| |
Palestine:
the world looks
away
By Benjamin Barthe,
Le Monde Diplomatique,
April, 2003
Collateral Damage
From An Illegal
War -- While international
attention is on
Iraq, Israel is
taking the chance
to expand army
operations in
the West Bank
and Gaza, demolishing
their structure
and infrastructure,
totally unconcerned
about the deaths
it causes. --
THE thoughts of
the world were
elsewhere on 17
March. The Azores
summit ended the
day before. The
chances of a second
United Nations
resolution were
gone, and television
correspondents
from the United
States were monopolising
airwaves, waiting
for President
Geroge Bush's
"leave the country
or face war" ultimatum
to Saddam Hussein
to expire. That
day 11 Palestinians
died in the Gaza
Strip, most of
them non-combatants,
and it happened
in a climate of
indifference.
It started around
three in the morning.
Muhammad al-Sa'afin,
an Islamic Jihad
militant, wanted
by the Israeli
army for his supposed
role in two suicide
attacks that killed
five soldiers
in Gaza, had just
returned home
under cover of
darkness, to the
fringe of the
Nusseirat refugee
camp. "It was
a trap," said
his teenage cousin,
Nasser. Within
minutes, 10 jeeps,
followed by a
column of tanks,
encircled the
house. "The tanks
made a terrible
noise," says Ihab,
the grocer next
door. "I thought
the walls of my
house were going
to collapse. My
pregnant wife
was so frightened
that she almost
gave birth right
in front of me."
The building's
34 residents had
to evacuate into
the street under
army orders. Five
minutes was not
enough to gather
all their possessions,
but they grabbed
what they could:
jewellery, photos,
papers, money.
Hidden, al-Sa'afin
refused to surrender.
A firefight started
with the soldiers.
Alerted by the
gunshots and the
muezzin's calls
to resistance,
dozens of militants
came in support.
Ibrahim al-Othmani
and Iyad Zuraiq,
aged 25 and 18,
were killed in
the fighting.
Meanwhile, tanks
deployed along
the camp's main
arteries. In G
block, a baker,
Ziad al-Assar,
stepped out of
his apartment.
"His little daughter
followed him out,"
said Othman Tawil,
his neighbour.
Ilham al-Assar,
aged 4, was hit
by two bullets
in the chest and
died in her father's
arms. From the
roof of his house,
Othman's brother,
Said Tawil, 30,
prepared to attack
the soldiers with
an old revolver
and homemade bombs.
He was shot dead,
probably by a
helicopter gunship,
before opening
fire. Omar Abu
Yussef, 17, also
ventured into
the street. He
was killed by
a mortar explosion.
"Anyone who stuck
his nose out was
targeted," said
Othman.
The
Israeli Policy
of Demolishing
Palestinian Houses
By Yasser AbuMoailek,
International
Press Center,
April 17, 2003
Introduction:
The policy of
house demolition
was implemented
by the Israeli
government on
August 1, 2002
as means of collective
punishment against
the Palestinian
people, and as
a deterrent to
the Palestinian
civil resistance
of the Israeli
occupying forces
(IOF). In fact,
this policy is
as old as the
Israeli occupation
of the Palestinian
Territories in
1967, and had
been used since
to demolish thousands
of Palestinian
homes owned by
family members
of those who have
allegedly participated
in resistance
activities against
the Israeli forces.
The policy was
also escalated
during the first
Intifada (1987-1994),
when Israeli forces
started demolishing
thousands of houses
of those who carried
out attacks against
Israeli targets
in the Occupied
Palestinian Territories
(OPT) or inside
Israel. These
repressive campaigns,
which are usually
accompanied by
intensive shelling
from tanks and
helicopter gunships,
have caused the
death and injuries
of hundreds of
Palestinian civilians
as well as leaving
thousands of Palestinians
homeless. When
Al-Aqsa Intifada
erupted in September
28, 2000 The Israeli
government resumed
this policy, and
demolished dozens
of houses in the
OPT just because
certain members
of a family took
part in resistance
activities against
the occupying
forces. The policy
of house demolition
is fully supported
by the Israeli
government, especially
by the government
of its current
prime minister,
Ariel Sharon,
who has been known
to have frequently
used collective
punishment methods
against the Palestinian
population since
he was a military
commander in the
1970s, especially
the demolition
of houses. Such
a limited understanding
of the debilitating
effect of this
policy by the
Israeli government,
along with its
contravention
with international
humanitarian and
human rights law
has serious repercussions
for the civilian
Palestinian population
in the OPT.
