Here's a good yarn. A Jewish settler, Yaakov Teitel, has finally been arrested by Israeli police after committing a string of terror attacks against Palestinian Arabs and insufficiently Zionist Jews stretching back over 12 years. Of course, the self-confessed killer is described as 'mentally disturbed', because its the Muslims who are always the terrorists, right?
The Israeli police foreign media spokesman's overarching description of him was that he was "like a serial killer", before recognising his terrorist credentials, in contrast to the way that Lebanese Hezbollah guerrillas are described as "terrorists" in Israeli discourse for the mere fact of trying to defend their land against invasion.
I suppose my favourite take on the huge raft of news, comment, analysis and hand-wringing on this topic comes from the ever sophisticated pro-settlement news source Arutz Sheva, which asserts that ‘Teitel Was Lone Man among 300,000 Law-Abiding Residents’. Mmmm, are you really law-abiding when you live in an illegal settlement, built on someone else's land?
Sunday, 1 November 2009
Wednesday, 28 October 2009
Questions for an Israeli investigation
Today's op-ed article by Aluf Benn in Haaretz outlines some of the myriad questions that need to be asked by an Israeli commission of inquiry into the Gaza war - not that the Israeli government will ever hold one. Some are questions which may have been forgotten as we witnessed the sickening sights, sounds and statistics of what was basically a turkey shoot committed against a downtrodden population with no means of escape.
“I want to know if the decisions (to embark on Operation Cast Lead in the Gaza Strip and to expand it into a ground offensive) were affected by the Israeli election campaign then underway and the change in U.S. presidents,” he says.
Obviously they were. The fuse was lit on the day of the US election, the bombardment started between Christmas and the New Year when most of the Western world’s attention was elsewhere, and the slaughter ended just before Obama’s inauguration. Coincidence? I think not.
“I want to know if the leaders who launched the operation correctly judged the political damage it would cause Israel and what they did to minimize it,” Benn continues.
I'd say, frankly, the political damage caused to Israel is the only positive aspect of the whole blood-soaked enterprise, so let’s leave that one, shall we?
“I want to know if those who gave orders to the Israel Defense Forces assumed that hundreds of Palestinian civilians would be killed, and how they tried to prevent this.”
You know as well as I do, Aluf, that that was one of the major war aims for Israel. To kill Gazans. Not to wipe them out, which would no doubt have been militarily possible, but to “go a bit mad” to teach them a lesson they wouldn’t forget in a hurry. A death-count ratio of 100-to-one would be about right, and hey presto...
He goes on to say that internal military probes are no substitute for a comprehensive examination of the activities of the political leadership and senior command. Correct. Then more questions, including:
“Before embarking on Cast Lead, were diplomatic alternatives explored for achieving calm in the south? Was Hamas' proposal for renewing calm in exchange for opening crossings seriously considered in Israel?”
No.
“Or did the government only want a military operation?”
Yes.
“How did the rising popularity of the opposition parties, Benjamin Netanyahu and Avigdor Lieberman, as reflected in polls at the time, affect Barak and Livni's stances before and during the operation?”
A lot, one assumes.
Then we get a bit more about political infighting and grandstanding, and incitement to kill Palestinian civilians.
“Who decided to bomb the flour mill and sewage treatment center in Gaza, and why?”
Not to mention the mosques, the schools, the civilian homes, the government buildings, the hospitals, etc, that were playing no part in the “battle” – not that the Israeli troops ever risked an actual battle with Hamas in its strongholds like Jabaliya or Gaza City. All these locations should have been protected from the fighting, and it’s no good saying Hamas was using human shields. The only hard evidence of the use of human shields in this conflict was by Israel.
“Where did Olmert disappear to on January 13 when Barak and Livni could not find him in an effort to offer a cease-fire?”
Frankly my dear....
But Benn does have an interesting conclusion – based on the assumption that the political leadership are too worried about their own positions to weaken them with an independent investigation (the only thing that will get Goldstone and the UN off Israel’s back). He calls on the State Comptroller to initiate just an investigation into the political decisions behind the war. Good luck.
“I want to know if the decisions (to embark on Operation Cast Lead in the Gaza Strip and to expand it into a ground offensive) were affected by the Israeli election campaign then underway and the change in U.S. presidents,” he says.
