http://blogcritics.org/ A sinister cabal of superior bloggers on music, books, film, popular culture, politics, and technology - updated continuously. en Copyright 2005-2007 by the authors Tue, 3 Apr 2007 23:06:44 EDT http://backend.userland.com/rss Blogcritics.org custom software http://blogcritics.org/ Phillip WinnSunday, August 26, 2007, marks the switch of all Blogcritics.org article feeds from full-content to short-content. This is the result of several converging factors, and is unfortunately a permanent decision (as permanent as any decision can be on the web, that is). We are aware of all of the reasons that this is a Bad Idea, and we are aware that some of you will be quite upset about having to click on something to read the free content, and we're sorry. Unfortunately, despite great effort, full-content feeds are not currently economically viable. Two other factors are involved: full-content feeds have resulted in an unprecedented level of content theft, with BC content appearing on many websites, usually spam sites, without attribution or permission. This duplicate content causes a cascading set of problems, not the least of which is that search engines generally aren't favorable to duplicate content, and don't always guess correctly. Finally, our RSS advertising partner is strongly in favor of short-content feeds. We hope that you'll continue to subscribe to BC via RSS, and when an article grabs your eye, it's only a click away, still free on the BC website. Thank you for your understanding. Administration0@blogcritics.org Sun, 26 Aug 2007 12:00:00 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2007/04/03/230644.php The HeathlanderProf. Norman Finkelstein is a prominent and well-respected scholar of the Israel/Palestine conflict. He has written several books on the topic, most notably The Rise and Fall of Palestine and Image and Reality of the Israel-Palestine Conflict. His most recent work, Beyond Chutzpah: On the Misuse of Anti-Semitism and the Abuse of History, is a devastating rebuttal of both Alan Dershowitz's The Case For Israel and, more generally, defenders of Israel's human rights record.For some reason, Prof. Finkelstein's views are often referred to as "controversial" or even "radical". In fact, the position he articulates is supported by international law and such "radical" organisations as the World Court and Amnesty International. Several of Prof. Finkelstein's talks, and much else besides, can be viewed on his website. I asked him a few questions about the current state of the conflict (embedded links added by me, obviously).Israeli PM Ehud Olmert recently declared that "I'll never accept a solution that is based on their [the Palestinian refugees] return to Israel, any number", and "I will not agree to accept any kind of Israeli responsibility for the refugees. Full stop.", on the grounds that the refugee problem was created when Arab countries attacked the newly-formed State of Israel (hence, one presumes, he places the responsibility on the aggressor Arab states). What do you think of this view?The refugee question is a red herring. It serves the same purpose now as the Palestinian Covenant did in the 1970s-1980s; to divert attention from Israel's refusal to fully withdraw. Israel knows that the international community will be sympathetic to its stand regarding the refugees but not sympathetic on borders/settlements, so it's trying to divert attention from the latter, and towards the former. Israel and its apologists consistently justify such policies as the annexation wall and, indeed, the occupation in general on security grounds. To what extent do you feel they are actually about security, and to what extent do you feel they would be justified even if they were?There isn't a scratch of evidence that the occupation has anything to do with security. It's already widely admitted (Shlomo Ben-Ami, Zeev Maoz, even Dennis Ross) that keeping the Jordan Valley for security reasons is a myth. And the wall could be built on Israel's border and provide the same security (even more) to Israeli citizens. It's a land-grab disguised in the language of security. If patriotism is the last refuge of scoundrels (Johnson), then security is the last refuge of scoundrel states.It seems to me that if the Israeli leadership's underlying objective is to maintain (and possibly expand) the occupation permanently, it would make sense for Israel to welcome a Hamas government, since such a government gives Israel an excuse to avoid negotiating. Instead, it appears that Israel has worked consistently to engineer the toppling of Hamas ever since it was elected. How do you explain this apparent contradiction?Israel thinks it has a bantustan leadership in place with which it can negotiate a final settlement (Abbas-Dahlan). In fact, that was the purpose of Oslo, and contrary to popular opinion, Oslo was almost a complete success. They got the Palestinian "leadership" they were grooming, but Hamas spoiled it for them.Do you feel the Geneva Accord offers a good basis for a final settlement?It's something, but the fundamental basis of any settlement must be UN Resolution 242 and subsequent UN resolutions calling for full Israeli withdrawal, the dismantling of the settlements and a resolution of the refugee question based on 194.What do you make of the Israeli government's apparent sudden engagement with the Saudi peace plan? It seems odd, seeing as they've virtually ignored it for years.It's another diversion. They can't very well say they reject it (they do want peace, you know, and it's the Arabs who are the problem), so they focus on the elements (like the refugees) bound to elicit a rejection.Prof. Ilan Pappe advocates a boycott of and perhaps sanctions on Israel to pressure it to change its behaviour. Do you agree that this is the best way to force it to respect the law?I have no opinion on this subject. Politics61993@blogcritics.org Tue, 3 Apr 2007 23:06:44 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2006/12/23/043737.php The HeathlanderOne of the biggest political scandals in Britain today is the cash for peerages affair, in which Tony Blair’s Labour party is alleged to have ‘rewarded’ large donors with peerages (a title and membership of the House of Lords). It is almost certainly true that this has happened and it is almost certainly true that it has been happening for decades. It is undoubtedly an important issue and the necessary legislative steps needed to prevent it happening again should be taken. It is, however, a grave mistake to think that the problems with British democracy end there.Britain today is only notionally a democracy. We have elections every four or five years and that’s about it. Recent years have witnessed a “historically unprecedented” decline in voter turnouts - in 2001, only 59% (.pdf) of the British public turned out to vote. That’s the lowest turnout since 1918. As a result, the legitimacy of our governments’ mandates is looking increasingly questionable. Or, to quote the Power Inquiry, we are facing a situation where ‘the processes of democracy, including general elections, become empty rituals.’The Power Inquiry - an independent body chaired by Helena Kennedy QC - was set up in 2004 to understand the reasons for the decline of participation in ‘formal democracy’ and to propose solutions to reverse the trend. It published its report (.pdf) in Febraury 2006 to virtual silence. It concluded that the decline in democratic participation is due to a feeling on the part of citizens that they have little or no impact on political decisions, a lack of difference between the main political parties and an unequal electoral system that leads to wasted votes.Let’s take a look at the second one - a lack of difference between the main political parties. The Power Inquiry concludes that ‘the main political parties are widely held in contempt’ and that they ‘are seen as offering no real choice to citizens’. The ‘main political parties are widely percieved to be too similar and lacking in principle.’ Let’s examine that statement a bit further.According to opinion polls: • the British public view President Bush as a greater threat to world peace than President Ahmadinejad, Kim Jong-il and Hassan Nasrallah. Despite this, Tony Blair is having to defend our ’special relationship’ with the U.S. and not with Iran, North Korea or Hizbullah. Both the Labour and Conservative parties support the close ties between the UK and U.S. (or rather; the former’s complete subservience to the latter). The most radical dissenting voice in the political mainstream on this issue comes from the Liberal Democrats, who call for a ‘rebalancing’ of the relationship. Imagine a similar call to ‘rebalance’ our relationship with Hizbullah, an organisation viewed by the British public as less of a threat to world security than President Bush.• the British public see U.S. presence in Iraq as a greater threat to world peace than Iran, and yet all the major political parties argue for continued cooperation with the U.S.-led occupation whilst advocating sanctions against Iran.• when confronted with the full cost of replacing Trident (£25 billion - although in reality, it could be as high as £70 billion), a majority of the British public oppose doing so. Despite this, both Labour and the Conservatives support Trident’s replacement. Again, the only ‘dissenting’ voice in the political mainstream comes from the Liberal Democrats. Again, the ‘dissent’ is so marginal that it actually serves to limit rather than expand the debate - the Lib Dems advocate cutting our number of nuclear warheads by half (to 100) and delaying the decision about replacement until 2014.• the vast majority of the British public oppose the use of nuclear weapons against a non-nuclear weapon state and oppose the use of nuclear weapons against a state that has nuclear weapons but has not used them. However, both Britain and NATO reserve the right to use nuclear weapons in a first-strike. This first-strike doctrine was evident in the run-up to the Iraq war, when Defence Secretary Geoff Hoon warned Saddam Hussein that he could be “absolutely confident” that the UK would use nuclear weapons “in the right conditions”.• the vast majority of the British public would “support the Prime Minister if he were to take a lead in negotiations for world-wide nuclear disarmament”. Despite this, all three of the major parties advocate the replacement of Trident, an action that would, according to the prestigious Matrix Chambers, constitute a “material breach” of the Non-Proliferation Treaty.• almost three-quarters of the British public oppose torture in all circumstances. Despite this, Blair’s Britain has ‘condoned‘ torture, made permissable the use of evidence extracted in Uzbekistani torture chambers and cooperated with CIA ‘torture flights’. Whilst both the Labour and Conservative parties officially oppose torture, both have a long record of supporting it around the world.