The news item read “4:16 pm, American Ambassador Michele Sison (sp) departed Lebanon for her country.”  Ten minutes later the item disappeared and, as it turned out, the ten minutes was  exactly how long it took for the US Embassy security and press office to inform Beirut media outlets that “the American Ambassador's movements are to be reported at least one hour after they occur ,not one minute.” 

The hasty departure of Ambassador Michele Sisson, according to the US Foreign Relations Committee office, may have been because the Obama administration is preparing for a ‘deep review’ of its 9 months' effort in Lebanon and the region, debriefing key officials arriving from the area to participate. 

Ambassador Sisson will likely give the White House an earful, including a report of what the Embassy Press Office referred to as the spectacle this week of former US friends and assets in the March 14 majority coalition warmly and very publicly embracing at various events marking the end of the 5 month effort to create a government here of those “Iranian surrogates” in Hezbollah.  The Ambassador may also report to the White House that Hezbollah in now the most popular and  respected political party in Lebanon and the main pillar of the new government and that it is about to launch its social welfare initiatives in Parliament. 

The White House appears to know that Hezbollah is here to stay and if a plebiscite was held, polls show that  the Lebanese public would agree that now more than ever the growing National Lebanese Resistance led by Hezbollah is needed as a deterrent to Israeli aggression, given the  recent discovery of a vast Israeli spy network, daily violations of Lebanese sovereignty, as well as the serial threats from all manner of Israeli officials, extremist rabbis, settlers and their supporters in the US Congress who appear to be encouraging Israel to launch its 7^th War against Lebanon. 

The Bush and Obama administrations' former ally, and new Prime Minister Saad Hariri is apparently also pulling back a bit from Washington and seems to be going out of his way this week in stressing this, telling a group of students at Beirut Arab University that “Lebanon will no longer be the playground for regional Conflicts and that there must be no more international heavy handedness from outside powers”.  Some of the students thought he was alluding to the United States. 

At a Hamra Internet Café a chic and sassy Saudi student majoring in business explained, as she examined several rings on her fingers: “Your government has already served Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, Jordan, Syria, Lebanon and soon Palestine and Egypt to Iran on a mezza platter.  Soon, maybe my country! Is your government stupid or just what is the problem?” 

A coup de grace of sorts has been  administered to the Lebanese branch of  the “New Middle East ” project  by former US ‘partner’ Walid Jumblatt  when after telling a visiting American delegation that “the neocons are still in charge in Washington” he announced that Syria, his former sworn enemy, does indeed have legitimate geopolitical interests in Lebanon and that he for one was ready to acknowledge and even support them.   Even Saudia Arabia seems willing to defer to Syria as the Wahabist Kingdom calculates how best to revive Arab nationalism as a bulwark against its nemesis, Shia Iran.  In the background the influence of Egypt, under its long time President Hosni Mubarak, diminishes.   All these fast moving maneuvers and events leave Washington with only Samir Geagea and few others to do its bidding. 

The White House is no doubt already aware that the past three years of US-Israeli projects are in tatters as that Lebanon may indeed have joined the regional era of Resistance.

Hezbollah Deputy Secretary General Naim Qassim, who will play a key role in enacting social programs in Parliament that Hezbollah is committed to has made clear as he stated yesterday, that  “It’s time to get to work.”

Hezbollah has yielded to some of its political opponents some of its expected Cabinet seats, out of a bloated number of 30 as part of the 15 (March 14 ‘Majority’) 10 (Hezbollah led opposition) and 5 (appointed by President Michel Suleiman) formula.  The reason is to get off to a good start in the newly formed government. 

One Hezbollah official noted in a recent conversation about the makeup of the new government which is one the White House does not favor but can do little about just now:

“Tayyeb! (OK!), this is our (Hezbollah’s) opportunity to show our countrymen and others who we are and what we can do for our country.  I will admit that our Zionist enemies had been somewhat successful in creating a false image of us.  We will now work with all parties and try to implement our legislative program.  You will see us compromise and try to convince all factions to work with us to improve Lebanon.  We do this not for Iran or Syria but because we are Lebanese.  Watch us, criticize us, and condemn us if we fail.  Let’s see what we can achieve with all the political factions. Long after Hezbollah helps return our Palestinian guests to their rightful homes we will be trying to improve our country as part of our government.” 

American policy towards Lebanon is in some ways back to square one.  There are a number of things that the Obama Administration can do to begin to rebuild Lebanese confidence in the Obama administration's good intensions. 

At a recent meeting in West Beirut, a group of students, young and old, gathered at a seminar to discuss the image of America in the Levant.  A US Embassy representative was invited but bowed out at the last minute and advised the group to ‘send us an email and we will look it over.”   So far there has been no reply from the Embassy but below are some of the suggestions from Lebanese University students to the White House, State Department and US Congress, updated on 11/12/09.  

1.     Immediately issue a Press Release explaining whether the rumors are true that President Obama gave Israeli PM Netanyahu a ‘green light’for its threatened 7^th War against Lebanon.  AIPAC has been telling some Congressional Hill staffers that the reports of a  ‘cold meeting’ between the two leaders  last weekend was  "for public consumption’ but that in fact the meeting went swimmingly for Israel and Netanyahu came away with a caution but approval for its plans to ‘finish business’ in Lebanon which the Israeli leader claimed will benefit both countries. 

2.   Support the current General Assembly Draft Resolution sponsored by China and Sudan and expected to garner close to 168 votes and pass, that requires full and fair compensation from Israel to be paid to Lebanon for the July 13 and July 15, 2006 bombings of the Jiyyeh Oil Storage tanks south of Beirut that heavily polluted 150 km of Lebanon’s shoreline.  According to Greenpeace the effects of the release of the 15,000 gallons of heavy oil can take decades to recovery and the final clean up costs may exceed one billion dollars. 

3.     Give Israel not more than 30 days to withdraw from Sheba Farms and ‘Ghajar village as required by UN Security Council Resolutions 1701 and 425, the latter unanimously passed in the Security Council in 1978, demanded complete Israeli withdrawal from Lebanese territory and has still not been fully complied with and has been gathering dust for 31 years. 

4. Adequately fund and provide equipment for the cleanup of South Lebanon and the removal of American cluster bombs and land mines.  After three years of effort, 7.9 million square meters remain unclear and with winter approaching again the bomblets become more difficult to find as casualties continue to climb from the current number of 263.  On November 4, 2999 the US did pledge additional funds to the Lebanese Army as part of its “anti-terrorism” program but much more need to be done.  

5. End the political favoritism in US AID projects to Lebanon and other US foreign projects here and make American foreign aid grants on the basis of need and effectiveness in helping Lebanon as a whole rather than according to party affiliation, sect, religion or neighborhood. 

6.     End the bashing of Hezbollah, Syria and Iran by the flow of US officials who float into Lebanon with various  hreats or to announce for the umpteenth time that the US ‘respects the freedom, sovereignty, and independence of Lebanon”, while blatantly interfering in Lebanon’s integral affairs.  This charade has become the butt of Lebanese stand up comedians and undermines US efforts to be taken seriously. 

7.   The US should join the growing "Dialogue paradigm” in the region and work to erase the huge contradictions between American government “sweet songs” as in June 2009 by President Obama in Cairo, and their deeds.  Talk with those most needed for making peace in the region including Syria, Iran, Hamas and Hezbollah.  Trying to destroy or punish them by unconvincing slurs makes the US appear rather silly.

8.  Clarify for the Lebanese public any US plans for another airbase and who would have access to it. 

9.  End the evident US efforts at igniting Sunni-Shia clashes not just in Lebanon but in Iraq, Saudia Arabia, Iran and Yemen. 

Hopefully Ambassador Sisson, whose representative missed the meeting at the American University of Beirut, will pass along some of these Lebanese proposals to the President. 

Franklin Lamb is doing research in Lebanon and can be reached at fplamb@gmail.com

Somewhere along the line this all changed. Whether it was because of industrialization, urbanization or adaptations in military strategy, one stark and indisputable fact remains: at the beginning of the twentieth century the ratio of civilian to military deaths in wars was one to eight and by the end of it inverted to eight to one.

Certainly, there were turning points that made us cringe at the destructive power of humanity. Dresden, Nagasaki, Auschwitz and others led us to the conclusion that in today’s wars civilians needed more protection from the world’s most destructive powers–states. The laws of war, specifically those designed to protect civilians, were codified as urban settings increasingly became the locales of industrialized destruction.

There is perhaps no theater of war in a more urban setting than the Gaza Strip. As one of the most densely populated spots on the planet, Gaza is precisely the type of place laws of war were meant to protect civilians. It becomes comical then to even consider the notion put forward by Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu recently. He boldly claimed that the laws of war should be amended so that operations like the one Israel carried out in Gaza this past winter that left over 1,400 dead, mostly civilians, could be legal.

In a war that could have been entirely avoided, Israel chose not only to attack but also to do so in a cowardly way that guaranteed tremendous civilian deaths and destruction to civilian infrastructure. The Israeli leadership, likely wary of upcoming elections and the Israeli electorates intolerance for casualties, decided to strike Gaza from a distance using disproportionate force and illegal weapons to keep their casualty rate down. On their way out of the Strip, the Israeli forces destroyed civilian factories and fields with the clear intention of levying collective punitive damages on the people of Gaza. It is precisely because political leaders in Israel consciously made this decision that they committed war crimes in the Gaza Strip.

The report conducted by Justice Richard Goldstone and his team documents, in gruesome detail, the results of Israel’s cost/benefit analysis. Because of this documentation, some have begun to demand that Israel conduct an independent internal investigation into the allegation levied by the esteemed jurist. But this will not be sufficient. Israel has proven it cannot be trusted to produce justice through its internal investigations.

When thousands of Palestinian refugees were massacred in the Sabra and Shatila camps, for example, an independent Israeli commission was formed to investigate. To their credit, they held their defense minister responsible and recommended that he never be permitted to hold a ministerial position again.

Being banned from the cabinet for playing a role in the murder of 3,000 civilians may seem like a slap on the wrist. Yet, what is even worse, is that the man responsible not only came back onto the political scene, but was elected prime minister! Consequently, Ariel Sharon went on to pursue the largest expansion of Israeli settlements in 20 years. When it comes to war crimes and crimes against humanity, Israel is simply not capable of introspection.

In 1961, an esteemed Jewish writer who had escaped Nazi Germany became embroiled in controversy for criticizing Israel’s decision to try the Nazi Adolph Eichmann. Hannah Arendt’s argument was not that Eichmann deserved mercy but rather his crimes were against humanity, offending all, and that he should be tried before an international tribunal. Disregarding this, the state of Israel tried and executed Adolph Eichmann. That same disregard for international justice exists to this day in the state of Israel. There is an air of arrogance and a determination among the leaders to never let others judge their actions, even other Jews like Richard Goldstone or Hannah Arendt.

The United States has also proven incapable of holding Israel accountable for international law. Instead of upholding the Goldstone report’s recommendations the White House has criticized it. The Congress has begun to tow the usual Likud line by considering a resolution (H. Res 867) slamming the Goldstone report as anti-Israel.

There must come a point when Israel realizes the immorality of its actions in Gaza. But we cannot sit around waiting for that to happen. It was humanity that was targeted in Gaza and it is humanity (all of us regardless to race, nation or creed) that must demand justice.

Yousef Munayyer is Executive Director of the Palestine Center. This policy brief may be used without permission but with proper attribution to the Center.

The views in this brief are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of The Jerusalem Fund.

source: the author and  http://www.palestinecenterblog.org/

On the afternoon of November 3, 2009, the United States House of Representatives voted in favor of House Resolution 867 (H.Res.867), an AIPAC-backed bill that urges both President Barack Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to "oppose unequivocally any endorsement or further consideration of the "Report of the United Nations Fact Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict," referred to commonly as the "Goldstone Report." With this vote, the US Congress has not only enshrined its opposition to investigations into war crimes and crimes against humanity found to be committed during last winter's Israeli massacre of over 1,400 Palestinians in the closed-off Gaza Strip, but has also affirmed its outrageous and unconscionable commitment to Israel's continuous unfettered aggression and singular unaccountability to international law, rules of military engagement, human rights and basic morality.

In their successful effort to (yet again) shield the State of Israel from any and all scrutiny or criticism over its illegal use of collective punishment and excessive force against an imprisoned, impoverished and defenseless civilian population, Congressional supporters of H.Res.867 sought to discredit the UN's 575-page report of meticulously-documented human rights violations. After visiting Gaza, conducting 188 individual interviews of victims and witnesses, studying more than 300 reports, submissions and other documentation including medical reports and forensic analysis of weapons and ammunition remnants collected in Gaza, amounting to more than 10,000 pages, and reviewing over 30 videos and 1,200 photographs, the Mission, led by South African Justice Richard Goldstone, concluded that "violations of international human rights and humanitarian law and possible war crimes and crimes against humanity" were committed by both parties (Israel and Hamas) during the Israeli assault on Gaza (A/HRC/12/48, p.423).

Goldstone's impeccable and unimpeachable credentials cannot be overstated. As a member of the South African Standing Commission of Inquiry Regarding Public Violence and Intimidation, Goldstone was responsible for uncovering and publicizing allegations of the extensive violence committed by Apartheid South African security forces, paving the way for subsequent investigations by the Truth and Reconciliation Commission after South African democratization. He served as a judge for the Constitutional Court of South Africa, chairman of the Independent International Commission on Kosovo, Prosecutor of the International Criminal Tribunals for the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda, and was a member of the International Panel of the Commission of Enquiry into the Activities of Nazism in Argentina (CEANA), tasked to identify and prosecute Nazi war criminals who had emigrated to Argentina. In 2004/5, he was a member of the Volker Committee investigation into the UN’s Iraq oil-for-food program.

The Israeli newspaper Ha'aretz reports that, according to a lecture Goldstone delivered in Jerusalem in 2000, he "believes bringing war criminals to justice stems from the lessons of the Holocaust," which he described as "the worst war crime in the world." In Goldstone's view, the atrocities committed by the Nazis and the lessons learned by the international community in the wake of their discovery have "shaped legal protocol on war" and "constituted the basis for the concept of universal jurisdiction."

Not only this, but in an interview with the Jerusalem Post, his own daughter Nicole (once a resident of Israel) even described Goldstone, who is Jewish, as "a Zionist" who "loves Israel." Goldstone currently serves as a trustee at Hebrew University in Jerusalem.

Nevertheless, the harrowing conclusions and reasonable recommendations of the UN commission were quickly denounced by many US officials (not to mention the pathetic 'who, me?' outrage and phony self-righteousness exhibited by their Israeli counterparts), most of whom had not even read the report in its entirety; their smug derision of the dispassionate facts presented in the report made perfectly clear their intention to cover-up Israeli war crimes and, in so doing, legitimize and endorse Israel's ongoing suppression, dehumanization, starvation, occupation and slaughter of the Palestinian people.

As it has in the past, the US House Foreign Affairs Committee, led by Chairman Howard Berman (D-CA) and Ranking Member Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL), rushed to Israel's defense. This is the same team that, almost two weeks into the Israeli bombardment, co-sponsored House Resolution 34, a Pelosi-led non-binding declaration that "recogniz[ed] Israel's right to defend itself against attacks from Gaza" and "reaffirm[ed] the United States strong support for Israel." H.Res.34 called upon the House of Representatives to express "vigorous support and unwavering commitment to the welfare, security and survival of the State of Israel as a Jewish and democratic state with secure borders, and [to recognize] its right to act in self-defense to protect its citizens against Hamas's unceasing aggression," in addition to claiming that Israel had "facilitated humanitarian aid to Gaza" during the assault. The resolution also called on "all nations" to "condemn Hamas for deliberately embedding its fighters, leaders and weapons in private homes, schools, mosques, hospitals and otherwise using Palestinian civilians as human shields, while simultaneously targeting Israeli civilians" and "to lay blame both for the breaking of the 'calm' and for subsequent civilian casualties in Gaza precisely where blame belongs, that is, on Hamas."

The resolution made no mention whatsoever to the crippling Israeli blockade, the devastating and ceaseless air and ground assaults by the Israeli military, or the fact that it was the IDF that had, in fact, broken the ceasefire in the first place. The resolution passed almost unanimously (390-5) on the very same day that the Palestinian death toll in Gaza reached 765, half of them children and women, with thousands more wounded, including hundreds in critical condition. As Congress affirmed its "vigorous support [of] and unwavering commitment" to Israel, municipal buildings, homes and mosques in Gaza were shelled relentlessly by the Israeli military using US weaponry. Five days earlier, the Israeli Air Force had launched an attack on a school run by the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) in the northern Gaza town of Jabaliya, killing over 40 people and wounding over 100 more.

Over seven months later, when the Goldstone Report was released, Representatives Berman and Ros-Lehtinen returned to the drafting table.

Howard Berman, the self-described liberal who voted for the invasions of Iraq in 1991 and 2003 as well as the 2008 FISA Amendments Act, was described in an article in the Jewish Daily Forward as a "staunch supporter of Israel" and "a cautious backer of the peace process" whose "interest in the Jewish state was one of the main reasons he first sought a seat on the [House Foreign Relations] committee." Berman, possibly in an effort to one-up Joe Biden, boasts that "Even before I was a Democrat, I was a Zionist." Larry Weinberg, an AIPAC board member, confirms Berman's ethno-supremacist credentials saying, "I have known Congressman Berman for many years, and I am continually impressed by his personal commitment to strengthening the bond between the United States and Israel…He is not only a leader on our issues, but he is a friend to many in the pro-Israel community."

Berman is adamant about placing harsh sanctions on Iran over its nuclear program, which he constantly mischaracterizes as a "nuclear weapons" program. He, along with his trusty sidekick Congresswoman Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, has recently proposed HR 2194, the Iran Refined Petroleum Sanctions Act, which seeks to impose sanctions on companies that help Iran to import refined petroleum products or that help it to increase its domestic refinery capacity. In a September speech, Berman claimed that the United States "will be in a much stronger position to maximize our ability to obtain crippling sanctions because of our sincere effort to engage [Iran]." What an enticing proposal for Iran to engage! The speech also contained this brilliant nugget regarding the terrifying menace of a nuclear-armed Iran: "We’re not talking about a regime that has the same calculus – that same sense of restraint – as we do about the use of such a weapon." Perhaps the Congressman forgot that, in addition to being the biggest stockpiler of nuclear weapons on the planet in clear violation of its obligations to the Non-Proliferation Treaty, the United States is also the only country in the history of the world to ever use nuclear weapons. And it used them on innocent civilians. Twice.

Ros-Lehtinen, meanwhile, is not only the most senior Republican woman in the US House, a hawkish Zionist, and a supporter of the Patriot Act, the invasion of Iraq, the Military Commission Act, drilling for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, and the military coup in Honduras. She is also against the funding of stem cell research, affirmative action (scoring a 31% favorability by the NAACP), and civil rights (scoring a dismal 14% by the ACLU) encourages continued sanctions against Cuba (the country of her birth), and has openly called for the assassination of Fidel Castro.

Additionally, as journalist Franklin Lamb points out, Ros-Lehtinen, along with Democratic House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, is a pillar of the “fake US Congressional Human Rights Caucus, founded in 1983 which in its quarter century of self congratulatory investigations of Human Rights abuses has yet to find a single human rights abuse by Israel, irrespective of any murders, slaughtering of innocents, home demolitions, political incarcerations, religious bigotry, illegal use of American weapons, illegal siege of Gaza and serial invasions of Lebanon, and the continuing theft of Syria’s Golan Heights. Over the past few years the CHRC has become an Iran-bashing forum for all manner of Zionist zealots and kooks spreading falsehoods and defamations against Islam and the Islamic Republic."

Once H.Res.867 was drawn up, it was rapidly co-sponsored by over 200 other representatives before hitting the House floor for a vote.

The resolution itself neither addresses nor disputes any of the Goldstone Report's actual findings or conclusions. Instead, via a series of deliberately misleading, factually inaccurate and unrelated "whereas" clauses, it seeks to delegitimize the entire Fact Finding Mission as a whole, oftentimes personally attacking its members in an effort to show anti-Israel tendencies or bias. What the resolution actually amounts to is a repetition of Israeli propaganda and Zionist apologia masquerading as a legal and moral defense of indefensible Israeli military aggression.

The wide support it received in Congress demonstrates that the United States House of Representatives is determined only to promote human rights and international law with regards to how it relates to the protection of Israeli Jews and, in equal measure, proves its unequivocal and unabashed disregard, if not outright contempt, for the rights and lives of Palestinians.

The text of H.Res.867 is rife with blatant inaccuracies, decontextualized mischaracterizations and a thorough lack of historical perspective. Many of these factual errors were addressed and corrected in a letter written by Judge Goldstone himself to both Berman and Ros-Lehtinen on October 29.

For instance, in one of its 33 "whereas" clauses, the resolution claims:

"…the mandate of the 'fact-finding mission' makes no mention of the relentless rocket and mortar attacks, which numbered in the thousands and spanned a period of eight years, by Hamas and other violent militant groups in Gaza against civilian targets in Israel, that necessitated Israel's defensive measures."

This is a deliberate, decontextualized falsehood. The mandate called for the UN Mission "to investigate all violations of international human rights law and international humanitarian law that might have been committed at any time in the context of the military operations that were conducted in Gaza during the period from 27 December 2008 and 18 January 2009, whether before, during or after." (A/HRC/12/48, p.13)

Palestinian rocket attacks, in addition to Israeli military operations, were clearly included in this mandate. Additionally, had those who wrote and supported the House resolution actually read the contents of Goldstone Report rather than simply making things up, they would have been well aware that, in addition to Palestinian rocket attacks and their consequences being mentioned at length in the report's Introduction, there is also an entire 20-page chapter (XXIV, p.346-366) entitled "The Impact on Civilians of Rocket and Mortar Attacks by Palestinian Armed Groups on Southern Israel," which practically begins with the following statement: "Since April 2001, Palestinian armed groups have launched more than 8,000 rockets and mortars from Gaza into southern Israel."

