most Australians rightly believe that Australia is a multicultural nation, in reality multiculturalism is encouraging divisions, discrimination and racism. Australia needs an inclusive multicultural policy to dismantle “white” dominance and unite Australians.

Since the early 1970s, Australia has embraced multiculturalism and prides itself of being a multicultural nation. After abandoning the “white Australia ” policy, Australia has become one of the most culturally-diverse countries on the planet . However, multiculturalism, as a government policy, is promoted not because it is good, but because it serves the ideology of the ruling class, enforces white dominance and protects white privilege. Hence, Australia ‘s white Anglo-Saxon elites have an interest in investing and maintaining a marginalised “ethnic” or “other”.

Furthermore, there is a tendency among white Australian elites that Australia must remain a white Anglo-Saxon society controlled by a wealthy white ruling class. This is despite the fact that 44 per cent of Australians are born overseas, or have an overseas-born parent. Only whites (preferably Anglo-Saxons) are Australians and only whites have access to good jobs and justice. Multiculturalism is an anti-culture that identifies white Europeans as “Australians” and the rest as the “ethnic Australians” without identity. Ethnic Australians are told to “assimilate”, but cleverly divided, weakened and put in “their places”, in segregated communities.

Successive Australian governments, particularly under the Liberal/National Coalition, have failed to promote racial harmony and provide programs to help disadvantaged Australians and new immigrants obtain employment and integrate into the Australian community. “We are not an economically equal society by any means. There are sizeable pockets of considerable social disadvantages to be found in every state, especially among Indigenous communities and in older industrial and regional areas”, writes Wayne Swan, the Australian Deputy Prime Minister and Treasurer. ( The Monthly , March 2012). Australian multiculturalism did little to eliminate racism and discrimination against minorities, including Indigenous Australians.

In the so-called “fair go” Australia , the gap between the ‘haves’ and ‘have-nots’ is growing exponentially. Data from the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) show that the wealthiest 20 per cent of Australian households have increased their average net worth by 15 per cent since 2005-06. The poorest 20 per cent saw only a 4 per cent rise . As the income gap between the rich and the poor grows wider, Australians are increasingly ghettoized.

According to a recent research in the Australian Economic Review (vol. 45, pp. 29-49); Australian-born parents (i.e., white Anglo-Saxon Australians) are more likely to send their children to well-funded private schools “where the share of their like type is higher” rather than to public schools to avoid exposing them to “unfamiliar cultures”. It is alleged that “there is an over-dominance of some cultures in public schools, which is denigrating the quality of education”. ( The Age , 21 March 2008 ).

It is Important to note that, most ordinary (civilised) Australians believe in an egalitarian and truly multicultural Australia that treats all its citizens equally regardless of skin colour, religion and ethnic backgrounds. However, racism and discrimination are deeply-entrenched in white Australian elites . Indeed, about 85 per cent of Australians believe that racism is a problem in Australia .

While it is unlawful in Australia to discriminate against people because of their skin colour, religion or ethnic backgrounds, most Australian institutions practice racism and discrimination. The education system, the media, the justice system and the police are fuelled by racist practices. Of course, in public, the ruling elites pretend to serve the community, but under the skin, they are truly bigots. In fact, racism is so entrenched in white Australia to the extent that an Australian from a non-Anglo-Saxon background has far less chance to be selected for employment (e.g. at a university) in Australia than a white English, a Dutch or an American holding no residency status and has no right to work in Australia. Nepotism and corruption are rampant and carefully nurtured to enforce white dominance and privilege in the nation’s most important institutions. Tens of thousands of unemployed professionals, including doctors, PhDs, engineers and teachers are driving taxis and doing low-paid odd jobs, despite serious shortages of these professions in Australia . Muslim Australians and new immigrants are denied the opportunity to work and serve the community because of their religion and non-Anglo-Saxon ethnic backgrounds.

A survey on racial and ethnic discrimination in Australia conducted by the Research School of Economics at the Australian National University (ANU) released in June 2009 found that there is substantial evidence of racial discrimination in employment. The study found that Australians from non-Anglo-Saxon backgrounds had greater difficulty of finding employment than those Australians with Anglo-Saxon background. According to the study, people with a Middle Eastern names and background (a.k.a. Muslims) had to send 127 per cent more applications for a waiter’s position than their Anglo-Saxon contenders. ( PDF ). As a result, unemployment among Australians from non-Anglo-Saxon backgrounds is significantly higher.

Of course, there are those Indigenous and “ethnic” Australians who passed through the net and become the face of Australia ‘s shallow multiculturalism. Their presence is nothing more than a PR designs to help in deflecting accusations of racism and discrimination. They are often paraded in front of TV cameras obsequiously dismissing any accusation of racism to promote Australia ‘s (fake) image of a multicultural and “tolerant society”.

The Indian author Arundhati Roy liked this to the forgiving of the Thanksgiving turkey in America : “A few carefully bred turkeys — the local elites of various countries, a community of wealthy immigrants … the occasional Colin Powell or Condoleezza Rice … are given absolution and a pass to Frying Pan Park . The remaining millions lose their jobs, are evicted from their homes, have their water and electricity connections cut, and die of AIDS. Basically they’re for the pot. … So who can say that turkeys are against Thanksgiving? They participate in it”. (The Hindu , 18 January 2004 ). The same holds true in Australia . The like of Warren Mundine, Marcia Langton, Pino Migliorino, Stepan Kerkyasharian, Penny Wong and Noel Pearson come to mind.