• most Britons are willing to make sacrifices for the sake of the environment. The public supports ‘green taxes’ on goods that are harmful to the environment, and for most people saving the environment is a higher priority than economic growth. And yet; the 2006 Budget contained extremely timid environmental proposals, neglecting even to introduce an aviation tax. This failure was particularly appalling considering the recent publication of the Stern report, which made crystal clear the economic case for spending money to prevent climate change now, or else face astronomically larger costs later trying to deal with it. The UK needs to reduce its carbon emissions by 87% by 2030 in order to avoid catastrophic climate change; under New Labour, CO2 emissions have increased. Neither Labour, the Conservatives or the Lib Dems push policies radical enough to come even close to the 87% target. All three parties are mortally afraid of merely suggesting that we limit economic growth in order to save potentially millions of lives.• on March 3 2003, only 24% of the British public supported a war in Iraq if UN inspectors did not find a hidden WMD programme and if it was not sanctioned by the UN. As we all now know, Tony Blair lied to the public and to the Commons to drum up support for the war even though it satisfied neither of the above two conditions.As can be seen, in most of important policy areas, public opinion is either not represented in the political mainstream or else is treated as if utterly irrelevent. It can also be seen that, in most of the important issues, there is virtually no difference between the three major political parties.It is, however, important to recognise that opinion polls are not everything. One of the limitations of an opinion poll is that it assumes an informed public - if a person votes for replacing Trident without knowing anything about the issue, it doesn’t tell us very much. What we want to know is what their opinion would be if they knew the relevent information. That the public is still able to hold such progressive views despite the constant stream of establishment propaganda fed to them by the media is a testament to the law-abiding and compassionate nature of the people.A true democracy requires an informed public, because people can only make meaningful decisions if they know about the issues. An informed public requires a free press, since most people do not have the time to conduct personal research investigations into all the issues themselves. A democracy requires a free press to objectively and honestly disseminate information to the public. In this area, too, Britain’s democracy is sorely lacking. The track record of the British corporate media is exactly what you’d expect from organisations owned by corporations and dependent on corporate money for revenue - i.e. one of remarkably consistent subservience to the establishment. Said the Power Inquiry of the media): owernship is 'concentreated in too few hands', the media 'largely serves its own (financial) interests and barely serves the interests of the public', 'commercial considerations influence too greatly how newspapers and other media gather, edit and represent news stories about politics' and 'the media routinely and systematically ignores the serious problems of our times, such as climate change, global poverty...and spends much of its time analysing party political rhetoric, the behaviour of the Windsor family and the wranglings of religious establishments.'As I say, the media’s track record has been remarkably consistent over the years. Let’s, for now, take one example: the Iraq war. In the run-up to the invasion, any historical context was virtually invisible in the mainstream media. There was virtually no discussion of the “genocidal” sanctions that had killed up to a million Iraqis or of the U.S.’ and UK’s long history of imperialism and bloody colonialism. Information that cast doubt (to put it mildly) on the warmongerers’ claims about Iraqi WMD was suppressed. There was no questioning of Bush and Blair’s motives - the debate was limited to discussion of tactics, or of whether or not humanitarian intervention justified the war, or of whether or not Saddam’s WMD arsenal did pose a threat. There was no doubting that the war was indeed about WMD or humanitarian intervention. The ‘free’ press, obliging as ever, simply accepted the war on Bush and Blair’s terms. An Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC) study into the media performance during the Iraq war concluded that many report about the military campaign 'favoured the coalition' and 'all media outlets became more deferential towards government'. Coverage 'served mainly to reinforce official justifications for war' - the 'tendency was for news media to accept the official position and this enabled the coalition's moral case for the war to go by default.'It is clear that democracy in Britain is in severe crisis. There is no need to dispair. A free press is entirely achievable, and it is entirely possible to have a true democracy (or atleast something very much approximating it) - in fact, if we look at countries like Bolivia, we can get a good idea of what true democracy looks like. As Noam Chomsky explains:‘[Bolivia] had a real democratic election last year, of a kind that you can’t imagine in the United States, or in Europe, for that matter. There was mass popular participation, and people knew what the issues were. The issues were crystal clear and very important. And people didn’t just participate on election day. These are the things they had been struggling about for years.’It would, however, take a monumental effort to push through the democratic reforms necessary to truly allow the British (and American) people to govern themselves. Powerful establishment forces - to whom, of course, the very idea of true democracy is anathema - would have to be fought every step of the way. It would require mass, sustained public action. That, of course, is what true democracy is all about. Politics57416@blogcritics.org Sat, 23 Dec 2006 04:37:37 EST http://blogcritics.org/archives/2006/11/27/153756.php The HeathlanderThere has been a very welcome development in the Gaza Strip: Israel and the various Palestinian factions have committed to a ceasefire. What's more, it appears to be holding. It comes after the IDF failure to stop the Qassam rockets landing on Sderot and southern Israel despite months of incursions and military operations into the Strip. When the Palestinians first proposed the truce, Israel rejected it, labelling the move as "ludicrous" and a "media stunt". But the Qassams continued despite the expanded Gaza offensive, and so the ceasefire deal was signed and went into effect 7 am, Sunday morning, with Israel withdrawing its troops from Gaza.The good news, however, ends there. Barely an hour after the truce, two Qassam rockets were fired into Israel. Islamic Jihad and the military wing of Hamas claimed responsibility. Despite Hamas spokesman Ghazi Hamad's statement that "All of them now, without exception, including Hamas and Islamic Jihad and Fatah and other factions, they decided to respect the agreement and also to be committed 100 percent to this agreement," Islamic Jihad members are split over whether to abide by the ceasefire. Apparently, sections of Islamic Jihad are made of foreign fighters and these are opposed to the truce.Olmert pledged "restraint and patience" and there were no IDF retaliations. This is important, because any future peace or ceasefire deal will involve some initial violations by groups like Islamic Jihad. The idea is that once a just peace (or, in this case, a ceasefire) is signed the number of active militants will vastly decrease, and those few who continue to fire at Israel will become increasingly isolated and easy to deal with. If Israel were to, as it has in the past, insist that any violation of the ceasefire would result in the whole thing collapsing, it would effectively be handing a veto to the fanatics.However, there are already ominous signs that the ceasefire is crumbling. Some Palestinian militant groups, including the al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades, have demanded that Israel extend the ceasefire to the West Bank and have threatened to resume firing if it does not. Israel has so far refused; today in the West Bank, the IDF shot dead a People's Resistance Committees (PRC) militant and a woman, apparently civilian. It has continued to "arrest" Palestinians - 15 were detained overnight.This afternoon saw another two Qassam rockets fired into Israel. The al-Aqsa Maryrs' Brigades, which rejects the ceasefire because it doesn't apply to the West Bank, claimed responsibility for the attack, which has met with condemnation from the Palestinian leadership. The ceasefire is, as of now, still holding.But here's the really bad news. History tells us that Olmert is not interested in a peace with the Palestinians - at least, not a peace that they could ever accept. Hence his refusal to talk to the Arab League, his utter rejection of the Hamas government despite the Prisoners' Document, the brutal Operation Summer Rains which killed over 300 Palestinians (roughly half of them civilians) and his infamous 'realignment' plan. We should not allow recent events to wipe this history away from our minds. Olmert did not go to bed one night pro-Occupation and wake up the next morning pro-peace.When looked at through this lens of historical context, the current ceasefire carries with it little hope of a long-term solution. Olmert knows that certain Palestinian militant groups, al-Aqsa and Islamic Jihad included, will never keep to a ceasefire whilst IDF troops continue to shoot and detain Palestinians in the West Bank. It would be like Hamas asking the rest of Israel to keep to a ceasefire whilst continuing to fire on Tel Aviv. Olmert professes his desire to extend the truce to the West Bank, but on the condition that the Gaza ceasefire works out. Why? What's stopping him from doing it now, when it might make a difference?The answer might well be because he has no intention of a long-term ceasefire and certainly not of a peace settlement. It is possible that Olmert's spokeswoman Miri Eisin's description of the Palestinian truce offer as "a media stunt" more accurately applies to Israel's (eventual) acceptance of it. We have already seen that Olmert has ordered attacks in the West Bank to continue, despite knowing that this would doom the ceasefire to failure. A possible explanation for this is that he wants the ceasefire to fail. Why? Because it would allow Israel to claim that, once again, the Palestinians have rejected peace for violence. After Israel's relentless assault on Gaza since June 25, together with its dismissal