Road
Map of Intimidation
Editorial, Arab
News, April 16,
2003
In the US-led
war against the
Taleban in Afghanistan,
most of the world
agreed that President
George Bush was
justified in overthrowing
it. In his war
against Iraq,
views have been
more divided;
even so, despite
convictions that
Iraq was chosen
because it is
oil-rich, Arab
and a convenient
target, there
were many who
supported the
toppling of an
oppressive and
potentially deadly
regime. Even the
French and Russians
said they wanted
the US to win
once the war began.
But Syria is a
far cry from Iraq
and if George
W. Bush continues
with his threats
against it, he
will find that
he has snatched
defeat and humiliation
from the jaws
of victory. The
grudging acceptance
of what the US
has achieved in
Baghdad will vanish.
No one, not even
his most devoted
international
allies and supporters,
is going to back
action against
Damascus. As for
the ridiculous
allegation that
the Syrians are
developing chemical
weapons of mass
destruction, no
one is about to
fall again for
such a cheap propaganda
ploy. “Weapons
of mass destruction”
has become the
catch-all offense
to justify targeting
any government
that the hawks
in the Bush administration
dislike. But surely,
in such circumstances,
the weapons of
mass destruction
should at least
be found. Who
might be next?
Will it be Havana
with its weapons
of mass destruction?
Will it be Khartoum
with its weapons
of mass destruction?
Meanwhile, those
who actually have
them or are developing
them — such
as the Israelis
and the North
Koreans —
are treated very
differently.
Blair's
alliance with
Bush is a damaging
strategic error
War has undermined
Britain in both
Europe and the
developing world
By Robin Cook,
The Guardian,
April 17, 2003
The moment of
triumphalism must
have seemed tantalisingly
brief to the hawks.
Within hours,
the photo-op of
the toppling of
Saddam Hussein's
statue was crowded
out of the bulletins
by scenes of looting
and lawlessness.
Having won the
military conflict,
the Bush administration
appeared curiously
unprepared for
what to do next
in Baghdad. For
Britain the question
of what to do
next must start
with counting
the collateral
damage from the
war to our international
standing. Most
immediately, there
is the division
it has put between
us and our major
European partners.
Labour's objective
on taking office
in 1997 was to
make Britain a
partner of equal
importance in
a triangle with
Germany and France.
After the divisions
over Iraq, Europe
is back to a Franco-German
axis, with Britain
once again the
odd one out. Then
there is the damage
to our standing
in the developing
world, where we
are now widely
perceived to have
supported a war
not of liberation
but of imperialism.
This is particularly
true in the Islamic
nations. The most
difficult strategic
question in international
affairs is how
the west can reach
accommodation
with the Islamic
world. Britain
is well placed
to contribute
to finding the
answer because
of our multicultural
society and tradition
of tolerance.
Yet the war in
Iraq limits our
ability to act
as an interlocutor
with the Islamic
and, especially,
the Arab nations....In
short, restoring
the standing of
Britain throughout
the Islamic world
depends on US
withdrawal from
Iraq and on Israel's
withdrawal from
the West Bank.
The awkward position
for us as the
junior partner
in the coalition
is that the key
to progress on
both lies not
in our hands but
in those of President
Bush. And here
we come to the
fundamental foreign
policy dilemma
for Britain. It
is what kind of
relationship we
can maintain with
the US while it
is under neoconservative
management.
Don't
hold your breath
By Jonathan Freedland,
The Guardian,
April 16, 2003
Hopes for Middle
East peacemaking
are premature.
Neither Sharon
nor Bush is going
to deliver what's
needed -- For
once the outlook
seems almost sunny.
In a conflict
where a change
in prospects is
usually from bleak
to bleaker, the
Israeli-Palestinian
struggle has suddenly
begun sprouting
apparent green
shoots of possibility.
Perhaps after
a season of war,
pray the optimists,
this could be
the summer of
peacemaking in
the Middle East.
And there are
signs of hope.
In the United
States, the only
outside power
with the strength
to breathe the
near-dead peace
process back to
life, President
Bush and his team
have hinted that
they might end
two-and-a-half
years of inactivity
and get stuck
in. Last week
in Belfast, Bush
praised Tony Blair's
unflagging effort
to bring peace
to Northern Ireland:
"I'm willing to
spend the same
amount of energy
in the Middle
East," he promised.