After exhaustively documenting the impact of these rocket attacks, including Israeli fatalities, physical injuries, psychological trauma, mental health, damage to property, the impact on the right to education and on the economic and social life of affected communities (both Israeli and Palestinian within southern Israel), the Mission states that "There is no justification in international law for the launching of rockets and mortars that cannot be directed at specific military targets into areas where civilian populations are located" and concludes that because these rockets cannot be aimed at specific targets, "one of the primary purposes of these continued attacks is to spread terror," an act which it explicitly states is "prohibited under international humanitarian law." (A/HRC/12/48, p.365) It continues:

"…the launching of unguided rockets and mortars breaches the fundamental principle of distinction: an attack must distinguish between military and civilian targets. Where there is no intended military target and the rockets and mortars are launched into civilian areas, they constitute a deliberate attack against the civilian population…

…From the facts available, the Mission finds that the rocket and mortars attacks, launched by Palestinian armed groups in Gaza, have caused terror in the affected communities of southern Israel and in Israel as a whole. Furthermore, it is the Mission’s view that the mortars and rockets are uncontrolled and uncontrollable, respectively. This indicates the commission of an indiscriminate attack on the civilian population of southern Israel, a war crime, and may amount to crimes against humanity. These attacks have caused loss of life and physical and mental injury to civilians and damage to private houses, religious buildings and property and have eroded the economic and cultural life of the affected communities." (A/HRC/12/48, p.366) (emphasis mine). 

The Goldstone Report is perfectly clear. The House Resolution is deliberately false. Furthermore, as Jeremy R. Hammond of Foreign Policy Journal deftly points out, the resolution "ignores the fact that even if Israel’s military operations were justifiable as 'defensive measures,' Israel would still be legally obligated to conduct its operations in accordance with international law, and to conduct investigations into alleged war crimes conducted by its own forces."

The resolution and its supporters repeatedly refer to the Goldstone Report as "one-sided," referencing comments made by both Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and the US Ambassador to the United Nations Susan E. Rice, who called its initial mandate "unbalanced, one sided and basically unacceptable." However, as Goldstone himself explains, "the House resolution fails to mention that notwithstanding my repeated personal pleas to the Government of Israel, Israel refused all cooperation with the Mission. Among other things, I requested the views of Israel with regard to the implementation of the mandate and details of any issues that the Government of Israel might wish us to investigate," continuing,

"This refusal meant that Israel did not offer any information or evidence it may have collected regarding actions by Hamas or other Palestinian groups in Gaza. Any omission of such information and evidence in the report is regrettable, but is the result of Israel’s decision not to cooperate with the Fact-Finding mission, not a decision by the mission to downplay or cast doubt on such information and evidence."

The Israeli government even denied the Mission entry to Israel in order to interview witnesses and tour affected communities such as Sderot [sic; the real name of the town is Najd] and Ashkelon [sic; the real name of the town is al-Majdal]. Israeli witnesses had to be flown to Geneva or Jordan to be interviewed. Other interviews were conducted over the phone and via the internet. "I believed that Israel would cooperate," Goldstone told Ha'aretz. "It turned to be a naïve expectation."

So what was Congressman Berman's response?

"Justice Goldstone is correct. The Government of Israel decided not to cooperate with the Mission, based on its biased mandate, as well as the UNHRC's long history of anti-Israel bias. I find that position, at the least, understandable."

Understandable or not, Berman's resolution omits Israel's refusal to cooperate, while at the same time claiming that Hamas, which did cooperate with the Mission and allowed its members full access to Gaza, was "able to significantly shape the findings of the investigation mission's report by selecting and prescreening some of the witnesses and intimidating others." In turn, Goldstone replied, "The allegation that Hamas was able to shape the findings of my report or that it pre-screened the witnesses is devoid of truth. I challenge anyone to produce evidence in support of it."

Berman's only "evidence" is his subsequent claim that "the commission conducted some of its proceedings through holding televised open hearings in Gaza. Given its total control of Gaza and its ability to intimidate, Hamas almost certainly would have been able to control the access and message of each witness attending a televised open hearing. What is beyond doubt is that witnesses were keenly aware that Hamas was monitoring the televised proceedings and likely to inflict reprisals for any unwelcome testimony." The only thing that seems "almost certainly" "beyond doubt" is Berman's ceaseless proclivity to make baseless assumptions about a place he's never been and an incredibly stalwart and resilient people he's never met.

It is doubtful that Berman would also conclude that past testimonies given by Israeli soldiers regarding the gross misconduct and war crimes committed in Gaza were also the result of militaristic intimidation, most likely agreeing with the aborted military probe that, unsurprisingly, found the allegations to be "based in hearsay" and "rumors," and declared an end to the probe. According to Congressman Berman, the only apparent trustworthy source on what happens in Gaza is the Israeli government. What a relief.

In reality, the Goldstone Report's findings are unequivocal and unambiguous. Among many other conclusions, it found that Israel's "repeated failure to distinguish between combatants and civilians appears to the Mission to have been the result of deliberate guidance issued to soldiers, as described by some of them, and not the result of occasional lapses" and that "the destruction of food supply installations, water sanitation systems, concrete factories and residential houses was the result of a deliberate and systematic policy by the Israeli armed forces. It was not carried out because those objects presented a military threat or opportunity, but to make the daily process of living, and dignified living, more difficult for the civilian population." (A/HRC/12/48, p.407)

The Mission found that Israeli operations, in many cases, constituted "an assault on the dignity of the people" and included not only "the use of human shields and unlawful detentions sometimes in unacceptable conditions, but also in the vandalizing of houses when occupied and the way in which people were treated when their houses were entered. The graffiti on the walls, the obscenities and often racist slogans, all constituted an overall image of humiliation and dehumanization of the Palestinian population." (A/HRC/12/48, p.407)

Because the Israeli government has consistently claimed that all phases of "Operation Cast Lead" were thoroughly and extensively planned, that legal opinions and advice were given throughout the planning stages and at certain operational levels during the campaign, and that, according to the Government of Israel, almost no mistakes made during the planning or operation itself, the Goldstone Report concludes that "what occurred in just over three weeks at the end of 2008 and the beginning of 2009 was a deliberately disproportionate attack designed to punish, humiliate and terrorize a civilian population, radically diminish its local economic capacity both to work and to provide for itself, and to force upon it an ever increasing sense of dependency and vulnerability." Furthermore, "Whatever violations of international humanitarian and human rights law may have been committed, the systematic and deliberate nature of the activities described in this report leave the Mission in no doubt that responsibility lies in the first place with those who designed, planned, ordered and oversaw the operations." (A/HRC/12/48, p.408)

Clearly, these revelations are far too damning for the US Congress, which funds the Israeli military apparatus to the tune of $3 billion each year and provides devastating weaponry with which to slaughter Palestinians by the hundreds, to bear and therefore must be buried. With this in mind, it is all too obvious that H.Res.867 is meant to be a distraction from the truth; it is a deliberate and disingenuous deflection of well-documented, substantiated, and widely corroborated evidence of Israeli war crimes that, in its reflexive self-righteousness, reveals itself to be no more than a study in double standards, moral relativism and selective outrage.

As such, the resolution and its uncreative backers in the House, resorted to obvious repetitions of hasbara in a well-coordinated effort to silence all criticism of Israeli actions, cover-up evidence of Israeli war crimes, and condone any and all military aggression, invasion, and occupation – no matter how illegal, inhumane, or truculent – committed by any so-called "democracy" in the name of "self-defense."

When the resolution made it to the floor of the House on Tuesday afternoon, Congress members from all over the country lined up to lend their vocal support to Reps. Berman and Ros-Lehtinen and the resolution. They all basically said the same thing: that the wicked, blood-lusting terrorists of Hamas used Palestinians as human shields and that a victimized, peace-loving, democratic Israel, via the findings of the Goldstone Report, is being unfairly condemned for merely acting out of self-defense.

Ros-Lehtinen, in her defense of H.Res.867, called the Goldstone Report a "575-page hatchet job" that "persecut[ed] Israel for defending herself," claiming that the Mission "disregarded evidence that Hamas and other such groups in Gaza used innocents as human shields and deliberately launched attacks from schools, from hospitals, from mosques." (Congressional Record H12234 11/3/09)

By the time these statements were made, Judge Goldstone had already addressed them thusly: "It is factually incorrect to state that the Report denied Israel the right of self-defense," he wrote in his letter to Berman. "The report examined how that right was implemented by the standards of international law."

The Report itself even addresses Israel's claim to self-defense. It concluded:

"While the Israeli Government has sought to portray its operations as essentially a response to rocket attacks in the exercise of its right to self-defence, the Mission considers the plan to have been directed, at least in part, at a different target: the people of Gaza as a whole.

In this respect, the operations were in furtherance of an overall policy aimed at punishing the Gaza population for its resilience and for its apparent support for Hamas, and possibly with the intent of forcing a change in such support. The Mission considers this position to be firmly based in fact, bearing in mind what it saw and heard on the ground, what it read in the accounts of soldiers who served in the campaign, and what it heard and read from current and former military officers and political leaders whom the Mission considers to be representative of the thinking that informed the policy and strategy of the military operations." (A/HRC/12/48, p.406)

In response to the unsubstantiated, albeit constantly repeated, claims that Hamas militants hide behind innocent civilians as a defensive strategy, Goldstone notes that the Mission found no conclusive "evidence that Hamas forced civilians to remain in their homes in order to act as human shields. Indeed, while the Government of Israel has alleged publicly that Hamas used Palestinian civilians as human shields, it has not identified any cases where it claims that civilians were doing so under threat of force by Hamas or any other party."

Nevertheless, because the issue of Hamas using civilians as "human shields" is so deeply ingrained in the Zionist propaganda talking points of both Israeli and American apologists for Israeli atrocities, any contradiction of this assumed justification for the willful murder of vast numbers of innocent Palestinians by the Israeli military is brushed aside as an absurd fabrication and distortion of reality. As such, despite relevant facts and evidence to the contrary, it is repeated again and again by Israeli and American officials, parroted by an uncritical media, and in entrenched in the psyche of the gullible public to become indisputable doctrine.

Desmond Travers, who was one of the four members of Goldstone's UN Mission, addressed the "human shield" allegation in a recent interview with Harper's Magazine. A retired Colonel of the Army of the Irish Defence Forces and the former Commandant of its Military College, Travers has also served in "command of troops with various UN and EU peace support missions." In response to a question regarding whether "Hamas deliberately inserted its fighters among civilians" and therefore was responsible for deliberately increasing the civilian death toll of the conflict, Travers said this:

"We found no evidence that Hamas used civilians as hostages. I had expected to find such evidence but did not. We also found no evidence that mosques were used to store munitions. Those charges reflect Western perceptions in some quarters that Islam is a violent religion. Gaza is densely populated and has a labyrinth of makeshift shanties and a system of tunnels and bunkers. If I were a Hamas operative the last place I’d store munitions would be in a mosque. It’s not secure, is very visible, and would probably be pre-targeted by Israeli surveillance. There are a many better places to store munitions. We investigated two destroyed mosques — one where worshippers were killed — and we found no evidence that either was used as anything but a place of worship."

As part of the House floor debate, Congressman Ron Klein (D-FL) claimed that the Goldstone Report "does nothing to advance peace and security in the Middle East" but rather "serves to reinforce the deep mistrust that pervades the region and excuses the actions of terrorist groups and their state sponsors." He did not discuss how identifying war crimes and human rights violations would be anathema to promoting peace and security.

"The Goldstone Report ignores the facts," Klein continued. "The terrorist threat surrounding Israel's defensive actions in Gaza require a decisive response, and any sovereign nation would have and should have done what Israel did," adding, "I would urge U.N. member states to devote time and thoughts to the realities of human rights around the world, not Israel." (CR H12233 11/3/09) Clearly, for Ron Klein, the 'realities of human rights around the world' and 'Israel' are mutually exclusive.

Eliot Engel (D-NY) claimed that the Goldstone Report is "part of an ongoing effort at the U.N. to single out Israel and to deny Israel the same rights accorded to other nations" and that it "equates Israel's long-delayed acts of self-defense [sic] with Hamas' 12,000 intentional, indiscriminate attacks on Israeli civilians since 2001." He closed his comments by urging Congress to "stand by" Israel. (CR H12235 11/3/09)

Eric Cantor (R-FL) claimed that "For years, without provocation, Hamas and other terrorists in Gaza launched thousands of deadly rockets at Israeli civilians. The attacks laid siege to entire swaths of Israelis. By last December, Israel said enough was enough." (CR H12235 11/3/09)

Steny Hoyer (D-MD) echoed Cantor's statements, saying,

"The Goldstone Report largely neglects the context within which Israel's action took place. Why is that context so vital, and why is the report so empty without it? Because for years — for years — Israel has been the target of asymmetrical warfare for terrorists who hide behind civilians and aim to kill civilians. For 8 years before Operation Cast Lead, Hamas, aided by Iran and others, launched deadly rockets and mortar fire into Israel, even after Israel dismantled its Gaza settlements, even after it withdrew its military. More than 6,000 rockets have fallen indiscriminately on southern Israel’s cities and towns. I can't imagine there is one of us in this Chamber that if Canada or Mexico rained down six missiles on our civilian population — not 6,000 on our population — that there would be a Member here who would not want decisive response to stop that assault." (CR H12238 11/3/09)

Dan Burton (R-IN) also chimed in with a short speech that sounded like it was written in a joint fit of Alzheimer's disease and Tourette's syndrome. In it, he declared that "Israel has been our friend forever," which is an odd thing to say considering that Burton was already ten years old by the time the colonial European Zionist founders of the State of Israel unilaterally declared its independence. Burton continued:

"Ariel Sharon tried to reach out in a peaceful way to give Gaza back to the Palestinians [sic]. And what happened? Hamas goes in there and starts launching missile after missile after missile at innocent people, blowing them up, trying to kill them. They want to destroy Israel, as does Iran [sic]…

…There shouldn’t be one vote, not one vote in this place against Israel.

And the people who are making these comments on the other side of the aisle really bother me, because Israel has been such a great friend of ours and they have been trying to reach peace over there forever [sic]. And, instead, they keep getting rocket attack after rocket attack, and then they are criticized for human rights problems because they defend themselves [sic].

If we launched missiles into Michigan, I guarantee you, Michigan would be really ticked off at us and would want to stop it and would do everything they could to stop it. We ought to support Israel." (CR H12236 11/3/09)

Against her better judgment, even Rep. Shelley Berkley (D-NV) decided to lend her version of recent history to the Congressional Record:

"In 2005, Israel withdrew from the Gaza to allow the Palestinians to begin building a state. They didn’t. Instead, Hamas used the Gaza to terrorize the Palestinian people and as a launch pad to rain missiles on Israeli cities, 8,000 rocket attacks in a 3-year period. In the fall of 2008, even more rockets fell on innocent Israelis and the situation became untenable…For those who suggest that Israel used disproportionate force, I say Israel used extraordinary restraint: missile after missile, injury after injury, death after death, and year after year." (CR H12236 11/3/09)

The issues raised by these Representatives are indicative of a staggering amount of misinformation that permeates the halls of Congress and beyond. Hoyer's suggestion that the Goldstone Report neglects to contextualize last winter's assault is a statement devoid of all fact, due either to the Congressman's intentional desire to obfuscate the truth or, perhaps more likely, his unfamiliarity with the Report's actual contents. Part One includes extensive historical background of Israel's policies toward Palestinians, including the devastating three-year blockade (A/HRC/12/48, p.82-85), and Palestinian resistance to ongoing oppression, subjugation, apartheid, and aggression in both Gaza and the West Bank (albeit beginning in 1967, thereby omitting the true context of a century of Zionist colonization in Palestine, the Nakba, and almost two decades of martial law for Arab citizens of Israel; chances are, however, this is not the missing information Steny Hoyer wishes to include). The Report clearly states the importance of context:

"The Mission is of the view that Israel's military operation in Gaza between 27 December 2008 and 18 January 2009 and its impact cannot be understood or assessed in isolation from developments prior and subsequent to it. The operation fits into a continuum of policies aimed at pursuing Israel's political objectives with regard to Gaza and the Occupied Palestinian Territory as a whole. Many such policies are based on or result in violations of international human rights and humanitarian law." (A/HRC/12/48, p.404)

Also included is the Israeli disengagement from Gaza in 2005. Whereas the Representatives speaking in favor of adopting H.Res.867 refer to the withdrawal as an Israeli move toward peace that was met by Palestinian violence, the Report provides a much more fact-based assessment of the Gaza narrative, revealing that under the disengagement plan, "the Israeli armed forces continued to maintain control over Gaza’s borders, coastline and airspace, and Israel reserved 'its inherent right of self-defence, both preventive and reactive, including where necessary the use of force, in respect of threats emanating from the Gaza Strip.'" (A/HRC/12/48, p.49)

Israeli historian Avi Shlaim, in an article written in the midst of the Gaza massacre early this year and published in the Guardian, elaborates on the implications of the Israeli withdrawal:

"To the world, Sharon presented the withdrawal from Gaza as a contribution to peace based on a two-state solution. But in the year after, another 12,000 Israelis settled on the West Bank, further reducing the scope for an independent Palestinian state. Land-grabbing and peace-making are simply incompatible. Israel had a choice and it chose land over peace.

The real purpose behind the move was to redraw unilaterally the borders of Greater Israel by incorporating the main settlement blocs on the West Bank to the state of Israel."

The Goldstone Report, both in its "Context" section (A/HRC/12/48, p.46-61) and Chapter IV (entitled "Applicable Law," p.71-81), discusses how the Israeli military occupation of Gaza did not end with the withdrawal, stating,

"Israel removed both settlements and military bases protecting the settlers from the Gaza Strip, redeploying on Gaza’s southern border and repositioning its forces to other areas just outside the Gaza Strip. In addition to controlling the borders, coastline and airspace, after the implementation of the disengagement plan, Israel continued to control Gaza's telecommunications, water, electricity and sewage networks, as well as the population registry, and the flow of people and goods into and out of the territory while the inhabitants of Gaza continued to rely on the Israeli currency." (A/HRC/12/48, p.49)

Shlaim is even more direct in his description of the aftermath of Israeli "disengagement":

"Gaza was converted overnight into an open-air prison. From this point on, the Israeli air force enjoyed unrestricted freedom to drop bombs, to make sonic booms by flying low and breaking the sound barrier, and to terrorise the hapless inhabitants of this prison."

The focus on the number of Palestinian rockets and mortars fired from Gaza into southern Israel (a statistic that ranges generally from 6,000 to 8,000) is oft-repeated and used, most recently by members of Congress, to demonstrate the "asymmetrical warfare for terrorists" in Gaza inflicted upon the innocent Israelis.

A quick look at the facts reveals a very different perspective of what "disproportionate" really means. The Goldstone Report states that, in the mere fourteen months from the September 2005 disengagement until November 2006, "the Israeli armed forces fired approximately 15,000 artillery shells and conducted more than 550 air strikes into the Gaza Strip. Israeli military attacks killed approximately 525 people in Gaza. Over the same period, at least 1,700 rockets and mortars were fired into Israel by Palestinian militants, injuring 41 Israelis." (A/HRC/12/48, p.51-52)

Such statistics show that for each homemade rocket we are told terrorizes and traumatizes the children of Sderot, there are at least nine Israeli shells on Gaza that bring death and destruction to Palestinian children who are already forced to live in constant horror and humiliation.

In all of 2007, five Israelis, none of whom were children, were killed in Israel in incidents involving Palestinian violence. The same year, over three hundred Palestinians in Gaza, 29 of which were children, were killed by Israeli violence (another 91, including 14 children, were killed by Israeli or settler violence in the West Bank). The following year, up through October 2008, a total of 30 Israelis, including 4 children, were killed by Palestinian violence. In contrast, in the first ten months of 2008, 389 Palestinians, including 69 children, were killed by Israel in Gaza alone, not to mention the 56 Palestinians killed in the West Bank and Israel. Between December 27, 2008 and January 21, 2009, the Israeli air force, navy, and army murdered 926 Palestinian civilians, including 313 children, 116 women, 497 civilian men, and 255 non-combatant police officers, wounded over six thousand, and left tens of thousands homeless. 236 Palestinian combatants were also killed. Disproportionately, 10 of the 13 Israelis killed in those 26 days were Israeli soldiers, four of whom died by friendly fire.

The actual "asymmetry" of Israel's bombardment of Gaza is also evident when considering that, as Hamas and other Palestinian resistance groups fight with conventional weapons, homemade rockets, and thrown stones, the IDF employs tanks, helicopters, fighter jets, unmanned drones, howitzer artillery, as well as the illegal use of such destructive weaponry as white phosphorous, flechette missiles, dense inert metal explosive (DIME) munitions, and even depleted and non-depleted uranium. (A/HRC/12/48, p.194-199)

Although resolution advocates like Eric Cantor describe Palestinian rocket attacks as being initiated "without provocation," the truth reveals something completely different. It is clear from such New York Times, Reuters, Ha'aretz, Guardian, Yediot Ahronot, The Times (UK), BBC, and Amnesty International reports that Israel broke the ceasefire, leading to an escalation of events eventually culminating with Operation Cast Lead. It has even been conclusively proven that, with regard to who breaks ceasefires more often, the Israeli military or Palestinian militants, "a systematic pattern does exist: it is overwhelmingly Israel, not Palestine, that kills first following a lull. Indeed, it is virtually always Israel that kills first after a lull lasting more than a week."

Even the Congressional Research Service (CRS), a governmental think tank that, according to its own website, "serves shared staff to congressional committees and Members of Congress" and whose "experts assist at every stage of the legislative process" providing "Congress with the vital, analytical support it needs to address the most complex public policy issues facing the nation" found in a February report titled Israel and Hamas: Conflict in Gaza (2008-2009):

"For the first five months [of the Egyptian-mediated, six-month tahdiya beginning in June 2008], the cease-fire held relatively well. Some rockets were fired into Israel, but most were attributed to non-Hamas militant groups, and, progressively, Hamas appeared increasingly able and willing to suppress even these attacks. No Israeli deaths were reported…" (CRS R40101, 2/19/09)

This corroborates the reporting of New York Times Jerusalem bureau chief Ethan Bronner, who wrote on December 18, 2008 (over week before Israeli launched its ruthless assault) that, in its efforts to abide by the truce, "Hamas imposed its will [over other armed resistance groups] and even imprisoned some of those who were firing rockets."

In fact, the terms of the ceasefire between Israel and Hamas included, not only the halting of rocket fire from Gaza, but also the Israeli agreement to lift its brutal economic blockade of Gaza, which had been in place before Hamas was even voted into power. The siege, nevertheless, continued unabated. Therefore, whereas Hamas upheld their obligations to the ceasefire, Israel did not. Hamas leaders even offered to extend the ceasefire beyond its December 19 expiration date. Israel ignored the proposal, opting instead to carpet bomb civilian neighborhoods and incinerate, mutilate, and dismember children with banned and experimental weaponry.