Racism in Australia is systemic. It is well managed subtle kind of racism than elsewhere. Australia has a Multicultural Minister and several government-funded agencies and organisations, such as the Anti-discrimination Commission, Equal Opportunity Commission and the Human Rights Commission that act as enforcers of racism, legitimising discrimination and dismissing any criticism and racism-related complaints. There is no bill of right and v ery few Australians know that Indigenous Australians are not recognised in the Australian Constitution. Everyone knows his/her place. No one dares to complain. “If you don’t like it”, you are told “go back to your own country”.

As Oscar Humphries, the editor of the London-based art magazine Apollo’ who grow up in Sydney writes : “My own experience, having attended school [in Australia] until the age of 11, and then lived there during my early 20s, is that underneath the blocky ‘mateship’ of a certain type of Australian male there is a seam of racism. This racism is not only applied to indigenous Australians, but also to, for instance, the Lebanese [Muslim Australians] and Greek immigrants who live there”. ( The Telegraph . 29 June 2011 ). Since 9/11, Muslim Australians continue to live under siege, often harassed and bullied by ASIO and the police.

Most recently, a right-wing politician, Teresa Gambaro from the so-called Australian “Liberal” Party, a collection of right-wing bigots and dirty fascists, accused – after “hearing reports” – non-white (a.k.a. Muslims) immigrants of failing to wear deodorants and integrate into the community.. It is not true that new immigrants have failed to integrate into “Australian culture” and ‘lifestyle”. Most non-Anglo-Saxon immigrants left their simple ways of life at home and have adapted well in Australia , doing all kind of dirty jobs. It is evident that Gambaro herself has not adapted well in Australia and remains an illiterate indulging in old racial stereotypes that contaminated the brains of most bigots in the Liberal Party.

Gambaro is the daughter of poorly-educated Italian immigrants. After fleeing the impoverished and war-ravaged Italy to Australia , Gambaro’s father worked as a farm labourer and a fishmonger – who stunk for many years – before he established his seafood restaurant in Brisbane . Gambaro’s rise in Australian politics is not because she cares about Australia or has a dubious university degree, but because she is white European. Her only contribution to multiculturalism is to greet new immigrants with hostility in order to advance her political interest because racism is a vital tool to dehumanise the “other” and manipulate public opinion.

We all know that, Australian politic is exclusively white territory, and only white Australians have the right to be in the Australian Parliament and participate in democratic debate. It is a privilege position to be in. It provides wealth and power and enough influence to advance the interests of relatives and friends. There is no democracy in Australia . What is called “democracy” is a quarrel between two corporate groups (parties) of wealthy white elites serving their own interests and the interests of their wealthy handlers. The people are duped and misled by politicians and the capitalist (corporate) media and forced into a delusional believe that real change can come from electing a different corporate group (candidate) of wealthy elites.

Like in most Western countries, the Australian media (outlet of the capitalist media) constantly demonises non-Anglo-Saxon immigrants, Indigenous and Muslim Australians, inciting racism and promoting divisions. Ethnic divisions are exploited and used by the media as an opportunity to promote fear. The media in Australia is a small pond of vicious white sharks. About 75 per cent of the printing media are controlled by the neo-fascist Murdoch Press, a pro-Israel Zionist and anti-Muslim propaganda organ. Australian major TV channels (ABC, 7, 9 and 10) are the cesspool of Britain and U.S. rubbish. They have no shame when it comes to demonising and bashing non-Anglo-Saxon Australians and new immigrants, particularly Muslim immigrants. Australia ‘s media are dominated by white Anglo-Saxon bigots . There are no places for Australians from non-Anglo-Saxon backgrounds only in stereotypical roles.

Meanwhile, the self-described multicultural TV station, “Special Broadcasting Services” (SBS), has become the main demoniser of Muslims. It is often called the “ethnic” station. The station is financed by the pro-Israel Zionist lobby and managed by faceless white Anglo-Saxon executives. It is an anti-Muslim, racist and warmongering propaganda outlet. Its anti-Muslim agenda is hidden behind a façade of dark-skinned, unprofessional newsreaders and second-hand journalists. Like all capitalist media outlets, SBS alleges to be “independence”, but in reality, it is a dirty byproduct of CNN, BBC, Al-Jazeera, Fox News and CBS propaganda. Its aim is to deepen the ethnic divide, tear communities apart and deny Australians from non-Anglo-Saxon backgrounds a collective voice. People are misled to have a strong “ethnic” identity, which isolates them and decreases their sense of belonging to the Australian community .

Having said all that, it is important to acknowledge that there are worse places in the world than Australia . Australia is not Europe or the U.S. , where racism is condone and promoted by right-wing governments and neo-fascist parties. When it comes to dealing with ethnic minorities, Europe ‘s history, of course, is littered with crimes against minorities. For instance, some European countries, including France , Switzerland and Holland send Roma Gypsies and Jewish refugees fleeing from the Nazis back to Germany . Today, Europe has become a bastion of Islamophobia. Muslim immigrants and refugees bear the brunt of Europe ‘s neo-fascist policies . Of course, Australia ‘s current policy of dealing with desperate (mostly Muslim) refugees is a Nazi-like inhumane policy and should to be condemned.

