Lights Out in Gaza, News Blackout in US

Published on Tuesday, December 30, 2008 by CommonDreams.org

by Deena Guzder

Amnesty International and other human rights organizations have decried Israel’s continued aerial bombing campaign as unlawful and denounced the killing of more than 300 Palestinians since 27 December, including scores of unarmed civilians not taking part in the hostilities. Israel’s attacks on the densely populated Gaza Strip also elicited condemnation from numerous world politicians and sparked protests in global cities.

Despite international outcry over escalating violence, the U.S. mainstream media continues to privilege a prepackaged narrative in which Israel’s actions are never disproportionate, never counterproductive and certainly never gratuitous. According to the mainstream media, the U.S. must continue uncompromisingly supporting Israel because the allegedly beleaguered democracy is held hostage by monomaniacal Islamofascists who are inherently evil.  Promoting a paradigm in which Israel is always David up against Goliath, the U.S. media presents suffering Palestinians as expendable for the greater cause of Israel winning its epic struggle. To justify U.S.’s carte blanche to Israel, the mainstream media restricts American readers to an echo chamber in which the following claims are repeated ad nausem until they are mistaken for fact:

1. Israel has a legal and moral right to bomb Gaza out of defense  Security concerns are not and never have been a tolerable justification for pre-emptive attacks. Israel’s decision to bomb Gaza represents a major assault on the international rule of law. The law of occupation is one of the oldest and most developed branches of international humanitarian law. An occupying power is obliged to follow the 1949 Fourth Geneva Convention, which protects the civilian population. The United Nations Security Council held in 1979 that the Fourth Convention did apply in the territories seized by Israel in 1967. Article 48 of the additional protocol is clear that Israel, as an occupying power, has obligations: “The Parties to the conflict shall at all times distinguish between the civilian population and combatants and between civilian objects and military objectives and accordingly shall direct their operations only against military objective.”  The latest Israeli attacks come on top of a brutal siege of the Gaza Strip which has created a humanitarian catastrophe of dire proportions for Gaza’s beleaguered Palestinian residents by restricting the provision of food, fuel, medicine, electricity, and other necessities of life. “International law is not observed with respect to Israeli policies towards the Gaza Strip, Israel continues to reinforce an occupation whose every element violates international humanitarian law, and particularly the Fourth Geneva Convention,” notes Jeff Halper, an Israeli-American Anthropologist, author, lecturer, political activist, and co-founder and Coordinator of the Israeli Committee Against House Demolitions.
2. Israeli citizens live in constant fear of Hamas rockets Since 2005 Hamas has fired some 6,300 rockets from Gaza at Israel, killing 10 people.[1] In just the last four days, Israel has reduced the Gaza Strip to rubble and killed over 300 Palestinians. During the ongoing four-decade-long brutal occupation of historic Palestine and the recent grotesquely inhumane blockade of Gaza, Palestinian deaths have far outnumbered Israeli deaths.  Since September 29, 2000, approximately 123 Israeli children have been killed by Palestinians whereas 1,050 Palestinian children have been killed by Israelis. Since September 29, 2000, a total of 1,062 Israelis and no fewer than 4,876 Palestinians were killed in the conflict.[2]
3. Hamas refuses to recognize the right of Israel to exist and has never made any concessions  As Seth Ackerman of Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR) notes, there is no need to euphemize Hamas’ history of brutal tactics or its bellicose ideology, but Hamas has signaled its potential willingness to accept a two-state settlement and make other concessions to broker peace.[3] Hamas has also made tentative offers of a long-term “hudna,” or truce, albeit with less gusto than Israel demands.
4. Israel is only targeting Hamas headquarters Gaza, one of the most densely populated tracts of land in the world, is home to about 1.3m Palestinians, about 33% of whom live in United Nations-funded refugee camps.[4] Avoiding civilian casualties in the Gaza Strip during aerial raids is comparable to trying to avoid such casualties in Washington DC, New York City or Los Angeles. “Because Gaza is so densely populated, there is no such thing as precision strike – you have glass, brick, shrapnel flying into people’s homes,” notes Ewa Jasiewicz, a volunteer with the Free Gaza Movement.[5]
5. Attacking Hamas will help Israel achieve security There is no doubt that the recent attacks will only embolden and multiply Israel’s detractors. Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei issued a religious decree to Muslims around the world on Sunday, ordering them to defend Palestinians against Israel’s attacks on Gaza. For a second day in Jordan, several thousand protesters gathered in Amman and burned Israeli and American flags.[6] There were similar rallies in Egypt, Syria, Libya and Iraq with many calling for a firm response from their leaders.  Hamas’ military is barely dented by the Israeli attacks and, according to a poll by Israel’s Channel 10 television station, only 6% of Israelis believe its governments aerial bombings will end Hamas’ rocket attacks. [7]
6. The Bush administration has the implicit support of the international community in blaming Hamas “thugs” and applauding Israel’s show of defense  With the exception of the U.S. and her staunchest allies, the international community has largely condemned Israel’s attacks. Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov called on Israel to “urgently halt” its military campaign. Japan’s Foreign Minister Hirofumi Nakasone said, “Japan calls on Israel to exercise its utmost self-restraint.” China’s Vice-Premier Li Kequiang joined the voices urging a halt to violence and said, “The Chinese side is shocked and seriously concerned over the current military operations in Gaza that have caused a large number of death and injuries.”[8] Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi similarly stated, “Malaysia deplores the disproportionate use of military power by Israel against the people of Gaza.” French President Nicolas Sarkozy, whose country holds the European Union presidency, told the Palestinian Authority president Mahmoud Abbas of his serious concerns about the escalating violence.  UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon added his voice to the 15-member Security Council’s call for an immediate end to hostilities and urged Israel to allow humanitarian aid into the poverty-stricken territory.[9] Humanitarian organizations such as Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch reiterate their call for an end to reckless and unlawful Israeli attacks against densely populated residential areas.
7. The attacks on Gaza are supported by the entire Jewish community  Jewish Voice for Peace joins millions around the world, including the 1,000 Israelis who protested in the streets of Tel Aviv this weekend, in condemning ongoing Israeli attacks on Gaza. The organization calls for an immediate end to attacks on all civilians, whether Palestinian or Israeli.  In the face of mounting deaths, several Israeli and American Jewish peace groups are protesting the recent air raids by demonstrating in the streets, petitioning their elected officials and directly reaching out to Palestinian civilians.  Groups that are encouraging peace between Palestinians and Israelis include Rabbis for Human Rights, B’Tselem, Bat Shalom, Ta’ayush, Yesh-Gvul, Peace Gush Shalom Tikkun, and many others.  While there is no consensus in the Jewish community on the recent Gaza air raids, the underreported efforts of the Jewish “left” is far from negligible; Jewish Voices of Peace claims more than 10,000 members and has been instrumental in drawing attention to the lopsided media coverage through their “Lights out in Gaza, News Blackout in U.S.” campaign.  Many of these Jewish peace activists are deeply religious and draw on the Torah to support their stand against Israel’s attack on Gaza. The media has extensively covered the Israeli settlers who cheer on Israel’s more hawkish actions, but little has been written on dissident Israeli Jews and their American Jewish sympathizers who are advocating a more peaceful, non-violent course.

