Is The UN Complicit In Israel's Massacre In Gaza?

By Omar Barghouti            04 January, 2009                 Muslim India

The Electronic Intifada

A friend forwarded to me the most original greeting for the New Year: "I wish in 2009 a horrible year for all war criminals and their accomplices." I could not but think of whether some United Nations officials can be counted among such "accomplices."

Over the last two days, various UN officials stated that the percentage of civilians among those Palestinians killed in the current Israeli war of aggression on Gaza is about "25 percent" and is "likely to increase." Assuming the best of intentions, stating such a painfully low figure reflects shabby research or scandalous incompetence. At worst, it reveals intentional deception and misinformation that can only benefit the already massive and well-oiled Israeli public relations machine.

The UN's complicity in Israel's propaganda war is the latest, albeit hardly ever mentioned, dimension of the international organization's utter failure in defending its principles, foremost among which are the prevention of war and the promotion of peace, when performing such a duty is expected to stir the wrath of the US master and the uniquely influential Israel lobby. Not only has the UN Secretary-General betrayed the very Charter of the UN and all relevant international law principles by failing to even condemn Israel's massacre of civilians and targeting of civilian institutions and residential neighborhoods; the entire UN system has so far dealt with it as a "war" between two relatively symmetric forces, where the mightier side has sufficient justification to "defend itself," but should do so more proportionately, while the weaker side is chiefly responsible for triggering the "armed conflict."

Now, senior UN officials, excluding the particularly courageous and principled UN Special Rapporteur for human rights in the occupied Palestinian territory, Richard Falk, and a few others, are only focusing on "women and children" victims of the massacre, implying, even if unintentionally, that all Palestinian men in Gaza are fair game for the Israeli killing machine. The tens of Palestinian civilian policemen that were butchered in the opening hours of the massive Israeli attack by dozens of fighter jets were, thus, conveniently dismissed by such irresponsible UN figures of casualties as Hamas "fighters," more or less, that may be targeted with impunity. This is not to mention the scores of male teachers, doctors, workers, farmers and unemployed who were killed by Israel's indiscriminate bombing in their workplaces, public offices, homes or streets and were not accounted for as civilian victims of Israel's belligerent murder spree.

Above everything else, this UN discourse not only reduces close to half a million Palestinian men in that wretched, tormented and occupied coastal strip to "militants," radical "fighters," or whatever other nouns in currency nowadays in the astoundingly, but characteristically, biased western media coverage of the Israeli war crimes and crimes against humanity in Gaza, as some international law experts have described them; it also treats them as already condemned criminals that deserve the capital punishment Israel has meted out on them. I am not an expert on the history of the UN, but I suspect this sets a new low, a precedent in dehumanizing an entire adult male population in a region of "conflict," thereby justifying their fatal targeting or, at least, silently condoning it. But this should surprise no one as the same UN leaders have for 18 months watched in eerie silence or even indirectly justified, one way or another, Israel's siege of Gaza which was described by Falk as a "prelude to genocide" and compared by him to Nazi crimes.

If one wants to be truly magnanimous and give those UN officials the benefit of the doubt -- not something I would recommend at all, given the scale of the massacre and their verifiable complicity -- one has to assume that they are quite confused as to how best to categorize the thousands of Palestinian victims of Israel's war on Gaza, whether those injured or killed. A casual overview of Israeli army press statements and human rights organizations' reports, however, will immediately dismiss the possibility that the UN figure of 25 percent was the product of clinical incompetence or technical ineptness, widely recognized trademarks of the organization.

A recent article published in The Washington Post, for instance, quoted a senior Israeli military official saying: "There are many aspects to Hamas, and we are trying to hit the whole spectrum, because everything is connected and everything supports terrorism against Israel." An Israeli army spokeswoman went further, stating "Anything affiliated with Hamas is a legitimate target." Given that, in the ghetto of Gaza, Hamas is effectively the "ruling" party -- it was democratically elected, after all -- and its network of social and charitable organizations are the largest provider of social services to the impoverished and besieged population, all of Gaza's civilian infrastructure, public schools, hospitals, universities, law and order organs, traffic police, sewage treatment and water purification stations, ministries providing vital services to the public, mosques, public theaters and many non-governmental institutions can technically be considered "affiliated" with Hamas.

Lest the reader feel that this is an exaggeration, today, in the first hours of the first day of the new year, the Israeli air force already bombed the following "targets" in Gaza: the Palestinian Legislative Council, the Ministry of Education and the Ministry of Justice. Earlier, several mosques were pulverized to the ground. So were main buildings in the Islamic University of Gaza, which serves 20,000 students. Ambulances and private homes were not spared either.

Even B'Tselem, Israel's leading human rights organization that often issues sanitized, "balanced" or selective reports focusing on Israel's less criminal behavior in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, was compelled to conclude that the Israeli army was intentionally targeting "what appear to be clear civilian objects" that are not "engaged in military action against Israel," without making the distinction between male and female civilians. A statement from the organization on 31 December said:

For example, the military bombed the main police building in Gaza and killed, according to reports, 42 Palestinians who were in a training course and were standing in formation at the time of the bombing. Participants in the course study first-aid, handling of public disturbances, human rights, public-safety exercises, and so forth. Following the course, the police officers are assigned to various arms of the police force in Gaza responsible for maintaining public order.

Another example is yesterday's bombing of the government offices. These offices included the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Ministry of Labor, Construction and Housing. An announcement made by the [Israeli army] Spokesperson's Office regarding this attack stated that, 'the attack was carried out in response to the ongoing rocket and mortar-shell fire carried out by Hamas over Israeli territory, and in the framework of [Israeli army] operations to strike at Hamas governmental infrastructure and members active in the organization.'

Just to drive the point closer to home for an average western reader who may have internalized over the years a perception of Israelis -- inaccurately and quite deliberately depicted by Israeli and western propaganda as part of the "west" -- as full humans and Palestinians, along with almost all global southerners, as relative humans, perhaps the following mirroring exercise is necessary.

Imagine if the Palestinian resistance, in exercising its otherwise perfectly legitimate, UN-sanctioned right to fight Israel's occupation and apartheid, were to regard all institutions "affiliated" with the Israeli government as legitimate targets, justifying the bombing of universities, hospitals, civilian ministries, publicly-run synagogues, neighborhoods where government or army officials live or work, and other civilian "targets," killing in five days only 1,600 Israelis and wounding 8,000 (four times the current toll in Gaza, given that Israel's population is four times as large). What would the UN do? Would UN officials only count Israeli women and children victims? Would they call on both parties to "exercise restraint" or to end "the violence"? Morally, and even legally, this is not even a fair reversal of roles, for Israel, no matter what, remains the occupier and settler-colonial oppressor, while the indigenous Palestinians remain the colonized and oppressed.

The truth is the UN leadership, in the unipolar world that we are still living in and is perhaps on its way to be transformed to more multipolar space, has effectively turned into a rubber stamp bureau for US dictates. Ban Ki-moon will go down in history as the most subservient and morally unqualified Secretary-General to ever lead the international organization. The only question remaining is whether one day he and his senior staff will stand trial for being accomplices in Israel's war crimes, together with leaders of the US, the EU and many Arab regimes. In a more just world, governed by the rule of law, not the US-dominated rule of the jungle, they should.
______________________________________________________________
Source: COUNTERCURRENTS.ORG

Omar Barghouti is a Palestinian human rights activist and commentator.

Who is Barack Obama? And How To Deal With Him

By Prof. Michael Brenner                 3rd January 2009                                       Muslim India

The Obama administration’s foreign policy promises to be little changed from that of its predecessor. This holds for its underlying conceptions of American interests and the country’s place in the world. Modes of address toward other governments may be less peremptory, tactics less aggressive. All indications suggest, however, point to more continuity than change in the fundamentals. Those who excepted a shift in thinking about the intersecting, combustible crises in the Greater Middle East from Palestine to Afghanistan are to be disappointed. The grievous implications will register as well in South Asia.
What is the basis for this pessimistic assessment? Barack Obama’s appointments to senior cabinet positions is one sources of clues. The President-elect’s public statements, dating back to the campaign, provide the other. Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State, Robert Gates as continuing Secretary of State, and General Jones as National Security Adviser share one critical trait: none has ever questioned the strategic premises for the United States’ aggressive interventions or for unqualified backing of Israel’s hard-line policies. The same can be said in regard to Washington’s confrontational approach toward Iran. The last is the key to the region’s future, as I discuss below. What are these strategic premises? They can be summarized as follows:

1. The United States faces grave threats, originating in the Greater Middle East, that endanger core security and economic interests, e.g. transnational terrorist groups, the acquisition of nuclear weapons by hostile regimes, rogue states and the prospect of regional conflicts.

2. These threats can only be dealt with through assertive American actions, political or military. The involvement of others is only meaningful when oriented and orchestrated by Washington.

