Violating the Geneva Convention
By James J. David, Palestine Media Center, April 2, 2003  
It seems as if the Bush Administration is quite upset and very much concerned over the Iraqis treatment of the recently captured American prisoners. The concern is quite understandable and, like every other patriotic American, I pray that these soldiers are unharmed and released as soon as possible. But if the last Gulf War is any indication of Iraq's treatment of prisoners of war then our fears may somewhat be relieved. Of the 23 prisoners of war that the Iraqis captured all 23 were released and in relatively good health. Nevertheless, President Bush was quick to blast the Iraqis for showing television footage of the captured American soldiers on Iraqi TV. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld told CNN's Wolf Blitzer that " it's a violation of the Geneva Convention for the Iraqis to be showing prisoners of war in a humiliating manner and needless to say, television that carry such pictures are, I would say doing something that's unfortunate." In the five or six hours of TV war coverage I watched, I probably heard the words "Geneva Convention" 100 times. I was a little surprised that not one person pointed out that the United States is not applying the Geneva Convention to fighters captured in Afghanistan. In fact, the Bush Administration has been very vocal in its opposition to treating these prisoners in accordance with the Geneva Convention. Perhaps now that American soldiers are also being held, the administration will treat all prisoners in accordance with the Geneva Convention. And what about the way the Israelis treat their prisoners? If there was ever an award to be given for the biggest violator of the Geneva Convention the Jewish State would win hands down. Why hasn't George Bush or Donald Rumsfeld or, for that matter, any previous administration ever criticized or threatened Israel for its treatment of Palestinian prisoners. Over the years, Israel has habitually tortured innocent Palestinians to extract confessions. Detainees suffer long periods with urine-soaked hoods over their heads, are handcuffed and shackled to posts in painful and suffocating stooped positions, stretched backward over chairs with hands and feet tied to their legs, and they are never permitted the use of a bathroom. Red Cross lawyers and family are not allowed to even contact these prisoners. A number of Palestinian prisoners have died from torture at the hands of Israeli military.

Wider still and wider
Editorial, The Guardian, April 2, 2003
American tactics are helping Saddam -- Threatening the neighbours is hardly the best way to rally Muslim support, or at least to elicit Muslim and Arab understanding, for America's cause in Iraq. But in recent days, senior Bush administration figures have gone out of their way to warn Syria, Iran and others of unspecified unpleasant consequences should they in any way interpose themselves between Washington and its objectives. Defence secretary Donald Rumsfeld initiated this ill-considered trend, claiming that Damascus was supplying military technology to the Iraqi army. He offered no public evidence to support his allegation, basing his information on US intelligence - a branch of the federal government whose assessments and predictions are daily shown to be less and less intelligent. Mr Rumsfeld's rumblings were quickly echoed by the US national security adviser, Condoleezza Rice, whose capacity for objective thought appears to diminish steadily the longer she remains in office. Then, more surprisingly perhaps, Colin Powell took up the cry. "We are demanding more responsible behaviour from states that do not follow acceptable patterns of behaviour," Mr Powell said. Singling out President Bashar Assad's government (which is fiercely critical of the US-led invasion), he warned that "Syria bears the responsibility for its choices and for the consequences". Note the imperative use of the verb "demand". This grammatical mood seems suited to Washington's present imperial mindset. Note, too, the phrase "acceptable behaviour". Is it possible that Paul Wolfowitz's dream has come true and the US already believes it is the Middle East's arbiter and overlord? And if Iran and Syria and others refuse to bow the knee, will they be invaded, too, with Britain loyally tagging along? These American delusions are dangerous.

Islamic Social Welfare Activism In The Occupied Palestinian Territories: A Legitimate Target?
International Crisis Group
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS -- The 11 September 2001 attacks in the U.S. and revelations that the al-Qaeda network made extensive use of charitable institutions to raise funds for its operations, have reinforced concerns about the relationship between Islamic social welfare activism and terrorism. The Palestinian Islamic Resistance Movement (Hamas), which has conducted a series of devastating armed attacks during the current conflict, particularly against Israeli civilian targets, and which supports an extensive network of social welfare organizations in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, has come in for particular scrutiny. The concern that charitable activity and political violence are connected is legitimate and raises genuine policy dilemmas. These need to be addressed seriously but also with careful attention to distinctions and nuances rather than with a one-response-meets-all-contingencies approach. Eradicating Islamic social welfare activism would be unlikely to reduce seriously Hamas military activity, its attacks against Israeli civilians, or indeed its proclaimed goal of eliminating the state of Israel. Rather, it would worsen the humanitarian emergency, increasing both the motivation for Hamas to sustain its military campaign and popular support for it. And, without substantial evidence that welfare institutions systematically divert funds to support terrorist activity, it would be an overbroad and indiscriminate response. Rather than a blanket ban, the test which should be applied, by the international community and the Palestinian Authority alike, is whether the charitable institution in question can be shown to have transferred monies to fund activities of paramilitary organisations, whether it helps recruit members for such groups, or whether its educational teachings promote intolerance or violence.