of the Arab League and Syria's pushes for peace, many people around the world have beenquestioning whether or not Olmert is looking for peace at all. By entering into a ceasefire with the Palestinians, acting in a way so as to ensure its failure and then blaming the Palestinians for the renewed violence, Olmert would put the Palestinians back on the defensive.Olmert has also been talking about extending the ceasefire to a full peace settlement. In reality, as we have seen, he has refused even to extend it to the West Bank. In a speech delivered today, Olmert urged the Palestinians to "choose a new path, a path that gives a chance to a different future for you and for us. Yesterday we went down that path and I hope it will push us forward towards the goal that want to reach - peace, calm and trust in one another". What kind of peace? Disappointingly, Olmert referred back to the long dead "roadmap", but described the establishment of an "independent Palestinian state, with territorial contiguity in the West Bank, a state that will enjoy full sovereignty and will have defined borders." All that sounds good, but the devil is, as ever, in the details.If he was being sincere, such a speech is an extremely positive development and one with real potential. However, as I said, historical context forces us to be extremely skeptical when Olmert talks about peace. Ever since he's come into office he's done nothing but wage war on and lay siege to the Palestinians whilst rejecting outright peace with Syria and the Arab League. The idea that he had a sudden, miraculous revelation over night seems somewhat unlikely, to say the least.The key statement, for me, is this: "I extend my hand in peace to our Palestinian neighbors in the hope that it won't return empty". If Olmert is breaking with both Israel's and his own recent history and is sincere in this hope, the ceasefire may be looked back on by future generations as the beginning of the end of the conflict. The again, if this is the case, I can think of no rational explanation for Olmert refusing to extend the ceasefire to the West Bank, thereby dooming it to failure. If, on the other hand, Olmert is following tradition and being insincere, the ceasefire may actually be extremely damaging for the Palestinian cause.Why damaging? Firstly, as mentioned above, if Israel continues to operate in the West Bank and militants in the Strip continue to fire Qassams into Israel, the ceasefire will be dead within days. Israel will portray the failure as yet more proof that the Palestinians are not interested in peace and will use it to justify greater military offensives (much as the failure of the "disengagement" to stop Qassams was used to justify Operation Summer Rains). Furthermore, international public opinion - the most potent weapon in the Palestinian arsenal - will shift towards Israel.On the other hand, Olmert personally has a lot to lose if this all goes wrong. He has already been attacked by right-wing MKs who argue that all the ceasefire will do is give the Palestinians time to rearm. Sections of the military agree. If the ceasefire fails to stop the Qassams, it is likely to be the final nail in the Olmert coffin and would probably signal a Likud victory in the next elections. Olmert, as the appointment of Avigdor Lieberman illustrated, is absolutely desperate to hold on to power. It therefore makes no sense for him to deliberately torpedo the ceasefire and with it his political career.I don't know whether Olmert is being sincere or not. If he isn't, the truce may well end up damaging the Palestinian cause severely. If he is, there is great potential to move forward to serious peace negotiations, but he must first extend the ceasefire to the West Bank and agree to talk with Hamas, before the momentum is lost. Either way, Islamic Jihad and the al-Aqsa Brigades must stop firing rockets into Israel. The biggest victims of the Qassam rockets are the Palestinian people. Politics56327@blogcritics.org Mon, 27 Nov 2006 15:37:56 EST http://blogcritics.org/archives/2006/11/22/224702.php The HeathlanderReading about the Iranian nuclear "crisis", one gets the impression of two entirely separate and completely different "Iran crises" being described as if they were one and the same thing.The first "Iran crisis" exists (only) in the rhetoric of political leaders. You've got President Bush declaring that "Iran's nuclear ambitions are not in the world's interests", describing an Iranian nuclear weapon as "unacceptable" and warning that, in the event of continued Iranian enrichment of uranium, "all options are on the table". Then you've got Likud leader Binyamin Netanyahu branding Iranian nuclear weapons ambitions as "much more dangerous" than Hitler, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert predicting that Iran would supply Hizbullah with a nuclear weapon should it acquire one, proclaiming that Israel "will not tolerate" a nuclear-armed Iran and calling on the "whole world" to prevent such a situation from arising.Lastly, of course, we have Iran's President Ahmadinejad who provides a lunatic statement (an 'Ahmadinejadism') once or twice a month to get all the Western journalists typing like crazy and to squeeze as much political popularity as he can from insulting Israel and the U.S.A world view based on the rhetoric reported, usually uncritically, by the mainstream media would hold that Iran is a defiant, rogue state possessed by a fanatical desire to destroy Israel, kill all the Jews and launch a campaign of world domination starting with a nuclear attack on Washington and Jerusalem.Then we have the second "Iran crisis". This is the version based on facts. This version points out that Iran has not attacked anyone outside its borders for 250 years. It recognises that, unlike Israel, Iran has signed the Non-Proliferation Treaty and has granted weapons inspectors access to its declared enrichment facilities (like those at Natanz). Iran has, in fact, undergone more extensive nuclear weapons inspections than any other Member state. The factual version suffers not from the amnesia of the rhetorical "Iran crisis" and recalls that in the 1970s Washington actually encouraged an Iranian nuclear programme, to the extent that in 1976 President Gerald Ford offered Iran a full nuclear cycle.The factual version recalls International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) reports on Iran's nuclear programme, like the one published in February 2006 which states (.pdf),"all the declared nuclear material in Iran has been accounted for. Although the Agency has not seen any diversion of nuclear material to nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices, the Agency is not at this point in time in a position to conclude that there are no undeclared nuclear materials or activities in Iran",(the United States, incidentally, responded (.pdf) to that report by referring Iran to the Security Council) or the one published in April 2006 that concludes (.pdf) much the same thing:"All the nuclear material declared by Iran to the Agency is accounted for. Apart from the small quantities previously reported to the Board, the Agency has found no other undeclared nuclear material in Iran."Then, of course, there's the alleged CIA intelligence report concluding that it has found no evidence of a secret Iranian nuclear weapons programme. I say 'alleged' but, since the White House has refused even to deny it, we can be pretty sure Seymour Hersh's article is accurate.The reality-based "Iran crisis" reaches very different conclusions to those of the rhetorical version. Whereas President Bush, Prime Minister Olmert and Co. assume as self-evident that Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons, we can see from the facts that there is no real evidence of this at all. All we know for certain is that Iran has signed the NPT and, to the best of our knowledge, is abiding by it.The fact that the Bush and Olmert administrations are so radically misrepresenting the situation is a clear indication that they are placing political objectives above military intelligence (sound familiar?). Israel's objective appears to be to prevent Iran not just from acquiring nuclear weapons, but from acquiring the "infrastructural capability" which would allow them to develop nuclear weapons relatively quickly should they at some point choose to.Israel, for reasons of power and influence, wants to retain its nuclear monopoly in the Middle East. In contrast to the political rhetoric, however, neither Israel nor the U.S. is afraid of Iran actually using nuclear weapons to attack anyone. To do so would be suicidal and Iran knows it. That's why no nuclear state in history has attacked another nuclear state with nuclear weapons. The real reason why the U.S. and Israel are so keen to avoid a nuclear-armed Iran is because a nuclear Iran would be far harder to control. As historian Martin van Crevald writes, "as one country after another joined the nuclear club, Washington's ability to threaten them or coerce them declined."That's why the idea of a nuclear-armed Iran is such an anathema to the U.S. and Israel: it would be far harder to control and would be less restrained in its dealings with other nations. Joseph Cirincione, senior analyst at Washington think-tank Centre for American Progress, agrees, stating that the "deeper agenda" for a U.S. attack on Iran is "this belief that American military power can be used to fundamentally transform the regimes in the Middle East".He says that the Bush administration's current policy "is going to inevitably lead us to a military conflict" and that an attack on Iran is "very possible". The policy he is referring to is Bush's demand that Iran completely cease uranium enrichment (allowed under the NPT) before he will deign to hold negotiations with Iran on, well, its suspension of uranium enrichment. As Seymour Hersh says, it's an absolute "nonstarter". Iran will not give up its right to enrich uranium and, unless they are bluffing, the Americans are going to keep pushing for harder and harder measures against Iran until finally, they get to the one option that is not 'off the table' - military action.There are, however, factors that would appear to count against U.S. military action against Iran. First and foremost there is Iraq - U.S. troops are bogged down there and the electorate have had enough of wars in the Middle East. After the Mid-Term elections, Bush doesn't have the mandate to start another war without the support of the Democrats (although, according to Seymour Hersh's article, Dick Cheney thinks the Bush gang will be able to bypass Congressional blocks on military action). Furthermore, it looks increasingly likely that the U.S. is going to have to ask Iran for help in Iraq.Israel, on the other hand, has no such worries. All it needs is the "green light" from the U.S. to attack