That seemed plausible
enough. After
all, Bush surely
owes Blair something
for his one-man
coalition act
during the war
on Iraq: US pressure
for an Israeli-Palestinian
peace seems to
have been Blair's
price. History
points that way,
too. In 1991 Bush's
father used the
months after a
Gulf victory to
push Israel to
the peace table.
Would Israel's
most committed
friends in the
Bush administration
allow a repeat
performance? Maybe.
Last autumn Paul
Wolfowitz, the
superhawk often
cited as the chief
architect of the
Iraq adventure,
was booed at a
pro-Israel rally
when he insisted
that Palestinians,
as well as Israelis,
were "suffering
and dying" and
that "hard decisions"
would have to
be made by both
sides. Earlier
this year Wolfowitz
told the Washington
Post that once
the Iraq war was
over: "Our stake
in pushing for
a Palestinian
state will grow."
But the optimists
do not stop there.
If Washington
demands action,
they believe it
may find an unexpectedly
receptive audience
in Jerusalem.
The Israeli prime
minister's interview
this week with
the liberal Ha'aretz
newspaper seemed
to show a new
Ariel Sharon,
one ready to contemplate
painful concessions.
He even named
the West Bank
towns that Israel
might have to
"part with" and
said he recognised
the "ethical problems"
inherent in Israel
continuing to
"rule over another
people and run
their lives."
Democracy
only grows from
below
By Paul Foot,
The Guardian,
April 16, 2003
US-British policy
has ensured that
genuine Iraqi
opposition is
broken -- It's
been a great time
for the LLW -
the League of
Leftist Warmongers.
Everywhere they
are rejoicing
at the glorious
victories of the
B52s and the "liberation"
of Baghdad. So
let us for a moment
suspend all belief.
Let us accept
that the Texas
oil millionaire
in the White House
and his host of
lucky businessmen
now salivating
at the prospect
of lush contracts
to rebuild Iraq
were not in any
way motivated
by oil or construction
contracts in their
decision to invade.
Let us assume
that they, and
the British prime
minister, were
driven solely
by their hatred
of tyranny and
their ideological
passion to replace
it by democracy.
Assuming all that,
were they still
justified in going
to war? As I understand
the LLW position,
they would, in
general, prefer
tyrants to be
overthrown by
the people they
oppress. At times,
however, they
complain the tyranny
is so savage,
so universally
terrifying that
it has to be overthrown
by superior military
force from elsewhere.
So the only way
to topple Saddam
was by US military
might. Two points
arise. First,
in Iran in 1979
the people themselves
toppled the tyranny
of the Shah -
a tyranny every
bit as terrifying
as that of Saddam
Hussein (and imposed
and sustained,
incidentally,
by the US). Second,
what guarantee
is there that
any sustainable
democracy will
now succeed in
Iraq? There have,
after all, never
been any democratic
elections in Iraq.
It was ruled by
British imperialism,
then by a monarchy
servile to British
imperialism, which
was eventually
toppled in scenes
of genuine liberation
by a nationalist
coup, whose leaders
were succeeded
in turn by the
bloodstained Ba'ath
regime. In all
this time, the
only mass political
party committed
to democratic
elections was
the Communist
party. Eventually,
under pressure
from Moscow, the
Communist party
teamed up with
the Ba'ath party,
dropped its democratic
commitments, and
was eventually
overwhelmed by
the dictator it
had wooed.
US
Fulminations Against
Syria: Arab Fears
Justified
By Andrew Green,
Arab News/The
Guardian, April
18, 2003
LONDON, 18 April
2003 — America’s
sudden onslaught
against Syria
has taken the
world by surprise.
The White House
is said to have
blocked the Pentagon’s
preliminary planning
for a military
assault on the
country, and earlier
this week Tony
Blair assured
the British House
of Commons that
there were “no
plans for an attack
on Syria”
— language
eerily reminiscent
of that used about
Iraq last autumn.
Something must
lie behind all
this. The charges
are hardly earth-shattering.
Syria is accused
of harboring Iraqi
fugitives. Possibly
so. The Syrians
opposed the invasion
of Iraq. The Syrian
authorities cannot
prevent Iraqis
getting across
a 400-mile desert
border. It would
not be surprising
if, rather than
accept the humiliation
of handing them
over to the Americans,
they ushered unexpected
guests toward
an aeroplane.
Second, the Americans
allege that the
Syrians have tested
chemical weapons.
Not a surprise.
Several countries
in the Middle
East are believed
to possess such
a capability,
including Algeria,
Egypt, Iran and,
notably, Israel.