The Bush Administration and Congress Join the Cover-up in the Murder of Rachel Corrie
By Stephen Zunes, Dissident Voice, April 2, 2003
There has been a real fear in recent months that the right-wing government of Israeli prime minister Ariel Sharon might take advantage of the international focus on the U.S. invasion of Iraq to increase its repression in the occupied Palestinian territories of the West Bank and Gaza Strip. Few people realized, however, that one of the first casualties would be a young American. In December 2001, as violent Palestinian protests against the then 34-year Israeli occupation increased along with Israeli repression, the United States vetoed a UN Security Council resolution calling for the placement of unarmed human rights monitors in the occupied territories. In response, a number of pacifist groups from the United States and Europe began to send their own representatives to play the role of human rights monitors, even to the point of physically placing their bodies between the antagonists. Among these volunteers was Rachel Corrie, a 23-year-old student at the Evergreen State College in Olympia, Washington. Of particular concern for her and her colleagues was the Israeli practice of bulldozing Palestinian homes and orchards, a direct violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention and a series of UN Security Council resolutions that call upon Israel to abide by this legally binding international human rights covenant. The position of the Bush administration, however, like that of the Clinton administration before it, was to block the United Nations from enforcing its resolutions when they were directed at an important strategic ally such as Israel, even as the United States prepared to invade Iraq in the name of enforcing UN Security Council resolutions. On March 16, in the Rafah refugee camp in the Israeli-occupied Gaza Strip, Israeli occupation forces were planning to destroy the home of a Palestinian physician and his family. Rafah is supposed to be under the exclusive control of the Palestinian Authority, according to a series of disengagement agreements brokered by the U.S. government following the signing of the 1993 Oslo Accords. Though the United States is supposed to be the guarantor of the accords and UN Security Council resolution 1435 calls upon Israel to withdraw to its September 2000 zones of control, the Bush administration has refused to insist that Israel end its re-occupation of Rafah and other parts of designated Palestinian territory.

This War Could Cost You Your SUV
By James Brooks, Dissident Voice, April 2, 2003
A recent editorial expressed a common American perception: "There doesn't seem to be any question in the minds of anyone in this country, no matter whether they supported or opposed the move to war with Iraq, that we're going to win the war." The war appearing on our TV screens might indeed be winnable. But the war on Iraq reported outside the United States is a very different war. As a senior source at the BBC recently confessed, "We're getting more truth out of Baghdad than the Pentagon at the moment." Scott Ritter is a Republican who voted for Bush, a Gulf War vet and former chief UNSCOM inspector in Iraq. On March 24, Ritter said, "We will not win this fight. America will lose this war." He argues the "coalition's" success depends on Iraqis wanting Bush more than Saddam; they don't. To the Iraqis, we are imperial invaders destroying and occupying their nation. The more we bomb them, the more determined they will be to attack us at every opportunity. If we kill Saddam, he will die a martyr in spite of himself, and the "battle for hearts and minds" will die with him -- if we do not kill it first by slaughtering cars full of women and children. We're in a guerilla war. Iraqis will not consider themselves liberated until they drive us out. If we're there "for as long as it takes" to manifest Bush's fantasies, we will be there forever. Our military is caught in the middle. Rumsfeld called the brass "cowards" when they opposed war last summer. Last month he countermanded General Franks' order for two more heavy divisions to Iraq; he said they'd be unnecessary for his Blitzkrieg to Baghdad. Now he stands at his lectern and denies responsibility while our troops are bogged down on a thin front over 200 miles, nearly surrounded by hostile forces. According to the Washington Post, the CIA warned the Bush gang that Iraqis might resist our attempts to "liberate" them, using guerilla tactics. They were ignored, just as they were ignored when they said Saddam did not have nukes or pose a significant threat. Instead, the Bushies believed in their own power and propaganda, and the poison promises of Iraqi "opposition leaders": Iraq will welcome American soldiers! Military intelligence also seems to have dropped the ball. Imagine how General Franks feels right now. Pretty teed off, by all reports. "We find ourselves with fewer than 120,000 boots on the ground", Scott Ritter notes, "facing a nation of 23 million, with armed elements numbering around 7 million -- who are concentrated at urban areas." Just about the size of Vietnam.