The mainstream media is culpable for American’s ongoing ignorance and knee-jerk loyalty to Israel. Instead of elucidating motives and contextualizing actions, reporters’ biased diction obscures facts and editors’ cursory commentary muddles logic. By de-historicizing the conflict, the media reduces Palestinians to stock-characters who reject generous olive branches offered by Israel in favor of advocating for the dissolution of the Jewish state.  A column by Israeli Gideon Levy in Haaretz, entitled “The neighborhood bully strikes again,” could never appear in a paper in the U.S nor could a single paragraph be uttered by any American politician, in either party, of any national prominence without damning consequences.[10]

While visiting Israel in July, President-elect Barack Obama said, “If somebody was sending rockets into my house where my two daughters sleep at night, I would do everything to stop that, and would expect Israel to do the same thing.” The question remains, what would Obama do if his daughters were deprived of food, electricity, medical care, and human dignity? What would Obama do if his daughters were humiliated when they traveled, maimed when they walked away from bomb shelters and robbed of their childhoods? If Obama fails to answer these questions with humanity, we can expect 4 to 8 more years of President Bush’s failed Middle East strategy.

Notes:

[1] Wall Street Journal (Asia Edition), Editorial, December 30, 2008 (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123051140769338457.html)  

[2] If Americans Only Knew http://www.ifamericansonlyknew.org/

[3] Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR) http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=2974

[4] BBC News http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/spl/hi/middle_east/03/v3_israel_palestinians/maps/html/population_settlements.stm

[5] Evening Standard (London) http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23608798-details/Defiant+Palestinians+fire+rockets+deep+into+Israel/article.do

[6] BBC News http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7803569.stm

[7] TIME Magazine http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1868929,00.html

[8] AFP News, http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5iWdYoZ5ATqNC6YY2jiHKiBQ0D5FA

[9] AFP News, http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5iWdYoZ5ATqNC6YY2jiHKiBQ0D5FA

[10] Salon.com http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/12/28/peretz/

Guzder works for TIME Asia magazine in Hong Kong and is a dual-degree graduate of Columbia University’s School of Journalism and School of International and Public Affairs. Please feel free to email her at dg2190@columbia.edu

Polish Fears Over US Defense Shield

Published on Thursday, December 4, 2008 by Al Jazeera English

by Mark Seddon

Slupsk, Poland – A small and disused former Warsaw Pact air base in a remote corner of northwest Poland may soon become the focus of a new conflict between Russia and the US.

 

A familiar line: Washington says the missile defence shield will combat ‘rogue states’ such as Iran. The Polish people, however, have expressed resounding opposition to being placed at the epicenter of a new arms race between the US and Russia. [GALLO/GETTY

George Bush, the US president, and his administration have chosen the Redzikowo Base as the site of Washington's new missile defence shield, which the Americans say is designed to intercept incoming rockets from "rogue states" such as Iran.  

Victor Ashe, the US ambassador to Poland, visited the site recently, dropping by the nearby town of Slupsk to see the local mayor, but avoiding lunch at the local McDonalds just around the corner from the town hall.

The ambassador's visit was seen by Russia as yet another provocation.

In rhetoric reminiscent of the Cuban missile crisis, Russia claimed that it is being targeted by the proposed shield, and will respond accordingly.

Recently, Dmitry Medvedev, the Russian president, rained on Barack Obama's parade within days of the US president-elect election victory, promising an equal and opposite reaction.

Medvedev said Russia would move its own missiles to the Kaliningrad enclave, which it controls, along the Polish border.

When I went to meet Vladimir Grinin, the Russian ambassador in Warsaw, he struck an even tougher line.

"Of course our relations with Poland are important," Grinin told Al Jazeera.

"We hope that Obama will listen to our concerns, and not go ahead. But in the worse-case scenario, if the Americans do proceed, we will also target the new radar systems in the Czech Republic, and will place missiles on ships in the Baltic."

Arms race

Bronislaw Nowak is a former Warsaw Pact fighter pilot who used to be stationed at Redzikowo.I met him just outside the gates of the base on a bitterly cold, grey day, a rusting MiG fighter standing as a sentinel guarding the entrance.

Now a member of the local council in Slupsk, Nowak is unenthusiastic about the missile defence shield.

"It makes us a target; it starts a new arms race. Did you know that it would take all of two minutes for a Russian missile launched from Kaliningrad to land here?" he said.

Nowak, like most Poles, does not hanker for the old days, yet wants to avoid antagonising Moscow.

I wondered what the rest of the town of Slupsk think of the defence shield. 

Poland had been one of the first to shake off the old Soviet yoke, it is an enthusiastic member of both the European Union and Nato, and has spent the past decade removing any visible traces of its Communist past.

Re-dedicated

In Slupsk, the war memorial to the Red Army soldiers who cleared this former German town, first of the Wehrmacht [German army], and then of its German citizens, has been re-dedicated to the Polish war dead of World War Two.

If the Americans move into the nearby base as planned, there will be a hundred or so service personnel with their families boosting the local economy.

The roads will be re-built, and lots more money – I put to Slupsk’s deputy mayor – would surely flow into the local economy.

But no; sitting in his impressive, mock-Gothic office, he was less than optimistic.