3. The long-term solution is the fostering of prosperous democracies responsive to their citizens needs. Here, too, American leadership is indispensable.

4. The American engagements in Afghanistan, in Iraq and in the Persian Gulf must be maintained until a resolution – as defined by the United States – is achieved.

All the principals who form the new foreign policy team, including President Obama and Vice-President Biden ascribe to these postulates. Criticisms of current policies that were voiced during the campaign by Obama, Biden and Clinton focused on execution. Execution referred to excessive unilateralism as well as the occupation of Iraq. The record shows that only Obama opposed the decision to go to war. There is even a caveat on that point, since the opposition consisted only of public remarks made while an Illinois state senator in Springfield. As a U.S. Senate candidate running in the fall of 2004, he stated that overall the war was being managed as best as reasonably could be expected. On Iran, much is made of Obama’s declaration in March of this year that we should not be afraid to engage Tehran in direct negotiations or set onerous preconditions. It has not been repeated with such specificity since then. We should note that the person most forceful in pushing a revision of Iran policy, as well as redirection of thinking about Palestine, was Zbigniew Brzezinski who is no longer a confidant of Obama. We should also remind ourselves that Robert Gates has been unfailing hawkish on dealing with Iran. Just a few weeks ago, he explicitly stated that Iran’s leaders were not credible negotiating partners since their unalleviated hostility toward the United States had been demonstrated by the rejection of several American overtures over the years. This distortion that conveniently omits the serious Iranian demarche of April 2003 made through the Swiss Ambassador to Iran suggests that Mr. Gates will not be an advocate of any major policy reversal under a new president.*

Other qualified persons were available had Obama seen a need for a root-and-branch reassessment of the country’s strategic frame of reference for the Greater Middle East. Senator Chuck Hagel, a Republican from the heartland state of Nebraska, is the outstanding individual. He has been a consistent skeptic of the Iraq adventure, a sophisticated analyst of the region’s intersecting problems, and an advocate of diplomacy as the means to deal with Iran. Hagel is known as a thoughtful, intellectually rigorous man whose discourses on American foreign policy receive close, respectful attention. Yet, he has never seriously considered for a senior post in the Obama administration. That speaks volumes about the president-elects high degree of comfort with the prevailing conventional wisdom and its proponents.

At the end of the day, any reformulation of American policy depends on President Obama. Yet, there is no sign that he has a different understanding of America’s role in the Greater Middle East from that of the Washington foreign policy establishment generally that has been supportive of the Bush strategy. Nor is it clear where such an understanding might come from given the unanimity of views among his foreign policy team. There is always the hope that new circumstances and new pressures, domestic and international, may crystallize innovative thinking in the future. But Obama does not enjoy the luxury of time since Iran’s refusal to mothball its nuclear facilities under strict international monitoring will force a decision of some kind.

Barack Obama and his appointees live in intellectual echo chamber where no one dares utter discomforting truths. Witness to universal failure to recognize the definitive strategic defeat that the United States has suffered in Iraq as embodied in the agreed Status Of Forces Treaty. Washington got nothing in the way of operational autonomy that it had demanded. In effect, the Iraqi leadership is showing the United States the door. Regionally, the big winner is Iran which will have intimate relations with any future Iraqi government. Its greatly strengthened hand makes Tehran less inclined to yield to Western demands or American intimidation. These cardinal facts of strategic life in the Gulf go unremarked in the American media, foreign policy circles or most certainly among Obama’s foreign policy team.

How do we explain so little change from a man who made change the leitmotif of his candidacy and who is inheriting a set of failed policies? We must bear in mind who Barack Obama actually is.


Who is Barack Obama? – And How To Deal With Him:- The question is simpler to answer than it seems. There is nothing of the exotic about him, contrary to the popular discourse, except for a childhood background that he assiduously has relegated to an outgrown past. A Kenyan father and the Jakarta sojourn in childhood have left few visible marks on his character or attitudes. More fruitful for understanding who he is and what he is about is the portrait of a highly ambitious politician with the self-assurance that stems from a stellar Ivy League record, a wife to match and early electoral successes. His ‘blackness’ is not part of his core identity. The only apparent residue of his experience as a black is strong penchant for ironing out all ascriptive differences in his field of vision, e.g. ‘partisanship.’

Obama’s autobiography is easily misread. He did not visit his father’s family in Kenya in search of his roots. There are no signs that he sought to integrate Africa into his persona.

Similarly, he has maintained few ties to Indonesia and takes little interest in the country, except for a close relationship with his half-sister long resident in the United States. In truth, he is not a cosmopolitan person. His travels overseas have been limited, before or since entering the Senate. Since his Jakarta days, he has not lived abroad. His knowledge of foreign affairs is correspondingly limited despite having chaired the Foreign Relations Subcommittee on Europe. Superior intelligence along with legal training makes him a ‘quick study’ who can readily absorb the main points of a situation without much knowledge or understanding in depth. Facile speaking skills and social ease are complementary traits that help create an impression of urbane worldliness.
Obama is conservative, in the traditional sense of the term We should bear in mind that the strongest influences on him during his formative years were a mother and maternal grandparents who were sliced white bread Kansans. Obama’s ambition is not inspired by any cause or purpose. The themes he enunciates are ones of national unity – as a desirable end in itself as well as a precondition to meeting collective challenges. None in this category stand out in his writings or speeches. Little if anything in the roiled public life of America seems to anger him or even irk him. At a time of multiple crises – constitutional, economic, and in the nation’s foreign dealings – he keeps his emotional distance. It is hard to imagine him getting worked up about any of the developments in American society or attacks on the body politic that so deeply dismay some others 
In all respects, Obama is very much a man of his times. Weak or absent convictions, dispassion even about grievous wrongs, incapacity for moral outrage, quiet acceptance of the precept to put self first – if not quite the measure of all things, a natural egoism – all the hallmarks of contemporary American society. In short, Obama is a messiah without mission or message. 

Implications
:- What would Obama as President of the United States look like? Certain traits seem highly likely to be on display:

1.  Obama is, and will continue to be a deliberate decision-maker and policymaker.

2. That has been a trademark of his campaign. There is nothing impetuous about the man.

3. Improvisation is not in his nature. He prefers to follow a script, however relaxed he is in inter-personal dealings. When presented with an unexpected event, he tends to react with mild irritation. The apropos comment does not spring to mind. That was evident in his reaction to the financial crisis – a bland call for a bipartisan declaration with John McCain

4. Temperamentally, Obama is better suited to formulating policy and orchestrating its execution than he is to crisis management. In the latter instance, his instinct will be to slow down the clock to whatever extent he can.

5. He will be deliberate in making up his mind, but stubborn in holding to a position once he does. Obama’s numerous reversals of policy statements in the weeks after the primaries, and since his election, is not indicative of indecisiveness. He simply was playing campaign politics by offering views with little conviction behind them – even though the matters were consequential, e.g. Iraq, FISA. Commitments as President will be of a different order. In contrast to a narcissistic Bill Clinton, he does not expect the world to give him endless ‘do-overs.’

6. His acute, superior intelligence coupled to a desire to be in intellectual control will make him a hands-on President – once he overcomes an initial period of disorientation. Obama is stubborn in defending those policies in which he has invested something of himself; witness the belief that ‘winning’ in Afghanistan is a crucial national interest. It follows that the time when others, including other governments, may be able to shape his thinking is before his policy preferences crystallize.

7. Obama enters the White House with wide popular support and goodwill. His trademark elevated, above the fray rhetoric is one reason. He will have no specific mandate, though, apart from doing something about health care. His popularity will be based mainly on his personality and his being non-Bush. On foreign policy, the dispositions of public opinion are clear: do something to end the Iraq imbroglio but don’t do anything that embarrasses the U.S.; pursue a more multilateral tack but don’t forget American exceptionalism and safeguard our right to take action as we see fit; steer clear of open-ended nation-building projects, except where they create bulwarks against terrorists – e.g. Afghanistan; spent less money abroad, we need it at home; make us popular in the world again. Not much guidance there on how to untangle our multiple, intersecting dilemmas in the Greater Middle East.

8. Failure to raise the fundamental issues of interest and capability embedded in America’s Middle East engagements in the public discourse means digging a deeper hole. Obama is anything but a heroic figure; he instinctively avoids doing anything contentious. He will be handicapped further by: (1) the absence of an Iraq debate that gets beyond calendars; (2) the utter lack of strategic perspective; (3) the consonant inability of the American public to understand the truly significant choices and trade-offs to be made; and (4) a diplomacy hamstrung by the precipitous loss of American credibility and moral authority.

9. An Obama administration is unprepared for any crisis that might arise from the United States’ multiple engagements in the region - unprepared intellectually, politically and diplomatically. His selection of advisers who cluster around the conventional wisdom is a primary reason. Obama’s superficial understanding of regional matters, manifest in the former, is the other reason.

