Our humanity in the balance
By Carel Moiseiwitsch, Gordon Murray and Drew Penland, Winnipeg Free Press, May 4, 2003
WE recently returned from the Occupied Territories of the West Bank and Gaza where we volunteered with the International Solidarity Movement (ISM). Upon returning to Vancouver, we were shocked by the disconnection between our experience of Palestine and its portrayal in the Canadian media. During our stay there, we accompanied and supported people whose daily lives were being interrupted, interfered with and strangled by the Israeli military. We saw humiliation, pain and death inflicted on ordinary Palestinians. Back in Canada, we saw newspaper stories about the heroic Israeli victims of barbaric Palestinian terrorists. Our point is not that Israeli suffering is irrelevant or that Israeli deaths are inconsequential, but that the North American media treat Palestinian suffering and death as irrelevant and inconsequential. In the West Bank and Gaza, we observed soldiers beating medical personnel and using them as human shields, taunting young children to throw rocks at their tank so they could respond with live ammunition, forcing women with infants to stand for hours in the cold a few metres from their homes, destroying food and water systems, and firing heavy machine guns into residential streets and buildings. In short, the Israeli military did not seem to view Palestinians as human beings. Soldiers at checkpoints gave us dire warnings that all Palestinians would kidnap or murder us. On the contrary, the Palestinians we met were incredibly warm, hospitable and generous, and many Israelis work bravely to uphold human rights, including some who join ISM in Palestine. The Israeli military claims many Palestinians they kill are "armed militants" or at least "suspected militants". The vast majority have not been tried or convicted of anything, but we are expected to trust this instant justice. The logic seems to be that since the army doesn't target civilians, all dead Palestinians somehow deserved their fate -- even a kid throwing stones at a tank that could withstand an artillery shell. According to human rights groups, 85 per cent of the Palestinians killed in the Occupied Territories are civilians. Israeli soldiers in Tulkarm boasted to us about killing the local Al Aqsa Brigades leader and a man described by the Israeli army and several media outlets as his "aide", Badia Karoq. According to a dozen people we interviewed, Badia was not a militant. He was simply the hard-working manager of a sweet shop. We were among the first people to enter Badia's shop after he was killed. When the shooting started outside in the street, Badia hid in the attic of the shop, unarmed and wearing his shop uniform. An Israeli soldier came to the attic and riddled him with bullets, taking the bottom half of his face off and soaking the floor in blood.

Bringing the War Home
By Robert Dreyfuss, The Nation, May 8, 2003
Just a year after the attacks of September 11, the Pentagon finally achieved a goal it had been seeking for years: the establishment of a military command for the domestic United States. The supposed rationale for creating the US Northern Command (Northcom, in Pentagon parlance) is primarily an antiterrorist one: to use the armed forces in response to a September 11-style or even more severe attack. "It's a recognition by the Department of Defense that the world has in fact changed," says Pete Verga, a retired US Army officer who served as the first head of the Pentagon's Homeland Security Task Force. "The idea that the homeland is not a combat zone turned out not to be true." In fact, Northcom is in some respects just an extension of a trend that has been going on for some time: the weakening of the 1878 Posse Comitatus Act, which prohibits the use of the military to enforce US laws. This trend accelerated with the passage of the Military Cooperation with Law Enforcement Official Act in the early 1980s, along with other laws assigning domestic tasks to the armed forces as part of the War on Drugs. Many Bush Administration officials were early Northcom supporters, among them Lewis Libby, a key player in Vice President Cheney's office who was a member of a working group that created a study called "Defending the U.S. Homeland," published by the Center for Strategic and International Studies in 1999. That study suggested that the Defense Department be given responsibility for domestic antiterrorism as well as "monitoring crossings of the US border" and "protecting the perimeter of key cities." But where supporters see the establishment of Northcom as an important part of the "war on terror," the American Civil Liberties Union calls it dangerous. "It is a major departure from the tradition of keeping the military out of law enforcement that will reverberate for decades to come," says Timothy Edgar, legislative counsel for the ACLU's Washington office. And indeed, except for the most unlikely, extreme cases, it's difficult to envision a scenario in which the military could play an effective antiterrorist role within the United States. "Last Thanksgiving [2001], outside Miami International Airport, there were National Guardsmen in a tank, as if Al Qaeda was going to roll up in a military-style assault," scoffs Gene Healy of the libertarian Cato Institute, which has monitored the increasing involvement of the military in domestic law enforcement. "It does weird things to our political culture when we start getting used to armed troops on the streets, that we find that comforting," he says. "It makes the United States start looking like we're not a democracy."