“It will make us a target, and we have seen enough of conflicts in the past to know that we do not want to become the centre of another.

“Of course we like the Americans, we know about them, but them coming here will make little difference to our economy”.

The attitude among local shoppers, or at least those happy to talk, was equally negative.

Democracy ignored

Back in Warsaw, I went to meet Radoslaw Sikorski, the Polish foreign minister, considered a swashbuckling Anglophile, who is married to Anne Applebaum, the journalist.

Sikorski was upbeat about the missile defence shield, and was anxious to dispel Russia’s fears that it would be targeted.”What you have to understand is that this is purely defensive in nature. The system will only react if we, Nato, are at all threatened. Should we be fearful of Russia’s response? Well, we have always lived in the shadow of Russia,” he said.

Fearful of Russia or not, what Sikorski, the Russian ambassador, and Slupsk’s local leadership all had in common, was a belief that the real decision to proceed with the deployment of the missile defence shield would ultimately be taken in Washington, rather than Warsaw.

Obama has bought a breathing space by saying that America needs more time to see if the system can function properly.

In doing so, perhaps he might also find time to listen to ordinary Poles, who fear that they are now set to become a target.

“We wanted a referendum, but we couldn’t have one,” says Nowak, his eyes tear-streaked with the cold.

“So we organised our own. Sixty-nine per cent of our townspeople said ‘no’.”   That’s an exercise in democracy that Obama is surely familiar with.

© 2008 Al Jazeera English

Ban on cluster bomb production due to pass into international humanitarian law, despite absence of US, Russia signatures

Published on Wednesday, December 3, 2008 by The Guardian/UK

Cluster Bomb Treaty: Signing Begins to Bring Ban on Production

by Richard Norton-Taylor, Peter Walker and agencies

OSLO – Governments from around the world today began signing an international convention banning the production of cluster bombs – unexploded canisters that have killed and maimed thousands of civilians and remain scattered dozen of countries.

 

Under-Secretary for Multilateral Affairs of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Peru Antonio Garcia Revilla signs a treaty banning the use of cluster bombs in Oslo today. Around 100 governments are expected to sign the Convention on Cluster Munitions on Wednesday and Thursday in the Norwegian capital, though the big military powers and arms-producers, the United States, China, Russia, and others will be absent. (REUTERS/Lise Aserud/Scanpix)

At the Oslo signing ceremony, Norway, which has led the efforts to ban cluster munitions, was the first country to sign. It was followed by Laos – where cluster bombs dropped by US planes more than 30 years ago are still killing civilians, and Lebanon, another country affected by the weapons. 

By the end of tomorrow, around 100 of the United Nations’ 192 members will have signed up. Once 30 countries have ratified the convention, it will become part of international humanitarian law.

There will, however, be a number of notable absentees, including the US, China, Russia, India and Pakistan as well as Israel, which fired many cluster bombs during the 2006 Lebanon war.

Campaigners hope the treaty might help change global attitudes towards the munitions, as a 1997 treaty did on land mines, prompting some nations to sign up later.

Intended primarily as anti-personnel weapons, cluster bombs open up in mid air to release dozens of individual devices, known as bomblets, which scatter across a wide area.

While the bomblets are intended to explode when they hit the ground, many do not and can lie dormant for years. Victims often include farmers tilling land and children, attracted by the bomblets’ bright colouring.

The US and other nations insist cluster bombs have a legitimate military use. One group that deals with the issue, Handicap International, says 98% of cluster-bomb victims are civilians and 27% are children.

The convention has been enthusiastically welcomed by the Red Cross, and on guardian.co.uk by David Miliband, the foreign secretary, and Frank-Walter Steinmeier, his German counterpart.

The weapons had “rendered huge tracts of land unusable, cutting farmers off from their crops and visiting further suffering on families forced to risk their lives simply to pursue their livelihoods”, said Matthias Schmale, international director of the British Red Cross.

Miliband and Steinmeier said their goal was a “truly global treaty on cluster munitions”, while noting that “many of the major users, producers and stockpilers of cluster munitions” had not yet agreed to sign it.

During the 34-day Lebanon war in 2006, up to a million devices failed to explode and this summer more than 40.6m square metres were identified as still being contaminated, according to the International Committee of the Red Cross. More than 200 civilians died in the year after the Lebanon ceasefire. Cluster bombs also caused more civilian casualties in Iraq in 2003 and Kosovo in 1999 than any other weapon system.

At least 75 countries currently stockpile cluster munitions. More than 30 have produced the weapons. Unexploded cluster bombs have also killed civilians in Afghanistan, Chad, Eritrea, Chechnya, Sierra Leone and Vietnam.

Despite initial misgivings within the military, Britain, which fired Israeli-made cluster bombs in its attack on Basra in 2003 and had been the third biggest user of cluster bombs after the US and Israel, has agreed to get rid of its stockpiles of land-fired and air-launched cluster weapons. British diplomats are trying to persuade the US to get rid of stockpiles at its bases in the UK, officials said yesterday.

Today’s convention excludes weapons that fire fewer than 10 explosive submunitions designed to locate a “single target”.

© 2008 Guardian News and Media Limited

Russia Fires Warning Shot Over US Missile Plan

Published on Friday, November 7, 2008 by The Guardian/UK

Medvedev to site rockets in Kaliningrad enclave • Speech was delayed to coincide with poll result

by Ian Traynor

Dmitri Medvedev is to go to Washington next week for the first time as Russian president, with the chances of a meeting with president-elect Barack Obama clouded by his decision to station missiles in the heart of Europe.

 

An honour guard stands to attention as missile carriers rumble through Red Square, Moscow, in a return of the Victory Day parade. Two thirds of Czechs are against the establishment of US missiles in their country and the government has just been trounced in local elections that have shifted the balance of power in the Czech upper house. The scheme is strongly opposed by the social democratic opposition and may not survive the necessary parliamentary ratification process, which has been indefinitely shelved. (Photograph: Yuri Kochetkov/EPA)

Medvedev’s military announcement, in a speech delayed by a month in order to coincide with the election of the new White House occupant, sent a hostile message towards an Obama administration, aimed to sow friction between European capitals and a new-look Washington, and sought to intimidate the Poles and the Czechs, who are to host the bases for the Pentagon’s missile defence project. 