Iran by itself. According to Michael Oren writing in the Wall Street Journal, that was the purpose of Olmert's recent trip to Washington. If so, he got what he wanted: Bush recently stated that he would 'understand' if Israel attacked Iran.Olmert recently declared, "We have reached the pivotal moment of truth regarding Iran... Our integrity will remain intact only if we prevent Iran's devious goals, not if we try our best but fail." At a recent AIPAC conference U.S. ambassador John Bolton promised "painful and tangible consequences" for Iran if it refused to stop its enrichment whilst in Israel, Deputy Defence Minister Ephraim Sneh warned that Iran nuclear programme must be stopped "at all costs" and publicly advocated "preemptive military action". If it is true that Olmert felt 'reassured' by his meeting with Bush because he was given permission to attack Iran, it looks increasingly likely that, for once, the worlds of rhetoric and reality will collide, to devastating effect. Politics56173@blogcritics.org Wed, 22 Nov 2006 22:47:02 EST http://blogcritics.org/archives/2006/11/19/123443.php The HeathlanderWhen Avigdor Lieberman yesterday argued that all Hamas and Islamic Jihad leaders must “disappear, go to heaven, all of them” (i.e. be assassinated) most people would have dismissed it as just the latest crackpot statement from a man who could sensibly be described as Israel’s Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. The dismissal would, however, have been premature. The Sunday Times today reports that Prime Minster Olmert has ordered his security chiefs to assassinate Hamas’ political leadership. Even more shockingly, we learn that the impetus for move came from none other than Amir Peretz, who broke down into tears when his bodyguard was injured in a Qassam attack on Sderot last Wednesday.That, apparently, justifies the extra-judicial execution (Amnesty International’s words) of members of the democratically elected government of the Palestinian people. Presumably, then, Peretz and Olmert would accept that it is perfectly legitimate for Hamas and Islamic Jihad to assassinate members of the Israeli political leadership.The Sunday Times describes the move as a “change in tactics” but it is actually nothing of the sort. Israel regularly “liquidates” supposed militants, often killing innocent civilians (”collateral damage”) in the process. Recall, for example, July 2002, when an Israeli F-16 dropped a one-tonne bomb on a densely populated Gaza City neighbourhood in an assassination attempt on Hamas activist Salah Shehada. Shehada was killed along with seven other adults and nine children, with more than 70 people injured. Six nearby houses were also destroyed in the attack, which was described the following day by then Prime Minister Ariel Sharon as “one of the most successful operations”. More recently, on 6 November 2006, the Israeli Occupation Forces (IOF) killed a Palestinian child and injured six others in a failed extra-judicial execution attempt. Israel justifies its actions by claiming it is in a state of war with the Palestinians and so the killing of enemy combatants is legitimate. In reality, the situation is not a war but an occupation. That doesn’t mean that Israel is not allowed to defend itself and it doesn’t mean militants in the process of attacking Israel should not be dealt with. It does mean that to have a policy of assassinating Hamas political leaders is illegal. Furthermore, by accepting Israel’s right to assassinate we are conferring upon the Israeli political and military leadership the authority to decide who is and who is not an immediate threat to Israel’s security, despite their long and bloody history of failing to make this distinction (only recently Olmert declared that 300 “terrorists” had been killed in the past three months, despite the fact that this total includes 155 people, 61 of them children, who were non-combatants). It is true that since Hamas was elected in January the IDF has largely refrained from direct attacks on its politicians. In this sense, Peretz’ and Olmert’s move is a ‘change in tactics’, but it’s hardly a revolutionary one - Israel has simply gone from destroying the government’s buildings, stealing its money and “arresting” its politicians to killing them. Anything for a return to a servile, “enforcer” Fatah government.House demolitions are another of Israel favourite methods of controlling the Palestinian Territories. Since the start of the occupation in 1967, 12,000 Palestinian homes have been destroyed in the Occupied Territories. During the Oslo years (1993-2000) Israel demolished 740 homes and from the outbreak of the second Intifada in 2000 to 2004, 5,000 houses were destroyed.From October 2001 to January 2005, Israel made punitive house demolitions official policy. Between those years, 668 Palestinian homes were demolished as punishment (the idea was that the homes of relatives to militants would be destroyed in order to deter future attacks). A B’Tselem investigation discovered that in all but 3% of cases residents were given no prior warning of the demolition, that in 32% of cases suspected offenders were in detention at the time of the demolition and in 47% of cases, suspected offenders were dead.Art. 53 of the Fourth Geneva Convention states:“Any destruction by the Occupying Power of real or personal property belonging individually or collectively to private persons, or to the State, or to other public authorities, or to social or cooperative organizations, is prohibited, except where such destruction is rendered absolutely necessary by military operations.”Israel has, for example with the punitive house demolitions, explicitly violated this law many times. However, it has also sought to justify non-punitive house demolitions by claiming they are “rendered absolutely necessary by military operations” as allowed for in in the Fourth Convention. In practise, this ‘military necessity’ excuse has often largely been used to justify collective punishment and disproportionate attacks.Between 9-15 November, three houses and a commercial store were destroyed by IOF air-strikes. The target of one of these strikes writes how her sister-in-law with eight children in her care was killed. All this is worth bearing in mind when considering today’s story that Israel has cancelled a planned bombing of the home of a Popular Resistance Committees (PRC) militant in the Jabalya refugee camp after hundreds of Palestinian climbed on the roof to form a human shield.Even if we deplore the terrorism of the PRC (and we must), we should be supporting those Palestinians who are bravely taking a stand against the brutal Israeli assault on Gaza. Israel’s right to defend itself is no justification for the misery and suffering it has imposed on Palestinian society and the war crimes it has committed in the name of protecting Israel from the Qassam missiles. The Israeli woman killed in Sderot last Wednesday became, tragically, the first Israeli to be killed by Qassam rockets in 16 months. To get some perspective of the scale of the Israeli assault on Gaza, compare that with the 434 Palestinians (275 of whom are civilians and 82 of whom are children) who have been killed since June 25 this year. Until the Israeli military demonstrates it has the capability and the will to abide by international law and to make the clear distinction between militants and civilians, we should not recognise its right to demolish houses or conduct targeted assassinations regardless of any claims about the military necessity of the operation. History has conclusively demonstrated that those claims cannot be trusted. Until they can be, supporters of human rights and international law must celebrate this victory of the resistance over Amir Peretz, Ehud Olmert and Avigdor Lieberman. Politics55998@blogcritics.org Sun, 19 Nov 2006 12:34:43 EST http://blogcritics.org/archives/2006/11/14/194914.php The HeathlanderSpeaking yesterday at the annual United Jewish Communities General Assembly (a tough crowd), Likud chairman and former Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu used apocalyptic language to emphasise the threat posed by Iran, not only to Israel but to the entire world. "Everything else pales before this," he intoned gravely.He also employed that ever so original tool of persuasion: a Holocaust analogy, stating, "It's 1938 and Iran is Germany. And Iran is racing to arm itself with atomic bombs...Believe [Iranian President Ahmadinejad] and stop him...he is preparing another Holocaust for the Jewish state."This is not the first time in recent days Ahmadinejad has been compared to Hitler. In an interview with the Washington Post, PM Olmert made the same analogy, adding that Ahmadinejad is "ready to commit crimes against humanity" and "has to be stopped".Now, analogies to the Holocaust should not be made lightly, at least not without clarification. Likewise, comparisons to Hitler, whilst an unfortunately popular defamatory device, are usually misplaced and inaccurate. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is a borderline Holocaust denier and he has made threats against the existence of Israel. But firstly, these threats have been abstract - he has made no direct call to arms or threat of war. Secondly, Ahmadinejad has no power under Iranian law over the nuclear programme or over matters of war. Of course all his talk about the "destruction" of Israel and questioning the Holocaust is disgusting, but it's done in order to increase his popularity with the people of Iran, not because he's actually planning a war. He is a show-figure and not in charge of policy in these matters. Thus, while convenient for Israel and the U.S., all this focus on Ahmadinejad is misleading. There is certainly no danger of a second Holocaust coming from Iran.Israel, on the other hand, has been ratcheting up the rhetoric recently, making several very real military threats, both veiled and explicit, against Iran. In an interview published Saturday, Olmert pushed the international community to make clear to Iran that it will "pay dearly" if it doesn't stop its enrichment activities. "In other words," said Olmert, "Iran must start to fear." In the same interview, he described a nuclear Iran as "absolutely intolerable" and, when asked whether Israel would consider military action, Olmert refused to answer, saying only that, "Israel has many options."Others have been more specific. On November 10, Israel's Deputy Defence Minister Ephraim Sneh warned that Israel must prevent Iran's nuclear programme "at all costs" (the "costs", presumably, being Iranian lives). He classified "preemptive military action" as a "last resort", before proclaiming that, "the last resort is sometimes the only resort". Not exactly what you'd call 'subtle'.Then, of course, there was the appointment of the extreme nationalist and racist Avigdor