Obviously they were. The fuse was lit on the day of the US election, the bombardment started between Christmas and the New Year when most of the Western world’s attention was elsewhere, and the slaughter ended just before Obama’s inauguration. Coincidence? I think not.
“I want to know if the leaders who launched the operation correctly judged the political damage it would cause Israel and what they did to minimize it,” Benn continues.
I'd say, frankly, the political damage caused to Israel is the only positive aspect of the whole blood-soaked enterprise, so let’s leave that one, shall we?
“I want to know if those who gave orders to the Israel Defense Forces assumed that hundreds of Palestinian civilians would be killed, and how they tried to prevent this.”
You know as well as I do, Aluf, that that was one of the major war aims for Israel. To kill Gazans. Not to wipe them out, which would no doubt have been militarily possible, but to “go a bit mad” to teach them a lesson they wouldn’t forget in a hurry. A death-count ratio of 100-to-one would be about right, and hey presto...
He goes on to say that internal military probes are no substitute for a comprehensive examination of the activities of the political leadership and senior command. Correct. Then more questions, including:
“Before embarking on Cast Lead, were diplomatic alternatives explored for achieving calm in the south? Was Hamas' proposal for renewing calm in exchange for opening crossings seriously considered in Israel?”
No.
“Or did the government only want a military operation?”
Yes.
“How did the rising popularity of the opposition parties, Benjamin Netanyahu and Avigdor Lieberman, as reflected in polls at the time, affect Barak and Livni's stances before and during the operation?”
A lot, one assumes.
Then we get a bit more about political infighting and grandstanding, and incitement to kill Palestinian civilians.
“Who decided to bomb the flour mill and sewage treatment center in Gaza, and why?”
Not to mention the mosques, the schools, the civilian homes, the government buildings, the hospitals, etc, that were playing no part in the “battle” – not that the Israeli troops ever risked an actual battle with Hamas in its strongholds like Jabaliya or Gaza City. All these locations should have been protected from the fighting, and it’s no good saying Hamas was using human shields. The only hard evidence of the use of human shields in this conflict was by Israel.
“Where did Olmert disappear to on January 13 when Barak and Livni could not find him in an effort to offer a cease-fire?”
Frankly my dear....
But Benn does have an interesting conclusion – based on the assumption that the political leadership are too worried about their own positions to weaken them with an independent investigation (the only thing that will get Goldstone and the UN off Israel’s back). He calls on the State Comptroller to initiate just an investigation into the political decisions behind the war. Good luck.
Monday, 19 October 2009
Lebanon "powder keg"
So let's recap - sorry I was a bit busy last week to blog much - there's been an explosion in a village just south of the Litani river in South Lebanon. On 12 October, a garage and block of flats in Tayr Filsay catch fire, one person is injured, clear explanations are hard to come by - it could be a Hezbollah weapons cache that accidentally detonated or maybe the guy who was injured found a piece of unspent Israeli ordnance left over from 2006 and unwisely took it home and poked around inside. Anyway, no one dead, no apparent permanent harm done. But to read the headlines coming out of Israel you'd think it was the beginning of World War III.
President Shimon Peres, no longer an active politician - so should probably keep his mouth shut - accused Hezbollah of turning Lebanon into "a powder keg". He knows all about how to do that of course. So we've got belicose statements from Israel's internationally respected Nobel Peace Laurate and much-loved grandfather of the nation (or disgusting old war monger, depending on your view) before the UN force in Lebanon has a chance to find out what happened. Um shmum, as Ben Gurion used to say. There are plenty of fear-mongering reports in the Israeli press too. Then the Israeli military broadcasts a dodgy looking tape, obtained illegally by a drone violating Lebanese airspace, purporting to show Hezbollah men taking weapons from the garage. In fact you can't see anything on the tape. After which Hezbollah produce their own tape showing, maybe - hard to tell, that it was just old bits of twisted metal being transported.
And then what happens? A few days later, two Israeli spy devices fitted with explosives are detonated by remote control on - or rather under - Lebanese soil. Apparently planted during Israel's devastating war on Lebanon in 2006, and blown up to stop them being discovered.
And barely a murmur this time from officials south of the border. That's what is called Chutzpah.