Iskander-M short-range missiles will be deployed in Kaliningrad, Russia’s westernmost garrison, an isolated enclave sandwiched between Poland and Lithuania.

The Russian announcement was the sole menacing message amid a wave of global optimism that accompanied the Democratic triumph in the US. Just as western diplomats and analysts were suggesting relations between Russia and the west, at their worst since the end of the cold war, could improve, the Russian leader’s salvo was seen as an unnecessary challenge to Obama, who will be wary of appearing weak on national security.

“It’s pretty amazing stuff,” said a European diplomat. “The timing is gobsmacking. It will impact on the debate [on relations with Russia].”

In Washington, Sean McCormack, a state department spokesman for the Bush administration, said: “The steps that the Russian government announced today are disappointing. But again [the missile defence project] is not directed at them. Hopefully one day they’ll realise that.”

Frank-Walter Steinmeier, Germany’s foreign minister and a candidate for chancellor next year, said the Medvedev message was badly timed, while Lithuania’s president, Valdas Adamkus, described it as “beyond comprehension”.

Lithuania is leading a losing battle within the EU to keep negotiations with Moscow frozen, and is furious at what it sees as a British U-turn in favour of resuming talks on a new strategic pact between the EU and Russia. British officials confirmed yesterday that the government favoured resuming talks with Moscow, which were suspended in September after the UK strongly criticised Russia over the Georgia crisis. “The UK view is that we want to get back to a position to pursue these negotiations,” said a diplomat.

Medvedev, below, is also to travel to Nice next week, where President Nicolas Sarkozy of France will host an EU-Russia summit which is expected to restart the stalled negotiations on the Russia-Europe pact. The UK diplomat added that the Medvedev statement could strengthen support for Lithuania’s anti-Russian line at an EU summit today and at a meeting of foreign ministers on Monday in Brussels.

The Czechs, Poles and others will be more inclined to oppose talks with Russia, while the French, Germans, and Italians are keen to restore relations with the Russians without conditions.

Coming on top of last August’s invasion and partition of Georgia by Russia, and Medvedev’s statement that he was not afraid of a new cold war, his state-of-the-nation speech in the Kremlin appeared calculated to inflame tensions with America at a time when much of the rest of the world is relieved at the demise of the neoconservatives in Washington and anticipating a more benign US administration.

The speech was intended to scare Europeans into opposing the US missile defence bases in Europe – silos for 10 ballistic missile interceptor rockets in northern Poland, and a radar base south of Prague in the Czech Republic.

The Russian tactic looks unlikely to impress the Americans nor intimidate the Poles, who have bargained hard for security guarantees from the Americans.

But Steinmeier indirectly criticised the US project, warning against a new arms race in Europe, and the Czechs are in a much more precarious position.

The Czech government is keen to host the missile base. But two thirds of Czechs are against it and the government has just been trounced in local elections that have shifted the balance of power in the Czech upper house. The scheme is strongly opposed by the social democratic opposition and may not survive the necessary parliamentary ratification process, which has been indefinitely shelved.

Washington’s worries about the fate of the radar base were evident this week when General Henry Obering, the outgoing chief of the Pentagon’s missile defence agency, made a farewell visit to Prague and told Czech journalists that the US had a plan B for locating the base outside the republic, but was reluctant to turn to another country.

The optimistic view among diplomats is that Medvedev delivered his threat to clear the air while the Bush administration is still in office, and that he is keen to pursue more ambitious nuclear arms cuts with the incoming Obama team. Yesterday, after his speech, the Kremlin announced that Medvedev had congratulated Obama for winning the US presidency, saying by telegram he was “counting on a constructive dialogue with you on the basis of trust and taking each other’s interests into account”.

Medvedev is to make his first presidential trip to Washington next week to take part in the G20 summit on the global economic crisis. The Russian foreign ministry said he could meet Obama on the margins of the summit.

Rocket men

March 1983 The American president, Ronald Reagan, launches the Strategic Defence Initiative. Dubbed Star Wars, the SDI was to develop a missile shield that would shelter the US from attack by intercontinental nuclear ballistic missiles.

1991 End of the cold war leaves the initiative redundant.

1990s The SDI is superseded by the National Missile Defence system, with silos and facilities eventually sited in Alaska and California and aimed across the Pacific Ocean, specifically to protect against a potential attack by North Korea.

2002 The Pentagon explores support in Poland and Czech Republic for first missile defence sites outside the US – a radar tracking station south of Prague and the stationing of 10 interceptor rockets in Poland, said to counter possible ballistic missile attack by Iran.

July 2008 US and Czech governments sign agreement on radar station.

August 2008 US and Polish governments sign pact on interceptor rockets.

© 2008 Guardian News and Media Limited

U.S. Elections: Next President Won’t Fulfill Israel’s Fantasies

U.S. Elections: Next President Won’t Fulfill Israel’s Fantasies
//////////// ///////// ///////// ///////// ///////// ///
by Aluf Benn
Ha’aretz
http://www.haaretz. com/hasen/ spages/1033338. html
November 2, 2008

It’s the ultimate leftist fantasy. After being elected president of the United States on Tuesday, Barack Obama places the Palestinian- Israeli conflict at the top of his agenda. A senior presidential envoy, say, Vice President Joe Biden, is dispatched to the region and does not leave until both sides’ leaders sign an agreement to divide the land and to form a Palestinian state.

Obama breaks loose from the Jewish lobby’s terror and gives Israel an ultimatum: No more financial aid or political support until Israel dismantles all its settlements and roadblocks, and withdraws to the agreed-upon borders.

Israel then returns to its 1967 borders, an independent Palestine consolidates its control next door and the right wing is forced to admit it was wrong.

The rightist fantasy would have John McCain elected. He then places the annihilation of the Iranian nuclear program, along with Islamist terrorism, at the top of his agenda. Hundreds of fighter jets devastate Iran’s nuclear facilities along with Iran’s government buildings, military bases and oil refineries. A special force apprehends Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and brings him to the International Court of Justice.