10. Obama will move slowly on Iraq where he will follow the current Bush policy line. That includes: a slow steady drawdown of troops, pressuring the Iraqis to permit a continued large American military presence; and ignoring the real prospect of renewed civil war as the al-Maliki government moves to suppress the Sunni Awakening Councils and to curb Kurdish independence. Neither he nor his advisors have any compelling fresh ideas; they have not rethought the premises of the American engagement in Mesopotamia or linked it a strategic plan for the region. They believe that the ‘surge’ was a great strategic success, not just a tactical move whose marginal effects were inflated by change in other factors in the equation. Were civil strife in Iraq to grow, he would be at a loss to know what to do. The superficiality of Obama’s thinking about Iraq was evident the first week in September by his reply to a FOX NEWS interviewer about ‘the surge.’ B.O.: “It’s been successful beyond our wildest dreams” – no Awakening Councils, no Iran-induced Mahdi Army stand-down, no unresolved simmering sectarian political conflicts, no $1 trillion investment in a war without cause, no terrorist invigorated, no ‘what are we still doing there?’ and what strategic ends are served by our staying the course?

11. On Afghanistan, here too he will follow the Bush line of increasing markedly American troop levels while attacking Taliban/al-Qaeda elements across the border in Pakistan. He already has pronounced his intention to shift forces from Iraq to Afghanistan – as was revealed on December 20. Obama genuinely believes that vital national interests are at stake in the piedmont of the Hindu Kush and, by implication, in adjacent Pakistan. Were the situation to deteriorate within the country and/or in relations with Pakistan, he would be at sea.

12. Obama he will be feeling his way on foreign policy generally. Most important, getting out of Iraq with pride and interests more or less intact depends on regional agreements/understandings which will take time to mature – especially in terms of a modus vivendi with Iran. Iran should be his number 1 priority and his most demanding challenge. It is not self-evident, though, that he will move quickly unless forced to do so by dint of circumstance.

13. Orchestrated opposition to a serious diplomatic initiative is mounting. None of Obama’s close advisors are known to favor it. A grand bargain with Iran is the precondition for containing the effects of whatever happens in Iraq - none of which will be great, and could get pretty nasty. Were there a strategic understanding about the Gulf among the U.S., Iran, Saudi Arabia, et al., it wouldn’t make much difference what mess Iraq is in. In other words, Iraq is now the dependent variable and Iran the independent variable. This is one of the critical ideas the Obama people have to get in their heads in order to make sense of the intricate linkages there, and above all to engage Iran quickly so as not to get pushed into a corner by the next round of reports about its nuclear progress. There are no signs that they have done so.

* As to Pakistan/India, the Obama administration views it through two optics: its strategy for victory in Afghanistan; and its worry about a war between nuclear powers. Hence the incentive to mediate a settlement on Kashmir. It is unclear what he is ready to invest in that effort – even less the chances of success. In the wider context of the emerging global strategy, a cooling of passions via a prolonged diplomatic process would suffice since it would be seen as freeing Pakistan’s military and political resources for deployment against the forces of Islamic extremism.

* Nothing will change vis a vis Israel/Palestine – except, perhaps, for some cosmetics.

* On Russia, Obama will do some huffing-and-puffing in order to buffer himself from Republican charges of being weak on America’s enemies. Obama will avoid serious confrontation, though, and seek ways to work with Moscow.

What Can Other Governments Do?

The short answer is: ‘not much.’ The United States is too big and too insular to be moved by the well-intentioned thoughts and actions of others.

Still, there is room for influence at the margins. This is especially so with a foreign affairs neophyte who is inclined to favor change from the Bush stasis, and who is truly interested in working with other countries. What could count is helping to create circumstances conducive to Obama’s taking the steps in the direction he already is inclined to go re Iran. That is to say, to move faster and further than cautionary instincts and constraints will incline him to do.

General Suggestions:-

Speak candidly and openly about how ‘you’ interpret problems, what the past mistakes were – by the US and regional states, what your threat assessments and priorities are, AND what ‘you’ are able and willing to do.

Remember that while Obama will be ‘reachable’ through his trusted senior advisers, he will make all the decisions based on his own understanding. Now, that understanding is nebulous. In order to have any influence on shaping it, it is essential to engage him before those dispositions crystallize into doctrines and strategies.

Policy-making positions will be staffed by the usual combination of experienced professionals and upwardly mobile newcomers Diplomatic experience in particular will vary greatly. Some officials will be very competent, some fumblers. Some will be comfortable dealing with foreigners based upon extensive relations while others will mask their uneasiness by assertiveness and a self-important manner. All this is predictable from recent history. Recent history also says that a key is gaining access to those policy-makers who understand ‘you’ and the issues - without neglecting, obviously, those with official dossiers.

Michele Obama will be a powerful influence. Unlike Hillary, she does not want to run things. She wants her husband to succeed. The essence of her advice always will be: be true to your self and convictions. In truth, though, there is not much ‘self’ and convictions there when it comes to foreign policy. Still, she will urge honesty, directness and ideals.

Bear in mind that the United States government is a two-headed creature; it is essential to ‘work’ Congress – even when both branches are controlled by Democrats. There will be no repeat of the ‘Supreme Soviet’ phenomenon seen under the Republicans.

Never lose sight of the fact that ‘your’ ultimate audience is American opinion. It is also Obama’s ultimate point of reference.

Michael BRENNER
December 20, 2008

____________________________________________________________________
Dr. Michael Brenner is a Non-Resident Fellow at the Center for Transatlantic Relations. He publishes and teaches in the fields of American foreign policy, Euro-American relations, and the European Union. He is also Professor of International Affairs at the University of Pittsburgh. Brenner is the author of numerous books, and over 60 articles and published papers on a broad range of topics.

Next Terror Strike: Endgame for India and Pakistan

By Mazher Hussain           3 January, 2009                          Muslim India

www.sacw.net

Cries of war are once again vitiating the atmosphere in both India and Pakistan. The governments, the media and the opinion makers are contributing to the hype and increasing the hysteria by the day.

There is also silence. But this silence is from the peace activists on both sides of the border- an unfortunate silence and inaction from that very same section of society that should have been the most vocal and proactive in these times of madness and mayhem.

In fact, many people, especially in India, who are known votaries of conflict mitigation and have dedicated most of their lives to promote peace are also talking of keeping "all options" open! That they are disappointed enough to support cries for action that could also lead to a war between India and Pakistan is just a sign of the very difficult times that we have come to be in. If even activists working in the areas of peace and harmony have become so pessimistic and see strong and unilateral actions alone as the way out, what could be the thinking and the mindset of the common people who are being battered by the constant hate hype in the media and in such circumstances could war be far behind?

Of course the response of the Pakistan establishment post Mumbai terror attack leaves much to be desired. Any person, especially in India, is aghast and extremely exasperated by the constant flip flop and the denial mode of the Pakistan establishment in all matters regarding the Mumbai terror attack and the acceptance of the presence of terror groups and suspects on the Pakistan territory. Even more frustrating is the apparent unwillingness or inability of Pakistan government to stop or deal with such terror groups. This seems to be resulting in a growing sense of public outrage in India - propelling the Indian government to adopt a hard and aggressive stance, especially in view of the forthcoming general elections scheduled in April 2009.

It is also true that there are more terror attacks and suicide bombings taking place in Pakistan then in India. And most of the times, it is the very same forces that are behind the terror attacks both in Pakistan and in India. The people of India know this. The people of Pakistan know this. Even if the Pakistani establishment keeps denying this to the point of absurdity and the government of India drives itself into a frenzy trying to make Pakistan Government "accept and confess".

History proves that people can be swayed and misled by political jingoism and media hype to welcome wars at their own eventual peril. Two examples: Germany under Hitler and US under Bush - where "advanced civilizations" were led into wars that ultimately proved disastrous for every one and more so for these very same countries. One can never find solutions through war or conflicts. The challenge is to find solutions to wars and conflicts.

Given the traumatic experience of partition, three and a half wars fought in the last 60 years, the festering Kashmir problem and allegations by both countries that the other side is supporting civil strife, insurgencies and terror strikes in their country have succeeded in making people of both India and Pakistan suspicious and antagonistic towards each other. In such a situation, neither the politicians nor the media will have to work over time to take both the countries to war. But when media and politicians in both the countries have started creating hype and hysteria, then it will not be long before war would be accepted by all – including responsible citizens and civil society groups - as an option for consideration.

War Scenarios:

Indian government could engage in precision strikes to destroy terror camps within Pakistan territory. US is already doing this and is only succeeding in generating more sympathy for the terror groups and hatred for itself. Even though the Pakistan Government is making some cosmetic protests it has not confronted or countered any of the intrusions into its territory by US. If India is to undertake similar intrusions into Pakistani territory, then no Pakistan government can last beyond a day if it does not retaliate to the Indian intrusion. And any retaliation in the present situation could only conclude in a full scale war.