Lieberman as `Minister for Strategic Threats', whose prime task, apparently, will be to coordinate Israeli strategy on Iran.Finally, let's return reluctantly to Netanyahu, who has also directly threatened Iran with military force. Pointing out that Israel has "the capability required to eliminate the [Iranian] threat", he argued that stopping Iran requires "preemptive leadership" (in reference to Israel's preemptive strike in the 1967 war). It's been made crystal clear that, while it will go through the diplomatic motions and give Iran the chance to surrender first, Israel is absolutely prepared to launch a military first-strike on Iran.The United States likewise officially retains the right to launch "preemptive strikes", even if "uncertainty remains as to the time and place of the enemy's attack". The 2006 National Security Strategy of the United States explicitly states the U.S.' right to "act preemptively in exercising our inherent right of self-defense." More recently, President Bush has declared that, with Iran, "all options are on the table".It's important to note that when Israel and the United States talk of preemption, what they actually mean is prevention. The U.S. cited "preemption" in its case for invading Iraq, but for something to qualify as `preemption' it has to be in response to "incontrovertible evidence that an enemy attack is imminent". What the U.S. meant in the case of Iraq and what the U.S. and Israel mean in the case of Iran is prevention, which is "a war initiated in the belief that military conflict, while not imminent, is inevitable, and that to delay would involve greater risk."In short, then, Iranians have every reason to feel insecure. Many have lived with the threat and fear of a hostile, nuclear-armed Israel and an aggressive, nuclear-armed United States all their lives. But, evidently, it is only Israel's and the United States' security that matters. Israel's ambassador to the EU, Oded Eran, recently argued that, for the first time since its creation, Israel is facing an "existential threat". He points out that,"We know from the past the destructive nature of the nuclear weapons and it doesn't matter whether you react or not afterwards because the harm can't be reversed. That's existential threat."Now, this is the argument that is being and will be used to justify a strike on Iran. The premises are;1. A nuclear Iran will be, in Olmert's words, "not just a threat for Israel, but for the whole world."2. Israel should not have to tolerate such a threat.The conclusion, therefore, is that Israel has the right to strike preventively against Iran to stop it getting nuclear weapons.The first thing to note is the unevidenced assumption that Iran is in fact attempting to develop nuclear weapons. The IAEA has emphasised (though not strongly enough) many times that, although it can't say for definite that Iran isn't pursuing nuclear weapons, neither can it show that it is. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, the working assumption must therefore be that Iran is simply exercising its legal right to enrich uranium and develop a civilian nuclear programme.But let's, for a moment, assume that Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons. Does it then follow that, as Netanyahu put it, "[the arsenal] will be directed against `the big Satan,' the U.S., and the `moderate Satan,' Europe"? Let's look at the current nuclear club. Has Israel ever used nuclear weapons on anyone? Has France? Has the U.K.? No; the only country ever to drop a nuclear bomb on another nation is the United States. They dropped two on Japan - a non-nuclear state. There has never been an instance of a nuclear attack on a nuclear state. The reason for this is obvious: an attack on a nuclear state would result in a retaliatory nuclear strike and states don't commit suicide. There is thus no reason at all to think that a nuclear Iran would actually use nuclear weapons on anyone. As historian Martin van Crevald writes, "[Israel] has long had what it needs to deter an Iranian attack...Should deterrence fail, Jerusalem can quickly turn Tehran into a radioactive desert -- a fact of which Iranians are fully aware."But even if we assume that Iran is developing nuclear weapons and that, should it get them, it would pose a threat to Israel, the United States and the world, would that then justify an Israeli/U.S. preventive strike against Iran? Well, let's reverse the situation. As we have seen, Israel is a nuclear power with enough nuclear weapons to "turn Tehran into a radioactive desert". Its political and military leadership have long made clear that they are prepared to launch a military first-strike against Iran. The U.S. has also made its aggressive intent towards Iran known and has enough nuclear weapons to turn the whole of the Middle East into a radioactive desert. What's more, both states have a history of aggressive military intervention (the U.S., for example, helped topple Iran's democratically elected Mossadegh in 1953). Even Tony Blair accepts that Iran has a "genuine, if entirely misplaced fear, that the US seeks a military solution in Iran."If we argue that Israel has the right to strike Iran preventively because it fears an Iranian nuclear threat, does not Iran have the right to strike Washington and Tel Aviv for the same reason?If basic morality does not suffice, international law is clear on the matter. Preventive military strikes are illegal. Under international law (.pdf), the "use of force is only permissable in the case of armed attack or imminent attack or under UN authorization when a threat to the peace has been declared by the Security Council and non-military measured have been determined to be inadequate."As an American Society of International Law (ASIL) paper, entitled `The Myth of Preemptive Self-Defense' (.pdf), explains, the United Nations Charter (a binding treaty to which both the U.S. and Israel are signatories) explicitly forbids the use of force except in self-defence or if authorised by the Security Council in response to an imminent attack. But to use force under Article 51 (which permits states to use force to defend themselves) requires that, "An attack must be underway or just have already occurred in order to trigger the right of unilateral self-defense. Any earlier response requires the approval of the Security Council. There is no self-appointed right to attack another state because of fear that the state is making plans or developing weapons usable in a hypothetical campaign."Thus, in the absence of "incontrovertible evidence" of an "imminent" Iranian aggression, there is absolutely zero justification for any military action against Iran, regardless of its nuclear status. Politics55802@blogcritics.org Tue, 14 Nov 2006 19:49:14 EST http://blogcritics.org/archives/2006/11/11/223946.php The Heathlander`Operation Autumn Clouds' officially ended claiming dozens of lives a leaving a town in grief. The name is a reference to Israel's earlier `Operation Summer Rains' - one wonders if the IDF is planning a whole set, a twisted homage to Vivaldi. The semblance to `Operation Summer Rains' goes beyond the name, however - both campaigns have been marked by criminality and, in the words of Amnesty International's Middle East and North Africa Programme Director, "nothing less than reckless disregard for the lives of Palestinian civilians".`Operation Autumn Clouds' lasted from 2 November to 7 November. According to the Palestinian Centre for Human Rights, between 2-8 November the Israeli Occupation Forces (IOF) killed 86 Palestinians, 56 of whom were civilian, including 16 children and 10 women. That figure includes 12 extra-judicial executions and those killed in the massacre at Beit Hanun on Wednesday.That massacre killed 18 civilians, including 17 from the same family and 7 minors. It was, regardless of the IDF's contention that it didn't intend the deaths, a war crime. Of course, all right-minded people condemned the crime, from the Palestinians in East Jerusalem to Israelis in Nazareth to, in fact, the vast majority of the international community. Israeli political leaders offered their `regrets' in a "repulsive" display of crocodile tears. In order to appease international pressure, Israel agreed to launch a military "investigation" into the incident and called off artillery strikes for a few days, as well as opening the Rafah border crossing until 5pm (in fact, Israel has no right to open or close the Rafah crossing at all).A U.N. General Assembly meeting was held on Thursday, the day after the shelling, to discuss the atrocity. Riyad Mansour, the Permanent Observer for Palestine to the U.N., described Israel's "barbaric military aggression" and "flagrant violations...of international law" in Gaza, labelling Israel's actions in Beit Hanun "State terrorism". The U.S. representative, one John Bolton, repeated the same old tired bullshit about Israel's right to defend itself whilst urging all parties to act with restraint. He was more specific about Hamas - apparently, he found its call about a return to arms "alarming" and reminded everyone that it was Hamas' responsibility to stop terror attacks from Palestinian territories. "Alarming" was a far stronger term of condemnation than the U.S. used to condemn the murder of 18 Palestinian civilians, which it found merely "regrettable". Apparently, the U.S. has seen the Israeli government's "apology" and accepted it. The matter, for them, is now closed.The British representative, Karen Pierce, used equally mild language, recognising Israel's right to self-defence whilst pointing out that Israeli actions must be proportional and `mindful' of civilian life.There is a recurring problem here - that of people and states trying to `balance' out their responses to avoid charges of being `anti-Israel'. If you look down the list of statements at the U.N. General Assembly meeting, you'll see that most of the countries do it. They condemn the attacks on civilians and urge proportionality, but at the same time feel obliged to spend as many words criticising Palestinian terror attacks on Israel.Journalists, at least the good ones, do the same (the bad ones focus almost completely on Palestinian terror and Israeli casualties). Take, for example, this BBC article by correspondent Matthew Price. In it, he offers a first-hand account of the tragedy and loss suffered at Beit Hanun. But he then feels the need to `balance' this account with statements like, "And this is the tragedy here. Neither side comprehends the other" and "The gulf between the two is so great that perhaps neither side wants to anymore."But in reality there is no symmetry. This isn't a case of two equal partners in a conflict. The situation is one of the occupier and the occupied. The oppressor and the oppressed. The aggressor and the resistance. The fourth ranking military power in the world