Moreover, unlike Europe , Australia lacks the neo-fascist, far-right Islamophobes who practice “direct action” to expel immigrants in Europe . Crimes against Muslims and newly-arrived non-European immigrants are committed on daily basis. Many innocent people (mostly Muslims) and refugees have been murdered by neo-fascists in Europe , including Germany , Belgium , France and Britain . European political leaders, such as the neo-fascist Nicholas Sarkozy in France , David Cameron in Britain and Angela Merkle in Germany have attacked Muslim immigrant rights using multiculturalism as a cover. In other words, multiculturalism is used as a code word for Muslim. The promotion and exploitation of Islamophobia by Western leaders serve as a cheap vote winner among their racist electorate. Indeed, Sarkozy is campaigning for re-election on an anti-immigrants and anti-Muslim racist platform. The on-going attacks on multiculturalism by European leaders are seen as a justification for Western governments’ involvement in U.S.-Israeli criminal wars in the Middle East , West Asia ( Afghanistan ) and Africa ( Libya ). This is why both Nicholas Sarkozy and David Cameron declared during their violent aggression against Libya that multiculturalism is dead in their respective countries. Like the U.S. , most Europe is multicultural regions, but also condones racism and discrimination against certain minorities.

In the U.S. , Americans are segregated by centuries-old racist ideology and racist laws. As a result, the U.S. is one of the most unequal societies in the world with extreme and growing inequality ( Extreme Poverty in the United States, 1996 to 2011 ). Anti-immigrants’ sentiment is spreading like wild fire across the U.S. Thousands of “undocumented” immigrants have been imprisoned or deported and their children were taken away from them and put in foster homes. There are hundreds of extremist and anti-immigrants hate groups, including 170 Neo Nazi and 152 Ku Klux Klan groups ( The ‘Patriot’ Movement Explodes ). Australia is not Europe or the U.S. , not yet.

Australia still has to dismantle its white Australia policy and eradicate racism and discrimination to nurture a truly multicultural Australia . There is no such thing as Australians and “ethnic” Australians. One is either Australian or not. The only way forward is an egalitarian Australia for all Australians regardless of racial and ethnic backgrounds. An inclusive multiculturalism will unite Australians and make Australian strong.

By Ghali Hassan

18 March 2012

@ Countercurrents.org

Ghali Hassan is an independent political analyst living in Australia .

 

 

 

“Mowing The Lawn”: On Israel’s Latest Massacre In Gaza And The Lies Behind It

By Sunday evening in Gaza, a weekend of relentless Israeli bombing has left 18 people dead and dozens wounded. Israeli propaganda insists that the attacks are about preventing “terrorism” and stopping “rockets.”

But in fact, Israel provoked this violence and according to some Israeli commentators its goals are to escalate pressure for war with Iran and to drag Hamas away from diplomacy and back into violence.

Sunday’s victims of the Israeli bombing included Ayoub Useila, 12, of Jabalya refugee camp, whose seven year-old cousin was injured, and Adel al-Issi, 52, a farmer near Gaza City. Others suffered horrifying injuries, as recounted by doctors at Gaza’s al-Shifa hospital.

On Monday, another 5 people were reported killed, and dozens more injured, bringing the reported total of dead to 23.

Israel launches attack on Friday

The Israeli assault began on Friday, when Israeli forces carried out the extrajudicial executions of Zuhair Al-Qaisi and Mahmoud Al-Hannani of the Popular Resistance Committees (PRC), whom Israel alleged were “masterminds” of an attack near Eilat last year. Except, as Max Blumenthal demonstrated, this is untrue, as even Israel previously acknowledged.

This weekend’s attacks have followed a typical pattern. Israel launches a lethal attack knowing full well that Palestinian resistance factions will respond. It then uses the response—dozens of rockets falling on Israel rarely causing injuries or damage—as the very pretext for continued bombing. Israel also claims to have shot down several dozen incoming missiles using its US-subsidized “Iron Dome” anti-missile system.

On Twitter, the Israeli military spokesperson even praised Israel for its “restraint” as if Israel hadn’t started the violence itself on a completely false pretext:

#IDF “Spox: No other country in the world would have allowed 130 rockets in 48 hours and shown such restraint”#IsraelUnderFire

Recall that after the Eilat attack last August, Israel launched a ferocious assault on Gaza, also on false pretexts, killing 14 people including a 2-year old child, a 13-year-old boy and a doctor.

Extrajudicial murder

Beyond the propaganda, informed Israeli commentators, even those supporting the action, acknowledge that Israel chose to initiate the current escalation of violence:

In the Jerusalem Post, Yaakov Katz wrote:

When the IDF decided on Friday afternoon to assassinate the leader of the Popular Resistance Committees in the Gaza Strip, it knew what it was getting itself into.

Assessments ahead of the decision to bomb the car carrying Zuhair Qaisi predicted that around 100 rockets could be fired into Israel during each day of the round of violence expected to erupt. This was a price the government felt it was capable of paying.

In other words, Israel was prepared to carry out an extrajudicial execution, a war crime, knowing that there would be retaliation. Israel’s routine policy of executing Palestinians in occupied territories without charge or trial, based on flimsy allegations made by the killers themselves, is a major violation of international humanitarian law and makes a mockery of Israel’s claim to be a “democracy” by any possible measure.

Even in China, Iran, and the United States, all prolific users of the death penalty where no doubt many innocent people have been put to death, authorities at least go through the formality of a trial. Not so in Israel, where in the past decade hundreds of Palestinians have been sentenced to death in secret and then executed in their beds, on the street, while riding in cars, or even when confined to wheelchairs, along with hundreds of bystanders.