If there is a full scale war between India and Pakistan there appear to be four possible scenarios:

a) Scenario I: The conflict ends in a nuclear holocaust destroying most of the sub-continent and long term consequences for planet earth.

b) Scenario II: Some how the Indian government prevents a nuclear holocaust, wins the war and takes control of Pakistan- just like America took control of Afghanistan or Iraq. Terrorism will not disappear but will acquire additional support from resistance that will naturally spring up against the occupying forces. And the legitimacy of resistance will make the entire population stand against the occupier. Threat of violence will no longer be from isolated fanatic groups but from the entire populace. Lessons from the ongoing American misadventures in Afghanistan and Iraq are too obvious to be ignored.

c) Scenario III: India causes considerable damage to Pakistan, does not occupy any territory but succeeds in over throwing the government that is unable to contain terror groups. Pakistan is already a very weak state with a democratic government just about in place. After a war, Pakistan would become weaker with an even weaker government - taking the country into a downward spiral of lawlessness and emergence of many more groups espousing terror and violence. In such a scenario, whether the threat of violence to India from terror groups will increase or decrease is for any one to see.

d) Scenario IV: The Governments of India and Pakistan start a fight but international pressure forces them to disengage. There are no winners but certainly both would pay a price and being smaller of the two, Pakistan would stand to suffer more damage economically and politically, resulting in a weakening of the state and strengthening of lawless and terror groups with long term and disastrous consequences for India also.

Other Possibilities:

The international community, including India, knows that apart from the elected government there are multiple power centers in Pakistan. They also know that the elected government is weak and despite its best intensions lacks sovereign control over its own military, intelligence outfits and large parts of its very own territory that seems to be under the sway of fanatic groups and terror outfits. The only effective and long term solution in such a scenario would be to strengthen the elected government to improve and increase its authority to a level that would make the government of Pakistan willing and capable of controlling all other players to effectively usher in a law abiding environment and violence free society.

The best pressure and support for action for any government could be from its own people. If the people of Pakistan could assert their will and express their disapproval for the terror outfits with as much consistency and fervor as they did to bring about the ouster of the regime of General Musharaf, then this would strengthen the government and provide legitimacy to its actions and all other centers of power that seem to be operating autonomously will have to eventually fall in line. Actions by any government purely from external pressures could make it look like a puppet regime and undermine its legitimacy and become counter productive.

But the will of the people of Pakistan has been suppressed and violated for most of the last 60 years (with active support and connivance of the international community) and it cannot be expected to find its voice and its force within 60 days. It may require careful nurturing and long support before it can come into its own and the sooner this fact is recognized, the better it will be for all concerned.

Of course, the strengthening of the democratic will of the people of Pakistan should also be accompanied with pressure, along with support, from the international community on the Pakistan establishment. But international pressure does not mean and should not degenerate into immediate threats of war.

The Immanent Threat

But given the war frenzy into which both India and Pakistan seem to have propelled themselves within weeks of the Mumbai terror attack, imagine what would happen if another terrorist attack is unleashed on India in the immediate future and before both the countries are able to scale down the prevailing war hysteria and return back to non combative positions? Will the government of India be able to still continue with benign war rhetoric even in this election year and after so much extreme posturing from both sides or will it be compelled to launch at least some retaliatory strikes that could develop into a full scale war.

We have already seen that any conflict between India and Pakistan at this juncture could only mean advantage terrorism. In such a situation one should not be surprised if there is another terror strike on India in the very near future- that could actually trigger a war that nobody really wants… except of course the terrorists.

Just one more terror strike by 5 to 10 deranged fanatics and two nations- both products of the most ancient and glorious civilization – could be destroyed. What a comment on the wisdom and sagacity of the human race of the 21st Century!

________________________________________________________________

Source: South Asia Citizens Web

Bangladesh's New Beginning

By Dhrubajyoti Bhattacharjee         03 January, 2008     Muslim India
Countercurrents.org

The present electoral victory of Sheikh Hasina Wajed, ushering in another period of democracy in Bangladesh after a gap of seven years brings back hopes and aspirations for the young nation.

Bangladesh in the last thirty seven years after establishing itself as an independent nation has already experienced multiple political assassinations, military takeovers and political instability that has been characterised by constant change of leaderships in the national political arena. Sheikh Hasina’s coming back to power, though brings back democracy to the nation after a long interlude, but fails to bring confidence about the nature of stability that the present Awami League government will establish along with a fourteen party Mohajot or Grand Alliance where the principal coalition partners are the Jatiya Party under General Ershad, Workers Party under Rashed Khan Menon and Jatiya Samajtantrik Dal under Hasanul Haq Inu along with other minor parties. The number of voters opting for not casting their votes to any specific political party while exercising their political rights, an option of casting ‘NO vote’, which was introduced for the first time by the Bangladesh election commission, shows the political apathy of a significant portion of the masses towards both the Awami League as well as the BNP and their respective leaderships and coalition partners.

The Indian government from the very beginning has been overtly optimistic about Hasina’s comeback to power after 2001, because her period of governance has seen lessening of tensions between the two South Asian neighbours, especially in 1996, when under her Prime Ministership the controversial water-sharing treaty was ratified between the two nations. She is also considered to be a secular leader in comparison to former Prime Minister Khaleda Zia, due to the latter’s closeness with the Islamic radical political parties. The Indian media has considered the present victory of Sheikh Hasina as a ‘major landmark in democratic politics in South Asia’. The Indian foreign ministry has also positively commented on the percentage of voter’s turnout in the ninth parliamentary elections, where the Bangladesh election commission has recorded a turnout of more than eighty five percent voters, which has been the highest in Bangladesh’s electoral history and has been more than ten percent than the nation’s previous election records. Some are even considering these elections at par with that of the elections in 1973 which was swept by Sheikh Mujibur Rahman’s Awami League. Over 500 foreign observers and around 2 lakh local monitors watched the election process considering these elections to be more or less free of malpractises that usually remains synonymous with the Bangladeshi political scenario till date, though the BNP has complained about gross irregularities in the different polling centres of several constituencies across the country.

The corruption charges that was grafted against Sheikh Hasina by the incumbent caretaker government, her shocking election results in 2001 where her party was only able to win 62 seats out of the 300 seats of the National Assembly of the unicameral legislature after remaining in power from 1996 and the rise of the pro-Islamist extremist factions during her regime, are scars that still remain gory in Awami League’s political history. Still, the dreams of Awami League was woven out of the sacrifices of Sheikh Mujibur’s assassination and the manner in which Sheikh Hasina survived the entire attempt of wiping out the entire family lineage by the then successful attempt of Bangladeshi military coup d’état. The masses easily identifies and sympathises with Hasina on this perspective and along with the other options that was available chose the Awami League under the leadership of Sheikh Hasina, who won 258 out of the 300 seats in the Jatiya Sangsad. The BNP and the four pary alliance in comparison was able to secure only 31 seats of the parliament.

Most political analysts of Bangladesh regard both sides to be equally corrupt, but Hasina’s vibrant comeback and the defeat of BNP can be due to the misrule of Zia during 1991 till 1996 and from 2001 till 2006. The past political history has seen the changing role of the opposition, where after any such political defeats they have taken the step of blocking normal day to day activities, work stoppages and violent demonstrations forcing governments to take up extreme suppressive measures vitiating the democratic environment of the state.

The present outcome of the elections brings significant responsibilities on the shoulders of the Mohajot, who has been given the time of ten days for forming the government. Bringing immediate political, economic and social stability in the lives of the commoners remains primary for the government, curbing religious extremists and communalisation of the society, taking stock of the energy crisis that the nation faces and taking positive steps without sacrificing their own national interest, curbing corruption, the rate of unemployment and improving the standard of health and education in the rural areas and many more actions that has to be decided on by the forthcoming government. The manner in which Awami League and its coalition partners have been voted to power, it is easy to deduce the amount of expectations that the voters will be having on the government, which could easily turn violent if such changes are not brought forth by the government expeditiously, either bringing in more political instability or can even find the non-elected governmental elements playing a decisive role in forging Bangldesh’s political future.
______________________________________________________
Dhrubajyoti Bhattacharjee is a Lecturer in Department of Political Science, Siliguri College, Darjeeling, West Bengal

Gaza Genocide: Blaming The Victims - The Dominant Media Vilify Hamas

By Stephen Lendman            03 January, 2009               Muslim India

Countercurrents.org

The blame game - no one plays it better than the dominant media, and they're at it again over Gaza. Expect no comments below in their spaces, yet honest journalism would headline them.

After Japan attacked Pearl Harbor, Franklin Roosevelt addressed Congress - with an appropriating updating for Gaza:

December 27 "will live in infamy." The people of Gaza were "suddenly and deliberately attacked by....air forces of the" State of Israel. The "attack was deliberately planned many (months) ago. During the intervening time (Israel) deliberately sought to deceive (Palestinians) by false statements and expressions of hope for" the peace process.