Essentially, the Congressional claims of relentless and unprovoked Palestinian aggression against a peaceful Israeli population are not only unfounded, they assume the exact opposite of the truth. The "What-if-Mexico or Michigan" analogies also fall short under even the most cursory scrutiny. All real evidence turns such suggestions into a preposterous joke at which no one is laughing.

At one point, during the Congressional debate over H. Res.867, Maryland Rep. Steny Hoyer's effort to place the blame for Israel's brutal blockade, deprivation, starvation, collective punishment and massacre of Palestinians in Gaza squarely on the democratically-elected leadership of Hamas took a tellingly racist turn. "Tragically, civilians in Gaza suffered and continue to suffer. They suffer in major part from the determination of their imposed leaders to pursue indiscriminate terror," he began.

"Is there anybody here who doubts that if those children living there for decade after decade after decade were European children or American children or Jewish children that they would still be there in those [refugee] camps? I say to you, not the case. Why are they there? Because the Arab community does not want to absorb them, and their leaders will not seek a meaningful peace. That is why they’re there." (CR H12238 11/3/09)

Why Hoyer believes that "the Arab community" would be responsible, let alone obligated, to "absorb" Palestinians is never explained. Palestinians in Gaza don't ask for absorption elsewhere; their home is Palestine, not Jordan, Lebanon or Egypt. They were expelled from what is now Israel and, under international law, are entitled – not to be "absorbed" by other countries – but to return to their homes.

Gary Ackerman (D-NY), who actually traveled to Israel with NYC Mayor Mike Bloomberg and police commissioner Ray Kelly (on the Mayor's private jet) during the Gaza Massacre to show his support for the murder of hundreds of defenseless Palestinians by the Israel military, entered his remarks into the Congressional Record, calling the Goldstone Report "a pompous, tendentious, one-sided political diatribe" that, for all its "facts" and "context" contains "very little truth" and "very little wisdom." (CR H12244 11/3/09)

Ackerman makes clear his contempt for the authors of the Report by stating, "In the self-righteous fantasyland inhabited by Judge Goldstone and his colleagues, there's no such thing as terrorism; there's no such thing as Hamas (and if it does exist, it's certainly nothing to fear); there's no such thing as legitimate self-defense; and war is like a sporting event, rather than the most ghastly, destructive, chaotic phenomenon we human beings are capable of creating." Ackerman himself could benefit from a reality check in the form of testimony by a young Israeli reservist who, upon reflecting on his role as a remote operator of Predator drones conducting airstrikes on civilian centers and residential neighborhoods in Gaza, said the following:

"It feels like hunting season has begun…Sometimes it reminds me of a Play Station game. You hear cheers in the war room after you see on the screens that the missile hit a target, as if it were a soccer game."

Although Congressional opponents of H.Res.867 were few and far between, a number of courageous Congress members took up the mantle of human rights, international law and even American legislative process by voicing their dissent and urging their colleagues to side with morality and legality, rather than denial and impunity.

Minnesota Congressman Keith Ellison led the opposition, stating that the resolution "should be opposed because it suppresses inquiry, inquiry that is the hallmark of democratic societies" (CR H12234 11/3/09) and asking, "Why are we going to pass a resolution without holding a single hearing? Why is the House voting for a resolution which condemns a report that few Members have fully read?" (CR H12235 11/3/09)

Rep. Barbara Lee (D-CA) addressed Palestinian rocket attack and the humanitarian crisis in Gaza, remarking, "The urgency and the gravity of these harsh realities on both sides require that Congress act always with an eye toward peace and reconciliation." She concluded that supporting H.Res.867 "doesn’t lead us to securing Israeli peace and security nor Palestinian peaceful coexistence and for their citizens a life of respect." (CR H12235 11/3/09)

Rep. Betty McCollum (D-MN) called the resolution "blatantly biased," stating that it "damages U.S. credibility" and "seeks to hide the ugliness of the Gaza war by covering up violent excesses committed against innocent civilians by both Hamas and the Israeli Defense Forces," including the use of "American-made white phosphorous shells" in civilian areas and the needless killing of "hundreds of Palestinian women and children and elders." McCollum also noted that the resolution calls for double standards when evaluating war crimes. "There must be only one standard for respecting human rights," she said. "A single standard by which we must hold ourselves and our friends and our adversaries accountable. Establishing situational standards for respecting human rights is dishonest and only encourages actions that destroy human dignity and life." (CR H12239 11/3/09)

Congressman Jim Moran (D-VA) called the resolution "a deliberate diversion" and challenged Congress "and the committees of jurisdiction to invest their time and resources into more constructive efforts that further the cause of peace." (CR H12236 11/3/09)

Rep. John Dingell (D-NY) rose to oppose the resolution by stating, simply, "This is a bad bill. It’s a bad resolution. It is unfair. It is unwise. It contributes nothing to peace. It establishes a bad precedent, and it sets up a set of circumstances where we indicate that we’re going to just arbitrarily reject a U.N. finding and a U.N. resolution and that we’re going to have that as a precedent. This is bad." Dingell spoke to the universality of international law:

"Neither Israel nor Hamas, nor any other country or other non-state political act is exempt from international human rights laws or free of consequence for violations of them. If nothing else, the Goldstone Report should serve as a document from which Israel and Hamas, and the rest of the international community can use to ensure that future human rights violations do not take place in civilian areas and that their militaries and fighters are actively working toward minimizing civilian casualties in the future." (CR H12237 11/3/09)

Two of the strongest opponents of the resolution were Brian Baird (D-WA) and Dennis Kucinich (D-OH). Baird, in a statement released the night before the vote, stated, "if our own country is truly to stand for human rights and the rule of law, and if facts matter, how can we do other than insist that legitimate questions and evidence are followed by further investigation and, if necessary and warranted, appropriate consequences?" The statement continued:

"H.Res. 867 is very serious business. If, as Goldstone asserts and the evidence I have seen supports, there were in fact gross violations of international law and human rights on all sides, we cannot in good conscience support H.Res. 867.

This is about much more than just another imposed political litmus test that we are all too often asked to perform. This is about whether we as individuals and this Congress as an institution find it acceptable to drop white phosphorous on civilian targets, to rocket civilian communities, to destroy hospitals and schools, to use civilians as human shields, to deliberately destroy non-military factories, industries and basic water, electrical and sanitation infrastructure. This is about whether it is acceptable to restrict the movement, opportunities and hopes of more than a million people every single day." 

On the floor of the House, Baird, who has visited Gaza and seen first-hand the affects of Israel's assault, made one last appeal to his colleagues. "Do not pass this resolution. Support this fine jurist," he said. "Give justice, true justice, a chance to be heard." (CR H12237 11/3/09)

Kucinich reprimanded fellow Congress members for their suppression of the truth in supporting H.Res.867, declaring, "Almost as serious as committing war crimes is covering up war crimes, pretending that war crimes were never committed and did not exist," continuing, "Behind every such deception is the nullification of humanity, the destruction of human dignity, the annihilation of the human spirit, the triumph of Orwellian thinking, the eternal prison of the dark heart of the totalitarian." The Ohio Representative stated that "if this Congress votes to condemn a report it has not read concerning events it has totally ignored about violations of law of which it is unaware, it will have brought shame to this great institution." He accused resolution supporters of "tacitly approv[ing] violations of international law and international human rights" and warned that "if we close our eyes to the heartbreak of people on both sides by white-washing a legitimate investigation?" (
CR H12237-8 11/3/09)

Nevertheless, despite the noble objections of these representatives and the call of numerous human rights organizations to oppose the bill and support the Goldstone Report's findings and recommendations, Congress voted overwhelmingly to pass H.Res.867, thereby white-washing war crimes in a successful bid to allow Israel to unconditionally slaughter Palestinians with impunity.

Brooklyn Representative Yvette Clarke was one of only 36 members who voted against the legislation. The day after the vote, a statement appeared on her website, explaining her position. "Consideration of this resolution completely circumvented the legislative process, preventing an accurate and thorough vetting of the findings of the Goldstone Report," she wrote. "This highly unusual legislative maneuver, which denied members a single subcommittee hearing, raises questions regarding the claims in this resolution." She also stated that the "language stating that it should be U.S. policy to 'oppose unequivocally any endorsement or further consideration…in multilateral fora' is excessively broad and inconsistent with our national commitment to human rights and the rule of law."

This national commitment to human rights and the rule of law was recently affirmed by Dr. Esther Brimmer, Assistant Secretary of the US Bureau of International Organization Affairs in her September 14, 2009 remarks to the High-Level Session of the Human Rights Council in Geneva, in which Brimmer declared that the United States was pleased to rejoin the community of nations on the United Nations Human Rights Council due to the Obama Administration's renewed efforts to advance "one of the most fundamental roles of the state: to protect and advance human rights." Brimmer continued,

"We can not pick and choose which of these rights we embrace nor select who among us are entitled to them. We are all endowed at birth with the right to live in dignity, to follow our consciences and speak our minds without fear, to choose those who govern us, to hold our leaders accountable, and to enjoy equal justice under the law. These rights extend to all, and the United States can not accept that any among us would be condemned to live without them."

During a press briefing two week later, Brimmer added that the United States "must do everything in our power to end the suffering of innocent Israeli and Palestinian civilians." Addressing the findings of the Goldstone Report, she said, "We encourage domestic investigations of credible allegations of violations of international human rights and humanitarian law."

The United States Congress, at the bidding of AIPAC and the Israeli government, did not heed this call, nor did they act as true representatives of their constituents. A Rasmussen poll from December 31, 2008, taken just days after Israel launched its devastating assault on Gaza when Israeli propaganda was at its height and revelations of war crimes were far from being exposed, found that Americans generally "are closely divided over whether the Jewish state should be taking military action against militants in the Gaza Strip." While the American public at large slightly favored Israeli aggression (44-41%, with 15% undecided), Democratic voters overwhelmingly opposed the Israeli offensive – by a 24-point margin (31-55%). Despite such a majority of Democratic disapproval of Israeli military action at the time, a staggering 70% of Democratic Representatives (179 out of 255) voted in favor of H.Res.867 on Tuesday.

On January 2, 2009, Salon.com commentator Glenn Greenwald posed the following query:

"Is there any other significant issue in American political life, besides Israel, where (a) citizens split almost evenly in their views, yet (b) the leaders of both parties adopt identical lockstep positions which leave half of the citizenry with no real voice? More notably still, is there any other position, besides Israel, where (a) a party's voters overwhelmingly embrace one position (Israel should not have attacked Gaza) but (b) that party's leadership unanimously embraces the exact opposite position (Israel was absolutely right to attack Gaza and the U.S. must support Israel unequivocally)? Does that happen with any other issue?"

The answer is a resounding no because the US Congress adheres to the strict doctrine of "Israel Über Alles" at all times, no matter what the facts are.

The late Edward Said wrote, "The paramount thing is that the struggle for equality in Palestine/Israel should be directed toward a humane goal, that is, co-existence, and not further suppression and denial."

The Goldstone Report came to the same conclusion, echoing the voices of those struggling for the universal values of human rights, social justice, legal equality, and basic morality, when it stated:

"The international community as well as Israel and, to the extent determined by their authority and means, Palestinian authorities, have the responsibility to protect victims of violations and ensure that they do not continue to suffer the scourge of war or the oppression and humiliations of occupation or indiscriminate rocket attacks. People of Palestine have the right to freely determine their own political and economic system, including the right to resist forcible deprivation of their right to self-determination and the right to live, in peace and freedom, in their own State. The people of Israel have the right to live in peace and security. Both peoples are entitled to justice in accordance with international law." (A/HRC/12/48, p. 404)

With the passing of H.Res.867, two days after what would have been Edward Said's 74th birthday, Congress made perfectly clear that it not only seeks to deny and suppress the truth, but is itself, in the words of its own resolution, "irredeemably biased and unworthy of further consideration or legitimacy."

Not only does the United States House of Representatives not accurately represent the views of the American people, let alone those of the rest of world, it is – unequivocally – no home to morality.

*****

Source: neverbeforecampaign

The Founding Fathers, and Mother, of Israel

By Earlaiman

Only by their actions have they spelled out more clearly their deliberate and premeditated intent, which provides more than adequate self-incrimination for condemnation and conviction as perpetrators of War Crimes, Genocide, and other Crimes Against Humanity.

When will enough be enough? When the last Palestinian is dead? When they go on, and go after the rest of the Arab Middle East? When they continue on, and come after you?

Hear it from their own mouths! See it on your own TV and read about it in your own press today… if you happen to live outside of the USA.

They have already bought, bribed or blackmailed, captured, or enslaved North American, the US and Canadian, Australian and New Zealand politics and public opinion. Do not wait for them to solidify their position of dominating influence in your countries in Europe, Africa, the Middle East, Asia, Central and South America.

Resist! Support the resistance in Palestine. Get the word out! The enemy is approaching your gates!

They are inside your gates!

Fight them today in Palestine and you will not have to fight them tomorrow in your own Congresses, Parliaments, Assemblies, on your streets and in your own homes.

And, you will not ever have to send your own children off to fight their wars, to kill and be killed by their chosen and designated "enemies"

Listen to the barking dogs! They bite!

David Ben Gurion
Prime Minister of Israel
1949 – 1954,
1955 – 1963

"We must expel Arabs and take their places."

– David Ben Gurion, 1937, Ben Gurion and the Palestine Arabs, Oxford University Press, 1985.

"We must use terror, assassination, intimidation, land confiscation, and the cutting of all social services to rid the Galilee of its Arab population."

– David Ben-Gurion, May 1948, to the General Staff. From Ben-Gurion, A Biography, by Michael Ben-Zohar, Delacorte, New York 1978.

"There has been Anti-Semitism, the Nazis, Hitler, Auschwitz, but was that their fault? They see but one thing: we have come and we have stolen their country. Why would they accept that?"

– Quoted by Nahum Goldmann in Le Paraddoxe Juif (The Jewish Paradox), pp. 121-122.

"Jewish villages were built in the place of Arab villages. You do not even know the names of these Arab villages, and I do not blame you because geography books no longer exist. Not only do the books not exist, the Arab villages are not there either. Nahlal arose in the place of Mahlul; Kibbutz Gvat in the place of Jibta; Kibbutz Sarid in the place of Huneifis; and Kefar Yehushua in the place of Tal al-Shuman. There is not a single place built in this country that did not have a former Arab population."

– David Ben Gurion, quoted in The Jewish Paradox, by Nahum Goldmann, Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1978, p. 99.

"Let us not ignore the truth among ourselves … politically we are the aggressors and they defend themselves… The country is theirs, because they inhabit it, whereas we want to come here and settle down, and in their view we want to take away from them their country."

–David Ben Gurion, quoted on pp 91-2 of Chomsky's Fateful Triangle, which appears in Simha Flapan's "Zionism and the Palestinians pp 141-2 citing a 1938 speech.

"If I knew that it was possible to save all the children of Germany by transporting them to England, and only half by transferring them to the Land of Israel, I would choose the latter, for before us lies not only the numbers of these children but the historical reckoning of the people of Israel."

– David Ben-Gurion 1938 (Quoted on pp 855-56 in Shabtai Teveth's Ben-Gurion in a slightly different translation).

"…we should remove all Arabs and take their place."

–David Ben-Gurion, First Israeli Prime Minister.

"If I were an Arab leader I would never make terms with zisrael … that is natural: we have taken their country."

–David Ben-Gurion, Father of Israel

"I don't see anything immoral in it."

–David Ben-Gurion, First Israeli Prime Minister

***

Golda Meir
Prime Minister of Israel
1969 – 1974

"There is no such thing as a Palestinian people… It is not as if we came and threw them out and took their country. They didn't exist."

– Golda Meir, statement to The Sunday Times, 15 June, 1969.

"How can we return the occupied territories? There is nobody to return them to."

– Golda Meir, March 8, 1969.

"Any one who speaks in favor of bringing the Arab refugees back must also say how he expects to take the responsibility for it, if he is interested in the state of Israel. It is better that things are stated clearly and plainly: We shall not let this happen."

– Golda Meir, 1961, in a speech to the Knesset, reported in Ner, October 1961

"This country exists as the fulfillment of a promise made by God Himself. It would be ridiculous to ask it to account for its legitimacy."

–Golda Meir, Le Monde, 15 October 1971

***

Yitzhak Rabin
Prime Minister of Israel
1974 – 1977,
1992 – 1995

"We walked outside, Ben-Gurion accompanying us. Allon repeated his question, What is to be done with the Palestinian population?' Ben-Gurion waved his hand in a gesture which said 'Drive them out!"

– Yitzhak Rabin, leaked censored version of Rabin memoirs, published in the New York Times, 23 October 1979.

"[Israel will] create in the course of the next 10 or 20 years conditions which would attract natural and voluntary migration of the refugees from the Gaza Strip and the west Bank to Jordan. To achieve this we have to come to agreement with King Hussein and not with Yasser Arafat."

–Yitzhak Rabin (a "Prince of Peace" by Clinton's standards), explaining his method of ethnically cleansing the occupied land without stirring a world outcry. (Quoted in David Shipler in the New York Times, 04/04/1983 citing Meir Cohen's remarks to the Knesset's foreign affairs and defense committee on March 16.)

***

Menachem Begin
Prime Minister of Israel
1977 – 1983

"[The Palestinians] are beasts walking on two legs."

– Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin, speech to the Knesset, quoted in Amnon Kapeliouk, "Begin and the 'Beasts,"' New Statesman, June 25, 1982.

"The Partition of Palestine is illegal. It will never be recognized …. Jerusalem was and will for ever be our capital. Eretz Israel will be restored to the people of Israel. All of it. And for Ever."

–Menachem Begin, the day after the U.N. vote to partition Palestine.

***

Yizhak Shamir
Prime Minister of Israel
1983 – 1984,
1986 – 1992

"The past leaders of our movement left us a clear message to keep Eretz Israel from the Sea to the River Jordan for future generations, for the mass aliya (=Jewish immigration), and for the Jewish people, all of whom will be gathered into this country."

– Former Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir declares at a Tel Aviv memorial service for former Likud leaders, November 1990. Jerusalem Domestic Radio Service.

"The settlement of the Land of Israel is the essence of Zionism. Without settlement, we will not fulfill Zionism. It's that simple."

– Yitzhak Shamir, Maariv, 02/21/1997.

"(The Palestinians) would be crushed like grasshoppers … heads smashed against the boulders and walls."

– Isreali Prime Minister (at the time) Yitzhak Shamir in a speech to Jewish settlers New York Times April 1, 1988

***

Benjamin Netanyahu
Prime Minister of Israel
1996 – 1999

"Israel should have exploited the repression of the demonstrations in China, when world attention focused on that country, to carry out mass expulsions among the Arabs of the territories."

–Benyamin Netanyahu, then Israeli Deputy Foreign Minister, former Prime Minister of Israel, speaking to students at Bar Ilan University, from the Israeli journal Hotam, November 24, 1989.

***

Ehud Barak
Prime Minister of Israel
1999 – 2001

"The Palestinians are like crocodiles, the more you give them meat, they want more"….

– Ehud Barak, Prime Minister of Israel at the time – August 28, 2000. Reported in the Jerusalem Post August 30, 2000

"If we thought that instead of 200 Palestinian fatalities, 2,000 dead would put an end to the fighting at a stroke, we would use much more force…."

– Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak, quoted in Associated Press, November 16, 2000.

"I would have joined a terrorist organization."

– Ehud Barak's response to Gideon Levy, a columnist for the Ha'aretz newspaper, when Barak was asked what he would have done if he had been born a Palestinian.

***

Ariel Sharon
Prime Minister of Israel
2001 – 2006

"It is the duty of Israeli leaders to explain to public opinion, clearly and courageously, a certain number of facts that are forgotten with time. The first of these is that there is no Zionism, colonialization, or Jewish State without the eviction of the Arabs and the expropriation of their lands."

– Ariel Sharon, Israeli Foreign Minister, addressing a meeting of militants from the extreme right-wing Tsomet Party, Agence France Presse, November 15, 1998.

"Everybody has to move, run and grab as many (Palestinian) hilltops as they can to enlarge the (Jewish) settlements because everything we take now will stay ours…Everything we don't grab will go to them."

– Ariel Sharon, Israeli Foreign Minister, addressing a meeting of the Tsomet Party, Agence France Presse, Nov. 15, 1998.

"Israel may have the right to put others on trial, but certainly no one has the right to put the Jewish people and the State of Israel on trial."

– Israeli Prime Minis ter Ariel Sharon, 25 March, 2001 quoted in BBC News Online

"No one has the right to put the State of Israel on trial."

–Arial Sharon, Former Israeli Prime Minister

"Everybody has to move, run and grab as many hilltops as they can to enlarge the settlements because everything we take now will stay ours."

–Ariel Sharon, former Israeli Prime Minister

***

"There is a country which happens to be called Palestine … a country without people."

–Chaim Weismann, Israel's first President

"We've come to conquer a country from people inhabiting it."

–Moshe Sharatt, Second Israeli Prime Minister

"…There is not a single place built in this country that did not have a former Arab population."

–Moshe Dayan, Former Israeli Defense/Foreign Minister

"There is no more Palestine. Finished…."

–Moshe Dayan, former Israeli Defense/foreign Minister

Sources:
Video : www.thedossier.ukonline.co.uk
Quotes: monabaker.com

Last week, Ashkenazi was quoted as saying that Israel was likely to wage another quasi holocaust on Gaza, adding that the Israeli occupation army would enter the innermost corners and streets of the coastal territory.

As a nefarious mass murderer, Ashkenazi, like the rest of Israeli war criminals, ought to be in the Hague preparing his defense against charges of war crimes and crimes against humanity. After all the crimes he perpetrated put him  on equal footing with Nazi war criminals who had stood trial  for their  own crimes against humanity during the Second World War.

However, because of the serious moral imbalance afflicting our world today, which finds a brazen expression in western complicity with Zio-Nazism,  Ashkenazi and ilk are not only free but are even  threatening their victims with a fresh holocaust.

In a certain sense, Ashkenazi’s arrogant behavior falls within the normal order of things. The totally inappropriate reaction by the international community to the Nazi-like blitz against the unprotected Gazans must have further emboldened Israeli leaders, convincing  them that Israel can always have a free season on the 1.5 million helpless, blockaded and thoroughly starved inhabitants of the coastal enclave without having to worry about any serious ramifications and repercussions.