The soldier is evil, the soldier is Israel  
By Amira Hass, Haaretz, April 2, 2003
Israel has recently come out with a number of humanitarian gestures in the territories, primarily the easing of conditions at checkpoints - such was the announcement made to the United States, and such was the announcement made Monday on one of the television news broadcasts. Perhaps these gestures were put into practice after last Thursday; and perhaps before then, the Americans hadn't had the time to inform the commanders and soldiers in eastern Nablus that they must now adopt a welcoming approach to the pregnant woman who almost slips on the muddy slope, or to the elderly man who, on his way home from the doctor in Nablus, climbs over the piles of asphalt fragments that the Israel Defense Forces bulldozers have crushed. Last Thursday, someone from the village of Salem, east of Nablus, called and said the soldiers had been holding "hundreds of people - women, adults and children - for the past three hours" and were not allowing them to pass. Rifles held at an angle of 60 degrees and fingers on the trigger make the soldiers' intentions clear. It's almost standard practice, say residents of the three villages east of Nablus - Salem, Dir al-Khateb and Azmut: An IDF force positions itself at the foot of the hill of the new Askar refugee camp, alongside what was once a short asphalt road that reaches the three villages and is now a mess of mud and piles of torn-up tarmac. The force holds up people for no apparent reason, the residents say, from both directions - from the west, to Nablus, or from the east, from Nablus to the villages. The soldiers often force people to backtrack; and they frequently accompany their actions with offensive speech and insults. Some even use force.

Settlements: The national danger
By Gideon Samet, Haaretz, April 2, 2003
The settlers are competing with Palestinian terror as the number one threat to the quality of life and the future of our country. That kind of statement will, of course, be met with the same kind of stormy, insulted, self-righteous and pseudo-Zionist reaction in which the settler community specializes. But it's no exaggeration. If a serious Euro-American move to resume negotiations does indeed begin, there is no one who can disrupt it more than the settlers of the West Bank and Gaza. Their threat of disruption is even greater than the prime minister's: He will be subject to American pressure. They will not. He knows how to fold under pressure. They'll turn that into a weapon in their fight. The settlers' power is dangerous because it is does not emanate from the Israeli public. Most Israelis express consistent readiness to dismantle the settlements as part of a peace deal. The political clout of the settlers hinges on political aid from the ruling right. It is a large movement, but isolated in Israeli society. Playing into their hands is a sense of guilt by most politicians from the left and right for lending a hand to the growth of the settler movement. It's easy for the settlers to play on that historical responsibility. But they should not be allowed to do so. There is no reason not to reject their argument.

Why has Israel been heightening its violations of the human rights of Palestinian prisoners?
By Mahmoud Talab Nammoura, Islamic Association for Palestine, April 2, 2003
Much has been written on Israel’s illegal and inhuman practices, yet the situation has been deteriorating seriously. Although Israel claims to be the only oasis of democracy and human rights in the Middle East, there are thousands of Palestinian prisoners in Israeli jails who are denied their basic human and legal rights. Israel has been using severe measures against Palestinian detainees in Israeli jails. Israeli practices at the Beer Sheba Prison – Solitary confinement Division No. 4-, where dozens of Palestinian detainees are incarcerated, is a classical example in this regard. Articles 27 and 31 of United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners state that "Corporal punishment, punishment by placing in a dark cell and all cruel, inhuman or degrading punishments for disciplinary offences are prevented." Yet Israel, under the pretext of disciplinary punishments, keeps the detainees in solitary confinement, inside cells which lack the minimum requirements of human living. During the last three months Israel has transferred dozens of Palestinian prisoners to solitary confinement. Parents of the detainees aid that among those who were transferred were Musa Dudeen and Hasan Salamah and Anis Nammoura from Nafhah prison. Israel imposed severe restrictions on communication between prisoners and on buying from the canteen, confiscated their olive oil, provides them with meager food both in quantity and in quality, deprived them of morning sport, imposed financial fines on detainees and deducted these fines from their canteen account.

US Marines at the Bridge of Death
By Mark Franchetti, Online Journal, March 30, 2003
The light was a strange yellowy grey and the wind was coming up, the beginnings of a sandstorm. The silence felt almost eerie after a night of shooting so intense it hurt the eardrums and shattered the nerves. My footsteps felt heavy on the hot, dusty asphalt as I walked slowly towards the bridge at Nasiriya. A horrific scene lay ahead. Some 15 vehicles, including a minivan and a couple of trucks, blocked the road. They were riddled with bullet holes. Some had caught fire and turned into piles of black twisted metal. Others were still burning. Amid the wreckage I counted 12 dead civilians, lying in the road or in nearby ditches. All had been trying to leave this southern town overnight, probably for fear of being killed by US helicopter attacks and heavy artillery. Their mistake had been to flee over a bridge that is crucial to the coalition's supply lines and to run into a group of shell-shocked young American marines with orders to shoot anything that moved. One man's body was still in flames. It gave out a hissing sound. Tucked away in his breast pocket, thick wads of banknotes were turning to ashes. His savings, perhaps. Down the road, a little girl, no older than five and dressed in a pretty orange and gold dress, lay dead in a ditch next to the body of a man who may have been her father. Half his head was missing. Nearby, in a battered old Volga, peppered with ammunition holes, an Iraqi woman - perhaps the girl's mother - was dead, slumped in the back seat. A US Abrams tank nicknamed Ghetto Fabulous drove past the bodies. This was not the only family who had taken what they thought was a last chance for safety. A father, baby girl and boy lay in a shallow grave. On the bridge itself a dead Iraqi civilian lay next to the carcass of a donkey. As I walked away, Lieutenant Matt Martin, whose third child, Isabella, was born while he was on board ship en route to the Gulf, appeared beside me. "Did you see all that?" he asked, his eyes filled with tears. "Did you see that little baby girl? I carried her body and buried it as best I could but I had no time. It really gets to me to see children being killed like this, but we had no choice." Martin's distress was in contrast to the bitter satisfaction of some of his fellow marines as they surveyed the scene. "The Iraqis are sick people and we are the chemotherapy," said Corporal Ryan Dupre. "I am starting to hate this country. Wait till I get hold of a friggin' Iraqi. No, I won't get hold of one. I'll just kill him."