and a few crudely built rockets.Of course terrorism is wrong. It is an illegitimate tactic of resistance and cannot be justified by anything. When Palestinians resort to terrorism, it must therefore be condemned. But that doesn't mean that in all reporting of the conflict, equal space should be given to Palestinian and Israeli atrocities, because Israel is the occupying power and the Palestinians are the occupied. Moreover, there is a huge difference in the scale of Israeli and Palestinian terror. Just look at the casualties since September 29 2000: 1,084 Israelis killed compared to 4,266 Palestinians killed. That's a ratio of roughly 1:4. Or take the casualties since the beginning of `Operation Autumn Clouds': 86 Palestinians killed compared to three Israeli soldiers, one of whom was killed in friendly fire. There is no symmetry here and politicians and the media should stop trying to create one.Of course, the U.S.' and U.K.'s professions of "regret", insufficient though they were, were insincere. This was made clear today when the U.S. vetoed a U.N. Security Council resolution condemning the Israeli shelling of Beit Hanun and urging an Israeli withdrawal from Gaza. U.S. ambassador John Bolton claimed he was "disturbed at the language of the resolution which is in many places biased against Israel and politically motivated." (Note: Bolton was "disturbed" by the language of the resolution, but only "regretted" the murder of 18 civilians in Gaza). This despite the inclusion in the resolution of a paragraph calling on the Palestinian Authority to "take immediate and sustained action to bring an end to violence, including the firing of rockets on Israeli territory." To our shame, Britain (together with Japan, Slovakia and Denmark) abstained.And so Israel has once more been granted immunity from international condemnation (let alone punishment) despite consistently failing to adhere to the fundamental pillars of international humanitarian law - those of distinction and proportionality. This makes a mockery of those who like to claim the U.N. is somehow biased against Israel. Israel has been allowed to give the finger to the international community and international law since 1948 with almost complete impunity. And so we must all wait until the next Jenin, the next Qana, the next Beit Hanun, when more Palestinian civilians will be blown to pieces and the "repulsive" cycle of "regret" will begin all over again. Politics55681@blogcritics.org Sat, 11 Nov 2006 22:39:46 EST http://blogcritics.org/archives/2006/11/08/195814.php The Heathlander"We saw legs, we saw heads, we saw hands scattered in the street."Those are the words of Attaf Hamad, resident of the northern Gaza town of Beit Hanoun which today has suffered the single deadliest Israeli attack on the Palestinians in four years. Israeli Defence Forces (IDF) artillery shells killed at least 18 Palestinians, wounding dozens more.According to the Palestinian Ministry of Health, all of those killed and wounded were civilians. Eight children and seven women were among the dead and 18 of the victims were from the same family.Of course, Israel didn't mean it. Israel never does. It's always some mistake, someone else's fault. Yes, we killed over a thousand Lebanese civilians, but only because Hizbullah fighters were hiding behind them. Yes, we bombed whole villages to rubble, but we warned people to leave in advance. The fact is, as B'tselem points out, the IDF's proclamation that it didn't mean to harm civilians is 'meaningless' and 'cannot justify an action that amounts to a war crime'.Israel accepts that twelve shells were fired, targeting a location roughly half a kilometer from Beit Hanoun from which Qassam missiles had been fired at the city of Ashkelon yesterday. The IDF is citing human or technical error (such as mistakenly feeding the wrong coordinates into the machine) to explain why the shells went so tragically off course.But, as B'Tselem points out, this does not excuse the IDF of responsibility. Firstly, by the IDF's own admission, the shells were not fired in self-defence. It was fired at a 'launching space' from which previous attacks had occurred and was not in response to a Palestinian rocket-attack that was in progress. Secondly, artillery fire is inherently inaccurate and firing shells over several kilometers in the direction of crowded population centres is always going to be risky. It should, therefore, only be used as a last resort (i.e. in response to an ongoing attack). These facts, when combined with the fundamental principles of international humanitarian law -- those of distinction (between civilian and military targets) and proportionality -- mean that, in B'Tselem's words, there is a 'grave concern' that the shelling of Beit Hanoun 'constitutes a war crime'.IDf Chief Dan Halutz has appointed Major General Meir Kalifi to head an investigation into the shelling. He will report back to Defence Minister Peretz by Thursday evening. Of course, it has 'whitewash' written all over it (just like the military 'investigation' into Qana). The Israeli public must demand an objective criminal investigation.Israeli Foreign Minister Tzipi Livny described the incident as 'regrettable', but emphasised that, 'Israel is faced with constant attack by the Palestinian terror organizations, in the form of relentless firing of Qassam rockets at Israeli population centres'.That apparently justifies the murder of Palestinian civilians. Presumably, Livny would describe the death of Israeli civilians by Qassam rockets as similarly "regrettable". After all, it cannot be denied that the Palestinians are faced with constant attack by Israel, with the relentless firing of bombs and artillery shells at Palestinian population centres. One only has to look at the figures - between 19th October to 1st November alone, the Israeli Occupying Forces (IOF) killed 27 Palestinians, 11 of whom were civilians. Since June 25 and the start of 'Operation Summer Rains', 324 Palestinians, mostly civilians and including 64 children, have been killed by IOF.Does this justify Palestinian Qassams? Or does only Israel have the right to self-defence? Israel's response is indicative of the low value Olmert's cabinet appears to place on Palestinian life. Olmert has apparently labeled all Palestinian casualties of 'Operation Summer Rains' terrorists and it emerged today that the Attorney General has investigated precisely none of the 40 complaints of torture he has received in the past year. It is hard to avoid the conclusion that for many of those in power in Israel, the lives and rights of Palestinian people just don't matter very much.Expect to hear Margaret Beckett describe the incident as 'disturbing' (or perhaps Tony Blair will describe it as 'an anomaly') and George Bush/Tony Snow once more to 'urge' Israel to 'avoid unnecessary civilian casualties'. Their standard, off-the-shelf responses delivered, the subject will then slip off the agenda until it all happens again in a few months time. Politics55540@blogcritics.org Wed, 8 Nov 2006 19:58:14 EST http://blogcritics.org/archives/2006/10/15/132517.php The HeathlanderWhen Condoleeza Rice visited and met with Palestinian President Abbas and Israeli government leaders recently, in the context of daily Israeli incursions into Gaza and regular in-fighting between Fatah and Hamas militants, she talked a lot about peace and helping the Palestinians, promising to "redouble" efforts to improve Palestinian living conditions. However, most Palestinians knew the real reason for her visit - to convey U.S. support to Abbas and Fatah.She met with Abbas in Ramallah, where she expressed "great admiration" for his leadership and promised him the "strong commitment of the United States". Then, quite amazingly, it was announced that the U.S. would allocate $26 million to "expand" Abbas' Presidential guard from 3,500 to 6,000 men. At a time when the Palestinians seem to be moving ever closer to a civil war, it is obvious what this means. Then, yesterday, the U.S. "quietly started a campaign" to bolster Hamas' political opponents in the event of an upcoming election, expected to cost up to $46 million (a lot of money in the Occupied Territories - more than three times the amount spent by the main parties and candidates in the January election.) "'This project supports (the) objective to create democratic alternatives to authoritarian or radical Islamist political options,' one official U.S. document obtained by Reuters said."U.S. Consul General Jacob Walles said, "We are not promoting any particular party. In fact, we will work with any party as long as it is not affiliated with a terrorist organisation". Now, there are some problems with this. First, it's a flagrant lie. As I've already said, the U.S. has allocated $26 million specifically to expand President Abbas' Presidential Guards. Then there's the fact that Fatah is linked to a terrorist group, the Al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades. The al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades are Fatah's military wing. Since the U.S. and Israel consistently fail to distinguish between the political and military wings of Hamas, there is no way they can justify doing so for Fatah. So in other words the U.S. government is, in effect, funding a terrorist organisation and so, under Bush law, they should be disappeared to Guantanamo Bay.Second, Hamas is a democratic party. It was elected in January in free and fair elections by the Palestinian people, and has a strong mandate to represent them. By funding Fatah and other Hamas opponents, the U.S. is working to subvert the democratic choice of the Palestinian people.An incident happened late last week which illustrated perfectly the shifting alliances in the Occupied Territories. A U.S. volunteer was kidnapped by a previously unknown group and held for a day in Nablus. He was freed on Thursday unharmed by the al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades and brought to the mayor's office accompanied by 20 al-Aqsa militants. The U.S. and Fatah, and by extension the al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades, are now firm allies, out of common interest more than anything else. The U.S. and Israel need Hamas out of office because they know that Hamas will stand up and demand from them that Palestinian rights are upheld. Fatah, history has shown, will not. Hamas, incidentally, are fully aware of this paradigm shift -- its operatives have been pushing their leadership to authorise attacks on U.S. targets throughout the Middle East. A Hamas statement, furious at the latest U.S. intervention, said, "This is not the first time we discover that the U.S. has transferred funds to Fatah. In the general Palestinian parliament elections the (American) government financed Fatah parliament members [then as now, Fatah shamefully accepted