Hence his repulsive statements.

It is true that many free-minded political and moral leaders, such as the Turkish Prime Minister Recep  Tayyip Erdogan, have strongly condemned Israeli barbarianism in Gaza.

It is also true that the Goldstone report, prepared by South African Judge Richard Goldstone, denounced Israel for perpetrating war crimes and crimes against humanity during the Gaza blitz, which is a positive development.

However, it is also true  that war criminals pay little attention to verbal condemnations even if coming from prominent international bodies and figures.

This is why Askenazi’s remarks ought to be taken with utmost seriousness for two main reasons:  First because the Israeli army, or Zionist Wehrmacht, is capable of committing the unthinkable, including the carpet bombing of civilian areas, using cluster bombs, as happened over Lebanon in the summer of 2006,  or white phosphorus as happened in Gaza last winter. And  second, because Israel is essentially a  rebellious state which  has never taken international law seriously. What is even more scandalous is that western countries, especially the United States, have always treated the Judeo-Nazi entity as above international law.

Hence, it is imperative that the Palestinian people play their cards very carefully and smartly. After all, when wrestling with a huge bull, one has to rely on his brain, not his muscles, otherwise one may end up getting crushed by the mighty beast.

Palestinians ought to be always mindful of this fact because their very survival as a people depends to a large extent on the good will of the international community, not their own military or political strength. After all, most Palestinians are effectively prisoners of the enduring Israeli military occupation.

Hence, the Palestinian must seek to recruit the best minds and most gifted spokespersons to raise the awareness of the peoples of the world about the creeping holocaust Israel is trying to wreak on our helpless people.

We must not flinch from invoking the holocaust lest we be accused of making hyperboles. Indeed, if even one tenth of what happened in Gaza earlier this year had happened to Israeli Jews, Israel would have invoked the holocaust  nonstop, and urgent calls from around the world would have been made for saving the Jews and preventing  the Arabs from completing what Adolph had started nearly seventy years ago.

More to the point, the idea of Israel carrying out a sort of a holocaust is not unthinkable at all.

Last year, the Israeli deputy defense minister Mattan Vilna’ai warned that Israel would launch a holocaust against the Palestinians if that was what the Palestinians wanted.  And during the blitzkrieg on Gaza, the psychotic Israeli foreign minister Avigdor Lieberman was quoted by the Israeli media as saying that a nuclear bomb ought to be dropped on Gaza.

Hence, Palestinian fears are not and shouldn’t be viewed as phobic and irrational. After all, we are dealing with an irrational state and a morbid society that are overwhelmed with a unique type of collective psychosis.

Never the less, raising our voices is not sufficient. We must also seek to enlist the attention and support of international human rights organizations as much as possible. These are credible witnesses whose testimonies might be proven crucial for safeguarding the rights of our people, the dead as well as the living.

We must also gather and  meticulously document every conceivable  piece of information pertaining to Zionist crimes and criminals, from the ordinary soldier in the field to the highest-ranking commander. This shouldn’t be a difficult job as there is already a huge amount of information pertaining to Israeli war criminals available, even through the internet.

Furthermore, Palestinians and their supporters should always confront states all over the world with information indicting Israeli military and political leaders. We should seek to narrow their horizons, make the capitals of the world off-limit to them, we should pursue them wherever they go. These people are war criminals and child killers must not be allowed to have any shred of  peace of mind . Their murderous crimes must condemn them to a life of existential anxiety, stress and depression.

Of course, the Zio-Nazis will not surrender and allow themselves to be easily defeated by our efforts. Moreover, manifestly immoral governments such as those of the US and Germany, to name just a few, will hasten to support Israel and shield it from any proactive measures that would make the Zionist regime feel  the heat and understand that the occupation has a cost that must be paid in full.

But we and our allies could counter this true axis of evil by building a worldwide front comprising millions of free and honest  men and women  who would chase the war criminals wherever they go and  expose their evil deeds.

Luckily, we already have such a movement in place. But we need to get more organized, and be more effective. These goals are not difficult to realize as the world is already fed up with Israel, a state that we must never stop comparing with Nazi Germany because in the final analysis when Zionist Jews think, behave and act like the Nazis of the past century, they become Nazis.

We must never be apologetic about this.

Top American intellectual sees no significant change of US foreign policy under Obama. 

As civilised people across the world breathed a sigh of relief to see the back of former US president George W. Bush, top American intellectual Noam Chomsky warned against assuming or expecting significant changes in the basis of Washington's foreign policy under President Barack Obama.

During two lectures organised by the School of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS) in London, Chomsky cited numerous examples of the driving doctrines behind US foreign policy since the end of World War II.

"As Obama came into office, Condoleezza Rice predicted that he would follow the policies of Bush's second term, and that is pretty much what happened, apart from a different rhetorical style," said Chomsky.

"But it is wise to attend to deeds, not rhetoric. Deeds commonly tell a different story," he added.

"There is basically no significant change in the fundamental traditional conception that we if can control Middle East energy resources, then we can control the world," explained Chomsky.

Chomsky said that a leading doctrine of US foreign policy during the period of its global dominance is what he termed as "the Mafia principle."

"The Godfather does not tolerate 'successful defiance'. It is too dangerous. It must therefore be stamped out so that others understand that disobedience is not an option," said Chomsky.

Because the US sees "successful defiance" of Washington as a "virus" that will "spread contagion," he explained. 

Iran

The US had feared this "virus" of independent thought from Washington by Tehran and therefore acted to overthrow the Iranian parliamentary democracy in 1953.

"The goal in 1953 was to retain control of Iranian resources," said Chomsky.

However, "in 1979 the (Iranian) virus emerged again. The US at first sought to sponsor a military coup; when that failed, it turned to support Saddam Hussein's merciless invasion (of Iran)."

"The torture of Iran continued without a break and still does, with sanctions and other means," said Chomsky.

"The US continued, without a break, its torture of Iranians," he stressed. 

Nuclear attack

Chomsky mocked the idea presented by mainstream media that a future-nuclear-armed Iran may attack already-nuclear-armed Israel.

"The chance of Iran launching a missile attack, nuclear or not, is about at the level of an asteroid hitting the earth — unless, of course, the ruling clerics have a fanatic death wish and want to see Iran instantly incinerated along with them," said Chomsky, stressing that this is not the case.

Chomsky further explained that the presence of US anti-missile weapons in Israel are really meant for preparing a possible attack on Iran, and not for self-defence, as it is often presented.

"The systems are advertised as defense against an Iranian attack. But …the purpose of the US interception systems, if they ever work, is to prevent any retaliation to a US or Israeli attack on Iran — that is, to eliminate any Iranian deterrent," said Chomsky.

Iraq

Chomsky reminded the audience of America's backing of former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein during and even after Iraq's war with Iran.

"The Reaganite love affair with Saddam did not end after the (Iran-Iraq) war. In 1989, Iraqi nuclear engineers were invited to the United States, then under Gorge Bush I, to receive advanced weapons' training," said Chomsky.

This support continued while Saddam was committing atrocities against his own people, until he fell out of US favour when in 1990 he invaded Kuwait, an even closer alley of Washington.

"In 1990, Saddam defied, or more likely misunderstood orders, and he quickly shifted from favourite friend to the reincarnation of Hitler," Chomsky added.

Then the people of Iraq were subjected to "genocidal" US-backed sanctions.

Chomsky explained that although the US-led invasion of Iraq in 2003, which was launched under many false pretexts and lies, was a " major crime", many critics of the invasion – including Obama – viewed it as merely as "a mistake" or a "strategic blunder".

"It's probably what the German general staff was telling Hitler after Stalingrad," he said

"There's nothing principled about it. It wasn't a strategic blunder: it was a major crime," he added.

Chomsky credited the holding of elections in Iraq in 2005 to popular Iraqi demand, despite initial US objection.

The US military, he argued, could kill as many Iraqi insurgents as it wished, but it was more difficult to shoot at non-violent protesters in the streets out on the open, which meant Washington at times had to give in to public Iraqi pressure.

But despite being pressured to announce a withdrawal from Iraq, the US continues to seek a long term presence in the country.

The US mega-embassy in Baghdad is to be expanded under Obama, noted Chomsky.

Optimism

Chomsky stressed that public pressure in the 'West' can make a positive difference for people suffering from the aggression of 'Western' governments.

"There is a lot of comparison between opposition to the Iraq war with opposition to the Vietnam war, but people tend to forget that at first there was almost no opposition to the Vietnam war," said Chomsky.

"In the Iraq war, there were massive international protests before it officially stated… and it had an effect. The United Sates could not use the tactics used in Vietnam: there was no saturation bombing by B52s, so there was no chemical warfare – (the Iraq war was) horrible enough, but it could have been a lot worse," he said.

"And furthermore, the Bush administration had to back down on its war aims, step by step," he added.

"It had to allow elections, which it did not want to do: mainly a victory for non-Iraqi protests. They could kill insurgents; they couldn't deal hundreds of thousands of people in the streets. Their hands were tied by the domestic constraints. They finally had to abandon – officially at least – virtually all the war aims," said Chomsky.

"As late as November 2007, the US was still insisting that the 'Status of Forces Agreement' allow for an indefinite US military presence and privileged access to Iraq's resources by US investors – well they didn't get that on paper at least. They had to back down. OK, Iraq is a horror story but it could have been a lot worse," he said.

"So yes, protests can do something. When there is no protest and no attention, a power just goes wild, just like in Cambodia and northern Laos," he added. 

Turkey

Chomsky said that Turkey could become a "significant independent actor" in the region, if it chooses to.

"Turkey has to make some internal decisions: is it going to face west and try to get accepted by the European Union or is it going to face reality and recognise that Europeans are so racist that they are never going to allow it in?," said Chomsky.

The Europeans "keep raising the barrier on Turkish entry to the EU," he explained.

But Chomsky said Turkey did become an independent actor in March 2003 when it followed its public opinion and did not take part in the US-led invasion of Iraq.

Turkey took notice of the wishes of the overwhelming majority of its population, which opposed the invasion.

But 'New Europe' was led by Berlusconi of Italy and Aznar of Spain, who rejected the views of their populations – which strongly objected to the Iraq war – and preferred to follow Bush, noted Chomsky.

So, in that sense Turkey was more democratic than states that took part in the war, which in turn infuriated the US.

Today, Chomsky added, Turkey is also acting independently by refusing to take part in the US-Israeli military exercises. 

Fear factor

Chomsky explained that although 'Western' government use "the maxim of Thucydides" ('the strong do as they wish, and the weak suffer as they must'), their peoples are hurled via the "fear factor".

Via cooperate media and complicit intellectuals, the public is led to believe that all the crimes and atrocities committed by their governments is either "self defence" or "humanitarian intervention". 

NATO

Chomsky noted that Obama has escalated Bush's war in Afghanistan, using NATO.

NATO is also seen as reinforcing US control over energy supplies.

But the US also used NATO to keep Europe under control.

"From the earliest post-World War days, it was understood that Western Europe might choose to follow an independent course," said Chomsky, "NATO was partially intended to counter this serious threat," he added. 

Middle East oil

Chomsky explained that Middle East oil reserves were understood to be "a stupendous source of strategic power" and "one of the greatest material prizes in world history," the most "strategically important area in the world," in Eisenhower's words.

Control of Middle East oil would provide the United States with "substantial control of the world."

This meant that the US "must support harsh and brutal regimes and block democracy and development" in the Middle East. 

Somalia

Chomsky tackled the origins of the Somali piracy issue.

"Piracy is not nice, but where did it come from?"

Chomsky explained that one of the immediate reasons for piracy is European counties and others are simply "destroying Somalia's territorial waters by dumping toxic waste – probably nuclear waste – and also by overfishing."

"What happens to the fishermen in Somalia? They become pirates. And then we're all upset about the piracy, not about having created the situation," said Chomsky.

Chomsky went on to cite another example of harming Somalia.

"One of the great achievements of the war on terror, which was greatly hailed in the press when it was announced, was closing down an Islamic charity – Barakat – which was identified as supporting terrorists.

"A couple of months later… the (US) government quietly recognised that they were wrong, and the press may have had a couple of lines about it – but meanwhile, it was a major blow against Somalia. Somalia doesn't have much of an economy but a lot of it was supported by this charity: not just giving money but running banks and businesses, and so on.

"It was a significant part of the economy of Somalia…closing it down… was another contributing factor to the breaking down of a very weak society…and there are other examples." 

Darfur

Chomsky also touched on Sudan's Darfur region.

"There are terrible things going on in Darfur, but in comparison with the region they don't amount to a lot unfortunately – like what's going on in eastern Congo is incomparably worse than in Darfur.

"But Darfur is a very popular topic for Western humanists because you can blame it on an enemy – you have to distort a lot but you can blame it on 'Arabs', 'bad guys'," he explained.

"What about saving eastern Congo where maybe 20 times as many people have been killed? Well, that gets kind of tricky … for people who… are using minerals from eastern Congo that obtained by multinationals sponsoring militias which slaughter and kill and get the minerals," he said.

Or the fact that Rwanda is simply the worst of the many agents and it is a US alley, he added. 

Goldstone's Gaza report

Chomsky appeared to have agreed with Israel that the Goldstone report on the Gaza war was bias, only he saw it as biased in favour of Israel.

The Goldstone report had acknowledged Israel's right to self-defence, although it denounced the method this was conducted.

Chomsky stressed that the right to self-defence does not mean resorting to military force before "exhausting peaceful means", something Israel did not even contemplate doing.

In fact, Chomsky points out, it was Israel who broke the ceasefire with Hamas and refused to extend it, as continuing the siege of Gaza itself is an act of war.

As for the current stalled Mideast peace process, Chomsky said that despite adopting a tougher tone towards Israel than that of Bush, Obama made no real effort to pressure Israel to live up to its obligations.

In the absence of the threat of cutting US aid for Israel, there is no compelling reason why Tel Aviv should listen to Washington. 

What can be done?

Chomsky stressed that despite all the obstacles, public pressure can and does make a difference for the better, urging people to continue activism and spreading knowledge. 

"There is no reason to be pessimistic, just realistic."

Chomsky noted that public opinion in the US and Britain is increasingly becoming more aware of the crimes committed by Israel.

"Public opinion is shifting substantially."

And this is where a difference can be made, because Israel will not change its policies without pressure from the 'West'.

"There is a lot to do in Western countries…primarily in the US."

Chomsky also stressed the importance of taking legal action in 'Western' countries against companies breaking international law via illegitimate dealings with Israel, citing the possible involvement of British Gas in Israeli theft of natural gas off the coast of Gaza, as one example that should be investigated.

In conclusion of one of the lectures, Chomsky quoted Antonio Gramsci who famously called for "pessimism of the intellect, optimism of the will." 

Mamoon Alabbasi can be reached via: alabbasi@middle-east-online.com .

“Right and wrong are the same in Palestine as anywhere else. What is peculiar about the Palestine conflict is that the world has listened to the party that has committed the offence and has turned a deaf ear to the victims."
–Famed British Historian Professor Arnold Toynbee

“In the name of justice there cannot be subjection and in the name of peace there cannot be impunity.
–President Alvaro Uribe Velez of Colombia

“Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented.”
– Elie Wiesel 

The Honorable Marit Arnstad, Chairman of the board

The Honorable Rector Torbjern Digernes

Norwegian University of Science and Technology

Trondheim, Norway 

Rarely in history do individuals, minority groups, or institutions have an opportunity to courageously adopt a principled unpopular stand that could be transformative in world affairs.   

For sometime during the genocide of Gaza it was two extraordinary Norwegian physicians and humanitarians who risked their lives to save the lives of Gazans.  

'This is what hell must look like'

Two Norwegian doctors witnessed first-hand the nightmare scenes inside Gaza
Guardian, January 16, 2009 

Norway has always been known for its worldwide humanitarian efforts and generous foreign aid.   It is no coincidence that Norway is always ranked first in the world by the United Nations. 

The Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU) has just such a historic opportunity tomorrow when it considers voting for an academic boycott of Israel, a nation that for too long has lived by violence, ethnic cleansing, military expansionism, illegal occupations, subjugation of millions of innocent Palestinians, defied all divine and international laws that respect and value human life, and that since its establishment has committed countless terrorist acts and war crimes, lately documented by the Goldstone Report, all with impunity, never accountable for its actions in courts of justice, the U.N., or to all of humanity.   The West, especially the U.S., has constantly protected Israel’s interests at the expense of its own interests.           

You may remember this headline in Aftenposten, 12/1/06: 

“USA threats after boycott support” 

“US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice threatened Norway with "serious political consequences" after Finance Minister and Socialist Left Party leader Kristin Halvorsen admitted to supporting a boycott of Israeli goods.” 

A quote by the Nobel Prize Winner Alexander Solzhenitsyn encompasses both Israel’s non-stop violence against innocent Palestinian, Lebanese, Syrian, Egyptian and Jordanian civilians and its brilliant intimidating propaganda that established the persecutor as the persecuted. 

“Violence can only be concealed by a lie, and the lie can only be maintained by violence. Any man who has once proclaimed violence as his method is inevitably forced to take the lie as his principle.” 

As a former academician I plead and urge you to take the only righteous stand possible against Israel and that is for your esteemed University to vote yes on an academic boycott of Israel.   Your courage will open the door for Universities and other institutions around the world to follow your example. 

In 1982 Sharon invaded Lebanon committing a widespread genocide that began in Southern Lebanon and ended in a three month devastating siege of Beirut, a city overwhelmed by hundreds of thousands of refugees from Southern Lebanon who fled the Israeli army’s advance.  This genocide resulted in the murder of 20,000 Lebanese and Palestinian civilians other than the cold blooded massacre of 1,700 Palestinians in the refugee camps of Sabra and Chatila.  Under Sharon’s protection, encouragement, and direction, the Christian Phalangists shed the blood of men, women, the elderly and children.  Sharon even provided powerful night lights for the murderers to commit their slaughter.  All the world could do is condemn the massacre without laying blame on Israel. 

From the air, sea and land Sharon unleashed his murderous campaign upon a crowded urban city bombing churches, mosques, hospitals, schools, orphanages, retirement homes, electrical and water plants, roads, bridges, the airport and sea port; not even ambulances and medics were spared.  

He would bomb bakeries where men, women and children stood in long lines for scarce bread.  

Planes would bomb an area and await the gathering of ambulances, medics and citizens to pull persons out of the wreckage only to bomb it again to inflict more casualties.  

Ambassador Phil Habib, Reagan’s personal envoy to stop the genocide in Beirut worked hard to reach a peace agreement between Sharon and Lebanon while promising the safety of the Palestinian civilians upon the departure of Yasser Arafat and the PLO from Lebanon.   However, he discovered that Israel could never be trusted to keep its word.   

In John Boykin’s book, “Cursed is the Peacemaker” (2002, Applegate Press) he quotes Ambassador Habib as saying.

“I had signed this paper which guaranteed that these people in west Beirut would not be harmed.  I got specific guarantees on this from Bashir (President of Lebanon) and from the Israelis–from Sharon'.  He said he 'had been given assurances… that no action would be taken against the Palestinians remaining in the camps…. On the basis of those assurances we (Americans) had given our word.  We had been deceived…. Sharon was a killer, obsessed by hatred of the Palestinians,' Habib said.  'I had given Arafat an undertaking that his people would not be harmed, but this was totally disregarded by Sharon whose word was worth nothing.'" 

As is customary with Israel and U.N. Resolutions, Israel defied and rejected over a dozen UN Security Council Resolutions asking Israel to at least allow humanitarian aid into Beirut. 

Israel’s intransigence to make peaceful concessions to the Palestinians that they too may enjoy the freedom, liberty and independence their occupiers enjoy makes us all complicit in this tragedy with our silence and inaction. 

“He who passively accepts evil is as much involved in it as he who helps to perpetrate it. He who accepts evil without protesting against it is really cooperating with it.”
–Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. 

It is shocking that the world accepts Israel’s genocides and threats against its neighbors as fait accompli without regard to the never ending suffering of Palestinians under its brutal military occupation.   Palestinians and Lebanese die, suffer and endure in silence in a world conditioned to accept Israel’s “right to self defense”, a euphemism for wanton murder.   They die in silence, absent from the western conscience due to the blanket support of most western media outlets, none more so than in America, the nation exporting democracy and freedom through smart bombs and biased politicians who if they dare to criticize Israel jeopardize their ambitions and become  the recipients of the worst media smears.   In the U.S. no debate or action is allowed against Israel either by our own “never challenge Israel” government or by our staunchly Pro-Israel media. 

The academicians and experts invited to your university to speak on this issue know first hand their personal victimization at the hands of Pro-Israel forces.    They have risked much for the truth and are honorable men and women. 

Please do the right thing and vote for an academic boycott of Israel, a nation that is neither civilized nor democratic, by setting an educational precedent for your university, faculty, alumni, but most importantly for your students, that standing up for principles is the foundation for all just laws and human rights for all peoples and not just the powerful few. 

Teach them to adopt “freedom from fear” as their guiding principle in life while facing all challenges, especially challenges that discriminate between the powerful and the weak, the haves and have nots, that no people should be victimized by the power of money and weapons. 

“"Freedom from fear" could be said to sum up the whole philosophy of human rights”
-The late Honorable Dag Hammarskjold 

“Giving Flight To Dreams”….Yes, we dare to dream, we dare to act.

SIGN THE PETITION:
http://www.petitiononline.com/boycott9/petition.html

This psychosocial support program was initiated by our partner Afaq Jadeeda (New Horizons) to address children's psychological needs after the New Year's assault on Gaza.   Let the Children Play and Heal is giving tens of thousands of children and youth opportunities to express themselves though art, dance, music, story-telling, theatre and puppetry; to get support from the larger community; and to have fun and just be children.

Additionally hundreds of mothers have also been trained to help their extended families cope with the aftermath of the attacks, and a psychologist identifies and refers children who need individual counseling. All programs are free, thanks to the support of MECA donors.

Dear Friend of the Children,

As you probably know, I spent five days in Gaza last January right after the devastating Israeli attacks. I was there helping MECA deliver the more than six tons of food, medicine, and medical equipment – including an ambulance and wheelchairs – that you helped provide.

I am so proud, as you should be, at the enormous difference we are making in the lives of thousands of children and their families.