The Devil's Dictionary
By Uri Avnery, Media Monitors Network, April 1, 2003
Yet some more thoughts about the war: The Coalition -- No name could be more appropriate to the cooperation between the United States and the United Kingdom against Iraq. In "The Devils Dictionary" of the American humorist Ambrose Bierce, published some 100 years ago, "coalition" is defined as (I quote from memory) the cooperation between two thieves who have their hands so deep in each others pockets that they cannot rob a third person separately.  Reconstructionists -- The problem of the Brits and the Americans is that they are possessed by an unquenchable thirst for reconstructing. They dream about it day and night. They cannot think and speak about anything else. Trouble is, in order to rebuild something one has to demolish it first. No destruction, no reconstruction. Therefore the British, together with the Americans, are occupied with destroying Iraq systematically. Missile and bombs, tanks and artillery, ships and infantry - everything is employed in order to facilitate the reconstruction of the country. The main objective of the urge for reconstruction is, of course, Baghdad. A city of five million people, miles upon miles of buildings and streets, which can be reconstructed after their demolition. If Baghdad becomes indeed the site of Stalingrad-style street fighting, house after house, street after street, there will be indeed a lot to reconstruct.  The New Mongols -- The appetite for rebuilding separates the new conquerors from their predecessors, the Mongols, who conquered Baghdad in 1258, killed the Caliph (who had already surrendered) and destroyed the city completely, after butchering all the inhabitants, men, women and babies. They did not bring with them reconstruction crews, but laid waste to Iraq. The irrigation canals that had been built throughout thousands of years of civilization were devastated. The event has gone down in history as one of the biggest disasters ever to befall the Arab world. By the way, two years later the Muslims annihilated the Mongol army in the battle of Ein-Jalud (todays kibbutz Ein-Harod), a major chapter in Palestinian history. That was the end of the Mongols in the Middle East, but the region never recovered from the Mongol devastation to this very day.

Playing Into Saddam's Hands
By Patrick Cockburn, CounterPunch, April 2, 2003
Bush Doesn't Understand Iraq -- The US soldier, surrounded by Kurdish militiamen on a green plain in the heart of Iraqi Kurdistan, was a worried man. Since the Kurds are the one community in Iraq unanimously in favour of the Anglo-American invasion, he could not have been in a safer place. But the soldier refused to give his name, eyed a plate of kebab suspiciously before rejecting it, and pleaded with us to give no clue to his identity "in case terrorists should find out where my wife lives in Georgia and do something to her". It would be easy to sneer at the soldier's ill-directed fears. But his general timidity and uncertainty about all things Iraqi was surely more sensible than the extraordinary arrogance of those who planned the invasion in the belief that Saddam Hussein would go down like a pack of cards, with little involvement of the Iraqi people during the war or in a post-war settlement. Iraqis I spoke to a few days after the start of the invasion were much quicker than the outside world to notice its slow pace and inability to crack President Saddam's real levers of power. Indeed, the whole US attack plan has played straight into the Iraqi leader's hands. There is a curious symmetry between the Pentagon's plans and those of President Saddam. The US intention was to avoid the cities and head for Baghdad. President Saddam's plan, which was more or less public knowledge, was to retreat into the cities where the US could not use airpower and wouldn't know the terrain as well as the defenders. President Saddam and Washington were also at one on another important issue. He was always frightened of internal uprisings among the Kurds and the Shia Muslims, who together make up three-quarters of the population. The great rebellions of 1991 had almost brought him down. Over the years he has taken minute precautions to make sure it would not happen again by sending an army Baath party members and security men into every village, town and city district. In fact Washington was against any uprising, as it had been in 1991. It was frightened that a rebellion by the Kurds in Kirkuk and Mosul provinces would provoke Turkish intervention.