It has to be acknowledged that there are a couple of shame-faced reports in the Israeli press - but they are buried deep down in the web pages and are full of equivocations, in contrast to the top-level treatment and screaming headlines of the 12 October explosion.
If you look really carefully on Haaretz, as I'm writing, you can see their report on Israel's violations in Lebanon next to Amira Hass's latest writing on the massascre of the Shamouni family in Gaza in January. It's in a section called Defense (sic)
President Shimon Peres, no longer an active politician - so should probably keep his mouth shut - accused Hezbollah of turning Lebanon into "a powder keg". He knows all about how to do that of course. So we've got belicose statements from Israel's internationally respected Nobel Peace Laurate and much-loved grandfather of the nation (or disgusting old war monger, depending on your view) before the UN force in Lebanon has a chance to find out what happened. Um shmum, as Ben Gurion used to say. There are plenty of fear-mongering reports in the Israeli press too. Then the Israeli military broadcasts a dodgy looking tape, obtained illegally by a drone violating Lebanese airspace, purporting to show Hezbollah men taking weapons from the garage. In fact you can't see anything on the tape. After which Hezbollah produce their own tape showing, maybe - hard to tell, that it was just old bits of twisted metal being transported.
And then what happens? A few days later, two Israeli spy devices fitted with explosives are detonated by remote control on - or rather under - Lebanese soil. Apparently planted during Israel's devastating war on Lebanon in 2006, and blown up to stop them being discovered.
And barely a murmur this time from officials south of the border. That's what is called Chutzpah.
It has to be acknowledged that there are a couple of shame-faced reports in the Israeli press - but they are buried deep down in the web pages and are full of equivocations, in contrast to the top-level treatment and screaming headlines of the 12 October explosion.
If you look really carefully on Haaretz, as I'm writing, you can see their report on Israel's violations in Lebanon next to Amira Hass's latest writing on the massascre of the Shamouni family in Gaza in January. It's in a section called Defense (sic)
Sunday, 18 October 2009
More campus fun
It was Ehud Olmert, disgraced former Israeli Prime Minister, and now - thanks to the UN Human Rights Council - suspected war criminal, this time facing the wrath of an audiance at the University of Chicago.
He got a much rougher ride than Tony Blair at Buffalo - speaker after speaker getting up to denounce Olmert over the massacre of Gazans and Lebanese civilians before being taken out by security. Lots of people in the audience giving encouragement. The footage isn't as good as the Blair blather from last weekend, you can't really hear Olmert's reaction clearly. Never mind the point is clear. And there's one nice moment where a moderator asks for Olmert to be given a chance to speak, and the reply comes "He should get his chance to speak at the International Criminal Court". Quite so.
This kind of thing would have been impossible in past years. It was the people speaking on behalf of the Palestinian cause who would be shouted down by organised pro-Israeli activists.
And what's the King Abdullah II Leadership Lecture, and why are the Jordanians doing inviting Olmert, or whoever it was on behalf of the Jordanians?
He got a much rougher ride than Tony Blair at Buffalo - speaker after speaker getting up to denounce Olmert over the massacre of Gazans and Lebanese civilians before being taken out by security. Lots of people in the audience giving encouragement. The footage isn't as good as the Blair blather from last weekend, you can't really hear Olmert's reaction clearly. Never mind the point is clear. And there's one nice moment where a moderator asks for Olmert to be given a chance to speak, and the reply comes "He should get his chance to speak at the International Criminal Court". Quite so.
This kind of thing would have been impossible in past years. It was the people speaking on behalf of the Palestinian cause who would be shouted down by organised pro-Israeli activists.
And what's the King Abdullah II Leadership Lecture, and why are the Jordanians doing inviting Olmert, or whoever it was on behalf of the Jordanians?
Sunday, 11 October 2009
A question (and answer) that should bury Blair
It’s been a bad week for Tony Blair. Hats off to Nick Kabat, who asked him this question at a lecture at the University of Buffalo on 7 October. (Thanks to Mondoweiss for picking this up.)
“A UN investigation has found that Israel and Hamas committed war crimes and crimes against humanity in the recent Gaza conflict. Yet the US and Israel insist the report was biased and proceeding with the committee’s recommendations would be harmful to the peace process. Why is international law not applied in this case when the evidence exists. And please explain as Quartet envoy why the application of international law would be harmful to the overall peace process and furthermore why the siege on Gaza is not similarly deemed harmful to the peace process.“
Blair, as you can see, was unable to give a straight answer.