Israel is brought in to help defeat Hezbollah in the north and Hamas in the south. Having left the adversaries sorely defeated, McCain announces that Israel will forever remain within “defendable borders,” retaining control of the West Bank, the Golan Heights and Gaza – which has just been retaken. Millions of American Jews immigrate to Israel to populate the settlements as the two-state vision is shelved, forcing the left wing to acknowledge its failure.

Neither fantasy will materialize. The new U.S. president will pay the required lip service – he will announce his support for the “two-state solution” and criticize the Iranian nuclear drive. He will express his hopes that the tense quiet will continue in the Middle East, and that a new war will not break out. He will focus on his main task: reviving the American economy and rescuing the global economy from the crisis.

The Israeli government’s main objective will be to support this process, and to avoid making too much noise or getting into conflicts. There are four issues on the agenda regarding Israel’s relationship with the U.S.: the peace process and related matters, the Iranian nuclear program, military aid, and the weapons control initiatives.

Each of these issues may beget disagreements between Jerusalem and Washington, but they also hold potential for international cooperation and achievements.

If Obama is elected, he will become part of the Israeli election campaign. Tzipi Livni will try to convince voters that Benjamin Netanyahu is bound to get into a serious confrontation with the American administration because of his resistance to the peace process and his support for striking Iran. Netanyahu will try to persuade constituents that his firm positions on these issues will help him negotiate a better deal with the new administration.

A win for McCain would have less impact over here.

Another question is the matter of appointments. If Obama wins, and appoints the old Clinton peace team – as some expect him to do – he will be signaling that he subscribes to Bill Clinton‘s interventionist approach. If he opts to keep them out of the game, he will be signaling that he is in no hurry to step between Israel and the Palestinians.

But even if Obama does decide to step in, he will discover how difficult it is to reap quick rewards from the Palestinian negotiating table, because of the split between the West Bank and Gaza.

The Syrian channel seems more promising, and Obama seems more open to dialogue with Bashar Assad. At any rate, it seems implausible for the new president to find the time to reach an agreement while tending to the financial issues at hand.

***

US’s Syrian Raid Sets Iraq on Fire

This came from my Green Party Email group.

US’s Syrian Raid Sets Iraq on Fire
//////////// ///////// ////////
by Sami Moubayed
Asia Times
http://www.atimes. com/atimes/ Middle_East/ JK01Ak05. html
November 1, 2008

DAMASCUS – The United States raid on Syria on October 27, which led to the killing of eight civilians, sent shockwaves throughout Iraq, mainly enraging the Sunni community, former Ba’athists and tribal leaders who are pro-Syrian.

It came as such a surprise to Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki that he was completely dumfounded at commenting. Here was the prime minister of Iraq, an ally of Iran and a former resident of Syria, watching Syria being attacked from his own territory – without his knowledge.

Maliki’s relations with Damascus can be described as cordial at worse, warm at best. They have never been excellent, but he categorically opposes any destabilization of Syria, knowing that the spillover into Iraq would be colossal.

Other politicians, like President Jalal Talabani, also were not informed beforehand of the raid, which added insult to injury. Talabani, too, would have said “no” since, unlike Maliki, he commands an excellent relationship with Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. Shi’ite leader Muqtada al-Sadr was reportedly furious.

Pressure was so high from disgruntled Iraqis that the Maliki government was forced to change its originally silent attitude towards the raid, 24 hours after US planes landed in the Syrian border town of Abu Kamal. Ali Dabbagh, the government spokesman, explained, “The constitution does not allow Iraq to be used as a staging ground to attack neighboring countries.” Assistant Foreign Minister Labid Abbawi added, “We are trying to contain the fallout from the incident. It is regrettable and we are sorry it happened.”

A prominent Kurdish politician, Mahmud Othman, confirmed that the raid been carried out without informing the central government in Baghdad. He feared, however, that such action would only add to the anti-American sentiment in Iraq and make it harder for Iraqi officials to sign the controversial Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) security agreement with the US government. This has been debated for months by Washington and Baghdad.

Othman, who supports signing a deal with the US, said, “It [the raid] will be used against the agreement and will give the Iranians reason to increase their interference here against the agreement. Now neighboring countries have a good reason to be concerned about the continued US presence in Iraq.”

The SOFA, if signed, will replace the United Nations mandate – which expires at the end of the year – under which the US currently operates in Iraq.

Shi’ite response

Each party in Iraq has its own reasons for opposing the raid, and the possibility of further US confrontation with Syria. Iraqi Shi’ites, who were never too fond of the Americans, feel that the US action is aimed at weakening a prime ally of Iran. They fear that this could be an indicator that war with Iran – or at least a similar attack – could be on the immediate horizon before President George W Bush leaves the White House.

Former US ambassador to the United Nations and prominent neo-conservative, John Bolton, only added to their fears when he appeared on the popular Arabic talk show Bi Saraha (Frankly) on the Saudi channel al-Arabiya this week and warned that if sanctions did not work, war was coming with Iran. The UN has imposed three rounds of sanctions on Iran over its nuclear program, while the US has imposed some on its own accord.

The Syria raid has electrified Iraq’s Shi’ites, who are once again calling on Maliki not to sign the SOFA, claiming it will be used against Iran since it would give the US long-term access to Iraqi territory. This week, the call was repeated by Shi’ite heavyweights Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani (who is originally Persian) and Muqtada.

Sunni response

Sunnis are furious, given their historic relations, both personal and commercial, with the Syrians. While Iran always served as an umbrella for Iraqi Shi’ites, Syria did the same for Iraqi Sunnis and they turned to it in need of shelter and salvation after the downfall of Saddam Hussein’s regime in 2003.

Damascus has been very vocal in demanding the Sunnis’ return to the political process, requesting that they be given a greater role under Maliki through rapprochement with the Iraqi Accordance Front and the Iraqi Islamic Party. It also called for amending the de-Ba’athification laws, which targeted scores of Sunnis, a political amnesty to get thousands of Sunnis out of Iraqi and US jails, and opposed annexing Kirkuk (a town that Sunnis consider Arab Sunni) to Iraqi Kurdistan.

Of the 1.5 million Iraqi refugees in Syria, a majority are Sunnis. They were treated well by the Syrians after their exodus in 2003. They do not want to go back to Iraq, but might have to if relations sour within Syria. What makes the Syrian-Iraqi link more sensitive is the overlap of powerful tribes between both countries, both of which are strongly opposed to a US strike on Syria.