"The (weekend and continued) attack(s) caused severe damage to" property throughout Gaza. In addition, "many (Palestinian) lives have been lost. The facts (on the ground) speak for themselves....this "unprovoked and dastardly attack" must not go unanswered.

Note the contrast. Japan in the 1940s sought accord, not conflict. Not America. FDR goaded them to attack through numerous harassments and provocations - selling arms to Tokyo's enemies, denying Japan strategic resources and port access, as well as imposing a damaging embargo.

For its part, Hamas has been conciliatory and sought peace. It's willing to recognize Israel in return for a sovereign Palestinian state inside pre-1967 borders - just 22% of it original homeland. In 2008 and earlier, it agreed to unilateral ceasefires in spite of repeated Israeli violations and Gaza in duress under siege. It responds only in self-defense when attacked as international law allows, yet Washington, Israel, and the West call it "terrorism."

The dominant media also in their customary role - guarding the powerful and suppressing uncomfortable truths in lieu of full and accurate reporting. They're in high gear over Gaza. They vilify Hamas, stay silent about Gazan suffering, are mute on the crippling blockade, its devastating human toll, and practically champion Israel's call for "all-out war" and the slaughter of defenseless men, women, children and infants.

"The more damage to Hamas, the better the chances for peace" says the Wall Street Journal in a lead December 28 editorial headlined "Israel's Gaza Defense." The Journal rewrites history this way:

"The chronology of this latest violence is important to understand. Israel withdrew both its soldiers and all of its settlers from Gaza in August 2005. Hamas won its internal power struggle with Mr. Abbas' Fatah organization to control Gaza in 2006. Since 2005 Hamas has fired some 6300 rockets at Israeli civilians from Gaza, killing 10 and wounding 780."

"Hamas did agree to a six-month ceasefire earlier this year, during which the rocket attacks declined in number but never stopped. But Hamas refused to extend the truce past December 19, and the group has since resumed attacks...." Israelis in the south "live under constant threat, often in bomb shelters, and the economy has suffered. Yet the world's media (only pays) attention when Israel responds to that Hamas barrage."

The Journal's op-ed page standard fare twists facts into a fabric of misinformation and agitprop, and when vilifying Hamas it's vicious. A few corrections:

-- Israel never disengaged from Gaza;

-- it relocated its settlers to seized West Bank land to strengthen its hold on the Territory;

-- it redeployed to new positions; re-enters Gaza at will; controls its airspace and coastline; movement within and between Gaza and the West Bank; virtually all other aspects of Palestinians' lives; and since Hamas' January 2006 electoral victory, falsely called it a terrorist organization; cut off all outside aid; imposed a crippling economic embargo; imprisoned 1.5 million Gazans in isolation; inflicted devastating human suffering; and stepped up oppression in an all too familiar pattern: repeated incursions, killings, targeted assassinations, mass arrests, incarcerations, torture, and all the rest;

-- then, after mid-June 2007, collaboratively and at the behest of Washington and Israel, president Mahmoud Abbas declared a "state of emergency" (when there was none); he dismissed Hamas' prime minister; appointed an "emergency" cabinet; split Palestinian authority between Gaza and the West Bank; incited internal conflict to divide and conquer; and acceded to Israel blockading Gaza - closing all border crossings; cutting off most essential to life supplies; creating critical shortages of everything; devastating local production and agriculture; sending poverty and unemployment soaring; and grievously harming the health and welfare of the population;

-- no Journal op-eds condemn this; they call Israel the region's "only democracy" and a model for others to emulate;

-- no op-eds mention thousands of Palestinians killed, many more wounded, even greater numbers imprisoned, many uncharged, torture as official policy, and no chance for redress in Israeli courts;

-- none mention previous Hamas unilateral ceasefires, one lasting 18 months despite repeated Israeli violations and continued other failures to observe international law;

-- none explain that rocket fire from Gaza during Hamas' ceasefire came from other elements in the Territory, not its own members;

-- none say that Hamas uses crude, homemade rockets and light arms against the world's fourth most powerful military, a nuclear power, with the latest home-produced and US supplied technology and weapons;

-- nothing gets reported about over 60 years of Israeli state terror; the unimaginable harm it's done; the continued theft of Palestinian lands; the destruction of their homes, crops and other property; the ethnic cleansing of its people; and Israel's slow-motion genocide against a population too isolated and weak to contest it;

-- no op-eds about one-sided media reporting; suppressing uncomfortable truths; defending the indefensible; ignoring Israeli crimes; vilifying Hamas without cause; Palestinians for being Arabs; and Arab Israeli citizens because they're not Jews;

-- no mention that the ratio of Arabs to Jews killed and harmed is disproportionately one-sided; or

-- that Palestinians have endured a brutal, illegal 41-year occupation in violation of international law; Journal editors find those facts uncomfortable, unimportant so they ignore them.

Instead the Journal supports the Gaza siege, and says "If Hamas wants its people to have freer movement, it can stop sponsoring terror killings." Even Arab leaders were "urged to demand that Hamas maintain the truce....so we could have avoided what happened."

In the aftermath, Journal editors hold Hamas responsible as does Washington. Arab leaders "understand that (Hamas' leaders), like Hezbollah, (are) increasingly allied with Iran and its goals for fomenting regional instability."

In fact, despite pro-forma criticism and anger on Arab streets, leaders in the region's capitals offered little support for Gazans for fear of antagonizing Washington and their powerful Israeli neighbor.

The Arab League won't discuss a common response until a January 2 Doha summit, and when it does expect little more than from the UN. As for Arab foreign ministers, they postponed an "emergency" meeting until December 31, so the killing continues while they attend to more pressing business.

Journal editors have a message for Obama. He's "about to discover that the terrorists of the Middle East (won't) change their radical ambitions merely because America has a new president." For their part, Palestinians will learn that the new one is no friendlier than the incumbent and may turn out even worse. White House occupants, key congressional members, and the entire Senate pledge unswerving support for Israel. At the same time, blaming their victims (and ours) is one of Washington's favorite spectator sports.

On December 28, the Journal gave two noted Israeli flacks prominent space - Michael Oren of Jerusalem's Shalem Center and Yossi Klein Halevi of the Shalem Center's Adelson Institute for Strategic Studies for their op-ed headlined: "Palestinians Need Israel to Win."

They claim that while Israeli foreign minister Tzipi Livni "implore(d) Egyptian leaders (on December 19) to urge restraint on Hamas....prime minister Ehud Olmert told viewers of Al-Arabiyah Television that Israel had no interest in a military confrontation" at the very time it was long-planned and about to be unleashed.

"If Israel was guilty of acting disproportionately, it was in its willingness to seek any means, even at the risk of its citizens' lives, to resolve the (brewing) crisis diplomatically." The writers blame the UN for not condemning Hamas and for "growing media criticism of Israel."

Israeli security comes first, and "Gaza is the test case. Much more is at stake than merely the military outcome." It's about Israel's "deterrence power and uphold(ing) the principle that its citizens cannot be targeted with impunity." They're not unless Palestinians are attacked first and even then have little to fear beyond their government's own rhetoric.

Syria is an issue as well...."triggering the Gaza conflict only deepens Israeli mistrust. The Damascus office of Hamas, which operates under the aegis of the regime of Bashar al Assad, vetoed the efforts of Hamas leaders to extend the ceasefire and insisted on escalated rocket attacks."

The Gaza conflict may "intensify with a possible incursion of Israeli ground forces. Israel must be allowed to conclude this operation with a decisive victory over Hamas....This is an opportunity to redress Israel's failure to humble Hezbollah (in 2006), and to deal a substantial setback to another jihadist proxy of Iran....without Hamas' defeat, there can be no serious progress toward a treaty that both satisfies Palestinian aspirations and allays Israel's fears. At stake in Gaza is nothing less than the future of the peace process."

Their rhetoric defies comment. It's breathtaking, mirror opposite of the truth, and credible only to the truest of true believers of the most dubious analysis the two writers lay out.

New York Times Press Handout-Style Journalism

The Times' 1997 proxy statement calls itself "an independent newspaper, entirely fearless, free of ulterior influence and unselfishly devoted to the public welfare" in reporting "all the news fit to print." No media source anywhere has more clout. None more effectively influences world opinion, and none show more one-sided support for Israel, disdain for Palestinian rights, and justifying the unjustifiable when they're so grievously harmed.