Of course now, the Obama administration has openly adopted Israeli-style extrajudicial execution even of its own citizens—just another example of the “shared values” US and Israeli leaders are always eager to proclaim.

Israeli commentators cut through the official propaganda

In Haaretz, Gideon Levy undercut the official propaganda, that extrajudicial executions—“targeted killings”—are ever justified, let alone in this instance:

Who started it? The IDF and the Shin Bet security service did. The impression is that they carry out the targeted killings whenever they can, and not whenever it is necessary.

When are they necessary? Do you remember the debate on targeted killings sometime in the distant past? Then, it seemed the targets had to be “ticking time bombs” en route to carry out their attacks. In any event, such a vague standard no longer applies. In 2006, in his last court ruling handed down before his retirement, then Supreme Court President Aharon Barak barred such killings when they were meant to be “a deterrent or punishment.”

The latest target killed was Zuhair al-Qaissi, the secretary general of the Popular Resistance Committees in Gaza. IDF sources said he was responsible for the terrorist attack on the Egyptian border last August – which would make his killing an act of “deterrence or punishment.” But to be on the safe side, it was also noted that he had “led and directed plans to carry out a terror attack within Israel, which was in its final stages of preparation.”

This convoluted announcement by the IDF spokesman was enough to get the Israeli public to accept this latest regular dose of targeted killing with automatic understanding and sympathy. And who knows what the late al-Qaissi had planned? Only the Shin Bet does, so we accept his death sentence without unnecessary questions.

Also in Haaretz, Zvi Bar’el cast further doubt on the Israeli claim that the executed PRC men posed a threat that would justify the Israeli attack:

It is hard to understand what basis there is for the assertion that Israel is not striving to escalate the situation. One could assume that an armed response by the Popular Resistance Committees or Islamic Jihad to Israel’s targeted assassination was taken into account. But did anyone weigh the possibility that the violent reaction could lead to a greater number of Israeli casualties than any terrorist attack that Zuhair al-Qaisi, the secretary-general of the Popular Resistance Committees, could have carried out?

“Mowing the lawn”

Perhaps the most chilling explanation of why Israel was bombing Gaza came, again, from Yaakov Katz in The Jerusalem Post:

the IDF is using this as an opportunity to do some “maintenance work” in Gaza and to mow the lawn, so to speak, with regard to terrorism, with the main goal of boosting its deterrence and postponing the next round of violence for as long as possible.

So 12 year-old Ayoub Useila is not even an animal. He’s just part of a “lawn” of faceless nameless Palestinians, to be bombed into submission as routinely as an Israeli settler on stolen West Bank land maintains his suburban-style yard and swimming pool.

Hamas “completely uninvolved”

 

Katz continues:

This is essentially the situation in the Gaza Strip since Operation Cast Lead ended in January 2009.

Every few months, something happens, setting off a round of violence that usually lasts a few days until it suddenly ends just like it began. Once it is an antitank missile attack against an Israeli school bus and the next time a targeted killing of a top terrorist.

Either way, the scenario is pretty much played out the same way. The main difference today is that Hamas is completely uninvolved in the sense that its operatives are not firing rockets into Israel. On the other hand, Israel does believe that Hamas could be doing more to stop the fire into Israel.

Katz himself had already acknowledged that Israel set off the round of violence by its assassination of the PRC activists but then he goes on to admit that Hamas isn’t even involved. Hamas, the usual bogeyman and justification for Israel’s aggression on Gaza “is completely uninvolved in the sense that its operatives are not firing rockets into Israel.” That’s quite an admission.

Indeed it has been reported that leaders of Hamas and Islamic Jihad are completely uninterested in escalating violence with Israel and are committed to a “ceasefire.” That would be consistent with their long-term policies which are to retaliate against Israeli aggression but not to seek out confrontation.

“The escalation in Gaza is good for Israel”

So given all this, why has Israel decided to kill people in Gaza for no discernible reason? According to Bar’el in Haaretz it has everything to do with Israel’s effort to build support for an attack on Iran:

Advocates of a strike on Iran couldn’t have hoped for a more convincing performance than the current exchange of fire between Israel and Gaza. “A million Israelis under fire” is only a taste of what is expected when Iran’s nuclear project is completed. When that happens, seven million Israelis will be under the threat of fire and nuclear fallout.

This is what happens when “only” the Islamic Jihad fires Grad rockets, when Hamas stays out of the fight, and when the “miraculous system” that prevents missiles from falling on kindergartens still works. Under the threat of a nuclear Iran, miracles won’t help, and people in Tel Aviv will also be forced to hide in bomb shelters or escape to Eilat.

Here’s the proof: There is no alternative to striking Iran and there is no better time than the present, when the weather permits and world diplomacy is preoccupied with Syria. For Israelis, there is no better proof that no harm will come to them as a result of an attack on Iran than the performance of the Iron Dome anti-rocket system, which has demonstrated a 95% rate of effectiveness. The escalation in Gaza is good for Israel – that is, for that part of Israel that wants to strike Iran.

It is hard to understand what basis there is for the assertion that Israel is not striving to escalate the situation. One could assume that an armed response by the Popular Resistance Committees or Islamic Jihad to Israel’s targeted assassination was taken into account. But did anyone weigh the possibility that the violent reaction could lead to a greater number of Israeli casualties than any terrorist attack that Zuhair al-Qaisi, the secretary-general of the Popular Resistance Committees, could have carried out?