These tribes once formed the backbone of the anti-American movement in Iraq and many of them have joined in the Awakening Councils, created in 2007 to combat al-Qaeda in Iraq. They were persuaded to change sides through political support, money and arms, dished out generously by the Americans. If they get angry with the Americans and decide to abandon the Awakening Councils, this could spell disaster for the US in Iraq

One of the tribes on the verge of an outburst against the Americans because of the raid is the Bakara tribe, with an estimated 1 million people divided in half between Syria and Iraq. The second important tribe is the Tai, with 25,000 members in Syria and a significant number in Iraq. Then comes al-Jabour, with 350,000 people, who are based mainly in Iraq and partially in Syria. The other major strong tribe is the Shammar, which, like al-Bakara, is divided between Syria and Iraq.

The politically weak tribes include the al-Sharabin (90,000 members) and the al-Oudaidat, but which has more than 500,000 members living inside Syria. Other tribes include the al-Ruwula and the Hassana of the Syrian desert; the Butainat and the Abadah, near the ancient city of Palmyra; and the Fadan Walad and the Fadan Kharsah of the Euphrates desert. All of these tribes are “kings of the Syrian-Iraqi border” with more influence to get things done than the Syrians, Iraqis and Americans combined. They are also categorically opposed to confrontation with Syria through Iraqi soil and the Americans cannot but listen to their objections, and take them into serious consideration.

Maliki’s response

Pressure from the Syria raid has forced the government to show some intransigence with the Americans over the SOFA. Already, too many people are frowning at Maliki for letting the Americans raid a neighboring Arab state from his territory. He cannot be seen as cuddling up too close to the Americans, so as not to upset the Iraqi street (both Sunni and Shi’ite) or the Iranians.

Now, Maliki wants to delete any reference in the draft SOFA to the possibility of American troops staying until after 2011. According to the draft, the Americans will withdraw from towns and villages by June 2009, and from all of Iraq in 2011. Another demand over the draft regards the immunity of US soldiers stationed in Iraq. The current draft says that a US committee will decide whether a soldier has committed a crime on Iraqi soil, and judge him accordingly. The amendment reads that a joint Iraqi-US committee should do the task, not just an American one. Also, clause 9 of section 12 grants immunity from Iraqi law to American soldiers, which Maliki wants changed.

And the Syrian response …

The Syrians have resorted to several measures in response to what happened on October 27, all of which could lead to much trouble in the region, unless the US comes up with an apology (as requested by the Syrian government).

One symbolic step was to close down the American school in Damascus and the American Culture Center. The school, particularly painful for Americans because it is viewed as part of their cultural mission worldwide, was opened in 1956 by special agreement between the Syrian Foreign Ministry and then-secretary of state John Foster Dulles. Other more concrete steps include:

Suspension of the work of the Syrian-Iraqi security committees, which are headed by the ministers of Interior of Syria and Iraq. This means no more sharing of information on jihadis wanting to cross the border into Iraq, or vice-versa.

Suspension of diplomatic relations, which would lead to the recall of Syria’s newly appointed ambassador to Iraq, Nawaf al-Fares. Fares, who hails from a prominent tribe that overlaps Syria and Iraq and is a Ba’athist, was expected to play a significant role in reconciliation between Iraqi Shi’ites and Sunnis, due to the excellent relations he commands with both.

Additionally, his appointment had greatly legitimized the US-backed Maliki regime in the eyes of ordinary Iraqi Sunnis. It was one thing when a country like Bahrain or Jordan recognized the Maliki government; this is expected given their strong relations to the United States. It is another when Syria – which is at odds with the US and happens to still be Ba’athist, sends an ambassador to Baghdad. Such a step does wonders to Maliki’s image in the eyes of his countrymen, and the opposite would logically greatly harm him.

Reduction of the number of troops stationed on the border of Iraq, which would make it easier for foreign fighters to cross into Iraq. It is still unclear if this means bringing down the sand walls, observation and control centers that the Syrians created in 2005 and which are dotted all along the border to keep cars, smugglers and terrorists from crossing. On Friday, the Syrian government, however, denied it had reduced the number of troops stationed on the border.

The Syrians are still waiting to hear a logical and official explanation from Washington, either from Bush, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice or Defense Secretary Robert Gates. “Sources” in the US administration, along with press reports, are saying that the man targeted in the attack was Abu Ghadiyah, a top commander of al-Qaeda. The Syrians are crying foul play, saying that if Ghadiyah was hiding in Syrian territory, they would have been the first to hunt him down because his presence threatens the national security of Syria.

Had the Americans informed them that this person was hiding in a certain location, they would have tracked him down, as in the case with many jihadis who have been nailed thanks to joint cooperation between Syria, Iraq and the United States. Abu Ghadiya, after all, is a young al-Qaeda operative (aged 30) from Mosul in Iraq who is accused of working with former terrorist supremo Abu Musab al-Zarkawi. Why would Syria, a secular regime that has fought Islamic fundamentalists since the mid-1960s, be interested in harboring such a deadly character, knowing perfectly well that he could create a lot of trouble within Syria?

Conclusion

Until a proper explanation comes out of the US, it is safe to assume that there are people in the outgoing US administration who are angry with the moderate behavior Syria has shown in the past seven months, and want it to change course towards radicalization. Logic says that radicals cannot deal with moderates; it makes them uneasy.

When Israeli leader Ariel Sharon, a radical, was confronted with Palestinian Liberation Organization leader Yasser Arafat carrying a an olive branch, this made the Israeli premier uneasy as he would have rather dealt with someone like Hamas political chief Khaled Meshaal, another radical, who wanted confrontation with Israel.

Likewise, the Americans were pleased at the rejectionist policies of Syria in 2003-2005, using them to push for more sanctions, confrontation and possibly regime change in Syria. When Syria cooperated on Iraq and Lebanon, the radicals in the US administration felt that they could no longer make proper arguments against Syria. They were worried that the State Department was engaging the Syrians over Iraq and indirect peace talks with Israel. To bring all of that to a halt, they fabricated the Abu Ghadiyah story, attacked Syria, wanting Syria to retaliate with more radicalization, which would lead to confrontation.