Here’s his series of cynical arguments to duck the question, and sorry for SHOUTING in my comments, but really....
1 - International law should be applied, but not necessarily in cases where there are “deep and profound contentions" between the two sides. WHAT!?!
2 – I know from my experience in Northern Ireland that you never solve a conflict by taking only one side’s view and forgetting about the other – SO WE MUST IGNORE THE VIEW OF A HIGHLY QUALIFIED PANEL OF RESPECTED JURISTS THAT PRODUCED AN UNIMPEACHABLY OBJECTIVE AND RIGOROUSLY RESEARCHED INVESTIGATION BECAUSE PALESTINIANS, HUMAN RIGHTS ADVOCATES, ETC. SUPPORT IT AND ISRAEL DOESN’T. HOORAH FOR BALANCE!
3 - Israel pulled out its troops and settlers from Gaza in 2005 and rocket attacks came out of Gaza – SO YOU REFUSE TO ENDORSE GOLDSTONE, BUT YOU ARE HAPPY TO ENDORSE SHARON’S MOVE TO AVOID ALL NEGOTIATION BY TAKING UNILATERAL MEASURES BACKED UP BY UNLIMITED MILITARY MIGHT OFTEN USED ILLEGALLY? YOU’RE A PEACE ENVOY!!!
4 – Hamas must release Gilad Shalit – YES, AND ISRAEL MUST RELEASE 11,000 PALESTINIAN PRISONERS.
5 – Some people say we must change our policy in Gaza, but so must Hamas – WHICH IS WHAT GOLDSTONE SAYS. WHY NOT ENDORSE THE REPORT THEN?
6 – Again, the conflict will not be resolved by a debate over a report (sic) that is hotly disputed between the two sides – NO ONE IS SEEKING TO SOLVE THE CONFLICT BY “DEBATING” THIS REPORT. PEOPLE WANT THE CONFLICT TO BE SOLVED BY THE BALANCED APPLICATION OF INTERNATIONAL LAW, THAT’S ALL.
7 – It’s all about giving Israeli security and Palestinians a state, via bottom-up institution building and economic development and top down negotiations. HANG ON, ISN’T THAT THE ISRAELI VIEW. I WOULD SUGGEST, MR BLAIR, THAT THE PALESTINIANS – APART EVEN SOME IN THE QUISLING PA - WOULD “HOTLY DISPUTE” THAT, AND SAY IT IS ALL ABOUT ENDING THE ILLEGAL ISRAELI OCCUPATION AND COLONISATION OF THEIR TERRITORY AND RIGHTING HISTORIC INJUSTICE.
8 – Things are improving. After all, Mr Bliar is able ponce around the West Bank when before he couldn’t – SORRY, I THINK I’M GOING TO BE SICK...
9 – Now, for the big finish... he believes it’s possible to resolve the dispute by understanding the pain on both sides and making sure we get a just and fair solution with two states, living together in peace. OH YES, "I BELIEVE!" OTHERWISE HE'D HAVE TO RESIGN, WOULDN'T HE?
To conclude, Israel can avoid all accountability for its war crimes by “hotly disputing” any attempt to enforce it. The Palestinians, even the co-opted Palestinian Authority, can hotly dispute whatever they like, the illegality of settlements, or the Wall, or removing the rights of the 6-7m refugees, and no one will listen.
“A UN investigation has found that Israel and Hamas committed war crimes and crimes against humanity in the recent Gaza conflict. Yet the US and Israel insist the report was biased and proceeding with the committee’s recommendations would be harmful to the peace process. Why is international law not applied in this case when the evidence exists. And please explain as Quartet envoy why the application of international law would be harmful to the overall peace process and furthermore why the siege on Gaza is not similarly deemed harmful to the peace process.“
Blair, as you can see, was unable to give a straight answer.
Here’s his series of cynical arguments to duck the question, and sorry for SHOUTING in my comments, but really....
1 - International law should be applied, but not necessarily in cases where there are “deep and profound contentions" between the two sides. WHAT!?!