Still, I must tell you that every single day I am haunted by images from that journey four months ago. The horrifying injuries I saw. The silence of suddenly orphaned children just staring into space or searching though the rubble of their destroyed homes looking for cherished belongings. I think of the schoolchildren sitting next to desks with candles marking the places where their friends sat just weeks or days before.

I think, also, about the many children I have heard or read about – as I'm sure you do -who have suffered almost unimaginable inhumanity. Like the small children found starving next to the bodies of their dead mothers while Israelis soldiers prevented rescue workers from reaching them.

Most of the children may heal from their physical injuries over time, but it is the invisible wounds – the deep psychological trauma they suffer from the brutal Israeli assault – that's of the gravest concern to me today.   

Every family in Gaza has witnessed or experienced the horror in some way. Children have seen their loved ones turned into shattered corpses, their homes turned to rubble. As a result, some have stopped speaking or eating. Children of all ages experience terrifying nightmares, bed-wetting, or are unable to sleep at all.

I hope you feel, as I do, that we must do whatever we can to address the profound psychological injury the children in Gaza bear in the aftermath of Israel's 22-day assault.

The best hope for helping the children overcome their trauma is to involve their families and community in their healing through multiple forms of therapy.

That's why I'm writing to you today to ask for your generous support once again..

New Horizons — Afaq Jadeeda in Arabic — is an extraordinary organization the Middle East Children's Alliance has worked with for many years. New Horizons provides a creative environment for developing the kids and teenagers personalities psychologically, culturally, technically and socially. They have developed outstanding programs to deal with aggression and despair – the two most common expressions of trauma among Gaza's children.

MECA has helped New Horizons start summer camps, sports teams, and after-school programs. This past January, while the war on the people of Gaza was still underway we were able to send in $30,000 for New Horizons to prepare and deliver hot meals to families whose homes were destroyed.

Our friends at New Horizons have sent us their plans to launch a major community mental health project they are calling Let the Children Play & Heal, with a goal of reaching at least 50,000 children. I'm asking you to, please, make a special gift today to enable them to to:

• Send teams of staff and volunteers to hundreds of schools and day care centers to work with children through painting, singing, drama, and dance. For more than a decade New Horizons has been using the arts to help children living with violence, loss and trauma
• Bring in psychologists to train the teams and to identify and refer children for counseling at community mental health clinics.
• Train approximately 500 mothers to work with their extended families on how to use play to help children express and resolve aggression, anxiety and grief. 
• And distribute 10,000 booklets to the community about coping with the psychological trauma of the war.

The project will cost $76,000, and they are counting on you and me and hundreds of other MECA supporters to make sure the children's psychological injuries do not become permanent – with disastrous consequences for the children, their families and Gaza's future.

New Horizons has given us a tremendous opportunity to help heal tens of thousands of children who might otherwise be facing a lifetime of profound anxiety, rage and an inability to cope with daily life. I hope you'll join me in telling New Horizons that, together, we will Let the Children Play & Heal.

I realize, especially in these difficult times, that your contribution may mean some personal sacrifice for you, and I am deeply grateful. I know – because I was told over and over again in Gaza – that your continued support means so much to people who are struggling to rebuild their lives after the most horrifying violence and destruction.

Many thanks on behalf of the children,

Barbara Lubin
Founder and Director

P.S. A recent UNICEF study concluded that that mental health, anxiety and stress are the main health problems in Gaza, essentially affecting the entire population. With your help now, the New Horizons community initiative will be able to make an enormous difference in the lives of so many children and families who may not have visible injuries, but are nonetheless in terrible pain. Please send your special contribution in the enclosed envelope to MECA within the next ten days. Thank you.

Make a secure online donation to this important program for children in Gaza.

http://www.mecaforpeace.org/article.php?id=492

Firstly, the delay of the Goldstone Report has led to a heated controversy in the Palestinian arena, since the two rivals, Fateh and Hamas, spared no effort to gain semi-victory of the elections by inciting their supporters on their own information: nothing has been achieved for both factions since they tried to put the cart before the horse and using the double-standard methods in maintaining factional interests.

This rigorous controversy is not as random as some of the people may say, but the burning desire to gain interests is what is at stake here – not one of the political parties has read the report carefully, but they tried to use the regional interest as a card to achieve their goals and objectives and to convince the people they are in favor or against the report for an implicit end.

The delay of the report has put even deeper roots in the political breakdown and made the reach for reconciliation closer to fantasy and craziness in the eyes of the Palestinian monitors and even for the people in the general public.

Secondly, the call for the presidential and parliamentary elections in both the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, issued by the President, Mahmoud Abbas on 23 October 2009, has led to an additional splintering of the already political and strategic divide among "the factions to reconcile", where the first agreement signed in Mecca had no tangible actions on the ground after 4 months of holding it, the impending signing of the Egyptian document was projected to carry the same dilemma due to the lack of looking up the hidden, creative ways of achieving the reconciliation.

The same strategic flaws of the "Mecca agreement" were scheduled to be repeat those of the "Egyptian document" for the following reasons: the control of the donors' countries on Palestinian decision-making; lack of confidence; the factions' fear of destroying the movements' image before their supporters; two different security and even theoretical visions of reaching reconciliation; and some partial reasons like: Hamas' fear of the shuttling visits of the Egyptian intelligence, Omar Solieman, to the USA in an unscheduled time—these factors led them to delay and then run away from the reconciliation consequences.

What comes first, the reconciliation or the elections?

Out of the accelerating events in the Palestinian community, no one can speculate on the status quo or the future, but the core result for all spoiling efforts of the two factions' dialogue will be the collapse of the Palestinian political system, deepening the geopolitical divide; enhancing the role of the police policy; delay of the reconstruction process until further notice, and giving more justifications to the international community that there is no hope in dealing with the Palestinian divided people and then returning to the first square.

Lastly, the need to reconcile is not so easy in the Palestinian community because the world has the ability to change, but the Palestinian has just been allowed to listen to the mastermind. The international community can help Palestinians reach the reconciliation via respecting their own think tanks’ recommendations, and then they will find the best upheaval change on the Palestinians, their neighbors and at the international levels. 

Ayman Nijim is a strategic researcher working in Pal Think for Strategic Studies, Gaza-based think tank.

You can contact him via: ayman_trans@hotmail.com

Ayman A. Nijim

Interpreter and strategic researcher

Email': Ayman_trans@hotmail.com , for Arab Journalists.

think_do.thank@hotmail.com , for Foreign Journalists.

ayman_trans@yahoo.com .  

Website: http://aymannijim.wordpress.com/

Yes, in this age and time, a country still remains oppressed by another, worse still, they are both African countries. Saharawi Arab Democratic Republic (the people are known as Saharawi) is a former colony of the Spanish protectorate which is rich in mineral resources like phosphate mineral rock, it also has some of the best fishing grounds in the world, and its off-shore oil resources are currently being explored.

When Spain pulled out of the colony in 1975, it didn’t finish the decolonisation process and Morocco as its neighbour quickly invaded and took over. Mauritania also seized part of the land but soon returned it to the Saharawi and made peace with the Polisario Front, the political movement that continued to fight against Morocco.

Africa’s Last Colony: Spain’s Error, Morocco’s Sin aptly describes the situation and dire circumstances under which the Saharawi live. Water poisoning, torture, forced disappearances and other inhumane situations are some of the conditions under which the Saharawi live.

The book relays the experience of the author, Ike Abonyi who visited the country; Saharawi Arab Democratic Republic. In his foreword, he laments that the story of the country as being an emotional one which has since been ignored by the rest of the world.
The book is divided into three parts with an easy to read and understandable style.  Its full title is apt; Africa’s Last Colony: Spain’s Error, Morocco’s Sin; An African Journalist’s Diary On Western Sahara.

The foreword was written by Prof. Nuhu Yaqub, the immediate past Vice Chancellor of the University of Abuja who described it as a timely addition to literature on Africa’s decolonization process. Yaqub also agrees that many Africans even enlightened ones are ignorant of a country called Saharawi Arab Democratic Republic, not to mention its struggle for independence from Morocco.

His foreword decries the hypocrisy of some of the Western countries who claim to uphold human rights; (France, Germany and Spain) for turning a blind eye to Morocco’s flagrant abuse of human rights. He adds that it is Nigeria’s duty to the African continent to assist Western Sahara secure its independence.

The first part of the book collates the history of Western Sahara, its history with Spain, Spain’s pullout, and Morocco/Mauritania invasion of the country. It also explains how Mauritania returned the land it had seized while Morocco stubbornly held on to its seized part.

Abonyi and other analysts blame Spain for not finishing the decolonisation process i.e., handing over to the Polisario Front, a political group which had been formed in 1973 to fight Spanish colonial rule.

Despite the 1975 ruling of the International Court of Justice that Western Sahara was a country on its own at the time of its colonisation by Spain, its sovereignty still belonged to its people, while Morocco refused to leave the occupied land and the war with the Polisario Front continued. In 1992, the United Nations brokered a cease-fire and passed referendum on self-determination of the Saharawi people but Morocco refused to allow it.

Over 150,000 Saharawi are internally displaced refugees living on a daily ration provided by the United Nations Food Programme while many are hounded into detention without trials or forced into exile.

In the second part, Abonyi narrates his personal experience on the trip to the country; how as a presidential guest, his bed was a six-inch mattress usually used in boarding schools in Nigeria. According to him, the camp has enjoyed some peace in the last 17 years, but most young Saharawi are disillusioned especially since Morocco simply exploits the resources of the country for itself alone, while ignoring the needs of the Saharawi.

The narration by Abonyi would elicit sympathy from every reader; he narrates how young Saharawi have lost their limbs, and in some cases their lives, with explosion of the mines, which Morocco has placed at the 2500km long wall erected on occupied Western Sahara.

He also narrates gory details of about 140 inmates of the Rehabilitation Centre for Victims of Mines and War located at the headquarters of administrative headquarters of the Saharawi camp.

The third part of Africa’s Last Colony is a collection of interviews with some dignitaries of Saharawi Government. In the interview, President Mohammed Abdulaziz praised Nigeria’s attitude towards other African nations, and its leadership role in the African continent. Other dignitaries who spoke to Abonyi include Mohamed Salem, the Commander of the Saharawi Military School, and Mohammed Yeslem Beisat, who is the Minister of African Affairs.

The author raises some very important questions; why did Spain not complete the decolonisation process by handing over to the Polisario Front? Why is the commonness of religion, language and geography not helping solve the problem between the two nations? Who manufactures and provides the weapons being used by the Moroccans to unleash terror on the Saharawi?  Which other countries are benefitting from Morocco’s exploitation of the Saharawi? What is the role of France, as the former colonial master of Morocco, in the whole situation?

Some other questions begging for answers are; why is the rest of the Arab world adopting an indifferent approach to the oppression of their ‘brothers’? How much pressure are the African Union and other regional organisations applying to Morocco especially as Western Sahara is also being recognised as a sovereign state.

Africa’s Last Colony brings to fore a true but pitiable situation that, while other people have moved on to battling internal problems such as ethnicity, nepotism and so on, an African nation is being deprived of self-rule by another African nation. The gruesomeness of the situation is that soldiers readily torture and kill, without a war situation in Saharawi, regardless of age or gender.

http://www.sunnewsonline.com/webpages/features/arts/2009/oct/27/arts-27-10-2009-002.html

The First Word War

AUTHOR:  Julio C. SÁNCHEZ

Translated by Christine Lewis Carroll and edited by Machetera

Piracy on the Somali coasts, armed violence in the East of the Democratic Republic of the Congo, the explosive situation in Darfur, and the harmful impact all these matters have on neighbouring countries fill the news headlines. But the media merely describe the phenomena without analysing the real causes.

One of the most misleading terms used by the media, and which can also be found in certain academic publications, is that of “armed conflict”. It is even alternated with the term “war”. However, when referring to conflicts in Sub-Saharan Africa, the media use adjectives such as “ethnic conflict”, “civil war”, etc. But where military operations take place in other places and the United States of America is an actor, such as Afghanistan or Iraq, the term “war” is used.

So where is the difference? Aside from the technological, military or legal aspects, the difference lies in the ideological assumptions which try to justify the presence of the Empire in Afghanistan and Iraq. By doing this, these media make legitimate the consequences of the aggressive speech delivered by the then president George W. Bush at the West Point Military Academy on September 20th 2001, later legislated as U.S.A. National Security Strategy in 2002, where it was clearly declared that the country had initiated a war. The evasion is, that beyond the fight against terrorism, the aggressions carried out by the United States hide its hegemonic interest in controlling the natural resources of a vast area including the whole African continent and part of Asia. Plus, there is the favourable geographical situation of the latter and the fact that the achievement of the Empire’s objectives will provide an advantage to the United States over its main allies and the countries considered by it to be competitors.

Defining the causes of the aggressions against Afghanistan and Iraq is not the object of this article, but rather the identification of common occurrences in the wars affecting Sub-Saharan Africa. We must insist that economic interest – the reason behind the invasion of these countries by the United States – is also at the heart of the conflicts which have been draining Somalia, Sudan and the Democratic Republic of the Congo for decades.

It is our opinion that the term “civil war” used by the media to describe the military operations developed in these three African countries should be reviewed because in all three cases, there is a significant presence of international actors, both as instigators as well as direct and/or indirect participants; these international actors even plan through these wars, to redistribute amongst themselves the areas containing important quantities of natural resources.

The presence of international actors, the flow of displaced people and refugees as a result of military proceedings, and the problems suffered by host countries or safer areas within the same country have obliged experts in International Humanitarian Law to redefine the concept of civil war. In reports carried out by the International Red Cross, when they analyse conflicts such as those affecting the afore-mentioned African countries, the term “internationalised armed conflict” is used.

In this line of analysis there is an article titled “Towards a unique definition of armed conflict in humanitarian international law: A criticism of internationalised armed conflicts” by James G. Stewart, qualified in humanitarian international law, lawyer and attorney of the Supreme Court of New Zealand . Whilst this author refers to the war in the Democratic Republic of the Congo as an internationalised armed conflict, the ex-Yugoslavia is most representative of this kind of conflict.

This line of analysis, i.e. studying internationalised armed conflicts in all their dimensions, can also be found in the work of Cuban experts, belonging to the Study Centre for Africa and the Middle East, concerning Sub-Saharan Africa. The results of their studies have been published in the magazine RAMO and the digital bulletin CEAMONITOR, and describe the concept they have elaborated of interconnected armed conflict with a view to understanding the complexity of the wars affecting the region.

This concept stems from a holistic approach to the causes of war and acknowledges that whilst the interference of external actors can be analysed as a catalyst to internal conflicts, for these to come about, they need the existence of a whole set of objective conditions ranging from the uneven distribution of power, economic interests associated with post-independence states and an uneven appropriation of natural resources. For this reason, in their conceptual assessments, the investigators of CEAMO shun the terms “coltan war” for the Democratic Republic of the Congo, or “diamond war” for Sierra Leone. They do, however, acknowledge the control of resources as one of the factors which have stimulated the destabilising presence of external actors.

At the present time, and bearing in mind the international interconnection of actors present in the conflicts of Somalia, the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Sudan, there is also an interconnection of international agendas to resolve them. However, these agendas do not address the essence of the problem, only its external manifestations; they simply advocate pacification, disarmament of the belligerent elements and their subsequent political normalisation. The real causes of these wars, which lie in the underdevelopment of large majorities, find no solution in these complicated post-conflict agendas, which do however contemplate the overpowering presence of foreign troops, which in lieu of reconstructing these war zones become a new destabilising factor.

The true solution to the current conflicts should be the end of inequality and the adoption of an international order where cooperation towards development prevails , rather than wars of conquest and militarization.

To see other entries of this First Word War please click here

Source: CEAMOnitor Vol. 6 Nº 6 - Breves comentarios sobre la denominación de “conflictos armados internacionalizados”

Original article published on 14 October 2009

About the author

Christine Lewis Carroll is a member of Rebelión. Machetera is a member  of Tlaxcala, the network of translators for linguistic diversity. This translation may be reprinted as long as the content remains unaltered, and the source, author, translator and editor are cited.

URL of this article on Tlaxcala: http://www.tlaxcala.es/pp.asp?reference=9112&lg=en

Der erste Wortkrieg

Kurze Anmerkungen zu den sogenannten „internationalisierten bewaffneten Konflikten“

AUTOR: Julio C. SÁNCHEZ

Übersetzt von  Isolda Bohler 

Die Piraterie an den somalischen Küsten, die bewaffnete Gewalt im Osten der Demokratischen Republik Kongo und die explosive Situation in Darfur und ihre schädlichen Auswirkungen auf die Nachbarländer füllen die Presseschlagzeilen. Aber diese Medien beschränken sich auf die Beschreibung des Phänomens, ohne ihre wahren Ursachen zu ergründen.

Einer der verlogensten Begriffe, wie sie von den Medien und in gewisser akademischer Literatur gebraucht werden, ist der des bewaffneten Konflikts. Er wird sogar auf gleiche Weise als Ersatz für den des Krieges benutzt. Dagegen haben die Medien für die Konflikte in Afrika südlich der Sahara Bezeichnungen geprägt, wie ethnischer Konflikt, Bürgerkrieg, etc. Aber für die Aktionen auf anderen Schauplätzen mit Militäroperationen wie Afghanistan und der Irak, wo es eine direkte US-Präsenz gibt, dort wird der Begriff  Krieg angewendet.

Worin liegt der Unterschied? Mehr als in Aspekten der technisch – militärischen oder juristischen Art, liegen diese Unterschiede, wenn man Phänomene ähnlicher Wesensart analysiert, in ideologischen Beweggründen, die die imperiale Präsenz der USA in Afghanistan und im Irak zu rechtfertigen versuchen. Durch sie legitimieren diese Medien die Handlungen, die als Konsequenz des aggressiven Diskurses ausgebrochen sind, der von dem damaligen Präsidenten George W. Bush an der Militärakademie von West Point am 20. Dezember 2001 gehalten und der danach in der Strategie für die Nationale Sicherheit der USA 2002 bestätigt wurde, in der man eindeutig erklärte, dass dieses Land einen Krieg initiiert hatte. Es wird, jenseits des Kampfes gegen den Terrorismus, beiseite geschoben, was hinter den US-Aggressionen steckt, nämlich das hegemonische Interesse für die Kontrolle der Bodenschätze in einer breiten Zone, die den gesamten afrikanischen Kontinent und Teile Asiens einschließt. Dazu muss ihre günstige geographische Lage hinzugezählt werden, und dass die erfolgreiche Umsetzung dieser imperialen Ziele der Kontrolle es den USA erlaubten, Vorteile gegenüber den wichtigsten Verbündeten und auch gegenüber jenen Ländern, die von der imperialen Agenda als Konkurrenten definiert worden sind, zu erlangen.

Obgleich es in dieser Arbeit nicht unser Ziel ist, die Ursachen, die zu den Aggressionen gegen Afghanistan und den Irak führten, zu definieren, sondern einige Regelmäßigkeiten im Verhalten der Kriege, die heute die Region Afrikas südlich der Sahara betreffen, zu definieren, müssen wir aber betonen, dass das ökonomische Interesse, das in letzter Instanz die US-Streitkräfte dazu führte, jene Länder zu überfallen, auch die Grundlage der Konflikte, die seit Jahrzehnten Somalia, den Sudan und die Demokratische Republik Kongo ausbluten lassen, bestimmt.

Wir meinen, dass der Begriff des Bürgerkriegs, mit dem die Medien die bewaffneten Handlungen, die sich in diesen drei afrikanischen Ländern abspielen, geprägt haben, revidiert werden sollte, denn in den drei Fällen gibt es eine wichtige Präsenz internationaler Akteure, sowohl als Anstifter von bewaffneten Aktionen, als auch als direkte und/oder verdeckte Teilnehmer und sie haben sogar Terminkalender projektiert, um Lösungen für die Kriege auszuloten, die in jedem einzelnen dieser Länder eine neue Verteilung jener Gebiete, wo es bewiesenermaßen wichtige Naturvorkommen gibt, mit sich bringen würde.

Die Präsenz internationaler Akteure, die Vertriebenen- und Flüchtlingsströme als Folge der bewaffneten Aktionen, sowie die Probleme der Aufnahmeländer von den Massen von Menschen, die gezwungen sind, ihr Land zu verlassen oder sich gezwungen sehen, sich in sichereren Gebieten ihres Landes niederzulassen, führte dazu, dass Experten des Internationale Humanitären Rechts das Konzept des Bürgerkrieges neu definierten. An seiner Stelle wird der Begriff des bewaffneten internationalisierten Konflikts in vielen vom Internationalen Komitee des Roten Kreuzes ausgearbeiteten Arbeiten gebraucht, wenn Konflikte wie die, die heutzutage die zuvor erwähnten afrikanischen Länder betreffen, analysiert werden. 

Auf diese Linie der Analyse stellt sich der Artikel „Für eine einzige Definition von bewaffnetem Konflikt im internationalen humanitären Recht: Eine Kritik an den internationalisierten bewaffneten Konflikten“, ausgearbeitet von James G. Stewart, diplomiert in Internationalem Humanitären Recht (CICR), sowie Anwalt und Prozessbevollmächtigter am Obersten Gericht Neuseelands (1). Es ist zu betonen, dass, obwohl der Autor einen Bezug auf den Krieg in der Demokratischen Republik Kongo macht und ihn als einen bewaffneten internationalisierten Konflikt definiert, er in seinen Äußerungen über diese Art von Konflikten, die meisten von ihm aufgezeigten Beispiele denen aus dem früheren Jugoslawien entsprechen.

Diese Linie der Analyse, die so benannten bewaffneten internationalisierten Konflikte in ihren Multidimensionen zu sehen, können wir auch bei kubanischen Akademikern finden, die sich dem Studium der Region südlich der Sahara in Afrika widmen. Die Mehrheit von ihnen befinden sich am Studien – Zentrum für Afrika und dem Mittleren Osten (Centro de Estudios de África y Medio Oriente, CEAMO). Als Ergebnis der veröffentlichten Arbeiten, sowohl in der Zeitschrift Afrika und Mittlerer Osten (Revista África y Medio Oriente, RAMO) als auch im Digitalbulletin CEAMOnitor, arbeitete diese kubanische Einrichtung das Konzept des bewaffneten, miteinander verbundenen Konflikts aus, um die Komplexität der Kriege, die die Region betreffen, zu verstehen.