Bar’el sees at least one other compelling reason why Israel chose violence once again: the ‘threat’ from Hamas’ ever more determined turn to reliance on diplomacy over armed struggle—which Bar’el attributes in part to Hamas’ need to maintain good relations with Egypt:

This dependence on Egypt has managed in the past to produce extended ceasefires which have proven themselves in recent months, especially after the signing of the reconciliation agreement with Fatah, which produced Khaled Meshal’s declarations that Hamas would restrict itself to nonviolent forms of struggle against Israel.

However, it seems that the change in Hamas not only hasn’t convinced Israel, but even stands in the way of its “no partner” policy and could sabotage its efforts to head off the creation of a Palestinian unity government, which would lead to renewed efforts at the UN to secure an independent Palestinian state.

Thus, Hamas must be dragged toward military activity against Israel, and nothing is easier, at least in Israel’s estimation, than to launch a “unilateral” attack against a wanted non-Hamas man, to wait for the response to come, and hope that Hamas joins in.

So far, it hasn’t happened. Hamas still prefers the diplomatic channel and has carried on intensive diplomatic contacts over the past two days with Egypt’s Supreme Military Council. Israel apparently needs to wait for another opportunity.

What that “opportunity” will be no one yet knows, but what is sure is that innocent people will pay with their lives.

Facts behind Israel’s rocket propaganda

Whenever you hear Israel’s tired hasbara refrain about rockets, rockets, rockets, remember to ask the question Yousef Munayyer recently asked: Why don’t Israel’s spokespeople ever tell us how many rockets, missiles and bullets Israel has fired on Gaza?

Of course the answer is because it is by orders of magnitude greater in both number and explosive power than anything Palestinian armed groups have or ever could muster against Israel. There are some data, however.

In one 18-month period between September 2005 and May 2007 in which Palestinian armed groups fired 2,700 rockets toward Israel killing four people, Israel fired 14,617 heavy artillery shells into Gaza killing 59 people, including at least 17 children and 12 women. Hundreds more were injured and extensive damage caused.

This data comes from a 2007 Human Rights Watch reported titled Indiscriminate Fire, which states in addition that:

A subsequent artillery attack on November 8 [2006] killed or mortally wounded 23 and injured at least 40 Palestinians, all civilians.

The report adds:

Human Rights Watch has been unable to find any report or claim that those killed or injured by artillery fire included persons believed to be combatants, and the IDF has not responded to a Human Rights Watch request about whether any Palestinians killed or injured by artillery fire into the Gaza Strip were combatants or believed to be combatants. Israeli artillery strikes in 2006 also left many unexploded shells strewn on the ground that constitute a continuing hazard to lives and livelihoods.

That report dates from 2007, but in the years before and since, thousands more Palestinian civilians were killed and injured in Israeli attacks, by what must be tens of thousands of Israeli munitions. This included the 2008-2009 assault called “Operation Cast Lead” and Israeli fire has been an almost daily occurrence since its end claiming many innocent lives.

And Operation Cast Lead itself was launched on the false pretext—echoed ad nauseam by media—that Palestinians were firing unprovoked barrages of rockets into Israel leaving it no choice to attack in “self-defense.” That too was a lie as Israel’s own official figures showed at the time.

As Munayyer notes, citing UN statistics:

In 2011, the projectiles fired by the Israeli military into Gaza have been responsible for the death of 108 Palestinians, of which 15 where women or children and the injury of 468 Palestinians of which 143 where women or children. The methods by which these causalities were inflicted by Israeli projectiles breaks down as follows: 57% or 310, were caused by Israeli Aircraft Missile fire, 28% or 150 were from Israeli live ammunition, 11% or 59 were from Israeli tank shells while another 3% or 18 were from Israeli mortar fire.

That is why Israeli official propaganda has to be so distorted and selective

By Ali Abunimah

12 March 2012

@ Electronic Intifada

Ali Abunimah is Co-founder of The Electronic Intifada, and author of One Country: A Bold-Proposal to End the Israeli-Palestinian Impasse

 

 

Massacre Continues In Gaza

GAZA CITY (Ma’an) — Israeli airstrikes killed two Islamic Jihad militants and three civilians on Monday, bringing the death toll since Friday to 23 people, medics and Ma’an’s correspondent said.

An airstrike on Monday afternoon in Beit Lahiya killed Muhammad al-Hasoumi, 65, and his daughter, 30, medical spokesperson in Gaza Abu Salmiya said.

Earlier, hospital officials said a 15-year-old schoolboy was killed in a separate air strike during the day on Monday. Nayif Shaaban Qarmout was killed in Beit Lahiya, north Gaza, Ma’an’s correspondent said.

Witnesses said that the 15-year-old was playing with friends in a play ground near his school when an Israeli missile hit the area.

Five others were injured and taken to Shifa hospital in Gaza City.

Early Monday, two Islamic Jihad militants, Raafat Abu Eid, 24, and Hamadah Salman Abu Mutlaq, 24, were killed in Khan Younis, Ma’an’s correspondent said. Abu Eid was killed when an airstrike targeted a vehicle he was traveling in.

Two other militants sustained injuries and a female passerby was also injured in the attack.

Abu Mutlaq, 24, was killed near a mosque in a village east of Khan Younis after warplanes fired at him. Three others were injured and taken to hospital for treatment.

Earlier, Israeli airstrikes had hit two homes in the northern Gaza Strip, injuring 33 civilians, most of whom were women and children, Abu Salmiya said.

Most sustained moderate injuries, with one critically injured, and were transferred to hospital.