The new caliphs
Editorial, The Guardian, May 10, 2003
US and Britain seek a free hand in Iraq  -- Common sense demands that the UN's weapons inspectors return to Iraq without any further delay. As Tony Blair reaffirmed recently, the threat thought to be posed by Iraqi weapons was the principal reason for launching the war. Without independent, international verification of Iraq's capability, any future US and British evidence showing their action to be justified may not be believed, as Britain's former UN envoy, Sir Crispin Tickell, trenchantly noted yesterday. The US argument that security concerns prevent the UN's return will not wash; its own search teams have been at work for weeks, although they have found nothing of any great significance. Suspicions thus gain ground that Washington and London exaggerated the WMD threat for political purposes, that their intelligence was either faulty or used selectively, and that they now have something to hide. John Negroponte, the US ambassador to the UN, says blithely that Washington sees no role for UN inspectors in the foreseeable future. In this, Britain, swallowing private misgivings, appears ready to acquiesce. Despite the centrality of the WMD issue, no mention is made of resumed inspections in the sweeping new US-British security council resolution. No ground is given to Russia's demand that Hans Blix's work be completed before the council finally lifts sanctions and surrenders its powers. What an irony, and what a disgrace, that after years of complaining about Saddam's obstruction of inspections, the US is now itself obstructing them. The new joint draft resolution is in other respects a deeply unsatisfactory document. Common sense again suggests that the UN should be afforded a leading role, as in Afghanistan, in facilitating the creation of a post-Saddam system of governance. Impartial UN mediators would be far better positioned to instil confidence, among Iraqis and in the wider region, in a process that will at best be complex and arduous. The contrary US-British intention to direct political reform via a new legal entity, the "Authority", controlled by them, and with only an advisory, non-executive role for a UN "special coordinator" is ill-conceived and potentially divisive.

A bloody beginning
By Khaled Amayreh, Al-Ahram Weekly On-line, 8 - 14 May 2003
An incursion into Gaza just hours after new Palestinian Prime Minister Abu Mazen was sworn-in put into grave doubt the intentions of the Israeli government. -- Prime Minister Ariel Sharon gave a characteristically Israeli welcome to the new Palestinian government, headed by reformist Prime Minister Mahmoud Abbas, aka Abu Mazen. Barely a few hours after Abu Mazen's government was sworn-in in Ramallah, Israeli occupation troops, backed by tanks, armoured personnel carriers and Apache helicopter gunships, stormed the Shujaiya neighbourhood in eastern Gaza. As was usual for such operations, Israeli soldiers attacked civilians, killing as many as 13 Palestinians. The victims included a two-year- old child, a young boy of 13 and several others, including three brothers from the same family. Some locals sought to defend themselves against the invading forces, using mainly light weapons. Facing overwhelming firepower, mainly Hamas fighters fought valiantly for several hours, in the end preferring to die as martyrs than be captured and humiliated by the Israeli army. Several homes were demolished or badly damaged, as were many cars and businesses. The scene was one of utter devastation. On the same day, the Israeli army killed two Palestinians in the town of Yatta, 10 kilometres southwest of Hebron, and a third in the northern West Bank. The Israeli government described the events in Gaza as, "a successful operation". Not a single word of regret or remorse over the loss of innocent lives was uttered. For Hamas, however, the unprovoked killing of 16 Palestinians on a single day proved that Palestinian resistance groups should never agree to give up their weapons, a demand made earlier by the new Palestinian premier. "Does the new Palestinian government expect us to give up our weapons so that we will be slaughtered like sheep?" asked Abdul-Aziz Al-Rantisi, Hamas's chief spokesperson in Gaza. Rantisi dismissed suggestions that resistance groups ought to give up their light firearms in order to please the Americans and Israelis as "scandalous and disgraceful".