U.S. funding], but the financial aid did not help them and they were defeated in the elections...Still, they are the ones continuing to incite against the government, wearing the new clothes of the president's advisors."Abbas, for his part, is desperate to regain power after Hamas swept to a surprise victory in the January elections. That is why he has collaborated with U.S. and Israeli plans to topple Hamas, using the civil service strikes as political cover knowing full well that the reason they have not been paid has nothing to do with Hamas mis-management of the economy and everything to do with foreign intervention. It is why Abbas has collaborated with the 'quartet' in demanding Hamas recognise Israel, renounce violence, and abide by past agreements despite the fact that none of these 'preconditions' are applied to Israel, the aggressor and the occupier. Israel, unlike Hamas which imposed and largely kept to a unilateral ceasefire for over a year, has never renounced violence. It refuses outright to abide by previous agreements (for example, its expansion of the settlements violates the both spirit of Oslo and the word of the 'roadmap', as well as international law). And while Hamas refuses to recognise the Israeli state in words, Israel refuses to recognise the Palestinian state in deed, which is far more meaningful. Israel has stood in the way of and deliberately prevented a two-state settlement for years now, and yet it is Hamas the international community, and to his shame Abbas, are making demands of. As Ramzy Baroud summarises, "Both Fatah and Hamas are allowing their desire for self-preservation and advancement to supplant the self-preservation of the Palestinian national unity, or whatever remains of it."This latest U.S. intervention must be understood in terms of the constant U.S. and international meddling that has been going on since the Palestinians chose the wrong people to represent them in January. As soon as Hamas was elected to power, Israel and the U.S. recognised that they had to go. Israel started to withhold tax receipts it collected, as the occupying power, on behalf of the Palestinian government, now amounting to some $500 million. The international community, led by Israel and the U.S., largely stopped giving aid to the Palestinians. This is incredibly important, because thanks to the occupation many Palestinians are heavily reliant on foreign aid merely to survive. Donor aid to the Palestinians will drop by 30% to 50% this year compared to last, and `in the most severe scenario, which now seems the more likely, the Palestinian economy will shrink to levels not witnessed for a generation. From 2006 to 2008, losses in GDP could reach $5.4bn, and 84% of the jobs available last year will disappear.'With more than 160,000 civil service workers striking over lack of pay, the Palestinian economy is in absolute ruins. It is undergoing a severe depression comparable to the Great Depression of the '30s, according to the World Bank, which predicted in March this year that the Palestinian economy would shrink by 27% in 2006, with unemployment nearly doubling to 39.6% and the percentage of those living below the poverty line increasing by half to 67%.As John Dugard, U.N special rapporteur for human rights in the Occupied Territories, explains, "The humanitarian situation in both the West Bank and Gaza is appalling. At least 4 out of 10 Palestinians live under the official poverty line of less than US$ 2.10 a day and unemployment stands at least 40 per cent...To aggravate matters, the public sector, which accounts for 23 per cent of total employment in the Palestinian territory, is employed but unpaid as a result of the withholding of funds owed to the Palestinian Authority by the Government of Israel, amounting to $50 to 60 million per month...In effect, the Palestinian people have been subjected to economic sanctions - the first time an occupied people have been so treated."Not only have Israel and the international community worked to overthrow Hamas by destroying the Palestinian economy further using international aid and tax receipts as tools to blackmail the Palestinian people; Israel has also increased the number of military roadblocks in the West Bank by 40% this year, meaning the West Bank is increasingly being carved up into small pieces. In the words of David Shearer, head of the U.N Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) in Jerusalem, "We are seeing a continuing closing down, locking down of Palestinian areas...The West Bank, for example, is effectively being chopped up into three big areas... and there are pockets within those areas where people also can't move."These checkpoints help separate farmers from fields, husbands from wives, employees from jobs, and are one of the main reasons for the dire state of the Palestinian economy. But even after months of international and Israeli economic strangulation, Hamas remained in power and the Palestinians remained resolute. So, on June 25, the Israelis used the capture of a soldier as a pretext for launching a massive military campaign against Gaza, cynically named `Operation Summer Rains'. In the course of this operation, six transformers at a Gaza power station were bombed by six separate Israeli missiles, in what B'Tselem and everyone else with a moral conscience described as a war crime. That Gaza power station provided over 40% of Gaza with electricity needed for air conditioning, hospitals, the sewage system and for power, and Israel with a cold calculation destroyed it at the height of summer. The Hamas Interior Ministry was bombed by Israeli jets several times, and raids have continued, killing Hamas militants and Palestinian civilians daily. B'Tselem was wrong to describe the bombing of the Gaza power plant as an `act of vengeance' because, as Jonathan Cook notes, that relies on the assumption that Israel is acting in 'good faith'. In fact, it was just the latest act in the Israeli strategy to collectively punish the Palestinian people for electing Hamas. The number of Palestinian children killed by Israeli forces this year has almost doubled compared to last year, after 13 year-old Suhaib Kadiah became the 92nd child to die this year when she was shot by Israeli troops in Gaza.Incidentally, the U.S.' and Israel's strategy of collective punishment seems to be working, with opinion polls now roughly split half-and-half between Hamas and Fatah. Fatah, like everyone else in the region, recognises that this is solely due to the economic crisis imposed on the Palestinians from the outside, and has worked hard to capitalise on this. But, in reality, it is in neither the Palestinian nor the Israeli peoples' interests for Hamas to be toppled from power. It will teach them and other militant groups a lesson - that politics is for those who are willing to submit to U.S. and Israeli interests only. More than likely, the failure of Hamas will lead to an even more radical and extremist replacement, much as the failure of the PLO lead to the rise of Hamas. That would be good for no-one. The Israeli/US `experiment' has worked: the perpetuation of the occupation has been secured, but at the expense of international law, immeasurable human suffering and the security of the Palestinian and the Israeli people. Politics54401@blogcritics.org Sun, 15 Oct 2006 13:25:17 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2006/10/09/161833.php The HeathlanderWell, I've tried to avoid it, but the Veil Controversy has refused to die down. It all started when Jack Straw, ex-Foreign Secretary and Labour MP for Blackburn where roughly 26% of his constituents are Muslim, wrote a column on Thursday for the Lancashire 'I felt uncomfortable about talking to someone "face-to-face" who I could not see.So I decided that I wouldn't just sit there the next time a lady turned up to see me in a full veil, and I haven't.Now, I always ensure that a female member of my staff is with me.I explain that this is a country built on freedoms. I defend absolutely the right of any woman to wear a headscarf.As for the full veil, wearing it breaks no laws.I go on to say that I think, however, that the conversation would be of greater value if the lady took the covering from her face.'Why would it make Straw 'uncomfortable' to speak to a veiled woman? Presumably he doesn't feel 'uncomfortable' speaking to someone over the phone, or by email. Still, Straw thinks there is a bigger 'issue' here, namely:'my concern that wearing the full veil was bound to make better, positive relations between the two communities more difficult.It was such a visible statement of separation and of difference.' Here is the real issue - Straw is arguing that wearing the veil makes living in a multi-cultural society harder, because it is a 'visible statement' of 'separation' and 'difference'. This is the real issue because, quite frankly, who cares what does or does not make Jack Straw feel uncomfortable? In any event, as Mike Marqusee quite correctly points out, 'Like Jack Straw, I find it awkward to talk with women who veil their faces. Unlike Jack Straw, I don't assume that the onus is on them to relieve me of my discomfort, or that this discomfort is inevitable and entrenched, or that it betokens an unbridgeable cultural gap or irreconcilable social difference' Now, the multi-culturalism point is more worthy of discussion. Britain is a multi-cultural society, and we have many laws in place to protect racial and religious minorities. The goal of a multi-cultural society, essentially, is to have people of many different cultures, races and religions living together harmoniously. This is an admirable goal, and one we should all work towards.So - does wearing a veil make multi-culturalism more difficult? Does it stoke racial tensions? Is it anti-social? Is it right to ask Muslim women to remove their veils?I would answer no. It is true that for a society, multi-cultural or otherwise, to function properly its citizens must observe certain basic, shared values. For example, that the law of the country is paramount, and must be observed by everybody. If this value was not common throughout British society, we would have people of every religious or cultural sect acting according to their own specific laws, society would degenerate into chaos and would, effectively, cease to exist.So it is right, then, to say that even in a multi-cultural society (indeed; especially in a multi-cultural society), we must expect all citizens to observe certain common values (freedom of speech, freedom of religion, etc.). However, 'not wearing a veil' is not a common value, nor should it be. Mr. Straw makes a mistake by conflating 'difference' and 'separation'. The whole point of a multi-cultural society is that we allow people to express their differences, in fashion, in religion and in culture, within certain limitations (based on public