A 17-year-old girl and another man were also injured as Israeli missiles struck a home in Gaza City, Abu Salmiya said.

An Israeli military spokeswoman said aircraft had carried out six strikes on Monday. At least 20 rockets have been fired at Israel on Monday, she said.

The army targeted “a weapons storage facility and four rocket launching sites in the northern Gaza Strip, as well as a rocket launching site in the southern Gaza Strip,” a statement said.

Israel’s army denied, however, that there had been any military activity in the northern Gaza Strip at the time of 15-year-old Nayif Shaaban Qarmout’s death.

Gaza’s Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh said late Sunday that neighboring Egypt was working to stop the violence and was consulting with militant factions but added that Israel would have to first stop its air strikes.

The latest round of violence flared on Friday when an Israeli airstrike killed two militant leaders in Gaza.

Israel accused them of planning a cross-border attack via Egypt, although an Egyptian official said Sunday that the Sinai is “fully under control.”

“This is an attempt by Israel to give justification for the offensive against Gaza,” he said.

On Sunday, PLO official Hanan Ashrawi strongly condemned Israel’s latest military escalation.

“The Israeli government has acted with impunity for its unilateral violations for far too long. The illegal, cruel siege of the Gaza Strip, along with all other violations of international law must come to an end.”

The PLO official called on the international community to take serious measures to halt Israel’s policy of extrajudicial executions and the continued killing of innocent civilians.

By Ma’an News Agency

12 March 2012

@ Maannews.net

Madness is not the reason for this massacre

I’m getting a bit tired of the “deranged” soldier story. It was predictable, of course. The 38-year-old staff sergeant who massacred 16 Afghan civilians, including nine children, near Kandahar this week had no sooner returned to base than the defence experts and the think-tank boys and girls announced that he was “deranged”. Not an evil, wicked, mindless terrorist – which he would be, of course, if he had been an Afghan, especially a Taliban – but merely a guy who went crazy.

This was the same nonsense used to describe the murderous US soldiers who ran amok in the Iraqi town of Haditha. It was the same word used about Israeli soldier Baruch Goldstein who massacred 25 Palestinians in Hebron – something I pointed out in this paper only hours before the staff sergeant became suddenly “deranged” in Kandahar province.

“Apparently deranged”, “probably deranged”, journalists announced, a soldier who “might have suffered some kind of breakdown” (The Guardian), a “rogue US soldier” (Financial Times) whose “rampage” (The New York Times) was “doubtless [sic] perpetrated in an act of madness” (Le Figaro). Really? Are we supposed to believe this stuff? Surely, if he was entirely deranged, our staff sergeant would have killed 16 of his fellow Americans. He would have slaughtered his mates and then set fire to their bodies. But, no, he didn’t kill Americans. He chose to kill Afghans. There was a choice involved. So why did he kill Afghans? We learned yesterday that the soldier had recently seen one of his mates with his legs blown off. But so what?

The Afghan narrative has been curiously lobotomised – censored, even – by those who have been trying to explain this appalling massacre in Kandahar. They remembered the Koran burnings – when American troops in Bagram chucked Korans on a bonfire – and the deaths of six Nato soldiers, two of them Americans, which followed. But blow me down if they didn’t forget – and this applies to every single report on the latest killings – a remarkable and highly significant statement from the US army’s top commander in Afghanistan, General John Allen, exactly 22 days ago. Indeed, it was so unusual a statement that I clipped the report of Allen’s words from my morning paper and placed it inside my briefcase for future reference.

Allen told his men that “now is not the time for revenge for the deaths of two US soldiers killed in Thursday’s riots”. They should, he said, “resist whatever urge they might have to strike back” after an Afghan soldier killed the two Americans. “There will be moments like this when you’re searching for the meaning of this loss,” Allen continued. “There will be moments like this, when your emotions are governed by anger and a desire to strike back. Now is not the time for revenge, now is the time to look deep inside your souls, remember your mission, remember your discipline, remember who you are.”

Now this was an extraordinary plea to come from the US commander in Afghanistan. The top general had to tell his supposedly well-disciplined, elite, professional army not to “take vengeance” on the Afghans they are supposed to be helping/protecting/nurturing/training, etc. He had to tell his soldiers not to commit murder. I know that generals would say this kind of thing in Vietnam. But Afghanistan? Has it come to this? I rather fear it has. Because – however much I dislike generals – I’ve met quite a number of them and, by and large, they have a pretty good idea of what’s going on in the ranks. And I suspect that Allen had already been warned by his junior officers that his soldiers had been enraged by the killings that followed the Koran burnings – and might decide to go on a revenge spree. Hence he tried desperately – in a statement that was as shocking as it was revealing – to pre-empt exactly the massacre which took place last Sunday.

Yet it was totally wiped from the memory box by the “experts” when they had to tell us about these killings. No suggestion that General Allen had said these words was allowed into their stories, not a single reference – because, of course, this would have taken our staff sergeant out of the “deranged” bracket and given him a possible motive for his killings. As usual, the journos had got into bed with the military to create a madman rather than a murderous soldier. Poor chap. Off his head. Didn’t know what he was doing. No wonder he was whisked out of Afghanistan at such speed.