Bremer of Iraq
By Bill Berkowitz, AlterNet/WorkingForChange.com, May 9, 2003
When L. Paul Bremer III sets down in Iraq as the U.S.'s new overseer of reconstruction, he'll be bringing a lot of baggage along with him. Chosen by President Bush for his expertise in counter-terrorism, crisis management and diplomacy, Bremer has a resume that includes extended service in the Reagan Administration, an eleven-year stint at Kissinger & Associates, and the co-chairmanship of the Heritage Foundation's Homeland Security Task Force. That President Bush has turned to a civilian and a skilled negotiator – the president called Bremer a "can-do-type person" – is indicative of the administration's fear that events in post-war Iraq are in danger of spinning out of control. Bremer, the current Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Marsh Crisis Consulting, a subsidiary of the Marsh & McLennan Companies (MMC), will take the reins of the multi-billion dollar reconstruction project from retired Lt. Gen. Jay Garner, the administration's first civil administrator, and assume command over the Office of Reconstruction and Humanitarian Affairs. Early commentary on this leadership change focused on whether Bremer's appointment was a victory for a beleaguered State Department. While Secretary of State Colin Powell may be in need of victories, the Washington Post pointed out that Bremer is "a hard-nosed hawk who is... supported by Rumsfeld and Deputy Defense Secretary Paul D. Wolfowitz." Furthermore, "White House aides said the appointment affirms Bush's satisfaction with Pentagon control over Iraq until a new government is in place." Bremer's appointment indicates that there continues to be substantial support for the Iraqi National Congress, headed by Dr Ahmad Chalabi. Robert Gelbard, a retired career diplomat who led post-conflict efforts in Haiti, Bosnia and East Timor, told Newsday that "In terms of finding someone to manage this process, which has not started out well, I do not believe that [the White House] could have done better" than to select Bremer. According to Gelbard, administration sources believed that Garner "was not sophisticated enough to supervise the transition." Who is L. Paul Bremer and why is the White House counting on him?

Iran and the bomb
Editorial, Finiacial Times, May 9, 2003
At first sight, it is encouraging to see the US calling on the International Atomic Energy Agency to rein in the nuclear weapons ambitions Washington ascribes to Iran. The neo-conservatives in the instinctively unilateralist Bush administration are pumped up by their military triumph in Iraq, yet they are asking a United Nations agency to deal with the Islamic republic next door. At first sight. Washington wants the IAEA, which meets in full session on June 16, to declare Tehran in violation of its commitments to the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. That is because Iran is building a facility at Natanz in the centre of the country to enrich uranium - possible fuel for nuclear bombs. Iran denies this intention, as does Russia, which has separately sold Tehran the technology for nuclear energy production at the southern complex of Bushehr, in the teeth of US protests. Iran allowed the IAEA to carry out a partial inspection of the previously undeclared Natanz facility in February. Mohammed ElBaradei, the IAEA chief, has yet to report his findings. But he - along with Russia, France and other European countries seeking to engage rather than confront Iran - is urging Tehran to accept an additional NPT protocol that would allow un-announced inspection of any nuclear site, declared or suspected. Iran should sign, especially if, as it says, it has nothing to hide. However, while that would be an advance, it would far from resolve the problem. First, it has yet to be seen how far the experience of Iraq has undermined the role and integrity of inspections. Many countries feel, as do the UN inspectors who searched Iraq for (still to be uncovered) weapons of mass destruction, that the US treated the inspectorate in bad faith and fed it dubious intelligence while intending throughout to invade the country, with or without UN sanction.