It's December 29 Ethan Bronner/Taghreed El-Khodary "No Early End Seen to 'All-Out-War on Hamas in Gaza" article is typical. It highlights Israel's aim "to cripple Hamas' ability to fire rockets into Israel," never mentioning they're for legitimate self-defense and never preemptively fired. It calls Hamas a "terrorist organization" when, in fact, it's Palestine's legitimate government. It respects the rule of law, and it fearlessly defends the rights of its people. It reports nothing about its democratic election, its seeking peace and rapprochement, its unilateral ceasefires, its support by the great majority of Gazans, and the efforts it makes for them in spite of overwhelming challenges under siege.

Instead it states that "Hamas killed four Israelis on (December 28) after firing more than 70 rockets, including a long-range one into the booming city of Ashdod some 18 miles from Gaza, where it hit a bus stop, killing a woman and injuring two other people. Earlier a rocket hit nearby Ashkelon, killing an Israeli-Arab construction worker and wounding three others. The other dead Israelis....were a civilian in the Negev desert and a soldier."

"Thousands of Israelis huddled in shelters as the long-range rockets hit streets or open areas in....the most serious display of Hamas' arsenal since the Israeli assault began." It referred to "Hamas gunmen," reported that "Israel would widen and deepen the attack if necessary....until Hamas no longer had the ability to fire rockets into Israel." It said that Israel has "nothing against the citizens of Gaza and that it had more than once offered its hand in peace to the Palestinian nation."

"Israel sent in some 40 trucks of humanitarian relief, including blood from Jordan and medicine. Egypt opened its border with Gaza to some similar aid and to allow some of the wounded through." No mention of the Gaza siege, the devastating pre-conflict humanitarian crisis, or that Egypt's president Hosni Mubarak initially ordered his soldiers to shoot Gazans breaching border barriers, then only reluctantly allowed in some of the seriously wounded for medical treatment.

"Meanwhile in Israel, sirens wailed over mostly empty streets in the seaside city of Ashkelon. Storefronts were battered shut. Families clustered inside the city's stretches of towering white apartment blocks and single-family houses. Weary of venturing too far outside, they scurried into protected rooms when sirens sounded, listening for the sound of another rocket crashing somewhere in their city. 'It's frightening, but what can we do?' asked a high school senior."

Plenty The Times won't report. Ask your government to stop attacking Gazans so they won't respond in self-defense. Demand that Palestinian rights be respected, the illegal siege ended, the IDF aggression stopped, and the occupation of the West Bank. Insist Israeli laws apply equally to Arab citizens, that Palestinians no longer will be persecuted, that peace will take precedence of war, that Israel will engage its neighbors, not attack them, and that real democracy will replace the sham kind now practiced.

Make it impossible for The (outrageous December 29) New York Times' "War Over Gaza" editorial to be written. It begins:

"Israel must defend itself. And Hamas must bear responsibility for ending a six-month cease-fire this month with a barrage of rocket attacks into Israeli territory. Still we fear that Israel's response....is unlikely to weaken the militant Palestinian group substantially or move things any closer to what all Israelis and Palestinians need: a durable peace agreement and a two-state solution."

"Hamas' leaders, especially those safely ensconced in Damascus, are unconcerned about their people's suffering - and (are) masters at capitalizing on it." The writer urges other Arab leaders "to cajole or more likely threaten Hamas (or its patrons in Syria and Iran) to accept a new cease-fire (read "surrender")."

The editorial claims most casualties were "Hamas security forces" when, in fact, the great majority are civilian men, women and children, including police with no military connection. It stresses Ehud Barak's promised "war to the bitter end."

It says there's "no justification for Hamas' attacks or its virulent rejectionism," but turns a blind eye to Israel's culpability. It refers to the failure of the never was and never will be "peace process" but won't report that Washington and Tel Aviv won't tolerate one. That they choose dominance over peace, violence over reconciliation, and conquest above the rule of law.

It claims Condoleezza Rice sought Middle East peace, and it's up to Barack Obama to accomplish it himself - when, in fact, Democrats and Republicans one-sidedly support Israel, seek dominance over Middle East states, want a subservient Hamas like Fatah, back the Gaza conflict to weaken its effective rule, and are for the illegal occupation of Palestine to continue.

Times' articles reveal more about what they don't report than what they do. They:

-- leave Israeli brutality unexplained; its vicious 41 year occupation;

-- let Gaza images inciting world outrage go unpublished;

-- suppress Israel's continued waging of the bloodiest, most unjustifiable war on Palestine since 1967;

-- won't report how its current air strikes hit civilian targets (including residential neighborhoods, homes, workshops, medical warehouses, a sewage lagoon, a plastics factory, a TV broadcasting center, universities and mosques) while claiming only military ones are attacked;

-- don't explain the terror on ordinary Gazans; the traumatizing effects on children and how psychologically damaged they are;

-- the night phone calls Israeli intelligence personnel make to families, ordering them out of homes to be bombed;

-- Gaza's humanitarian crisis compounded by Israel's "war to the bitter end;"

-- the immensity of Israel's crimes of war and against humanity; its mockery of the rule of law; its worse than apartheid South African practices according to observers who know.

-- the near-silence and inaction of the international community; the compliance of regional Arab states;

-- the Palestinians' total isolation; Gaza's tighter than ever siege; the media mostly barred from entering and when allowed are few in number, carefully screened, and greatly circumscribed; reports are from Gazans on the ground; they include much higher death and injury totals; hundreds still alive but clinically dead and will perish; surgeries performed without anesthesia because little to none is available; and the impossibility of proper medical care because of Israel's imposed blockade.

The Gaza-based Palestinian Centre for Human Rights (PCHR) reports that "its field workers have faced extreme difficulties in documenting crimes due to the dangers of getting close to" bombed areas and the chaos throughout the Territory as war rages round the clock. Yet they do what they can throughout Gaza and in horrific pictures they take and publish - images suppressed in America.

It urgently asked the UN Human Rights Council to act under its ("Uniting for Peace") UN Resolution 377 authority. It permits the General Assembly to address peace and security matters when the Security Council doesn't do it. General Assembly President Miguel D'Escoto said: "the time has come to take firm action if the UN does not want to be rightly accused of complicity by omission."

As of New Year's day, Ma'an News reported 428 known killed (other reports are higher) and over 2000 injured, many too seriously to survive.

On December 28, the US vetoed a Security Council draft resolution to end Israel's "disproportionate use of force" on Gazans. The vote was 11 ayes, three abstentions (Britain, Germany and Bulgaria), and one nay - America. John Negroponte did the dishonor following a long-standing practice of blocking any UN condemnation of Israel, regardless of how justified.

The Security Council held an emergency meeting on New Year's eve at which Negroponte again rejected a legally binding resolution condemning Israel and demanding its attacks stop. At the same time, Israel rejected pressures for a 48-hour ceasefire to allow in humanitarian aid. According to The New York Times, "The government said it would push ahead with its air, sea, and ultimately ground operation, which one senior military official described as 'making Hamas lose their will or lose their weapons.' "

Earlier on December 30 at 5:00AM, Israeli gunboats (without warning) attacked the humanitarian boat Dignity (in international waters 90 miles from Gaza) bringing three tons of medical supplies. It was rammed three times, heavily damaged, and took on water. Israelis also threatened to shoot its occupants and fired machine guns overhead and around it attempting to head it off. It managed to get to the Lebanese port of Tyre in the afternoon. Luckily no one was injured. The Free Gaza Movement founder, Paul Laurdee, said 11 Israeli vessels surrounded Dignity, ordered it to stop, but it refused.

The New York Times was silent on the incident. However, on December 29, it gave pro-genocide historian Benny Morris space for his "Why Israel Feels Threatened" op-ed - a disturbing justification of Israel's attacks and warning of much more to come. This by an advocate of attacking Iran with nuclear weapons and a believer in ethnic cleansing who once described Palestinians as "wild animal(s who have) to be locked up in one way or another....When the choice is between destroying or being destroyed, it's better to destroy."

He paints a totally disingenuous picture of isolated Israel surrounded by hostile neighbors and losing support from the West. "To the east, Iran....to the north, the Lebanese fundamentalist Hezbollah....to the south...the Islamist Hamas movement (controlling) the Gaza Strip."
These "dire threats" make Israel "feel that the walls - and history - are closing in on their 60-year-old state."

Israel threatened? Syria, Lebanon and Iran should worry based on past and current provocations. No country attacked Israel since the 1973 Yom Kippur war, and none today would dare - given its military strength, nuclear arsenal, and close ties to America and the West.

Morris cites another threat - demography. The 1.3 million Israeli Arabs "offer the recipe (for the) dissolution of the Jewish state." They've become "radicalized, embrac(e) Palestinian national aims," Jews see them as a "potential fifth column," and, with their higher birthrate, will outnumber Israeli Jews by 2040. Within five years, Arabs may become the majority in pre-1948 Palestine.

According to Morris, Israel is endangered because of its commitment to "Western democratic and liberal norms." Violence in Gaza resulted, and "it would not be surprising if more powerful explosions were to follow" - a clear assessment that slaughter is OK in the name of "self-defense" and an indication that The Times agrees.