Das Konzept geht von einem ganzheitlichen Ansatz an die Ursachen der Kriege aus und erkennt, dass, obgleich die Einmischung externer Akteure als Katalysatoren von internen Konflikten analysiert werden können, sie zu ihrer Entfesselung die Existenz einer Ansammlung von objektiven Bedingungen brauchen, die die ungleiche Verteilung von politischer Macht, die mit den Staaten der Nach – Unabhängigkeit verbundenen ökonomischen Interessen und das Vorhandensein einer ungleichen Aneignung der Bodenschätze umfassen. Deswegen lehnen die Forscher vom CEAMO in ihren konzeptuellen Bewertungen die Bezeichnungen von Krieg des Koltans im Fall der Demokratischen Republik Kongo, oder Diamantenkrieg, wie der beendete Krieg in Sierra Leone bezeichnet wurde, ab. Trotzdem erkennen sie die Kontrolle über die Bodenschätze als einen der Faktoren an, welche die destabilisierende  Präsenz von externen Akteuren stimulierten.

Aktuell und in Entsprechung mit dem internationalen Verbund von anwesenden Akteuren in den Konflikten von Somalia, der Demokratischen Republik Kongo und dem Sudan finden wir uns auch in Gegenwart von einem Verbund von internationalen Terminkalendern zu ihrer Lösung. Aber die Selben greifen nicht das Wesen des Problems an, sondern nur ihre externen Bekundungen, nur sie werden verfochten: die Befriedung, die Entwaffnung der Kriegführenden und die nachfolgende Eingliederung ins politische Leben. Aber für die realen Ursachen dieser Kriege, die in der Unterentwicklung, in der die große Mehrheit lebt, liegen, haben diese komplizierten Terminpläne für die Zeit nach dem Konflikt keine Lösung, zumal die in jedem der Fälle eine erdrückende Anwesenheit von internationalen Truppen implizieren, die, anstatt in jenen Kriegsschauplätzen aufzubauen, sich in einen neuen destabilisierenden Faktor verwandeln.

Die wahre Lösung der aktuellen Konflikte müsste als leitende Achse eine Strategie haben, die auf den Weg führt, der den Ungleichheiten ein Ende macht und auch zur Annahme einer internationalen Ordnung führt, in der die Kooperation zur Entwicklung vorherrscht, anstatt der Eroberungskriege und der Militarisierung.

Verweise:

(1)            Stuart, James G.: „In Richtung auf eine einzige Definition von bewaffneten Konflikten im Internationalen Humanitären Recht: Eine Kritik an den bewaffneten internationalisierten Konflikten“, Zeitschrift des Internationalen Roten Kreuzes, 30.6.03

Um weitere Beiträge zum Ersten Wortkrieg zu lesen, bitte hier klicken

Über den Autor

Isolda Bohler ist ein Mitglied von Tlaxcala

URL dieses Artikels auf Tlaxcala: http://www.tlaxcala.es/pp.asp?reference=8987&lg=de

La Primera guerra mundial de las palabras

Breves comentarios sobre la denominación de “conflictos armados internacionalizados”

AUTOR: Julio C. SÁNCHEZ 

La piratería en las costas somalíes, la violencia armada en el este de la República Democrática del Congo y la explosiva situación en Darfur, y su nocivo impacto en los países vecinos ocupan importantes titulares. Pero, esos medios se limitan a describir el fenómeno sin desentrañar sus verdaderas causas.

Uno de los términos más engañosos usados por los medios y por cierta literatura académica, es el de conflicto armado. Incluso se usa de manera indistinta en sustitución del de guerra. Sin embargo, para los conflictos en África subsahariana los medios han acuñado calificativos como conflicto étnico, guerra civil, etc. Pero, para las acciones en otros teatros de operaciones militares, como Afganistán e Iraq, donde existe una presencia directa de Estados Unidos sí se emplea el término de guerra.

¿Dónde radica la diferencia? Más que en aspectos de tipo técnico-militar o jurídico, esas diferencias al analizar fenómenos con esencias similares, descansan en presupuestos ideológicos que tratan de justificar la presencia imperial de Estados Unidos en Afganistán e Iraq. Con ello esos medios legitiman las acciones desencadenadas como consecuencia del agresivo discurso pronunciado por el entonces presidente George W. Bush en la Academia Militar de West Point el 20 de septiembre del 2001 y que fue posteriormente refrendado en la Estrategia de Seguridad Nacional de Estados Unidos de 2002, donde claramente se declaraba que ese país había iniciado una guerra. Se soslaya que más allá de la lucha contra el terrorismo, lo que esconden las agresiones estadounidenses es el interés hegemónico por el control de los recursos naturales en una amplia zona que incluye el total del continente africano y parte de Asia. A eso habría que sumar su favorable ubicación geográfica, y cómo el logro de esos objetivos imperiales de control permitirá a Estados Unidos adquirir ventajas sobre sus principales aliados, y también sobre aquellos países que la agenda imperial ha definido como competidores.

Aunque definir las causas que originaron las agresiones a Afganistán e Iraq, no es nuestro objetivo en este trabajo sino definir algunas regularidades en el comportamiento de las guerras que hoy están afectando a la región de África subsahariana. Pero, debemos destacar que el interés económico, que en última instancia condujo a las Fuerzas Armadas estadounidenses a invadir aquellos países, también constituye la base de los conflictos que desde décadas desangran a Somalia, Sudán y la República Democrática del Congo.

Consideramos que el término de guerra civil, con el que se ha acuñado por los medios a las acciones armadas que se desarrollan en esos tres países africanos, debe ser revisado porque en los tres casos existe una importante presencia de actores internacionales, tanto como instigadores de las acciones armadas, como en participantes directos y/o encubiertos, e incluso tienen proyectadas agendas para intentar soluciones a las guerras que conllevarían en cada uno de esos países a un nuevo reparto de aquellas zonas donde se ha probado la existencia de importantes recursos naturales.

La presencia de actores internacionales, el flujo de desplazados y refugiados como consecuencia de las acciones armadas, así como los problemas de los países receptores de las masas de personas obligadas a abandonar su país de origen, o que se ven obligados a reasentarse en áreas más seguras de su país, ha conducido a que expertos en Derecho Internacional Humanitario hayan redefinido el concepto de guerra civil. En su lugar, muchos trabajos elaborados por el Comité Internacional de la Cruz Roja, cuando analizan conflictos como los que afectan actualmente a los países africanos mencionados antes, se usa el término de conflicto armado internacionalizado.

En esa línea de análisis se ubica el artículo “Hacia una definición única de conflicto armado en el derecho internacional humanitario: Una crítica de los conflictos armados internacionalizados”, elaborado por James G. Stewart, diplomado en Derecho Internacional Humanitario (CICR), así como abogado y procurador del Tribunal Supremo de Nueva Zelandia.(1) Debe destacarse que si bien ese autor hace referencia a la guerra en la República Democrática del Congo, y la define como un conflicto armado internacionalizado, en su abordaje de las manifestaciones de ese tipo de conflicto, los mayores ejemplos que señala, se corresponden con la ex Yugoslavia.

Esta línea de análisis de ver los denominados conflictos armados internacionalizados en su multimensionalidad, también podemos encontrarla en académicos cubanos dedicados al estudio de la región de África subsahariana. La mayoría de ellos radican en el Centro de Estudios de África y Medio Oriente. Como resultado de los trabajos publicados tanto en la Revista África y Medio Oriente (RAMO) como en el boletín digital CEAMOnitor, esa institución cubana ha elaborado el concepto de conflicto armado interconectado para poder comprender la complejidad de las guerras que afectan a la región.

El concepto parte de un abordaje holístico de las causas de de las guerras y reconoce que si bien las injerencia de actores externos pueden ser analizadas como catalizadores de conflictos internos, para que estos se desencadenen necesitan la existencia de un conjunto de condiciones objetivas que abarcan la desigual distribución del poder político, los intereses económicos asociados a los Estados de la post-independencia y la existencia de una desigual apropiación de los recursos naturales. Por ello, los investigadores del CEAMO en sus valoraciones conceptuales rehúyen los calificativos de guerra del coltán en el caso de la República Democrática del Congo, o de guerra de los diamantes como era calificada la finalizada guerra en Sierra Leona. No obstante, reconocen que el control de los recursos como uno de los factores que han estimulado la presencia desestabilizadora de los actores externos.

En la actualidad, y en correspondencia con la interconexión internacional de actores presentes en los conflictos de Somalia, República Democrática del Congo y Sudán, también estamos en presencia de una interconexión de agendas internacionales para solucionarlos. Sin embargo, las mismas no atacan la esencia del problema, sino solo sus manifestaciones externas, por ello únicamente se propugna: la pacificación, el desarme de los beligerantes y la posterior incorporación a la vida política. Pero las causas reales de esas guerras, que descansan en el subdesarrollo en que viven las grandes mayorías no tienen solución en esas complicadas agendas post-conflicto, las cuales en cada uno de los casos implican una abrumadora presencia de tropas internacionales, las que en lugar de construir en aquellos escenarios bélicos se convierten en un nuevo factor desestabilizador.

La verdadera solución de los actuales conflictos tendría que tener como eje conductor a una estrategia encaminada a poner fin a las desigualdades y también a la adopción de un orden internacional donde predomine la cooperación para el desarrollo, en lugar de las guerras de conquista y la militarización.

Referencias:

(1) Stuart, James G.: “Hacia una definición única de conflicto armado en el derecho internacional humanitario: Una crítica de los conflictos armados internacionalizados”, Revista Internacional de la Cruz Roja, 30-06-03.
 

Para leer otras entradas de esta Primera guerra mundial de las palabras, pinche aquí

Fuente: CEAMOnitor Vol. 6 N.º 6 

Artículo original publicado en junio de 2009

Sobre el autor

Tlaxcala es la red de traductores por la diversidad lingüística. Este artículo se puede reproducir libremente a condición de respetar su integridad y mencionar al autor y la fuente.

URL de este artículo en Tlaxcala: http://www.tlaxcala.es/pp.asp?reference=8986&lg=es

Israeli officials are right to worry. Gazans too. Yet Americans should worry even more.

Israel's "legitimacy" will not last. Of course, that assumes its legitimacy was deserved. That issue also is now called into question in light of the consistency of Israeli behavior over the past six decades. The emerging issues are these:

When and how will the recognition of Israel's nation-state status be withdrawn? How will Tel Aviv behave in the interim?

Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman may have tipped his Masada hand when he reportedly told Turkish Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan that Israel may use nuclear weapons against Gaza. The threat to Israel is not the 1.5 million Gazans who reside in the world's largest open-air prison.

The threat is the fast-growing global outrage at the abuse inflicted on Palestinians, commencing with the ethnic cleansing of 400-plus villages six decades ago.

Not since 1948 has this enclave of extremists mounted such a public relations offensive. Christian Zionist President Harry Truman trusted Jewish Zionist lobbyists when he solicited assurances that they would not become what they immediately became: a racist theocratic state with an expansionist agenda destined to create serial crises in the region.

The merciless global agenda pursued by Colonial Zionists is the single greatest threat to world peace, as confirmed yet again by Lieberman's warning. As the primary remaining ally of these Jewish nationalists, the risks to the U.S. increase with each passing day as Tel Aviv works behind the scenes to catalyze yet another conflict.

This entangled alliance was destined to provoke resentments that would eventually endanger their super power ally and foremost arms provider. Khaled Sheikh Mohammed, the confessed mastermind of the mass murder of 9-11, conceded that the motivation for that attack was to focus "the American people…on the atrocities that America is committing by supporting Israel against the Palestinian people and America's self-serving foreign policy that corrupts Arab governments and leads to further exploitation of the Arab Muslim people."

The Joint Chiefs of Staff warned Truman 61 years ago that this militant enclave meant to establish Jewish military and economic hegemony over the entire Middle East. Familiar with the duplicity for which Israel has since become infamous, the Pentagon chiefs warned: "All stages of this program are equally sacred to the fanatical concepts of the Jewish leaders."

Nuclear-Armed Fanatics

With each passing year, Tel Aviv adds a new chapter to the agent provocateur handbook on How To Succeed as a Victim.

Israel's strategic success traces directly to its capacity to radicalize and enrage-as those residing in the Occupied Territories endure a third generation of deprivation, degradation and periodic starvation. Thus the in-depth planning that preceded Israel's brutal "defensive" assault on Gaza between Christmas 2008 and the inauguration of Barack Obama-who said nothing about the attack throughout its 28-day duration.

That silence continues even now after Richard Goldstone, a South African jurist, issued a report describing dozens of Israeli war crimes and evidence of crimes against humanity. In the lead-up to the report's release, a U.S. president gave Tel Aviv a rhetorical gift when, in a U.N. speech, the nation's first Black president used the code phrase "Jewish state" as an implied endorsement of the apartheid policies of this racist enclave. Even Truman did not go that far. But then his administration was not as thoroughly staffed with Zionists and pro-Israelis.

In addition to killing some 1400 Palestinians, one-third of them women and children, Israel destroyed the infrastructure of Gaza including farmlands, factories and schools as well as its water supply and sanitation works. The facts in the Goldstone Report were further confirmed by "Breaking the Silence"-the personal testimony by thirty members of the Israel Defense Forces who described a murderous policy meant to teach the people of Gaza a lesson for their support of Hamas-which came to power in 2006 elections that were universally appraised as free and fair.

As Israel's protector and apologist, the U.S. bears the brunt of the anger as Israeli extremism continues to enrage Muslims and radicalize the Islamic body politic. A systematic assassination campaign ensured that Tel Aviv had "no one to talk to" except known collaborators with the occupation authorities in Tel Aviv and their arms suppliers in Washington. Meanwhile, the steady expansion of Israeli settlements made a Palestinian state impossible-unless indigenous Arabs are happy to reside in an archipelago of isolated ghettos ringed by Israeli checkpoints.

To suggest that the U.S. is culpable only states the obvious. Yet Israeli extremism continues unabated even as Tel Aviv insists that its neighbors accept it as a "Jewish state" even before its borders are fixed and resolution of the occupied territories is known. After six decades of nonstop deceit, Arab states are understandably reluctant to further appease this "state." For Americans endangered by the behavior of Jewish fanatics, the lesson is uncomfortable but inescapable: we enabled this.

By our continued appeasement, Barack Obama is inviting another violent reaction to Israel's serial provocations. By failing to endorse the Goldstone Report, our commander-in-chief is putting U.S. forces at risk. By implying that Israel is above the law, he only emboldens Tel Aviv. By suggesting that Israeli conduct is consistent with the values of a "Jewish state," he endangers the broader Jewish community. That includes those moderate Jews who anticipated this extremist behavior when in May 1948 Truman overruled the strategic objections of Secretary of State George C. Marshall and enabled this fanaticism by extending nation-state recognition.

Small in numbers but large in ambition, this extremist enclave had no choice but to wage war by way of deception. The most insidious deceit was targeted, from within, at its purported ally to induce the U.S. military to lead an invasion of Iraq for its Greater Israel strategy. Absent an Israeli strategy able to sustain serial crises, a long-deceived public will awaken to the common source of the fixed intelligence that led us into the last war-and now seeks to induce the next.

As Americans awaken to how this duplicity proceeds in plain sight, they will see for themselves who and why. That knowledge is the threat that Tel Aviv most fears. As the facts become known, Israeli legitimacy will no longer be an issue. The only issue will be how best to dis-arm these extremists and how to hold accountable those lawmakers who enable this ongoing treason.

* Jeff Gates is a widely acclaimed author, attorney, investment banker, educator and consultant to government, corporate and union leaders worldwide; an adviser to policy-makers worldwide; former counsel to the U.S. Senate Finance Committee; and author of numerous articles and books including his latest book Guilt by Association: How Deception and Self-Deceit Took America to War, Democracy at Risk and The Ownership Solution. See www.criminalstate.com

Gaza City – Song by Johnny Punish:

Video link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DVcHmdx7pkE

“Part of the functions of reports such as this is to attempt, albeit in a very small way, to restore the dignity of those whose rights have been violated in the most fundamental way of all –the arbitrary deprivation of life. It is important that the international community asserts formally and unequivocally that such violence to the most basic fundamental rights and freedoms of individuals should not be overlooked and should be condemned.”

–The Goldstone Report, p 524 ¶ 1682 

The tragic tale of the Samouni family of Gaza has become well known. “We feel [we are] in an exile, even though we are in our homeland, on our land,” says Salah Samouni in a recent Haaretz article. “We sit and envy the dead. They are the ones who are at rest.”  The interesting part, though, is not the renewed images of the dead.  The interesting part is the backdrop of suggestion: the Samouni family felt that their longstanding, amicable relationship with the Israeli powers would protect them; they were naively mistaken.  They were to be victims to the Dahiya Doctrine. 

The Haaretz report states that Salah’s father, Talal, ‘had been employed by Jews’ for nearly 40 years and that whenever he was sick, ‘the employer would call, ask after his health, and forbid him to come to work before he had recovered.’”  They had managed to get along. 

Haaretz notes that the “Samounis were always confident that, in the event of any military invasions into Gaza, they could always manage to get along with the Israeli army. Until 2005, before Israel's disengagement from the Strip, the Jewish settlement of Netzarim was located right next door, and several family members worked there from time to time. When the joint Israeli-Palestinian patrols were active, Israeli soldiers and Palestinian security officials sometimes asked the Samounis to ‘lend’ them a tractor to flatten a patch of land or repair the Salah al-Din Road (for example, when a diplomatic convoy needed to pass through). 

While Samouni family members worked on their tractors, gathering sand, the soldiers would watch them. ‘When the soldiers wanted us to leave, they would fire above our heads. That's what experience taught me,’ recalls Salah Samouni. . . . The older men of the family. . . worked in Israel until the 1990s in different localities, including Bat Yam, Moshav Asseret (near Gedera) and the ‘Glicksman Plant.’ They all believed that the Hebrew they had learned would assist and if necessary save them during encounters with soldiers.” 

Even up until the mass killing, the Samouni family still clung naively to the notion that their working relationship with the IDF would protect them.  Haaretz reports that “on January 4, under orders from the army, Salah Samouni and the rest of the family left their home, which had been turned into a military position, and moved to the other, the home of Wael [Samouni], located on the southern side of the street. The fact that it was the soldiers who had relocated them, had seen the faces of the children and the older women, and the fact that the soldiers were positioned in locations surrounding the house just tens of meters away, instilled in the family a certain amount of confidence – despite the IDF fire from the air, from the sea and from the land, despite the hunger and the thirst.”  

And then the IDF shelled that home, killing 21 of the Samouni family.  Their usefulness had expired.  

The Samouni’s had not thrown stones at Israeli tanks and had not waved angry fists at Israeli soldiers.  Instead, they had worked dutifully for the Jewish population and had learned its language.  But they were not spared.  They were not spared because they had not themselves been Jewish.  They were not spared because “peaceful co-existence” is merely a phrase bandied about by politicians seeking camouflage.  

On 18 January 2009, reports Haaretz, “after the IDF left the Gaza Strip, the rescue teams returned to the neighborhood. Wael's house was found in ruins: IDF bulldozers had demolished it entirely – with the corpses inside.”  Evidence destroyed.  When Haaretz questioned Israeli military about the behaviour of the military forces in the Samouni family's neighbourhood, an IDF spokesman said that all of the claims had been examined, and that ‘Upon completion of the examination, the findings will be taken to the military advocate general, who will decide about the need to take additional steps.’”  Whether the Haaretz article intended genuine concern or a subtle sneer, it works both ways. 

The Goldstone Mission, however, was not convinced of the usefulness of Israeli self-investigation.  Paragraph 1629 of the Goldstone Report notes that the “Mission concludes that there are serious doubts about the willingness of Israel to carry out genuine investigations in an impartial, independent, prompt and effective way as required by international law.”  This long-term unwillingness to abide by international law is so thoroughly documented in the Report that the UN Human Rights Council on 16 October 2009 not only expressed “serious concern at the lack of implementation by the occupying Power, Israel, of previously adopted resolutions and recommendations of the Council relating to the human rights situation in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem,” but also condemned the “non-cooperation by the occupying power, Israel, with the independent international fact-finding [Goldstone] mission.”   

The common denominator of the Haaretz article and the Goldstone Report and the UN Human Rights Council Report is the challenge to the Israeli military concept known as the “Dahiya doctrine.”  The Goldstone Report states that “The Israeli military conception of what was necessary in a future war with Hamas seems to have been developed from at least the time of the 2006 conflict in southern Lebanon. It finds its origin in a military doctrine that views disproportionate destruction and creating maximum disruption in the lives of many people as a legitimate means to achieve military and political goals.” (¶1209) 

In supporting the Goldstone Report, the UN Human Rights Council has acknowledged the premise that the responsibility for the most recent Lebanon and Gaza wars lies squarely with one unique factor: Israeli political goals.  The UN-welcomed Report notes historical context by underscoring that the “specific means Israel has adopted to meet its military objectives in the Occupied Palestinian Territory and in Lebanon have repeatedly been censured by the United Nations Security Council, especially its attacks on houses.  The military operations from 27 December to 18 January did not occur in a vacuum, either in terms of proximate causes in relation to the Hamas/Israeli dynamics or in relation to the development of Israeli military thinking about how best to describe the nature of its military objectives.” (¶1189) 

The Goldstone Report, while situated within the Gaza conflict of 2008, found itself striking at the root of that conflict, a root that stretches back at least two years prior: 

“In its operations in southern Lebanon in 2006, there emerged from Israeli military thinking a concept known as the Dahiya doctrine, as a result of the approach taken to the Beirut neighbourhood of that name.  Major General Gadi Eisenkot, the Israeli Northern Command chief, expressed the premise of the doctrine: ‘What happened in the Dahiya quarter of Beirut in 2006 will happen in every village from which Israel is fired on. […] We will apply disproportionate force on it and cause great damage and destruction there. From our standpoint, these are not civilian villages, they are military bases. […] This is not a recommendation. This is a plan. And it has been approved.’ 