We’ve all had our little massacres. There was My Lai, and our very own little My Lai, at a Malayan village called Batang Kali where the Scots Guards – involved in a conflict against ruthless communist insurgents – murdered 24 unarmed rubber workers in 1948. Of course, one can say that the French in Algeria were worse than the Americans in Afghanistan – one French artillery unit is said to have “disappeared” 2,000 Algerians in six months – but that is like saying that we are better than Saddam Hussein. True, but what a baseline for morality. And that’s what it’s about. Discipline. Morality. Courage. The courage not to kill in revenge. But when you are losing a war that you are pretending to win – I am, of course, talking about Afghanistan – I guess that’s too much to hope. General Allen seems to have been wasting his time.

By Robert Fisk

17 March 2012

@ The Independent

Letter from René González to his Seriously Ill Brother Roberto, 24 February 2012

Letter from René González to his Seriously Ill Brother Roberto, 24 February 2012

My Brother for life,

I never thought I would have to write this letter. We share the same lack of enthusiasm for letter writing, a fact clearly demonstrated during our respective internationalist missions and – more conclusively – in the unique experience of the last 20 years. In other words, only conditions as extraordinary as the present ones induce me to write.

Under normal conditions, these things should said be face to face, and a lot of them wouldn’t even need to be said at all. You have enough on your plate with this pitched battle against a disease that is trying to devour you, without on top of that having to face a human ailment that is much more lethal: hatred.

The hatred that stops me from reciprocating all the efforts, with that well-deserved hug we Five would like to give you.

The hatred that does not let me laugh with you at the each of the happenings that spring from your immense courage.

The hatred that obliges me to guess, by the sound of your breathing on the telephone, the fluctuating fortunes of the battle you are waging.

The hatred that causes me the anguish of not being able to share in the caring for all those who love you; and which stops me from being there to support Sary and the boys.

The hatred that deprives me of seeing our nephews and nieces grow up; they have become men and women in the last few years. How proud you must be of your children!

The hatred that prevents me from simply embracing my brother. That obliges me to follow from an absurd and distant confinement a process of which I should be part, like anyone else who has served a prison sentence, in itself quite long enough and imposed precisely out of hatred; but for him, still insufficient.

What can one do against so much hatred? What we have always done, I suppose: love life and fight for it, both for our own and for that of others. Confront every obstacle with a smile on our lips, an apt witticism, and with that optimism instilled in us from childhood. Press on, tough it out, never give in, always together shoulder to shoulder, however hard they try to isolate me from family and friends, to punish all of us in that way.

Today I’ve been remembering those great days from your time as a sportsman. You in the pool and us up in the stands, shouting your name as you swam. Our voices reached you intermittently, when you raised your head to breathe. You told us how sometimes you heard your whole name, other times just the beginning or the end. So we trained ourselves to wait ’till your head was out of the water and then all shout your name in unison. You couldn’t see us, but the din we made told you we were with you, even if we couldn’t intervene directly in the fierce struggle taking place in the swimming pool.

History is now repeating itself. While you are committing all your efforts to this struggle, I am here cheering you on, now together with the family that you had not then yet built. Although you can’t see me, you know I’m there, together with yours, who are also mine. You know that this brother, from his strange exile, from the sorrow of forced separation, under the most absurd conditions of supervised freedom, based on the dignity of his status as a Cuban patriot (like you) and on the affection nurtured by the ties of kinship and shared experience that unite us, is and always will be with you. Every time you raise your head, you’ll be able to hear me shouting, together with my nephews and nieces.

Breathe, brother, breathe!!

Your brother who loves you,

René

(Cubaminrex/Cubadebate)

Source: Cuba News

 

 

Kony 2012 Promotes US “Humanitarian” Intervention In Africa

The campaign launched around Kony 2012, a 30-minute video targeting the leader of Uganda’s Lord’s Resistance Army, Joseph Kony, is aimed at furthering US military intervention on the African continent under the guise of humanitarianism.

The video has been viewed on YouTube tens of millions of times, and its depiction of the suffering of the people, and particularly the children, of Uganda as the result of the protracted military conflict between the LRA and the US-backed government of President Yoweri Museveni has no doubt struck a chord with many, particularly younger people with little knowledge of the complex history of the region and the many interests involved.

The campaign’s message has been greatly amplified by a series of celebrities, ranging from Oprah Winfrey to George Clooney, Sean “Diddy” Combs, Rhianna and four of the Kardashians, all of whom have tweeted their support. It has likewise received virtually uncritical promotion from the mass media, with television anchors in the US comparing it to the use of social media during the mass revolts that shook Tunisia and Egypt last year.

In reality, there is absolutely nothing radical or oppositional about Kony 2012, whose explicitly stated aim is to drum up popular support for the continuation and escalation of one of the first direct military interventions by the Pentagon’s Africa Command (AFRICOM) on the African continent.

In October of last year, the Obama administration announced its decision to send 100 combat-equipped US military “advisers,” most of them special forces troops, into Central Africa with the stated aim of hunting down and either capturing or killing Kony and other leaders of the LRA.

While Invisible Children claims its campaign is for Kony to be delivered to the International Criminal Court for trial, the US government has refused to be a party to the ICC and has made no mention of the court in relation to its military operations in Central Africa.

A March 7 open letter to President Barack Obama, issued in conjunction with the release of the video, praises the Democratic president for his “leadership on this issue.”

“Your decision to deploy U.S. military advisors to the region in October of 2011 was a welcome measure of further assistance for regional governments in their efforts to protect people from LRA attacks,” the letter states.

It continues, “However, we fear that unless existing U.S. efforts are further expanded, your strategy may not succeed.” It touts the US military as the sole force capable of providing “tactical airlift” together with “cross-border coordination.” It cautions against any “premature” withdrawal of US special operations troops and urges the administration to utilize recently approved Pentagon funding “to provide enhanced mobility, intelligence, and other support for ongoing operations.”