The case for invading
Iraq turned on
Saddam being a
crazy dictator
who might pass
chemical or biological
weapons to terrorists.
It would be hard
to describe Bashar
Al-Assad in such
terms. If Syria
has chemical weapons,
it is for a good
reason —
as a second-strike
capability against
Israel. It is
inconceivable
that the Syrians
would strike first,
knowing the Israelis
would immediately
go for nuclear
retaliation. The
third American
allegation is
an old chestnut
— that Syria
is a rogue state
supporting terrorism.
The Syrians have
long given hospitality
to the political
wing of Palestinian
rejectionist movements.
They permit the
Iranians to channel
through Damascus
airport the arms
required by Hezbullah
in south Lebanon.
These are regarded
as potential levers
in negotiations
with Israel for
return of the
occupied Golan
Heights. They
also give Syria
some measure of
influence over
the Palestinian
and Hezbullah
resistance. This
is tough diplomacy,
Middle East-style;
it hardly amounts
to being a rogue
state.
This
One's Not About
Oil
By Uri Avnery,
CounterPunch,
April 18, 2003
Operation "Syrian
Freedom"? -- No
victory justifies
an evil war. Quite
the opposite.
It just adds to
the evil. With
the entry of American
forces into Baghdad,
opposition to
the war in the
US and Britain
is dwindling.
In other countries,
too, doubts are
starting to nibble
away at the anti-war
camp.
I find this difficult
to understand.
Let's pose the
question in the
most provocative
manner: what would
have happened
if Adolf Hitler
had triumphed
in World War II?
Would this have
turned his war
into a just one?
Let's assume that
Hitler would have
indicted his enemies
at the Nuremberg
war crimes court:
Churchill for
the terrible air
raid on Dresden,
Truman for dropping
the atom bombs
on Hiroshima and
Nagasaki and Stalin
for murdering
millions in the
Gulag camps. Would
the historians
have regarded
this as a just
war? A war that
ends with the
victory of the
aggressor is worse
than a war that
ends with their
defeat. It is
more destructive,
both physically
and morally. On
the eve of the
Iraq war, world
public opinion
found its voice
as never before.
This world reaction
was an immensely
valuable moral
victory. On it
the future must
be built. The
flame must not
be allowed to
die down. It must
flare up into
a blaze again.
It can't be stopped.
Let me repeat
the Israeli joke:
"It is difficult
to prophesy, especially
about the future."
But this time,
the prophesies
have come true
so quickly, that
even the "prophets"
themselves are
stunned. After
the American onslaught
on Afghanistan,
we said in these
columns: You can't
stop a military
machine that has
achieved such
a quick and complete
victory with so
few losses. It
will push for
action again and
again. We said:
the band of zealots
which is in control
of Washington
cannot stop now,
just as Napoleon
and Hitler could
not stop. Their
inner logic will
push them to attack
again and again.
On the eve of
the attack on
Iraq we said:
after this, the
next targets will
be Syria and Iran.
And here it comes.
The shooting in
Baghdad had not
yet ended, while
the first steps
towards the attack
on Syria were
already being
taken. Again the
same outcry: "They
have chemical
weapons!" (And
so have the Unites
States, Russia,
Egypt, Israel,
Britain, France
and many others.
Every military
machine develops
these weapons,
even for defensive
purposes.) "There
is a brutal dictator
out there!" "He
supports terrorism!"
In a few days,
we shall hear:
"He butchered
his own people
as Saddam did
with his Kurds!"
(His father sure
did. Assad Sr.
shelled the town
of Hama while
bloodily putting
down an Islamist
rebellion.) "We
must liberate
the poor Syrian
people from the
tyrant!" And from
there: "Regime
change!"
For
the people on
the streets, this
is not liberation
but a new colonial
oppression
By Robert Fisk,
The Independent,
April 17, 2003
America's war
of 'liberation'
may be over. But
Iraq's war of
liberation from
the Americans
is just about
to begin -- It's
going wrong, faster
than anyone could
have imagined.
The army of "liberation"
has already turned
into the army
of occupation.
The Shias are
threatening to
fight the Americans,
to create their
own war of "liberation".
At night on every
one of the Shia
Muslim barricades
in Sadr City,
there are 14 men
with automatic
rifles. Even the
US Marines in
Baghdad are talking
of the insults
being flung at
them. "Go away!
Get out of my
face!" an American
soldier screamed
at an Iraqi trying
to push towards
the wire surrounding
an infantry unit
in the capital
yesterday. I watched
the man's face
suffuse with rage.