safety). Those restrictions are important, because as I noted above, for a society to work, people must share certain common values. Thus, burning people for witchcraft is not acceptable, because a common value (or law) in our society is that murder is wrong.Wearing a veil is, then, a 'visible statement' of 'difference', but this is not a negative thing. The freedom to express difference is what liberal, progressive democracies are all about. If it is true that 'people who don't understand [Muslim] culture' can find women in veils 'frightening and intimidating', as a minister for Communities and Local Government (strangely, the Sunday Mirror described him as 'Race Minister' ) Phil Woolas put it, then the solution is to help people to understand Muslim culture, not to urge Muslims to 'Westernise' in order to to fit in better. Multi-culturalism is about embracing cultural differences, not seeking to homogenise society to make everyone look and act the same.Jack Straw absolutely had a right to raise the issue, but what he said and did (in requesting Muslim women who visited him to remove their veils) was wrong. George Galloway should not have said that Straw must be 'forced to resign' - yes, he was wrong, but he said what he did in an extremely reasonable, qualified way, and if he truly thought there was an issue he had not only the right but the duty to raise it. Religion should in no way be off limits to criticism or debate.But the truth is that there is no 'issue' with veils; the issue is one of intolerance among some white Britons to people of different cultures. This has been illustrated perfectly over the last few days, with yobs around the country committing hate crimes against Muslims. For example, yesterday a man in Liverpool attacked a Muslim woman, pulling the veil from her face. Earlier this week a 16-year old Asian youth was stabbed in Preston in a racially motivated attack, after a flare-up involving up to 200 people. Local yobs had been chucking bricks and concrete blocks at cars parked outside a mosque.This is the real issue, the real obstacle to the success of multi-culturalism; Islamophobia due to fear, ignorance and association with terrorism, in part thanks to the reporting of the mainstream media and in part to the actions of extremists like al-Ghurabaa.Jack Straw is, then, focusing on completely the wrong end of the stick: it is true that non-Muslims in Britain are often intimidated or made uncomfortable by a veiled woman, but the problem lies with them, not the veiled woman. There is an issue, and it will be solved by more cultural education and greater efforts to advance cohesion and get rid of segregated ghettos (for example parts of Hounslow or Southall). Put simply: the answer is not to get rid of veils, because the question is 'how do we make multi-culturalism work?'. Applied to this scenario, the question reads, 'how do we make allowing women to wear full veils work?'. Quite obviously, the answer is not to 'get rid of veils'.Of course, all this has been based on the assumption that women wear veils because they want to. In other words, that the wearing of a veil is an expression of religious and cultural freedom, as opposed to oppression. This is not always the case, although in Britain it would appear that it often is (read, for example, this) . If a woman is forced to wear a veil, that is completely unacceptable not because of the veil, but because a 'common value' in Britain is that of freedom of expression and freedom of action (up to a point), and forcing someone to do almost anything against their will is wrong. That has nothing specifically to do with the veil, though.Thus, Joan Smith is wrong to declare (sub. required) without qualification that the veil is 'a feminist issue'. She writes: 'Women don't wear the burqa in Afghanistan because they like it; they wear it it because they are afraid of being killed if they don't. Women haven't suddenly gone back to wearing the veil in Iraq because they're pious; they do it because women who are courageous enough to refuse, including a well-known TV presenter, have been murdered by Islamic extremists.' Here, Smith spectacularly misses the point. Obviously and unquestionably, it is completely wrong for a woman to be coerced into wearing a veil. That is not just a feminist issue, but a human rights issue. No-one is arguing that it should be acceptable to force women to wear a veil. The question is; should those women who prefer to wear a veil actually wear one? Because Britain is not Afghanistan, and in Britain many if not most of the women who wear veils do so out of choice. This is evident in the large amount of female Muslim criticism of Straw's article. Smith sort of accepts this when she writes, 'Muslim women in this country may be telling the truth when they say they are covering their hair and faces out of choice, but that doesn't mean they haven't been influenced by relatives and male clerics.' It doesn't indeed, just like it doesn't mean they haven't been influenced by female friends, or by their mothers, or by the television. This is a completely meaningless statement - it is impossible to avoid being influenced by one's surroundings about any subject. Influence is not the same as coercion.Smith continues, 'Where [Jack Straw] is wrong is in failing to frame the question of covered women as a human rights issue.' But, as we've just seen, it isn't a human rights issue in Britain, except in cases where women are forced to wear a veil. But that applies with everything; for example, it is completely acceptable for a woman to have sex, but it is unacceptable to force a woman to have sex. The 'human rights issue' is coercion, not the veil, and this is something Ms. Smith apparently fails to grasp.Smith continues, 'The veil in its various forms signals that women have conditional access to public space, allowed to participate in the world outside the home only if they follow certain rules...It also establishes women as the sexual property of individual men - fathers, husbands and sons - who are the only people allowed to see them uncovered.' Again, Smith fails to grasp that what she describes only applies for women who are forced to wear a veil. For a woman who chooses to do so, a veil is not a 'signal' that she has to play by 'certain rules', it is an expression of her freedom to choose her own rules. Smith can hate the veil all she wants, but the real feminist issue is not one of fashion, but one of freedom. That means not only the freedom to not wear a veil, but the freedom to wear one.-----------------------------------------------------------Some examples of stupid responses to the 'veil question'...- In the Daily Telegraph, Patience Wheatcroft uses it as an excuse to rail against 'political correctness', and urges us to 'rediscover Britishness': 'we should reassert Britain's claim to be a country that believes in tolerance, politeness and compassion, and one in which, even if the church-going habit has faded, Christian values prevail.' British does not and should not equal Christian, no matter what Wheatcroft and the Church of England would have you believe. The problem is not that Muslim women are not subscribing to 'Christian values' (gag) like 'tolerance', it's that British yobs aren't. By exercising their right to wear veils, Muslim women are in fact subscribing to that fundamental 'British value', freedom of expression. Instead of praising their courage, people like Wheatcroft are shamefully urging them to cow down to ignorant xenophobia and racism.- In a letter to the Daily Telegraph, Conservative MP Paul Goodman wrote: 'To most non-Muslims and some Muslims, veiled faces are an icon of societies in which Muslims are legally and socially privileged above citizens of other religions...They are thus an obstacle to integration and in that sense I agree with Jack Straw...We live under the Crown, not a caliphate, and under common law, not sharia law.' This is very stupid. Muslim women exercising their right to freedom of expression could, in fact, only do so under a 'common law' state. That is one of the major difference between us and a sharia law Islamic state. It is a difference Mr. Goodman appears not to value.- In Sunday's Observer, Henry Porter went even further than Straw: 'He didn't quite say that the veil has no place in a liberal secular society, but if that was his intention I agree with it. This is not to persecute Muslims for their beliefs or deny them rights: it is simply to say that the veil, like it or not, has become increasingly regarded as a symbol of separatist aspiration and of female subservience. Many wear it voluntarily, but it does not stop this being a symbol of women's oppression which stretches back to the times of classical Greece.' If the veil has been 'increasingly regarded' as a symbol of 'female subservience', that is no reflection on the veil itself. It does tell us something about those doing the regarding, in that we can tell how simplistically their mind works - 'in Afghanistan and other countries, women are oppressed and forced to wear veils which makes them miserable and violates their rights, therefore veils are bad'. The correct conclusion, of course, should be, 'oppression is bad', but this seems to escape Henry Porter, who continues, 'wearing a veil in a largely secular society says something about the woman's position in her marriage and probably prevents her from engaging with that society properly and so enjoying the rights of other women. It is fundamentally different from wearing, say, a sari or any of the traditional clothes of the Hassidim because it erects a barrier between her and the people around her.' Wearing the veil need not say anything about a woman's position in her marriage; all it need say is that the woman in question wants to wear a veil. That's it, no more is needed. A veil would only prevent a woman from 'engaging' with society if society had a problem with her veil. It is perfectly to possible to hold a conversation with a veiled woman, but even if it wasn't,- Houzan Mahmoud writes a very passionate, very wrong article on CiF that is essentially summed up in the first paragraph: 'The veil is not merely a piece of "cloth", but a sign of the oppression of women, control over their sexuality, submissiveness to the will of God or a man. The veil is a banner of political Islam used, to segregate women born by historical accident in the so-called "Islamic World" from other women in the rest of the world.' No Houzan, you don't get to decide what the veil is 'a sign of'. True, where women are forced to where a veil, the veil is a symbol of all those bad things Mahmoud mentions. When a woman chooses to wear one simply because she wants to, the veil becomes a symbol of freedom of expression. What is so hard to understand about that? Politics54142@blogcritics.org Mon, 9 Oct 2006 16:18:33 EDT