The heads of three organizations signed the letter: Invisible Children, the maker of the Kony 2012 video; the Enough Project, a subsidiary of the Democratic-oriented think tank, the Center for American Progress; and Resolve, a human rights group connected to Catholic missionary organizations.

Behind this campaign is an unholy alliance between the Christian right in the US, which has chosen Uganda as something of a laboratory for its reactionary social and political outlook, and sections of well-heeled liberals who have become a new constituency for imperialist intervention waged on the pretext of upholding human rights and protecting civilians.

The White House last week came out publicly in support of the Kony 2012 campaign, with spokesman Jay Carney stating that Obama “congratulates” all those who responded to this “unique crisis of conscience” and vows to continue the US intervention.

Underlying the sudden and peculiar turn by Washington towards a “human rights” crusade against the Lord’s Resistance Army are very definite economic and geo-strategic interests. These are bound up with the recent discovery of substantial oil reserves precisely in the area where the hunt for the LRA is being staged and increasingly fractious competition between Washington and Beijing for geo-political influence in resource-rich Africa. AFRICOM and military intervention have become crucial instruments for the US in combating the wave of Chinese investments in infrastructure projects aimed at facilitating the extraction of African oil and mineral wealth.

What is peculiar about the intervention against the LRA is that it has been launched under conditions in which the militia group has already been reduced to a few hundred fighters and driven out of Uganda. While it conducted brutal attacks that claimed many civilian lives and was responsible for abducting large numbers of children for use as child soldiers a decade ago, its operations have been sharply curtailed in recent years and its atrocities far overshadowed by the mass killing carried out in the resource wars being waged in the neighboring Democratic Republic of the Congo, where Museveni’s Ugandan troops and affiliated militia groups are among those responsible for the loss of nearly 6 million lives since the mid-1990s.

The Kony 2012 video portrays Uganda as it was a decade ago, thereby generating false propaganda for the US military intervention. At the same time, it casts the struggle between the Ugandan government and the LRA as a morality play, pitting “good” against “evil.”

While the LRA has committed massacres and crimes against the region’s civilian population, it is hardly unique in this regard. It is a product in the final analysis of the divide-and-rule methods utilized by British colonialism, which generated inter-ethnic conflicts that independence and a rising native ruling class only continued to foster.

With the coming to power of Idi Amin in 1971, power shifted to the traditionally oppressed north of the country and away from the south, which had been favored by the British. The Acholi, one of the main northern ethnic groups, dominated the country’s military, which continued to exercise significant power even after Amin’s ouster in 1979.

In 1986, however, the country’s military ruler, Gen. Tito Okello, was brought down and the Acholi-dominated army disbanded after Museveni and his National Resistance Army, which preceded Kony in the use of child soldiers, swept to power.

It was out of Museveni’s ruthless suppression of resistance in the north that the LRA emerged. This repression led to the forced relocation of much of the north’s Acholi population into “protective villages,” effectively concentration camps in which people were deprived of their land and agriculture and many thousands died from hunger and disease.

Even the Museveni regime has criticized the film’s distortions. “It is totally misleading to suggest that the war is still in Uganda,” Fred Opolot, a spokesman for the Ugandan government, told the Telegraph. “I suspect that if that’s the impression they [Invisible Children] are making, they are doing it only to garner increasing financial resources for their own agenda.”

While no doubt the Ugandan regime is critical for its own reasons, tied to its own interests and concerns that an image of Uganda as a war zone will interfere with the corrupt privatization and investment schemes that have enriched a narrow elite at the expense of the masses of people, the government spokesman has a point.

According to Invisible Children official Jason Russell, the group sold some 500,000 $30 “action kits,” consisting of T-shirts, bracelets, stickers, posters and buttons, in just the first week since the posting of the video, translating into $15 million in revenue.

As Invisible Children freely admits, the bulk of this money does not go to aid the impoverished population of Uganda. Barely one third of its spending last year supported programs in Central Africa, while 20 percent covered salaries and expenses and 43 percent was used for “awareness programs.”

Invisible Children’s previous funding sources also merit critical examination. Among its biggest donors is the National Christian Foundation and the Christian Community Foundation, two grant-making groups that provide financial backing to key organizations of the Christian right, such as Focus on the Family and the Family Research Council, which promote anti-abortion and anti-gay legislation and religion in school, as well as the Discovery Institute, which advocates teaching “intelligent design,” or creationism.

Some of these same religious right groups have been deeply involved in fostering anti-gay hysteria in Uganda, including the pushing of legislation that would make homosexual acts an offense punishable by death.

Invisible Children’s Jason Russell was a featured speaker last November at Liberty University, the evangelical Christian school in Lynchburg, Virginia. The school was founded by the extreme right-wing demagogue and Baptist preacher Jerry Falwell, a defender of segregation and South Africa’s apartheid regime who became a significant force within the Republican Party.

The Kony 2012 campaign represents a cynical attempt to manipulate public opinion in the interests of US intervention. It seeks to exploit the idealism of young people in order to distract them from the fundamental source of the tragic conditions facing masses of people in Africa—the heritage of colonial oppression and continued imperialist domination. And it proposes the US government and the US military as the solution to human rights abuses, as if the war crimes from Vietnam to Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya had never happened.

By Bill Van Auken

14 March 2012

@ WSWS.org