2 – I know from my experience in Northern Ireland that you never solve a conflict by taking only one side’s view and forgetting about the other – SO WE MUST IGNORE THE VIEW OF A HIGHLY QUALIFIED PANEL OF RESPECTED JURISTS THAT PRODUCED AN UNIMPEACHABLY OBJECTIVE AND RIGOROUSLY RESEARCHED INVESTIGATION BECAUSE PALESTINIANS, HUMAN RIGHTS ADVOCATES, ETC. SUPPORT IT AND ISRAEL DOESN’T. HOORAH FOR BALANCE!
3 - Israel pulled out its troops and settlers from Gaza in 2005 and rocket attacks came out of Gaza – SO YOU REFUSE TO ENDORSE GOLDSTONE, BUT YOU ARE HAPPY TO ENDORSE SHARON’S MOVE TO AVOID ALL NEGOTIATION BY TAKING UNILATERAL MEASURES BACKED UP BY UNLIMITED MILITARY MIGHT OFTEN USED ILLEGALLY? YOU’RE A PEACE ENVOY!!!
4 – Hamas must release Gilad Shalit – YES, AND ISRAEL MUST RELEASE 11,000 PALESTINIAN PRISONERS.
5 – Some people say we must change our policy in Gaza, but so must Hamas – WHICH IS WHAT GOLDSTONE SAYS. WHY NOT ENDORSE THE REPORT THEN?
6 – Again, the conflict will not be resolved by a debate over a report (sic) that is hotly disputed between the two sides – NO ONE IS SEEKING TO SOLVE THE CONFLICT BY “DEBATING” THIS REPORT. PEOPLE WANT THE CONFLICT TO BE SOLVED BY THE BALANCED APPLICATION OF INTERNATIONAL LAW, THAT’S ALL.
7 – It’s all about giving Israeli security and Palestinians a state, via bottom-up institution building and economic development and top down negotiations. HANG ON, ISN’T THAT THE ISRAELI VIEW. I WOULD SUGGEST, MR BLAIR, THAT THE PALESTINIANS – APART EVEN SOME IN THE QUISLING PA - WOULD “HOTLY DISPUTE” THAT, AND SAY IT IS ALL ABOUT ENDING THE ILLEGAL ISRAELI OCCUPATION AND COLONISATION OF THEIR TERRITORY AND RIGHTING HISTORIC INJUSTICE.
8 – Things are improving. After all, Mr Bliar is able ponce around the West Bank when before he couldn’t – SORRY, I THINK I’M GOING TO BE SICK...
9 – Now, for the big finish... he believes it’s possible to resolve the dispute by understanding the pain on both sides and making sure we get a just and fair solution with two states, living together in peace. OH YES, "I BELIEVE!" OTHERWISE HE'D HAVE TO RESIGN, WOULDN'T HE?
To conclude, Israel can avoid all accountability for its war crimes by “hotly disputing” any attempt to enforce it. The Palestinians, even the co-opted Palestinian Authority, can hotly dispute whatever they like, the illegality of settlements, or the Wall, or removing the rights of the 6-7m refugees, and no one will listen.
Friday, 9 October 2009
Obama, Nobel Laureate
Recovering my composure after hearing that the Nobel Peace Prize is going to someone who has not actually made any peace yet..
Apparently the committee believes it's valid to bung their dynamite funded cash to someone setting out on a long and arduous path to peace, rather than actually achieving it. So congratulations, Mr Obama, lets hope works out for you.
A couple of awkward thoughts though - he's being praised for his commitment to global nuclear disarmament. Not sure how global this commitment is judging by this report about his position regarding Israel's secret stash of nukes. While on the subject of the Middle East, as the committee must have been deliberating its headline-grabbing peace laureate candidate, his administration was performing a humiliating U-turn on the demand that Israel end illegal settlement construction in the occupied West Bank (and don't forget all the settlements are illegal, not just the new ones). Then came the mess over the Goldstone report, a crucial test for global accountability for war crimes and crimes against humanity, and what did the US do? What it's always done, throw a diplomatic cloak of impunity over Israel, by pressurising the Palestinians to seek deferral of the report until next March (for which, read "for ever"). I'm no big fan of the PA, but the impact of this all-too-familiar routine calls to mind Ariel Sharon's description of Mahmoud Abbas a few years ago. And I know this blog is about Mid-East affairs, but I'm not sure that US plans for Afghanistan are that peaceful either.