"God is Great!
God is Great!"
the Iraqi retorted.
"Fuck you!" The
Americans have
now issued a "Message
to the Citizens
of Baghdad", a
document as colonial
in spirit as it
is insensitive
in tone. "Please
avoid leaving
your homes during
the night hours
after evening
prayers and before
the call to morning
prayers," it tells
the people of
the city. "During
this time, terrorist
forces associated
with the former
regime of Saddam
Hussein, as well
as various criminal
elements, are
known to move
through the area
... please do
not leave your
homes during this
time. During all
hours, please
approach Coalition
military positions
with extreme caution
..." So now –
with neither electricity
nor running water
– the millions
of Iraqis here
are ordered to
stay in their
homes from dusk
to dawn. Lockdown.
It's a form of
imprisonment.
In their own country.
Written by the
command of the
1st US Marine
Division, it's
a curfew in all
but name.
Iraq
Invasion By The
Numbers
By Jackson Thoreau,
ZNet, April 3,
2003
NOTE: This is
a variation of
a question-and-answer
piece on the relationship
between Iraq,
the U.S., Europe,
and military campaigns
circulating through
cyberspace. I
set it up as an
easier-to-read
numerical column
and added a few
items of my own.
The numbers speak
for themselves.
Percentage of
the world's population
living in the
U.S.: 6. / Percentage
of the world’s
energy resources
used in the U.S.:
30. / Rank of
Iraq among countries
in the world for
the largest oil
reserves: 2 [behind
Saudi Arabia].
/ Military spending,
worldwide: $900
billion. / Percentage
of worldwide military
spending by U.S.:
50. / Percentage
of worldwide military
spending by Iraq:
0.0015. / Percentage
of Iraq's military
capacity U.S.
claimed it destroyed
in 1991 Persian
Gulf War: 80.
/ Percentage of
Iraq's post-1991
capacity to develop
weapons of mass
destruction the
UN claimed to
have discovered
and dismantled
by 1998: 90. /
Percentage of
U.S. military
spending that
would ensure basic
necessities to
everyone in the
world: 10. / Number
of Americans who
have died in wars
since World War
II: 92,212. /
Number of people
living outside
U.S. who have
died in wars since
World War II:
25 million. /
Years that Iraq
has had chemical
and biological
weapons: 20. /
Number of U.S.
and European corporations
that supplied
Iraq with materials
and knowledge
to make chemical
and biological
weapons since
the early 1980s:
150.
A
message to the
corporate-controlled
US media: Beware,
there may be worse
to come
Editorial, Online
Journal, April
10, 2003
When the retaliation
for the death
and destruction
the Bush administration
is criminally
carrying out in
Iraq comes—and
it will come—the
corporate-controlled
US media had better
give consideration
that they may
be primary targets.
Television anchors
may wind up at
the top of the
list for not just
breathlessly repeating
the lies of the
administration
and military brass,
but for embellishing
them, adding unwarranted
speculation and
debasing the value
of Iraqis' lives
by cheering as
US and British
troops slaughter
them. Iraqis are
not vermin. They
are human beings
and those who
pick up weapons
to defend their
sovereign nation,
just as we would
do if invaded,
are not fighting
for Saddam Hussein
anymore than we
would be fighting
for George W.
Bush. While it
is hard to stand
up to bombs, missiles
and tanks, they
are rightly fighting
back with every
means at their
disposal. Of course,
the media are
either ignorant
of or choose to
forget that Americans
broke all the
so-called "rules
of war," to the
horror of the
British, in the
American Revolution.
Yet, we hail them
as heroes, just
as the Arab world
hails the Iraqis
as heroes. All
the arguments
to the contrary,
Saddam Hussein
did nothing to
us. Nor did he
pose any danger
to his neighbors
or the rest of
the world. He
had nothing to
do with Sept.
11, 2001, despite
the impression
the media have
imprinted on the
minds of ignorant,
flag-waving Americans
who have been
so easily caught
up in orchestrated
nationalism. The
Iraqis did not
ask us to "liberate"
them. It would
do the carefully
coiffed and made-up
suits currently
sitting safely
at their news
desks to take
a lesson from
what happened
Tuesday, when
US troops opened
fire on journalists
in Baghdad's Palestine
Hotel. That may
be just a taste
of what is coming
from both sides,
except their will
be no safe havens
for anchors or
journalists here
or abroad.
Articles
Archives
|
|