Iraq Inc: A joint venture built on broken promises
By David Usborne, Rupert Cornwell and Phil Reeves, The Independent, May 10, 2003
America and Britain declared themselves yesterday to be the "occupying powers" in Iraq and produced a blueprint for the administration of the country that confined the United Nations to a co-ordinating role. Although George Bush declared in Belfast last month that the UN would have "a vital role" in Iraq, there was great disappointment yesterday after the organisation was denied an operational role. Britain acknowledged in a draft UN Security Council resolution that, with the United States, it intended to run Iraq for at least a year as a conquering power. Both countries urged the Council to agree to an instant lifting of economic sanctions against Iraq and accept that, as "occupying powers", they would have near-total control of the country's oil revenues for 12 months and maybe much longer. Despite earlier promises that the UN should have an important role administering the delivery of humanitarian aid to the country, this task now goes to America and Britain, with the UN reduced to a co-ordinator. John Negroponte, the US ambassador to the UN, said yesterday that there would be no role for the team of UN weapons inspectors led by Hans Blix "for the foreseeable future". Whatever the fate of the UN resolution, Washington has already started a secretive carve-up of the Iraq reconstruction pie in which all the slices thus far have gone to US companies – many of them with close connections to the Bush administration. The impression that Iraq is becoming a carpetbaggers' free-for-all was reinforced at the Ronald Reagan International Trade Centre in Atlanta this week when lawyers, consultants and business people streamed in, all hoping for a piece of the action. They heard a presentation by the US Agency for International Development (USAid), which is handing out contracts worth $1.5bn (£0.9bn) to rebuild the healthcare system. The USAid contracts total about $70m. If America fulfils its sweeping promise to rebuild Iraq's entire infrastructure, the total may reach several hundred billion dollars. The contracts will be paid for from Iraqi oil revenues, controlled by America and Britain and audited by an international firm of accountants. Yesterday's appeal to the United Nations was contained in a baldly worded draft resolution tabled by Mr Negroponte. It was co-sponsored by Britain and Spain. The text, which makes clear that London and Washington would essentially run Iraq for at least a year, was expected to attract resistance from France and Russia. Controversially, the resolution relegates the UN to an advisory capacity on a board that will monitor the spending of Iraq's oil revenue on reconstruction. A "special co-ordinator", who would be appointed by Kofi Annan, the UN secretary general, would also orchestrate UN humanitarian efforts.

A Nation of Cowards
By Sidney Hall, Jr., CommonDreams, May 8, 2003
For a brief moment after 9/11, we recognized some genuine heroes in our midst, those who put their lives on the line to rescue strangers and those who put their own needs in back of the needs of others in the middle of tragedy. The celebration of this heroism may have become a little gaudy, but it was sincere. Since then we seem to have become a nation of cowards celebrating illusions. There is a president, who, in reaction to the devastation of 9/11, does not act with forbearance, curiosity to understand the root cause, and as a world leader. Instead he lashes out at blurry targets with more force than we were met with. This is not the act of a brave man. This is the act of a coward. There is a senator who sees his country yawing dangerously off course and, for the first time in its history abusing its power openly and shamelessly. The senator says nothing, though he knows better, because he is afraid of an emotional backlash if he engages in rational discussion. He is afraid he will lose the next election. This is the act of a coward. There is a citizen who is unable to think. He succumbs to fear, believes every scary story he hears, buys duct tape for his doors and windows, when a bit of thinking would tell him he is in more danger from getting into his car. This is the act of a coward. There is a journalist who knows there are young children dying in hospitals in Iraq, with their bodies horribly disfigured as the result of our country’s doings, yet he will not show pictures of these children so that people can weigh the consequences of war for themselves. He shows pictures of massively-armed Americans and reports every “coalition” news release as gospel truth. This is the act of a coward.