So if this prize is meant to encourage more of same from Mr Obama...
Apparently the committee believes it's valid to bung their dynamite funded cash to someone setting out on a long and arduous path to peace, rather than actually achieving it. So congratulations, Mr Obama, lets hope works out for you.
A couple of awkward thoughts though - he's being praised for his commitment to global nuclear disarmament. Not sure how global this commitment is judging by this report about his position regarding Israel's secret stash of nukes. While on the subject of the Middle East, as the committee must have been deliberating its headline-grabbing peace laureate candidate, his administration was performing a humiliating U-turn on the demand that Israel end illegal settlement construction in the occupied West Bank (and don't forget all the settlements are illegal, not just the new ones). Then came the mess over the Goldstone report, a crucial test for global accountability for war crimes and crimes against humanity, and what did the US do? What it's always done, throw a diplomatic cloak of impunity over Israel, by pressurising the Palestinians to seek deferral of the report until next March (for which, read "for ever"). I'm no big fan of the PA, but the impact of this all-too-familiar routine calls to mind Ariel Sharon's description of Mahmoud Abbas a few years ago. And I know this blog is about Mid-East affairs, but I'm not sure that US plans for Afghanistan are that peaceful either.
So if this prize is meant to encourage more of same from Mr Obama...
Iraq Memorial Day - update
Good for Archbishop Rowan Williams for having the integrity not to let the Iraq event at St Paul's Cathedral be a complete whitewash for the architects of the war.
The headlines are talking about him attacking high cost of war, decrying human cost, etc. though he was a bit more nuanced. Here are the important quotes from his address.
Many people of my generation and younger grew up doubting whether we should ever see another straightforward international conflict, fought by a standing army with conventional weapons. We had begun to forget the realities of cost. And when such conflict appeared on the horizon, there were those among both policy makers and commentators who were able to talk about it without really measuring the price, the cost of justice..
The conflict in Iraq will, for a long time yet, exercise the historians, the moralists, the international experts. In a world as complicated as ours has become, it would be a very rash person who would feel able to say without hesitation, this was absolutely the right or the wrong thing to do, the right or the wrong place to be.
FROM TODAY'S GUARDIAN - NOT INCLUDED IN YESTERDAY'S POST, BUT POSSIBLY THE MOST STINGING OF WILLIAMS' WORDS: Williams criticised the "invisible enemies – letting ends justify means, letting others rather than oneself carry the cost, denying the difficulties or the failures so as to present a good public face" – that had menaced those involved in the conflict...
The moral credibility of any country engaged in war depends a lot less on the rhetoric of politicians and commentators than on the capacity of every serving soldier to discharge these responsibilities with integrity and intelligence. Reflecting on the years of the Iraq campaign, we cannot say that no mistakes were ever made (when has that ever been the case?). But we can be grateful for the courage and honesty shown in facing them.
The headlines are talking about him attacking high cost of war, decrying human cost, etc. though he was a bit more nuanced. Here are the important quotes from his address.
Many people of my generation and younger grew up doubting whether we should ever see another straightforward international conflict, fought by a standing army with conventional weapons. We had begun to forget the realities of cost. And when such conflict appeared on the horizon, there were those among both policy makers and commentators who were able to talk about it without really measuring the price, the cost of justice..
The conflict in Iraq will, for a long time yet, exercise the historians, the moralists, the international experts. In a world as complicated as ours has become, it would be a very rash person who would feel able to say without hesitation, this was absolutely the right or the wrong thing to do, the right or the wrong place to be.
FROM TODAY'S GUARDIAN - NOT INCLUDED IN YESTERDAY'S POST, BUT POSSIBLY THE MOST STINGING OF WILLIAMS' WORDS: Williams criticised the "invisible enemies – letting ends justify means, letting others rather than oneself carry the cost, denying the difficulties or the failures so as to present a good public face" – that had menaced those involved in the conflict...
The moral credibility of any country engaged in war depends a lot less on the rhetoric of politicians and commentators than on the capacity of every serving soldier to discharge these responsibilities with integrity and intelligence. Reflecting on the years of the Iraq campaign, we cannot say that no mistakes were ever made (when has that ever been the case?). But we can be grateful for the courage and honesty shown in facing them.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