After the war in southern Lebanon in 2006, a number of senior former military figures appeared to develop the thinking that underlay the strategy set out by Gen. Eiskenot. In particular Major General (Ret.) Giora Eiland has argued that, in the event of another war with Hizbullah, the target must not be the defeat of Hizbullah but ‘the elimination of the Lebanese military, the destruction of the national infrastructure and intense suffering among the population… Serious damage to the Republic of Lebanon, the destruction of homes and infrastructure, and the suffering of hundreds of thousands of people are consequences that can influence Hizbollah’s behaviour more than anything else’.” (¶1191—1192) 

The Report again points to the similarity of goals and strategies of Israeli policies in both Lebanon and Gaza and quotes at length the October 2008 reflections of Col. (Ret.) Gabriel Siboni:

“With an outbreak of hostilities, the IDF will need to act immediately, decisively, and with force that is disproportionate to the enemy's actions and the threat it poses. Such a response aims at inflicting damage and meting out punishment to an extent that will demand long and expensive reconstruction processes. The strike must be carried out as quickly as possible, and must prioritize damaging assets over seeking out each and every launcher. Punishment must be aimed at decision makers and the power elite… In Lebanon, attacks should both aim at Hizbollah’s military capabilities and should target economic interests and the centres of civilian power that support the organization. Moreover, the closer the relationship between Hezbollah and the Lebanese Government, the more the elements of the Lebanese State infrastructure should be targeted. Such a response will create a lasting memory among … Lebanese decision makers, thereby increasing Israeli deterrence and reducing the likelihood of hostilities against Israel for an extended period. At the same time, it will force Syria, Hizbollah, and Lebanon to commit to lengthy and resource-intensive reconstruction programmes… This approach is applicable to the Gaza Strip as well. There, the IDF will be required to strike hard at Hamas and to refrain from the cat and mouse games of searching for Qassam rocket launchers. The IDF should not be expected to stop the rocket and missile fire against the Israeli home front through attacks on the launchers themselves, but by means of imposing a ceasefire on the enemy.” (¶1193) 

The Report emphasises that the Dahiya Doctrine of debilitating punishment was far from bluster.  The Mission, states the Report has been “able to conclude from a review of the facts on the ground that it witnessed for itself that what is prescribed as the best strategy appears to have been precisely what was put into practice.” (¶1195)  In fact, the Report continues, the “operations were carefully planned in all their phases. Legal opinions and advice were given throughout the planning stages and at certain operational levels during the campaign. There were almost no mistakes made according to the Government of Israel. It is in these circumstances that the Mission concludes that what occurred in just over three weeks at the end of 2008 and the beginning of 2009 was a deliberately disproportionate attack designed to punish, humiliate and terrorize a civilian population, radically diminish its local economic capacity both to work and to provide for itself, and to force upon it an ever increasing sense of dependency and vulnerability.” (¶1690)  What was born in Lebanon in 2006 as a bombardment of the Dahiya district of Beirut had evolved into the blitzkrieg of Gaza. 

In challenging the Dahiya Doctrine, the UN Human Rights Council confirms the ultimate finding of the Goldstone Report: aggressive annihilation in the quest for political gain violates the rule of law which safeguards the balance of civilised societies.  It is not merely the vicious act which must be condemned, but the concept itself.  It is agreed that the responsibility for these atrocities lies “in the first place with those who designed, planned, ordered and oversaw the operations.” (¶1692)  In carrying forward the recommendations of the Report, the UN Human Rights Council supports the principles of international law and that Israel’s “longstanding impunity has been a key factor in the perpetuation of violence in the region and in the reoccurrence of violations.” (¶1761)  These are facts that, unlike the Samouni family home, can not be demolished and reduced to rubble.    

By Brenda Heard
Friends of Lebanon
www.friendsoflebanon.org

By Dr. Alan Sabrosky *

The UN Human Rights Council (HRC) Resolution based on the Goldstone Report is a damning condemnation of Israel. The original meaning of being "caught red-handed" was literally being "caught bloody-handed," with the victim's blood on one's own hands. In Gaza, Israel has been caught red-handed in that literal sense, and for the first time in its history, is approaching the dock in the international court of opinion and, hopefully, of justice as well.

This case could be a watershed event. For Israel and its US Government (USG) puppet-patron, the moment of truth in the UN is rapidly approaching. So let us look at the key elements of the HRC special session that sent this resolution to the UN General Assembly (UNGA).

Voting Patterns

Voting patterns on the HRC are important, as they provide insights into what might happen later on the Security Council (UNSC) and in the General Assembly:

1. Of the permanent members of the Security Council, Russia and China supported the resolution, Britain and France did not vote (the equivalent of hiding under the table!), only the US opposed it;

2. France and Norway did not vote for or against the resolution, but they did support the conclusions of the Goldstone Report;

3. Both major Sub-Saharan African states (Nigeria and South Africa) voted for it;

4. Two of the Asian "Big Three" (India and China) voted for it, the third (Japan) just abstained;

5. Two of the usual US supporters in SW and SE Asia (Pakistan and the Philippines) voted for it; and

6. Three of the four largest Latin American states (Argentina, Brazil, Chile) voted for it, the fourth (Mexico) abstained.

What makes this significant — since the US lobbied hard first to keep the Goldstone Report from even reaching the HRC, and then for others to vote against the HRC resolution — is that many states who voted for it, or abstained, would normally have been in the US corner. This is NOT a good sign for the US and Israel of how the General Assembly will go, and perhaps even the Security Council, which could easily have a majority of 10 or 11 supporting the resolution (in whatever form it reaches the them), with France and Britain either abstaining or not voting. Very bad for the US, for even though its veto would kill any punishment of Israel there, there would be enough votes to ask the General Assembly officially to invoke the "Uniting for Peace Resolution."

And several powerful states would not be at all unhappy to see the US discomfited here. Russia would take great pleasure from being on the winning side of a General Assembly vote that turned a US-inspired weapon against its own creator. China would see it as an opportunity to reaffirm its own growing prestige, as would India, which in addition has long been a strong and active supporter of UN peacekeeping operations. Countries like Brazil and Nigeria have little reason to support the US and none to support Israel, while even Japan could easily surprise the US — and take satisfaction from doing so.

Reservations About the Resolution

US criticism of the HRC resolution should be disregarded, as Washington only parrots Israel's wishes here. So can the odd criticism that the initial report lacked an Israeli perspective, simply because Israel refused to cooperate with Goldstone — not surprisingly, since the report made it clear that nothing Israel might have added would have exonerated it in any way.

But other reservations need to be addressed. One is that the resolution did not mention Hamas. I agree it might have been better to have included Goldstone's condemnation of Hamas offenses as well, but it is legitimate as it stands for five reasons: (1) Israel committed the great majority of the violations; (2) Israel had an overwhelming preponderance of military power; (3) Palestinians suffered almost all of the death and destruction; (4) Israel has a long, sordid history of ignoring UN commissions and resolutions, and of attacking UN facilities and killing UN staff, as when the clearly marked UNRWA facility in Gaza was bombed; and (5) the HRC focus is properly on the actions of the oppressor (Israel) and not on those of the oppressed (the Palestinians).

Another is that it did not accord Israel the right of self-defense. But Israel's claim to self-defense in its savaging of Gaza is specious, because Israel — like all occupiers and oppressors — has no inherent right of self-defense against its victims. Who, for instance, would have accepted Nazi Germany's assertion that its brutal reprisals against the Czechs for their assassination of a Nazi commander named Reinhard Heydrich was an exercise in self-defense? No one, and no one should accept Israel's claim, either.

A third is that holding Israel accountable for its actions will somehow endanger the Middle East peace process. But there is no peace process, simply meaningless discussions to the dead end (for Palestinians and the rest of the region) of Israeli hegemony, and under Netanyahu or any electable government in Israel, there is not and cannot be one. There will be an enforced peace imposed from outside of the Middle East, over the objections and obstruction of Israel, or there will be none at all.

Prospects

Netanyahu's assertion that he will prolong the diplomatic battle over the Goldstone Report and the subsequent HRC resolution is akin to a lawyer for a serial murderer trying to delay the trial in the hope that the witnesses will die of boredom or old age. It is also predictable. Since promises, excuses and offers of aid no longer suffice, it is inevitable that bluster, threats and blackmail will come to the forefront.

But Netanyahu knows that AIPAC has too much money for anyone else to outspend it within America, and the US (if it uses it) has too much muscle to be ignored by many of the smaller UN members. Give the US six months to lobby for votes, and this whole thing could fail. If that happens, a unique opportunity will be lost.

So rather than attempt to evade the certain US veto on the Security Council and its intransigence throughout this process, confront it head on as soon as possible in the General Assembly, where there are no vetoes. Explore all ways of invoking the "Uniting for Peace Resolution" (UNGA 377A) — this is the instrument of choice, and its time is now.

Done properly, this could be the start of a real diplomatic revolution on the path to an enforced peace in Palestine and an end to Israeli oppression of the Palestinians. But if those countries supporting justice for Palestine do not act now, while attention is focused and the momentum is building, it will all have been for nothing. They will have no one to blame for their failure except themselves.

*Alan Sabrosky (Ph.D, University of Michigan) is a ten-year US Marine Corps veteran and a graduate of the US Army War College. He can be contacted at docbrosk@comcast.net

Reclaiming words:  identity and thought, We are not Israeli Arabs, we are Palestinians 

WRITTEN BY KHALIL NEKHLEH

The indigenous remnants of the Palestinian people in Israel after the ethnic cleansing of 1947/1948 should be referred to as The Palestinians in Israel, or the Palestinian Minority in Israel.  They should not be labeled as “Israeli Arabs”, or “48 Arabs”.

Personally, I am the remnant of my indigenous Palestinian people who lived in Palestine (nearly 900,000), and who were “ethnically cleansed” in preparation for the establishment of the apartheid Jewish state of Israel in 1947/1948.  Only 160,000 of us remained in what became known as “Israel”. I was, and am, a Palestinian, who fortunately was able to stay on the land of historical Palestine, i.e., Palestine under the British Mandate, and who became a member of a growing and vibrant minority of nearly 1.3 million Palestinians, who is living now in the Israeli apartheid state.  The label “Israeli Arabs” was coined and imposed on us by our enemies, namely, the Israeli racist apartheid state. Many Arab states chose to disregard our existence, or were totally ignorant of our status, as well as the Western World who supported Zionism, and facilitated and sanctioned the creation of the Israeli racist apartheid state, and who persists in justifying its existence.  We were Palestinians before the ethnic cleansing of 1947/1948 and we continue to be Palestinians since, and are proud of it.  Our identity and collective destiny is connected to the rest of the Palestinian people in the Palestinian areas occupied by Israel in 1967 and the rest of the dispersed Palestinians in a state of refuge. We are part of nearly 11 million Palestinians all over the world who aspire for freedom and justice. 

As our “solidarity debt”, we expect you to address us as “The Palestinians in Israel”.  We must purge our and your lexicon of the label of “Israeli Arabs”, the concept of our occupiers and oppressors, that seeks to mould our reality in their own image. 

Khalil Nakhleh, Ph.D.
Independent Researcher and Writer
Ramallah, Palestine/Israel
(Struggling to Transform Our Homeland) 

The First Word War is an initiative of Palestine Think Tank and Tlaxcala. We welcome our readers to submit entries for publication, translation and dissemination. Send them to contact@palestinethinktank.com or tlaxcala@tlaxcala.es

The First Word War

In the name of "Self-defense"
WRITTEN BY REALISTIC BIRD

In the name of "self-defense" they massacred, in the name of "self-defense" they committed ethnic cleansing, and in the name of "self-defense" they stole land. 

The Israelis have hidden behind the concept of self-defense for decades by abusing the word to their advantage. The word self-defense gives off the connotation that the one acting it is the victim under attack from a vicious aggressor.

Have you ever heard the Israelis describing any of their wars or offensives other than in that context? It even led them to call their armed forces, [Israeli] Defense Forces. The duplicity of the situation arises from the nature of the Zionist entity, a colonizing, invading, occupying and racist entity founded on the death and expulsion of the Palestinians. How is it possible for such an entity who was the initiator of aggression to claim its actions are done in self-defense? The one who attacks, who destroys 400 villages, massacres scores of the inhabitants, and occupies the lands of Palestine over more than six decades can't be a victim thus has no right to self-defense.

An occupation is by its very nature a brutal existence and because of this international law admits that any people under it have the right to resist it in all means possible. Yet, looking at the hasbara that the Israelis and their allies spread through the media one thinks that the Israelis are the ones under occupation and not the Palestinians. The Palestinians are always shown as the terrorists, the ones who are attacking but the truth is international and human law gave them the right to fight back aggressors. The Palestinians are the ones under occupation, does anyone deny that? If so how is it possible that the Israelis claim "self-defense" to excuse their crimes when there is an undeniable right to resist them?

In a lopsided world where the meaning of words are taken out of context and contradict the truth and common sense Israelis are allowed to commit their horrendous acts with no one to hold them accountable. 

Visit Realistic Bird’s site at: www.realisticbird.wordpress.com.

The First Word War is an initiative of Palestine Think Tank and Tlaxcala. We welcome our readers to submit entries for publication, translation and dissemination. Send them to contact@palestinethinktank.com or tlaxcala@tlaxcala.es

La Prima Guerra Della Parola – Palestine Think Tank e Tlaxcala dichiarano la guerra contro la disinformazione

Dare di nuovo un senso alle parole: identità e pensiero, Non siamo “Arabi Israeliani”, ma Palestinesi 

WRITTEN BY KHALIL NAKHLEH
Tradotto da Mary Rizzo

La gente, quel che rimane del popolo indigeno palestinese in Israele dopo la pulizia etnica di 1947/1948 dovrebbe essere chiamata solamente con il nome di I Palestinesi in Israele, oppure La Minoranza Palestinese in Israele.  A queste persone non dovrebbero essere addossate l’etichetta “Arabi Israeliani” oppure “Gli Arabi del ‘48”.

Per quanto mi riguarda, sono un pezzo del mio popolo indigeno palestinese che visse nella Palestina (quasi 900,000 persone), che subì la “pulizia etnica” negli anni 1947/1948, per preparare la fondazione di uno stato ebraico basato sull’apartheid, quello stato chiamato Israele. Solamente 160,000 di noi sono rimasti in quel territorio che è diventato “Israele”. Io ero, e sono, un palestinese, che, fortunatamente è potuto rimanere sulla terra della Palestina storica, vale a dire, la Palestina sotto il mandato britannico, e che è diventato membro di una minoranza florida e in crescita che conta quasi 1,3 milioni di palestinesi. Ma ora vivono nello stato d’apartheid che tutto il mondo conosce con il nome d’Israele. L’etichetta “Arabi Israeliani” è stato inventato e c’è stato imposto dai nostri nemici, lo stato razzista d’Israele. Molti stati arabi hanno scelto di non tenere conto della nostra esistenza, oppure sono stati completamenti ignari della nostra situazione, ed il Mondo Occidentale che ha sostenuto il Sionismo, quello che ha facilitato e promosso la creazione dello stato razzista, che applica l’apartheid, quello d’Israele, persiste nella giustificazione della sua esistenza. Noi siamo stati palestinesi prima della pulizia etnica del 1947/1948, e noi continuiamo ad essere palestinesi, e ne siamo ben orgogliosi di ciò. La nostra identità ed il nostro destino collettivo è connesso a tutto il resto del popolo palestinese nelle zone occupate dall’Israele nel 1967 e con il resto dei palestinesi dispersi con lo status di profughi. Noi siamo una parte dei quasi 11 milioni di palestinesi diffusi in tutto il mondo che aspirano alla libertà e alla giustizia.

Come un gesto di dimostrazione della vostra solidarietà, noi gradiremo che ci chiamaste solo “I Palestinesi in Israele”. Dobbiamo eliminare dal nostro e dal vostro lessico l’etichetta di “Arabi Israeliani”, perché è solo un concetto di quelli che ci tengono sotto l’occupazione, i nostri oppressori, in un tentativo di trasformare la nostra realtà nella loro stessa immagine. 

Khalil Nakhleh, Ph.D.
Ricercatore e Scrittore indipendente
Ramallah, Palestina/Israele
(Lottando per la Trasformazione della Nostra Patria)

La Prima Guerra Della Parola è un'iniziativa di Palestine Think Tank e Tlaxcala. I nostri lettori possono partecipare, mandando i loro testi a contact@palestinethinktank.com oppure tlaxcala@tlaxcala.es

La Prima Guerra Della Parola – Palestine Think Tank e Tlaxcala dichiarano la guerra contro la disinformazione

Nel nome della “difesa”

SCRITTO DA REALISTIC BIRD

Tradotto da Mary Rizzo 

Nel nome della “auto-difesa” hanno massacrato. Nel nome della “auto-difesa” hanno adoperato la pulizia etnica. Nel nome della “auto-difesa” hanno rubato la terra. 

Gli israeliani si sono nascosti dietro il concetto dell’auto-difesa per decine di anni, abusando di questa parola per il proprio vantaggio. La parola stessa, “auto-difesa”, suggerisce l’idea che quello che agisce lo fa perché è sotto attacco di un aggressore violento e crudele. 

Avete mai sentito gli israeliani descrivere una qualsiasi delle loro guerre (oppure offensive) in una maniera diversa da questo particolare modo? Infatti, questo modo di ragionare gli ha indotti a chiamare le loro forze armate le Forze di Difesa Israeliani (IDF, Israeli Defense Forces in inglese). Il paradosso della situazione nasce dalla natura dell’entità sionista, un entità colonialista, razzista e che adopera l’occupazione di terre altrui, attraverso la morte e l’espulsione forzata dei palestinesi. Com’è possibile per un tale entità che è stato l’artefice delle aggressioni di dichiarare che le sue azioni sono compiute solo per l’auto-difesa? Quello che attacca, che distrugge 400 villaggi, massacrando un gran numero di abitanti, che occupa le terre della Palestina per più di sessant’anni, non può essere una vittima, e quindi, non ha il diritto alla loro presunta “auto-difesa”. 

Vivere sotto un’occupazione, per sua natura, è un’esistenza disumana, e per questo motivo, il diritto internazionale ammette che ogni popolo che vive sotto occupazione ha il diritto a resistere contro l’occupazione stessa con ogni mezzo. Però, sotto l’influenza pesante della hasbara israeliano (ndt: propaganda ufficiale pro-israeliana), che gli israeliani ed i loro alleati diffondono attraverso i mass media, si ha l’impressione che sono invece gli israeliani che vivono sotto l’occupazione e non i palestinesi. I palestinesi sono rappresentati sempre e solamente come “terroristi”, quelli che stanno attaccando gli inermi, ma la verità non ha frontiere, è la legge che gli umani hanno scritto che gli da il diritto di combattere contro gli aggressori. I palestinesi sono quelli che vivono sotto l’occupazione, ci sono delle persone che potrebbero negare questo fatto? Dunque, com’è possibile che l’affermazione israeliana della “auto-difesa” è usata per giustificare i loro crimini quando già esiste il diritto internazionale inderogabile di resistere contro l’occupatore? 

In un mondo sbilanciato dove il significato delle parole manca, e le parole stesse sono usato senza il giusto contesto, contraddicendo la verità stessa, nonché il buonsenso, gli israeliani hanno il permesso di commettere i loro atti orrendi, senza che nessuno gli renda responsabili per le loro azioni. 

Visitate il sito di Realistic Bird (www.realisticbird.wordpress.com). 

La Prima Guerra Della Parola è un'iniziativa di Palestine Think Tank e Tlaxcala. I nostri lettori possono partecipare, mandando i loro testi a contact@palestinethinktank.com oppure tlaxcala@tlaxcala.es

Cartoon Khalil Bendib

A nuclear armed Iran? No.

For the sake of discussion, let's assume that some in Iran's current leadership do want their country to possess nuclear weapons and that they do succeed in developing them. What then?

Is it conceivable that Iran would launch a first strike on Israel?

The answer has to be no. Absolutely not! An Iranian first strike would bring retaliation that would not end until Iran had been annihilated, wiped from the face of the earth. One needs only a sound mind to understand that no Iranian leadership will ever be stupid enough to provoke such an outcome.

Why then are Israel's military and political hawks (and their neo-con associates in America) so determined, apparently, to do whatever is necessary to stop Iran developing nuclear weapons? Is it because they are deluded, perhaps to the point of clinical madness? No. The real problem for Israel's leaders is that Iran's possession of a nuclear bomb or two or several would greatly restrict their freedom to impose Zionism's will on the region by brute force of all kinds.

In passing it's worth noting the latest comments of Mohammed El Baradie, the outgoing chief of the International Atomic Energy Agency. In an interview with the Austrian Die Presse published on 18 October, he said, "The threat of Iran's nuclear program is exaggerated." He added: "Bombing Iran is not the solution. An Israeli attack would turn the entire region into a fireball." (It might also bring about, I add, the complete collapse of the global economy).

Yehoshafat Harkabi

There are none. And that's not simply because the Zionist state is the military superpower of the region. There is not now, and there never has been, an Arab military threat to Israel's existence. As I document in detail in Zionism: The Real Enemy of the Jews, the Arab regimes never had any intention of fighting Israel to liberate Palestine. And when Eygpt was taken out of the military equation – a process started by Henry Kissinger and completed by President Carter – the Arabs could not fight even if they wanted to.

So what is it, really, that most endangers Israel's future?

The answer was put into words by Yehoshafat Harkabi, the longest serving Israeli Director of Military Intelligence. In his seminal book, Israel's Fateful Hour, published in 1986, he wrote about the "pressing need for (Israeli) self-criticism". He went on (my emphasis added):

"Certainly Israel is not guilty of everything that has gone wrong in the occupied lands. But self-criticism is imperative in order to counter-balance the tendencies to self-righteousness and self-pity that stem from basic Jewish attitudes, from the historical experience of persecution, and from the ethos fostered by Menachem Begin. No factor endangers Israel's future more than self-righteousness, which blinds us to reality, prevents a complex understanding of the situation, and legitimizes extreme behavior."

If Harkabi was alive today, I imagine the self-righteousness on display in Israel's rubbishing and rejection of the Goldstone Report with its accusation of Israeli (and Hamas) war crimes would make him vomit.

Does anybody know of a cure for self-righteousness?

* Alan Hart is a former ITN and BBC Panorama foreign correspondent who covered wars and conflicts wherever they were taking place in the world and specialized in the Middle East. Author of Zionism: The Real Enemy of the Jews: The False Messiah (Zionism, the Real Enemy of the Jews). He blogs on www.alanhart.net and tweets on www.twitter.com/alanauthor

In many parts of the West, certain political parties or movements are treated as if they come from the Moon or are alien to any body politic. Their existence among the people is always scrutinised as negative, transitory and something created in a boardroom or a backroom, imposed upon an unsophisticated public that is unable to differentiate a true political programme from empty and simplistic rhetoric. These parties or movements are depicted as if they only address the margins of society who are disenfranchised from any “normal” democratic bodies, and thus, are ramshackle bands that represent a minority constituency. Given their oppositional nature to pre-existing parties, they are outfitted with the label that will serve to keep them isolated from the structures that are already in operation. All of this is to destroy the party or movement by propaganda work rather than analysis of reality.