The Los Angeles Times' Misinformation "primer on Gaza, Israel, and some key factors behind the current violence."

On December 30, Michael Muskal wrote it asking:

-- "Why is Israel attacking Hamas? To curb rocket attacks he maintains, when, in fact, neutralizing the government is the real aim, destroying its ability to rule effectively, weakening its support on the ground, and, in the end, co-opt it like Fatah and the PLO under Arafat; rocket attacks are just pretext.

-- "What is Hamas?" An Islamist group founded to destroy Israel and refuses to accept its right to exist, he claims. In fact, after its establishment during the First Intifada (in 1987), Israel supported it against the PLO (as it now backs Fatah against Hamas). Ever since, it's been an effective resistance movement. Its goal - ending Israel's illegal occupation through negotiation and international consensus, not terrorism, war, or denying Israel's right to exist. However, its charter states that it wants peace, equity and justice for all Palestinians; supports the weak; defends the oppressed; and will fight for its rights if Israel won't grant them peacefully. Hamas is clear on its willingness to recognize Israel in return for a Palestinian state inside pre-1967 borders - a nonstarter for Israel.

-- "Does Hamas speak for all Palestinians? No. Hamas gunmen took full control of Gaza in the summer of 2007. The West would prefer to deal with (Fatah's) Abbas, who has shown a willingness to negotiate with Israel, and it tried to topple Hamas with economic and political sanctions." No is right as well as the West going along with Washington and Israel trying to topple Hamas, but unmentioned is the crippling siege. Hamas is a legitimate political group with a military wing for defense, not offense. They're not "gunmen" or militants. Abbas' subservience endears him to America and Tel Aviv. Hamas is independent. It champions Palestinians' rights, and therein lies the conflict.

-- "If Hamas is so opposed to Israel, why did it agree to a truce? Hamas had hoped to end the blockade, but the cease-fire collapsed in November and expired Dec. 19. Abbas blamed Hamas for prompting the Israeli attack by refusing to extend the cease-fire." True on the first point. False or misleading on the rest. Hamas declared a ceasefire unilaterally. Israel never respected it and killed over two dozen Gazans while it was in force. Abbas blamed the victims and absolved the aggressor in deference to Tel Aviv and Washington - in betrayal of his people for his own political aims.

-- "What has been the response to the Israeli attacks in the Arab world?" Saying that anti-Israeli demonstrations have been held in several countries greatly understates how many, their size and where. They're large and growing and are being held across America, throughout the Middle East, and in many other countries worldwide.

"What about Egypt? (It) opposes Islamic radical groups, including its own Muslim Brotherhood, which helped give birth to Hamas. Egypt has a difficult relationship because they share a border (and) clashes have been reported between Palestinians and Egyptian security forces at border crossings?" Half truths and misleading. Egypt is allied to Washington and Israel. It opposes the Muslim Brotherhood and all independent opposition to president Hosni Mubarak's dictatorship. Egyptian forces initiated border clashes by firing on Gazans trying to escape the violence.

-- "What about the US?" A "power vacuum" suggests Muskal until Obama takes office. Unexplained is a continuity of policy that unswervingly supports Israel, its right to wage aggressive war, violate international law, slaughter Gazan civilians, maintain its illegal occupation, and deny Palestinians their right to self-determination.

-- "What has the Bush administration done?" Saying it blamed Hamas and asked Israel publicly to avoid civilian casualties is right but misleading. For eight years, George Bush disdained Palestinian rights, supplies Israel with billions of dollars in aid, the latest weapons and technology, and full support for its occupation, oppression and aggressive wars.

-- "What about the Obama administration?" Repeating his saying the US has only one president at a time is right. So is affirming his strong support for Israel. Unmentioned is his indifference to Palestinian issues and that chances for regional peace will be no greater than under George Bush so expect little hopeful change.

-- "How do Israeli politics figure in the equation? Muskal is right in relating the current conflict to Israel's February 10 elections. A new prime minister and Knesset will be chosen and polls show a large majority of Israelis back its government's attacks. Acting tough could prove a winning strategy even at the expense of human lives and less security than without conflict.

Misinformation like the above is de rigueur throughout the dominant media, especially when it comes to Israel. Tel Aviv can do no wrong even when it inflicts vast amounts of destruction, massacres hundreds of civilians, and injures tens of hundreds more, defenseless against its onslaught.

Profiting from Human Slaughter

On December 27, the London Guardian reported that the "Israeli far right gains ground as Gaza rockets fuel tension." Jerusalem-based Toni O'Loughlin wrote that pre-conflict polls showed "the Israeli public calling for harsher military strikes in Gaza." It's been a boon for former Likud member Avigdor Lieberman's extremist Yisrael Beiteinu. It advocates ethnic cleansing by revoking Israeli Arabs' citizenship and transferring Palestinian towns in Israel to PA control.

Likud leader, Binyamin Netanyahu also stands to gain because he states: "In the long run, we have no choice but to topple Hamas rule....we have to go from passive response to active assault." That got Kadima's foreign minister Tzipi Livni saying: "Israel must topple the Hamas rule in Gaza and a government under my command will do just that." Campaigning is in high gear for the upcoming February elections with all sides vying to look toughest.

War rages as a result, and according to Alternative Information Center in Jerusalem founder Michael Warschawski: "all Israeli leaders are competing over who is the toughest and who is ready to kill more." Mass slaughter makes good campaign politics, and whoever looks the meanest may become Israel's next prime minister. Follow the body count for clues. Watch TV clips of Tzipi Livni disheveled with no makeup to show machismo, and as Tariq Ali puts it: "dead Palestinians are little more than election fodder" and may help Kadima retain power.

Justifying the Unjustifiable

On December 28, O'Loughlin in the Guardian headlined: "Israel mounts PR campaign to blame Hamas for Gaza destruction" as Kadima put positive spin on mass murder and destruction.

Israeli media suggested the following preceded the attack:

-- six months of intelligence-gathering to pinpoint bases, weapons silos, supplies, training camps, senior officials' homes, and other strategic targets, including civilian ones; the attack also began exactly at 11:30AM Saturday when children just finished morning classes, were in the streets, and others were en route to school;

-- disinformation and deception were used to keep the media and public uninformed and off guard;

-- Hamas was lulled momentarily into a false sense of security to give the initial onslaught maximum tactical effectiveness;

-- on December 26, food, fuel and other humanitarian supplies were let into Gaza as part of the deception; and

-- when the assault came, officials justified it saying "patience ran out" to hide their real motives.

Ahead of the attack, Britain, the EU, Egypt and Saudi Arabia were briefed, and Israel coordinated everything with Washington the way it's always done at least since the 1967 war. According to the Jerusalem Post, the Bush administration also supplied the Israeli Air Force with "a new bunker-buster missile" called GBU-39 - a small-diameter bomb for low-cost, high-precision, minimal collateral damage strikes.

Congress authorized 1000 of them in September, and defense officials said the first shipment arrived in early December for use in penetrating underground Gaza Kassam launcher sites and bombing Egyptian border tunnels in Rafah through which emergency supplies were funneled.

Israel's PR spin began before the assault. According to the Guardian, "the foreign ministry honed its message and amassed its staff....Israeli diplomats were recalled from holidays and ordered back to work, and in" Sderot, a multilingual media center was opened to brief foreign journalists.

Everything was orchestrated. At the right moment, Tzipi Livni called foreign ministers in Washington, London, Russia, China, France and Germany as well as EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana and UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon. She also briefed around 80 international representatives and dignitaries in the Sderot media center. World leaders spread her message, blamed Hamas for "breaking" the ceasefire, and claimed Israel had to respond.

Israeli envoys around the world did the same, and Livni vowed to end Hamas rule if elected. She told Kadima party members and the media that "The State of Israel, and a government under me, will make it a strategic objective to topple the Hamas regime. The means....should be military, economic and diplomatic."

As war rages, Israel is in full spin mode. According to Haaretz, even Fatah loyalists say Gaza is "Allah's revenge" - referring to the 2007 clashes that secured Gaza for Hamas and left Fatah, under Abbas, in control of the West Bank. For his part, prime minister Ehud Olmert said the bombardment is "the first of several stages approved by the security cabinet" - a clear signal of more to follow and Israel's intent to destroy Hamas' effectiveness and render it as weak as possible.

Livni also released a document to the Israeli and world press spreading deceit, disinformation, exaggeration, and agitprop. Examples included:

-- "Israeli citizens have been under the threat of daily attack from Gaza for years;

-- Only this week hundreds of missiles and mortar shells were fired at Israeli civilian communities;

-- Until now we have shown restraint; but today there is no other option than a military operation;

-- We need to protect our citizens from attack through a military response against the terror infrastructure in Gaza;

-- Israel left Gaza in order to create an opportunity for peace;

-- In return, the Hamas terror organization took control of Gaza and is using its citizens as cover while it deliberately targets Israeli communities and denies any chance for peace;

-- We have tried everything to reach calm without using force; we agreed to a truce through Egypt that was violated by Hamas, which continued to target Israel, hold Gilat Shalit, and build up its arms;

-- Israel continues to act to prevent a humanitarian crisis and to minimize harm to Palestinian civilians."