So far, the Syrian response has been symbolic, through protests by hundreds of thousands of people on October 30, and closure of the American school, and substantive, through the severing of diplomatic relations with Iraq, but not with the United States – the Syrians are betting on Democratic Senator Barack Obama as the next president.

***
Sami Moubayed is a Syrian political analyst.

Iraqis Protest Proposed Deal to Allow US Troops to Stay in Iraq Until 2011

http://www.democracynow.org/2008/10/21/iraqis_protest_proposed_deal_to_allow

Iraqis Protest Proposed Deal to Allow US Troops to Stay in Iraq Until 2011

On Saturday, tens of thousands of Iraqis demonstrated against the proposed Status of Forces Agreement, but US military chief Michael Mullen warned today that Iraq could risk “losses of significant consequence” if the deal is not approved quickly. We speak to Patrick Cockburn and Raed Jarrar.

John Nichols on the GOP’s New McCarthyism and the 2008 Congressional Races

On Friday, Republican Congress member Michele Bachmann of Minnesota stoked controversy after calling Barack Obama “Anti-American” while urging the media to launch an investigation to determine who in Congress is pro-American or anti-American. Bachmann’s re-election now seems a bit less certain. We look at Bachmann’s race and other closely contested congressional races.

Iraq Pullout Deal in Doubt Due to Disagreements

Iraq Pullout Deal in Doubt Due to Disagreements

by Corinne Reilly & Nancy A. Youssef
McClatchy News
http://www.azcentra l.com/arizonarep ublic/news/ articles/ 2008/10/18/ 20081018us- iraq1018. html
October 18, 2008

BAGHDAD – A draft agreement by U.S. and Iraqi negotiators that calls for withdrawing American troops by 2012 appears to be facing obstacles in Iraq that could kill the deal before it’s implemented, lawmakers in Baghdad said.

After seven months of wearisome back and forth, negotiators completed the draft this week. Both governments are reviewing it. Although the agreement doesn’t require congressional approval, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice are reaching out to key members of Congress and asking them to support it.

In Iraq, the Political Council for National Security, Cabinet and parliament must approve.

The campaigns of Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama and Republican rival John McCain, both on Senate committees that deal with the issue, have been briefed.

Progress on the accord follows a compromise on the biggest point of contention: the legal jurisdiction over U.S. military personnel in Iraq.

Under the draft now being discussed, Iraq could prosecute American troops accused only of committing major, premeditated crimes while they were off-duty and outside U.S. bases. Some Iraqis argue that that doesn’t go far enough, especially because U.S. troops and contractors rarely move around the country unless they’re on duty.

The draft also calls for U.S. troops to withdraw from Iraqi cities by mid-2009 and from the country entirely by 2012.

An agreement is necessary because a U.N. mandate allowing American troops to operate in Iraq will expire Dec. 31. If an accord governing their continued presence isn’t reached by the end of the year, U.S. forces in Iraq technically could become illegal occupiers.

Despite this week’s movement, concern is widespread that the pact, which the United States hopes to finalize by the end of the year, won’t win Iraqi approval.

Whether the draft will survive is questionable, lawmakers here said.

“It’s very hard to judge at this point,” said Sami al-Askari, a senior Shiite Muslim lawmaker and a close adviser to Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki. “There are some who will fundamentally oppose any agreement with the Americans, regardless of the terms.”

He said others may reject the draft because they thought that Iraqi negotiators had given up too much concerning legal jurisdiction over U.S. troops.

Mithal al-Alusi, a secular Sunni Muslim member of parliament, said that he would support the draft if it made it to a vote in parliament. He added, “Many could oppose it because they are agents of Iran. It will ultimately be a fight between true Iraqi patriots and those who have been taken over by the Iranians.”

Upcoming elections in Iraq could complicate matters, said Salim Abdullah al-Juburi, a spokesman for parliament’s largest Sunni bloc.

“Unfortunately, not everyone will look at the agreement from the point of view of what is best for Iraq,” he said. “Some will think only about the impression their decision might have on voters.”

He said that he expected members of the United Iraqi Alliance, the largest Shiite bloc in parliament, to oppose the agreement because of Iran’s influence.

“I won’t decide my opinion until I have the opportunity to scrutinize the draft,” he added.

Other lawmakers previously have made up their minds. “I won’t vote for this agreement as it stands, and anyone who would is a traitor to the Iraqi people,” said Bahaa al-Araji, a lawmaker with the Sadrists, followers of radical Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr. “Many of the points included in the draft I read are contrary to the Iraqi constitution and Iraqi law.”

On Friday, U.S. negotiators in Iraq, along with Gen. Raymond Odierno, the top American commander here, had a video conference with senior aides in both houses of Congress to brief them about the draft’s terms. At the same time in Iraq, top government officials and party leaders had a similar meeting.

A statement issued late Friday by the Iraqi government said its meeting had ended without any formal decisions. Discussions will continue in the coming days, the statement said.

The agreement also discusses a larger role for Iraqis in U.S. military operations.

The Bush administration’s approval of the abuse of detainees is a toxic legacy for the next US president

Published on Saturday, October 18, 2008 by The Guardian/UK

The Torture Time Bomb

The Bush administration’s approval of the abuse of detainees is a toxic legacy for the next US president

by Philippe Sands

As the US presidential election reaches a climax against the background of the financial crisis, another silent, dark, time bomb of an issue hangs over the two candidates: torture. For now, there seems to be a shared desire not to delve too deeply into the circumstances in which the Bush administration allowed the US military and the CIA to embrace abusive techniques of interrogation – including waterboarding, in the case of the CIA – which violate the Geneva conventions and the 1984 UN torture convention.

The torture issue’s cancerous consequences go deep, and will cause headaches for the next president. New evidence has emerged in Congressional inquiries that throw more light on the extent to which early knowledge and approval of the abuse went to the highest levels. What does a country do when compelling evidence shows its leaders have authorised international crimes?

For three years I have followed a trail which leads unambiguously to the conclusion that the real bad eggs were not Lyndie England or others on the ground in Abu Ghraib, but the most senior officials in the White House, the Pentagon and the department of justice. Over recent months, Congress has been looking into the role of senior officials involved in the development of interrogation rules. These have attracted relatively scant attention; little by little, however, senators and congressmen have uncovered the outlines of a potentially far-reaching criminal conspiracy.