An entire mythology has been built around the Palestinian resistance movement (which morphed into a party) Hamas. This construct has actually taken on more legitimacy as a factual interpretation of Hamas than the facts themselves. In most of the Western media, no matter if it is on the right or the left, and in some of the “moderate” media in Arab countries, the very name of the party is coupled with terms such as “fundamentalist”, “radical” or “terrorist”. Clearly, this serves to create a fear trigger that will remove the word from being critically and honestly evaluated. The listener will immediately identify Hamas with a negative connotation and is removed from responsibility for understanding that this is a manipulation of reality. The listener is expected to accept the claims that Hamas is “anti-democratic” and “fanatical”. It is child’s play to then convince the listener that Hamas is Bad, that it is the Enemy of all We represent (in our own eyes, tolerance, democracy, Goodness itself). It is possible to then extend that reading to the belief that action must be taken against them, that they are a “cancer that must be gotten rid of”, as quoted by the institutional peacenik, Noa. How does one eradicate a cancer, once it has been diagnosed? By extirpation or bombardment. With cancer treatment, one “bombards” even the healthy parts of the body with toxic agents, waiting to see if after the battle there were enough healthy parts remaining to allow the organism to continue to exist. Once you have set into the minds of millions of people the idea that destruction is good, because the enemy is just so damaging and evil if allowed to exist, the risk of bringing the entire organism to its grave by weakening it dramatically is taken as a viable risk to run. This is a way to make them justify actions that their own eyes don’t see as therapeutic, but are pure horror and evil.

How did it work that the world was so fooled and allowed Israel to destroy Gaza to “get rid of Hamas”? It was quite simple, and it’s always the same answer: Israel and its allies keep people disinformed. Those who actually will go slightly below the screaming headlines of the newspapers might find out a few facts buried that that will contradict the spin, but not that many people will go that far, given that they are exposed to something with an element of truth buried deep within. If that were not problematic enough, even the “progressives” have done meritorious services to rendering Hamas untouchable. They might accept them as a “resistance movement” but they won’t allow their personal ideological bias to see Hamas as a progressive force for their own people’s advancement. This may be out of conviction, convenience or even lack of research or a blindspot that does not allow variations on the theme of the class struggle, where everything is “international” and the same type of rules and ideals should be considered applicable and necessary for all, going so far in some cases to “import democracy” under various more or less aggressive forms.

These people, many of whom are armed with good intentions, have chewed, swallowed, and are spitting back quite a few of the outright lies and distortions that are part of the mythology created by opponents of Hamas, created in Israel and the West, primarily.

What are the components of that mythology?
1) Hamas was created by the Israeli Mossad.
2) Hamas represents a marginal portion of the Palestinians.
3) Hamas turned democratic enough just to be able to obtain some legitimacy to later take over and turn the Palestinian Territories into an Islamic State.
4) Their victory in the polls was nothing more than a protest vote against the corruption of Fatah.
5) Hamas is comprised of a bunch of illiterates and their electors are sucked in by their own ignorance.
6) Hamas is a fundamentalist group and therefore inflexible and incapable of any modification or evolution. The oft cited Charter is used against them to stress that they are simply a radical, destructive group poised for Holy War.
7) Hamas does not seek any kind of compromise with other Palestinian political parties or factions, and are therefore the divisionary element that prohibits of the unity of the people.
8 ) Hamas operates to indoctrinate their people with hate propaganda in order to utilise them as cannon fodder.
9) Hamas is a terrorist group that exists only thanks to financing by “fundamentalist regimes”.

That Hamas is merely a resistance movement has been thoroughly disproved by the elections, but this seems to be the safe place that activists can cluster in order to allow themselves to be able to tolerate Hamas, while wishing for their quick demise. They are not viewed then as having a true heritage as a political party that can be compared to those of “democratic nations” of the “international community”, and thus, analysis of them can remain at an elementary level, lending itself to hasty generalisations.

I ask my readers to kindly forgive all the inverted quotation marks, but these words do become ironic and empty of true meaning when they are applied to the objects indicated by the spin doctors, whose task it is to do the bidding of the hegemonic powers. How can a minority of a handful of nations that always pits itself against the will of the remainder of the world community in the UN be considered as the “international community”? It’s a boy’s club that excludes practically everyone. How can a country that puts in office the candidate who obtains the lesser amount of votes be called a “democracy”? It is when we start to question our own foundations that we can detect that there is a lot of convenience in presenting any opposition as being an enemy and outside of paradigms that we consider to be core to our expectations of how to establish a just and equitable world.

It’s time to debunk a few of these myths with facts.

1) Hamas was not created by Mossad. Although Israel does like to claim credit for many things, this one is not their doing. Political Islam in Palestine has had a presence since the early 40s in Mandate Palestine, and Hamas was born as part of the Muslim Brotherhood (Ikhwan), with many of its early leaders formally affiliated. It was the experience of refugeehood that turned Hamas into a more autonomous element with a particular nationalist basis to it, a natural result of the urgent and real human situation of displacement and loss of their cultural and national identity.

There were close relations of this group with the Egyptian base, and the first offices of the Ikhwan in Palestine were created in Gaza in 1945, led by a member of one of the most important families of the zone, Sheykh Zafer al Shawwa. During the first Arab-Israeli war, Islamist volunteers reinforced the ranks, coming primarily from Jordan and Syria, and this support showed the refugees that the Ikhwan had the courage to defend itself, even during the “Israeli War of Independence”. The growing number of refugees gave a stronger identity and sense of purpose to the Islamist movement in Palestine. Therefore, in the civil society and in the population in general, a motivation from any other source was not required to be able to pledge: “I promise to be a good Muslim in defending Islam and the lost land of Palestine. I promise to be a good example for the community and for others.” These were the words spoken by those who swore their loyalty to the Ikhwan in Palestine (source: Beverly Milton Edwards, “Islamic Politics in Palestine”, p. 43). The local Ikhwan had its own agenda, defending its lost land. It didn’t require fanaticism, outside influence or even propaganda. The refugees themselves were living proof of the horrors of deportation and suffering. The identification as part of an international movement was concomitant with the recognition of the particularity of the Palestinian experience. The official foundation, dating 9 December 1987, was only the culmination of an organisation in the works for decades. Organised Islamic resistance was further utilised when the situation precipitated dramatically in 1967 and a new generation was born as refugees. For this generation, a return to Islam was considered as a necessity for the moral and political future of a people that was being literally destroyed. The cause of the Nakba was seen by many as the result of the distancing from a normal society, the Palestinian one, in which the ethical, religious, cultural and traditional values had been devastated by the occupation, and the descent into further degradation, poverty, disenfranchisement and social instability was seen not only as the result of the occupation, but part of its cause.

The “international community” would not come to the rescue of these people, the rest of the Ummah was not caught up in their national struggle, largely because they were not directly involved or were even prohibited from involvement. The extreme pain and disgrace of losing one’s land at that time was a new element to the area, where previous colonisation avoided expelling the indigenous inhabitants, and throwing off the usurpers was not complicated with the total loss of roots and a base. The basis for the formal dimension of Hamas was thus present for decades prior to its official birth. In order to operate, being under the thumb of the occupation, these organised groups that existed had established charities and benefit organisations for their people. These institutions were tolerated by Israel in the Occupied Territories. Israel conceded some operating space through granting of licenses. As General Yitzhak Sager said in an interview to the International Herald Tribune in 1981, the Israeli government “…gave money that the military governor allocated to the mosques […] the sums were used both by the mosques and the religious schools, with the purpose of reinforcing a subject that would contrast that of the Left that was in favour of the PLO.” If there was some motivation for Israel to be involved, it was really as an act of ‘divide and rule’, a bit of tolerance, a bit of economic support to the various religious associations in order to see if an opposition to the nationalists of the PLO could develop. They really were only looking for a way to see the weakening of the PLO, which was gaining some support in the West, and they did not found, provide major financing or in any way influence a movement that they would in some way infiltrate or control. That is pure mythology. Why give Israel credit where none is due?

2) That Hamas represents only a marginal portion of Palestinians is another myth to debunk. It is indeed true that all Palestinians are not refugees, and it is also true that virtually all of the leaders of Hamas were born in exile or at some point were subjected to the experience of expulsion and loss of their homes and possessions. This is a core Palestinian experience, and it is true that even those (few) Palestinians who were not uprooted can identify with the loss of their cultural and national identity, and all of them know that their national aspirations and cohesion as a group have been destroyed by Israel. Thus, even a movement or party that has its own identity in the refugee camps and in exile or in religious roots, is recognised as an intrinsic, legitimate and natural representative of Palestinians as a whole. They even obtained the majority vote in areas of the West Bank that were not considered as Hamas strongholds, as well as obtaining votes from many Christian areas.

3) The myth that Hamas turned “democratic enough” just to get its foot in the door as the first step of forcing an Islamic State upon the entirety of Palestine is a very widespread one, especially in the progressive circles that do not recognise the popularity of the movement or who have an ideological prejudice against any religious movement. There is much to be said in favour of separation of church and state, but this of course is something that cannot be imposed from afar, and furthermore, there are many levels of separation to take into consideration. Those who subscribe to this position of “Hamas buying time before introducing the Sharia” tend to deny that a democracy has certain characteristics, and it is not necessarily a synonym of “secularism”. When the word “democracy” is applied correctly, it has certain characteristics, and Hamas meets these. Hamas has popular consensus. It has an internal structure that is autonomous and recognised as legitimate by its constituency. It follows the rules of elections, meeting the requirements for participation. Once elected, it assumes its role within the existing system, not having overthrown or staged coups against established structures. It is a political movement with several factions (some of them armed, as is true of many parties in areas under occupation, Fatah included) with a history and an organisation. There is widespread discussion among its constituencies, including those who are political prisoners, prior to making decisions, and the majority decides the actions to be undertaken. If one thing must be said about it to set it apart from parties that Westerners are familiar with, highest level leaders generally do not assume the governing roles. This is understandable in a party where a great quantity of the leaders are routinely assassinated by Israel. That the current political director, Khaled Meshaal, must live in exile after having once been victim of an attempted assassination says more about this anomalous situation than a thousand words can.

4) That Hamas’s victory in the Legislative Council election was nothing more than a protest vote (another pet theory of the left) was brilliantly illustrated as false by Paola Caridi in her very good book (despite the sensationalist subtitle) “Hamas, What it is and what the Radical Palestinian Movement Wants”, published by Feltrinelli and only available in Italian at this time. I am translating a few paragraphs that deal with this question.

“There is a precise political reason for which the majority of Palestinians voted for Hamas. It is a reason that concerns the decision made by the Islamist movement formally on 23 January 2005. (translator’s note, a year prior to the Legislative elections): a unilateral truce, reached together with the Islamic Jihad (that had instead broken it on several occasions), which had turned words into facts: that there would be the end of the season of terrorist attacks made by Hamas inside Israel as indicated within the confines of the 1949 armistice, the Israel within the Green Line, in other words. The ending of suicide attacks in Israeli cities, substantially bringing an end to the Intifada as well as (Hamas’s) participative choice is interpreted by the Palestinian population as a precise political proposal: an alternative to those who had governed and controlled them, holding the hegemony up to that moment. A proposal that poses at the same time new de facto limits to Hamas’s resistance strategy. The Islamist movement has not been, therefore, chosen only as a protest against the corruption, patronage and inefficiency of Fatah, which as a party is often confused with the PA. Corruption, patronage and inefficiency that are related, at least from a temporal point of view, with the failure of the Oslo Accords and the “facts on the ground” realised by the Israelis.

“The people of Hamas were considered people who are serious, who did not enrich themselves at the expense of the population, in fact, they continued to live in normal neighbourhoods and in the refugee camps.” (Caridi, p. 171).

5) An extremely offensive smear, oft repeated, is that Hamas’s followers and its leaders are a “bunch of illiterates” or “religious fanatics”. Almost all the leaders are (or were, given the number of assassinations within their ranks, the past tense is de rigueur) university graduates in fields ranging from medicine and physics to jurisprudence, economics and theology, is testament itself that this smear is merely to throw dirt on them and paint them as having read only religious texts and therefore “under-developed” when compared to other movements. Education has always been one of the pillars of Hamas and its charity work. The people of Palestine don’t need to be told this, it is a reality for them, where in many cases without this foundation, Palestinians would be left wanting in this area.

6) The inflexibility of Hamas is another myth, especially yanked out when speaking of the 1988 Charter (Mithaq). Shiekh Hamed Bitauri, “religious authority of Nablus, president of the Union of the Palestinian Ulemas, known for his radical positions had no problem confirming that ‘the Charter is not the Qu’ran. We can change it. It is only the synthesis of the positions of the Islamist movement in its relations with the other factions, and its politics.’ Aziz Dweik, founder of the Department of Geography of the University of Nablus, later to become the spokesman of the Palestinian Parliament after the 2006 elections, and imprisoned in Israeli jails since the summer of that year, went even further, declaring the political and pragmatic necessity of distancing from the Mithaq of 1988 to Khalid Amayreh, Palestinian journalist that is sensitive to Islamist positions, he said that ‘Hamas would not remain as a hostage to rhetorical slogans of the past like those of the ‘destruction of Israel’.” (Khalid Amayreh, Hamas Debates the Future: Palestine’s Islamic Resistance Movement Attempts to Reconcile Ideological Purity and Political Realism, in “Conflicts Forum”, Nov. 2007, p.4) (Caridi p. 90).

Haniyeh has mentioned on many occasions that the Charter has been surpassed in its substance by the other official documents, the most important of which, the Electoral Programme of the Reform and Change List (the list in which Hamas ran for office). This programme is structured like a document that goes far beyond the needs of a political campaign, according to the leader of Hamas, and it indicates the policy of the movement. It was not written in the heat of the revolution of the Intifada, and reflects the evolution of the party. The changes present are not ideological so much as ones of a strategic and political nature. The positions have been reiterated so many times in interviews and public interventions, it seems incredible that the complexity and maturity of Hamas should by now not be apparent to everyone. It is clear that they are still dedicated to the liberation of Palestine, but they are attempting to achieve it through reaffirmation of the rights of the people, knowing full well that as a party, Hamas is not equipped to overthrow the occupation in any practical way or to destroy what they recognise as a reality.

Many of us who follow events in the Middle East hope that they do not surrender to pragmatism so far as to recognise Israel not only as a reality, but as a “Jewish State”, however, we must watch from the sidelines and evaluate facts. The people of Palestine will be vigil about what rights are being surrendered, if any, and many of us believe that backs to the wall, they will not capitulate and lose what they know is theirs for reasons of political expediency. Hamas too is aware of this fact.

7) Hamas has been far less divisionary than its principle counterpart, Fatah. The Gaza “coup” that shocked and saddened the world was actually a preventive measure to the thwart the planned takeover by the Fatah forces faithful to Dahlan (in collaboration with Israel). That Hamas was the party that was awarded victory by its own people has never been recognised by the “international community” that nevertheless pushed for elections and insisted that this was the necessity for Palestinians, because this would mean that the resistance had been granted legitimacy and would become policy within the governing body, the rejection of negotiations as sub-alternates with Israel, which was Fatah policy, had been officially sanctioned by the populace and it would only be a matter of time before the programme would become policy. So, any steps by the Fatah “Security Forces” to overtake Gaza would actually have been the coup. But in the backwards way of viewing events, fuelled by disinformation, the tragic bloodbath between Palestinians prevented the real overthrow of democracy that would have taken place had Dahlan had the chance. Again and again, Hamas has sought to work together with the opposition party, and this is something they would not tolerate in the vain hope that their economic advantage and political nulla osta from the boy’s club would allow them to command even in absence of the popular mandate to do so.

8 ) It’s not necessary to use propaganda to show to Palestinians in the Occupied Territories and in exile, and even to many within Israel, the ongoing destruction of the Palestinian civilisation and people. Blockades, bombardments, assassinations, war, checkpoint humiliations, restrictions, separation of families, imprisonment and further abuses are not isolated incidents, but they are the daily bread and water of Palestinian life. No one needs to invent a rage over a phantasmagoric enemy. There is a real one that is subjecting the people of all ages and conditions to humiliation, deprivation and death. Showing a man in a mouse costume to insist that children are being indoctrinated in hate might go down well with the uninformed masses, but a glimpse into the reality makes Farfur look like the sweetest kind of way for a child to assimilate and tolerate that he or she is a prisoner doomed for life to suffer in the most atrocious way for being born as a lesser being in the oppressors’ eyes.

9) The worst smear against Hamas is the one to keep them as the symbol of evil: that they are a terrorist group, financed by “rogue States in the axis of evil”. Bearing in mind that their financing is abysmally inferior to the gigantic economic and “military aid” package given to Israel by America, Canada and many other nations in the “international community” in an official way, why should the claim of foreign financing be considered as unacceptable when it is simply the way the that Israel keeps afloat through billions of dollars annually, up front, and heaven only knows what other financing comes in through the thousands of “charities” that are really little more than fronts for mass immigration to Israel to curtail Arab growth? If Zionism and its charities are considered as legitimate and noble, why are Islamic ones put on blacklists and the donors treated as if they are financing terrorism? There is a double standard here.

That Hamas has rejected terror operations against civilians and did its best to do so in the service of achieving a realistic improvement for the life conditions of its people is an authenticated fact, corroborated by none other than the USA Congressional Research Service, a Think Tank that basically presents its conservative and Israel-friendly positions to the Congress so that they become policy. In fact, in the document coordinated by Jim Zanotti http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/mideast/R40101.pdf  Israel and Hamas, Conflict in Gaza (2008-2009), we see that the quoted “reason” for the onslaught of Gaza to “cleanse it of Hamas”, the rockets fired into Israeli territory, was nothing but an excuse that the West drank down with gusto as if it were cherry juice. The extremely rudimentary rockets were recognised as NOT having been launched by Hamas, and not only that, Hamas was viewed as being able and willing to suppress the attacks. It is significant that the first victims of the Israeli attacks in Gaza were the regular police forces who had just been trained, perhaps also for this purpose. Zanotti writes:

For the first five months, the cease-fire held relatively well. Some rockets were fired into Israel, but most were attributed to non-Hamas militant groups, and, progressively, Hamas appeared increasingly able and willing to suppress even these attacks. No Israeli deaths were reported (although there were injuries and property damage), and Israel refrained from retaliation.

Nevertheless, each party felt as though the other was violating the terms of the unwritten ceasefire. Hamas demanded—unsuccessfully—that Israel lift its economic blockade of Gaza, while Israel demanded—also unsuccessfully—a full end to rocket fire and progress on the release of Israeli corporal Gilad Shalit from Hamas’s captivity.

Israel cited the sporadic rocket fire as justification for keeping the border crossings and Gaza’s seaport closed to nearly everything but basic humanitarian supplies. Hamas, other Arab leaders, and some international and non-governmental organizations involved in aiding Gazan civilians complained that Israel was reneging on its promises under the unwritten cease-fire agreement.

If that were not enough, the author, certainly not sympathetic in any way to Hamas, makes statements about the aftermath of the war where even Israel admits that Hamas was not responsible for the rockets:

Since Israel’s unilateral ceasefire began on January 18, 2009, there have been about 40 sporadic rocket launches into southern Israel, far fewer than occurred on average per day just before Operation Cast Lead. Moreover, Israeli officials believe that smaller militant groups, such as Palestinian Islamic Jihad and the Al Aqsa Martyrs’ Brigades, and not Hamas, have fired the rockets, as they did during the cease-fire (although it is possible that Hamas is enabling or acquiescing to these attacks while preserving deniability).

So, Israel used the excuse of Hamas rocket launches to justify the elimination of Hamas (by means of destruction of the entirety of Gaza) through what they call “military operations” but the rest of humanity knows is war, while they were aware that Hamas was neither the author nor the facilitator of the rockets, any kind of excuse they pull out of the magic hat to justify their actions should fall on deaf ears. Complaints about arms smuggling through the most rudimentary of tunnels should stink to high heaven when we see the Defense Budget Appropriations for US-Israeli Missile Defense Programs in that same Congressional Report. Iron Dome, David’s Sling and other “military aid” costing the American people billions of dollars are described briefly. For every five ineffective bottle rockets that are smuggled through a tunnel, the USA is flying in full cargoes of arms and cases of cash to be spent by Israel for their military “needs”. The double standards here also draw innocent blood in violation of international law at the expense of your hard-earned money. Again, from the Congressional report:

Israel may have used weapons platforms and munitions purchased from the United States in its military operations in Gaza, reportedly including, among others, F-15 and F-16 aircraft, Apache helicopters, and, according to Israeli press reports, GBU-39 small diameter guided bombs approved for sale by the 110th Congress following notification in September 2008.

Additionally, all unilateral truces between Israel and Hamas (called by Hamas, not by Israel) were broken in every case by Israel. In many cases, making incursions into the Occupied Territories, which legally they are prohibited from doing, as civilian populations under occupation (even if the “settlers” have left, Gaza is kept under siege by Israel) are required to be protected by the occupier, not attacked. Israel, using weapons and planes supplied for them by the good graces of the people of the United States, bombarded streets where their targets (politicians and clerics that Israel terms as “militants” if not worse) were located, killing in an indiscriminate way anyone in the range, children included. If that’s not terrorism, the word has no meaning.

These are only a few of the myths in circulation. They represent just a portion of the lies, disinformation and hasbara that circulates about one of the major Palestinian parties, born from within, developing as all parties do, from below, and legitimised by fair and legal elections. Debunking these lies is a duty. One doesn’t need to agree to the entire programme of Hamas, but one is obligated to recognise that they are entirely different from the image that they have been straightjacketed into. What Jessica Rabbit said in the film, “Who Framed Roger Rabbit” could very well apply to Hamas: “I’m not bad, they just draw me that way.”

This article is part of the Palestine Think Tank and Tlaxcala initiative The First Word War against Disinformation. If you would like to contribute your own original articles to this initiative, send them to contact@palestinethinktank.com or to tlaxcala@tlaxcala.es

visit www.tlaxcala.es and www.palestinethinktank.com