Stop demolishing Palestinian homes 
By Cιsar Chelala, International Herald Tribune, May 8, 2003
A way forward for Israel -- NEW YORK The election of Mahmoud Abbas as Palestinian prime minister gives the Bush administration an opportunity to move quickly on the Israeli-Palestinian problem. U.S. and Israeli officials have been discussing a series of measures that could lead to an improvement in the present situation. One way to reduce rapidly the hostility between the two peoples, help Abbas gain credibility among Palestinians and provide the basis for serious discussions with the Israeli leadership would be for the Israeli Army to stop demolishing Palestinians' homes. Since the start of Israel's occupation of Palestinian lands in 1967, more than 10,000 Palestinian civilian homes have been demolished, only 600 of which were the homes of people accused of security offenses. Unjustified demolition of houses - which has increased in intensity since the last intifada - have had a serious negative impact on Palestinians' health and quality of life, and will, in the end, be counterproductive for Israel itself. Arik Ascherman, executive director of the organization Rabbis for Human Rights, has stated, "Israel committed human rights violations in the occupied territories, destroying homes and cropland, expropriating land and treating ordinary Palestinians like criminals. With every violation, more Palestinians lost faith in the peace process until frustration spilled over into uprising. American Jews and Israelis don't realize what is going on because they have not seen what we have seen." On Jan. 3 the State Department's spokesman, Richard Boucher, repeated the Bush administration's position that although the United States recognizes Israel's "need to take legitimate anti-terrorist action," "steps such as the displacement of people through the demolition of homes and property exacerbate the humanitarian situation and undermine trust and confidence." In spite of that statement, demolitions have continued unabated. Israeli soldiers are now demolishing whole towns and subdivisions. This is the case of Nazlat Issa in the West Bank and Rafah in Gaza. Demolitions are also carried out in Israel itself, such as a housing development in the Palestinian town of Kafr Kassem. The only accusation against the homeowners is that they lacked a building permit, which in any case is unattainable.

Israel's responsibility
Editorial, The Guardian, May 8, 2003
Britons' deaths must be fully explained  -- Jack Straw was quick to offer full cooperation to Israel after last week's fatal suicide bombing by two British men in Tel Aviv. The foreign secretary reiterated his pledge in the Commons on Tuesday and offered the "British people's condolences for the death of those Israeli citizens". Mr Straw's statements were only right and proper. So it is surely also only right and proper that Israel show similar consideration by cooperating with Britain in concluding inquiries into the killing by the Israeli army of two Britons, Iain Hook and James Miller, in the West Bank and Gaza, and the serious wounding of a third, Tom Hurndall. Mr Hook died in Jenin last November but, despite an earlier promise, Israel has yet to provide a full explanation of what happened or who was to blame. Nor, according to Mr Hook's family, has it admitted its mistake or expressed its condolences. A similar lack of urgency, easily confused with a lack of concern, characterises Israel's approach to the shootings of Mr Miller and Mr Hurndall. This is not acceptable. Israel has a responsibility to account fully for its soldiers' actions in these cases.

US planners forgot about Iraqi nukes
Editorial, Times of India, May 8, 2003
NEW YORK: The genius of Donald Rumsfeld and his deputies in the Defence Department is currently among the mainstream media's favourite themes. According to the convention viewpoint, their military strategy in Iraq was practically flawless, their political instincts are masterful and their philosophical grounding is deep. They are just undeniably brilliant. To Americans who read and worry about the most recent developments in Iraq, this ceaseless chorus of praise for the Pentagon hierarchy can only be reassuring. Because otherwise, the facts on the ground might hint that Rumsfeld and company are not very bright and dangerously incompetent. At the podium, of course, the defence secretary is unrivalled in his alternating moods of clever banter and flashing irritation. No one will ever forget his witty riposte to questions about the pillaging of Baghdad's precious antiquities, when he demanded to know how many times we would have to watch that videotape of the same vase being carried away by a fleet-footed looter. Why would anyone think that the Pentagon should have planned to prevent the destruction and theft that followed Saddam's fall? This administration had other priorities -- most urgently at the ministry of oil, which was immediately surrounded by American armour. Yet troubling news keeps filtering in from Iraq that might raise doubts about Rumsfeld and the other "grown-ups" in command of the coalition forces. According to The Washington Post, a newspaper that fervently supported the war, the Pentagon utterly failed to secure Iraq's nuclear facilities at Kut and al Tuwaitha. The result has been wholesale looting, with unknown losses of such potentially dangerous radioactive materials as cesium, cobalt and partially enriched uranium. So far, Special Forces detachments have found at least two nuclear caches that were "plundered extensively enough that authorities could not rule out the possibility that deadly materials had been stolen". Now Rumsfeld might regard this as yet another stupid question, but wasn't the purpose of this invasion to secure and prevent the spread of weapons of mass destruction?