The first hearings were convened before the judiciary committee of the House of Representatives, at the instance of its chairman, Congressman John Conyers, apparently off the back of my book Torture Team. Parallel hearings have been held before the Senate armed services committee.

The evidence that has emerged is potentially devastating. It confirms, for instance, that the search for new interrogation techniques for use at Guantánamo began not with the local military but in the offices of Donald Rumsfeld and his chief lawyer, Jim Haynes. It shows that when the career military expressed objections on legal grounds, Haynes intervened to stop the normal process of review. And it shows a previously unknown interplay between the department of defence and the CIA: a visit to Guantánamo in September 2002 by the administration’s most senior lawyers was followed days later by a senior CIA lawyer, to brief on the new techniques. “If someone dies while aggressive techniques are being used,” he explained, “the backlash of attention would be severely detrimental.”

Last month the Senate armed services committee received new material from Condoleezza Rice, the first cabinet-level official to confirm high-level involvement in discussions on interrogation techniques. “I participated in a number of meetings in 2002 and 2003 … at which issues relating to detainees in US custody, including interrogation issues, were discussed,” she said. Those present at such meetings included Rumsfeld, attorney general John Ashcroft, Colin Powell, Paul Wolfowitz and CIA director George Tenet. The meetings, which concerned the CIA programme, “occurred inside the White House”. Rice confirmed she was aware of the existence of, but did not read, the justice department legal advice of August 1 2002 that abandoned the international definition of torture and replaced it with a definition drawn from a US Medicare statute.

Buried away in this testimony lies the most dangerous material of all: evidence which may establish that abuses on detainees in Iraq in September 2003, in the period perhaps including the events at Abu Ghraib, were the result of decisions taken at the highest levels of the administration. The administration has long proclaimed it did not allow aggressive interrogations in Iraq, since the Geneva conventions applied. Last month we learned this was false: not everyone had protection under Geneva. If you were considered to be a terrorist, you had no protection at all. A senior US intelligence officer visited Iraq in September 2003. He witnessed abusive interrogation techniques that violated Geneva and complained. The response? He was told the techniques “were pre-approved by DoD GC or higher”. DoD GC is the general counsel at the department of defence, Jim Haynes. Who could be higher? His boss: Rumsfeld.

I have testified before Congress on these issues, and have been asked if there should be criminal investigations and prosecutions. At the very least, the next US president must ensure the full facts are established. It will then be for others to decide what follows. But if the US doesn’t get its own house in order and restore its reputation for the rule of law, others will surely step in.

© 2008 The Guardian
Philippe Sands QC is professor of law at UCL, a barrister at Matrix Chambers and author of Torture Team.

Thousands of Iraqis Protest U.S. Security Pact

Thousands of Iraqis Protest U.S. Security Pact

Associated Press
http://www.msnbc. msn.com/id/ 27249170/
October 18, 2008

BAGHDAD – Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr on Saturday called on Iraq’s parliament to reject a U.S.-Iraqi security pact as tens of thousands of his followers rallied in Baghdad against the deal.

The mass public show of opposition came as U.S. and Iraqi leaders face a Dec. 31 deadline to reach agreement on the deal, which would replace an expiring U.N. mandate authorizing the U.S.-led forces in Iraq.

Al-Sadr’s message was addressed to Iraqi lawmakers and read by his aide Sheik Abdul-Hadi al-Mohammadawi before a huge crowd of mostly young men waving Iraqi and green Shiite flags and chanting slogans including “no, no to the agreement” and “yes to Iraq.”

“The Iraqi government has abandoned its duty before God and its people and referred the agreement to you knowing that ratifying it will stigmatize Iraq and its government for years to come,” he said.

Al-Sadr, who is living in Iran, also cast doubt on the Iraqi government’s argument that the security pact is a step toward ending the U.S. presence in Iraq. The deal would require U.S. forces to leave by Dec. 31, 2011 unless Iraq asked some of them to stay.

‘Do not betray the people’

“If they tell you that the agreement ends the presence of the occupation, let me tell you that the occupier will retain its bases. And whoever tells you that it gives us sovereignty is a liar,” al-Sadr said. “I am confident that you brothers in parliament will champion the will of the people over that of the occupier … Do not betray the people.”

The demonstrators marched from the main Shiite district of Sadr City to the more central Mustansiriyah Square in eastern Baghdad.

“No, No to America,” shouted one man, wearing a white Islamic robe as he sat in a wheelchair and clutched a poster of the Iraqi flag. “We prefer death to giving concessions. “

Security was tight, with Iraqi security forces manning checkpoints on sidestreets and snipers on rooftops. Iraqi Humvees controlled all the roads leading to the square. Giant Iraqi flags covered nearby buildings.

One banner in English said “We refuse the existence of the U.S. in Iraq.”

Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki’s government and the Bush administration have hammered out a draft agreement after months of bitter negotiations.

But the Iraqi parliament must ratify the deal and Iraq’s pre-eminent cleric Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani has said any accord must have national consensus.

Al-Maliki, a Shiite, could be politically isolated if he tries to win parliament’s backing in the face of widespread opposition.

Several Sunni and Shiite clerics, who wield considerable influence in shaping public opinion, also spoke out during Friday prayer services against the draft, complaining that the Iraqi public knows little about the terms.

A copy of the draft accord obtained by The Associated Press specifies that U.S. troops must leave Iraqi cities by the end of June and be gone by 2012. It gives Iraq limited authority over off-duty, off-base U.S. soldiers who commit crimes.

U.S. Congressional approval is not required for the pact to take effect, but the administration is trying to build maximum political support anyway.

The march was called by al-Sadr after he had to postpone a mass demonstration on April 9 to mark the fifth anniversary of the U.S. capture of Baghdad. That march had been postponed after many of his followers complained they were not allowed to enter the capital amid fears of violence.

Also on Saturday, Bahrain’s foreign minister arrived in Iraq’s capital Saturday for a one-day visit aimed at improving bilateral relations between the countries, the latest high-level visit by a senior Arab dignitary.