These and other statements blame Hamas for the violence; accuse it of being a terrorist organization backed by Iran; has a radical Islamic agenda; is the enemy of all Palestinians seeking peace; is criminal under international law, and seeks Israel's destruction.

These comments are from Israel's foreign minister and a leading candidate for prime minister; someone representing a state founded on terrorism by massacring and ethnically cleansing Palestinians from their land; that disdains international law; illegally occupies Palestine; collectively punishes its people; denies them self-determination; their right of return; seizes their land; demolishes their homes; imprisons and tortures their people, impoverishes them; denies them free movement, essential services, employment and enough food and clean water; destroys their crops and factories; and grants them no judicial redress because they're Arabs in a Jewish state or under occupation.

On December 31, Livni was in Paris meeting with president Nicolas Sarkozy, foreign minister Bernard Kouchner and other officials. In response to a French two-day truce proposal, she rejected the idea saying: "there is no humanitarian crisis in the Strip, and therefore there is no need for a humanitarian truce."

Protests Worldwide Over Gaza

Carnage and destruction trump spin, and it shows worldwide on city streets - across the Arab world, in America, the EU, London, and even parts of Asia, Latin America and Africa.

The New York Times reported that "After four days of Israeli airstrikes on Gaza, an outpouring of popular anger is putting pressure on American allies in the Arab world and appears to be worsening divisions in the region." Egypt has been especially pressured because it's a close US and Israeli ally. But "demonstrations continued....from North Africa to Yemen."

Al Jazeera reports that protests spread across the Middle East, and in the West Bank Israeli troops opened fire, killed one Palestinian, and critically injured two others. One was declared brain damaged from a bullet to his head. In Yemen, "tens of thousands of people gathered in and around a stadium in the capital, Sanaa, chanting anti-Israeli slogans and criticizing Arab leaders for failing to act."

It's been much the same in Cairo, Beirut, Baghdad, and dozens of other world capitals. In Tehran, students broke into the British Embassy's residential compound, vandalized buildings, and replaced the British flag with a Palestinian one.

Al Jazeera added that several members of Jordan's parliament burned the Israeli flag in protest and called for the expulsion of Kadima's ambassador. In Lebanon, hundreds of Lebanese and Palestinian refugees staged a sit-in near the Beirut UN office. Hezbollah condemned the attacks as a "war crime and a genocide that requires immediate action from the international community and its institutions."

Its statement called on Arab countries to "take a firm stand and exert its utmost efforts against the Israeli barbarism - which is (endorsed) by the US - and the international community (must) stop this ongoing massacre."

In Damascus, thousands were in Yusif al-Azmeh square shouting slogans and displaying flags of Hamas, Islamic Jihad, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP), Hezbollah, Syria, Iraq and Palestine. From loudspeakers, calls were for "jihad" against Israel and for continuing the "struggle in the name of God."

Protests across Iraq took place - in Baghdad with messages supporting Gaza, anti-Israeli slogans, and the Palestinian ambassador, Dalil al-Qasoos, saying: "Gaza will remain steadfast in the face of Americans and Zionists whatever the plots and conspiracies hatched by tyrants and arrogant enemies."

Across Britain as well in Belfast and London where hundreds demonstrated in front of the Israeli embassy and outside the BBC.

In Washington, 5000 gathered at the State Department and marched to the White House. In San Francisco, over 10,000 protested in front of the Israeli consulate. In Los Angeles, around 5000 did the same, and in New York thousands more were at the Israeli consulate waving Palestinian flags and chanting "Free Palestine." Similar demonstrations were held in dozens more US cities, including Chicago, Boston, Cleveland, Cincinnati, Philadelphia, Portland, Houston, Dallas, Seattle and in Hawaii in front of Obama's vacation compound where he remains indifferent.

On January 2, the ANSWER Coalition, Muslim American Society Freedom, and National Council of Arab Americans plan a major protest at the Israeli embassy in Washington and at the Egyptian embassy as well.

Expressions of World Outrage

On December 29, a National Lawyer's Guild (NLG) press release condemned the Israeli massacre, called for a ceasefire and urged participation in New York protests. NLG president and Thomas Jefferson School of Law professor Marjorie Cohn stated:

"The Human Rights and Security Assistance Act mandates that the United States cease all military aid to Israel, which has engaged in a consistent pattern of gross violations of internationally recognized human rights." America, like Israel, disdains international law and has supplied Tel Aviv governments with tens of billions of aid, weapons and technology for decades, and as explained above, with special bunker-buster bombs to attack Gaza. It also partners in Israeli aggression, assists all aspects of it, and provides cover through vocal support and UN resolution vetoes for it to continue.

On December 29, the Arab Association for Human Rights (HRA) condemned Israel's Gaza attack, its slaughter of civilians and "violation of all international laws and treaties," and its crippling siege as "another crime and collective punishment against (over 1.5 million Gazans) living in an atmosphere of continued terror and intimidation."

HRA also denounced world leaders for failing to speak out or act and thus effectively give "a green light for Israel to escalate its siege, topped with the barbaric bombardment" of Gaza and its people. "The Security Council's non-binding statement (calling for "an immediate halt to all violence" and for both sides "to stop immediately all military activities") is evidence of (the UN's) incompetence (and impotence) in implementing its primary duty in maintaining world peace and security."

In his "Dachau to Gaza" article, law professor, international law expert, and former PLO legal advisor Francis Boyle compared Washington and Israel's aims to Hitler's Munich Pact for Germany to occupy and annex the Sudetenland. Today it's to seize Palestinians' land and deny them "self-determination and a real independent state of their own." As a result, he fears a "high probability that history will repeat itself" in more conflict.

In 1986, he visited the US Embassy in Tel Aviv, complained about "criminal Israeli occupation practices," its violations of international law, and that America "has an absolute obligation to use its enormous political, military and economic leverage over Israel to terminate (these) practices immediately."

Yet since Israel's establishment in 1948 and its post-1967 occupation of Gaza and the West Bank, Washington has one-sidedly supported Israel and denied Palestinians their "freedom, justice, dignity, respect and independence." One day, America must end this policy and "order Israel out of Palestine." Until then, no Middle East peace is possible and the possibility of greater conflict exists.

Like others wanting war crimes to be punished, Boyle also advocates "An International Criminal Tribunal for Israel (ICTI) as "the Only (possible) Deterrent to a Global War." He urges the General Assembly to establish one as a "subsidiary organ" under Article 22 of the UN Charter. It would be similar to those for Yugoslavia (ICTY) and Rwanda (ICTR) to:

"investigate and prosecute Israeli war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide against the People of Lebanon and Palestine." It would "provide some small degree of justice to the victims" of decades of Israeli crimes, thus far committed with impunity. "It would also have a deterrent effect" on current Israeli leaders and generals and force future ones to obey international laws or face similar prosecution.

Without legal restraints, Boyle, like others, fears possible new Middle East conflict that could "degenerate into World War III," not by intent but by accident, much like WW I developed. He urges General Assembly action to prevent it at a time attacks on Gaza persist, the Arab street is enraged, and the longer fighting continues, the greater the risk of something far greater.

Israel is a serial aggressor. Its lawlessness can no longer be tolerated. Mass outrage and world pressure must build for a global campaign for boycott, divestment and sanctions until its human rights abuses stop, its war crimes are punished, its occupation and colonization end, Palestinian refugees have the right to return, and the people of Gaza and the West Bank achieve their long-denied self-determination rights in an internationally recognized sovereign state, free from Israeli oppression. For people of conscience, that's Resolution One for the new year.
______________________________________________________
Stephen Lendman is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization. He lives in Chicago and can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net. Also visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com and listen to The Global Research News Hour on RepublicBroadcasting.org Monday through Friday at 10AM US Central time for cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on world and national issues. All programs are archived for easy listening.

In Gaza, Targeting A Nation

By Rami Almeghari         03 January, 2009                         Muslim India 

Electronic Intifada

Unidentified Palestinians are being victimized for the sake of unidentifies objectives. Israel claims it is targeting Hamas, while in fact, it is targeting whoever and whatever in Gaza

Gaza Strip: At al-Shifa hospital, Gaza's largest, an unidentified injured man is laying at the hospital's intensive care unit. He was hit by shrapnel from an Israeli missile that struck a target at the Samer crossroad in the Omar al-Mukhtar street in Gaza City at noon yesterday.

"This wounded patient has sustained critical injuries and his condition is unstable, but we don't yet know his identity, he is still unknown," Dr. Omar Manasra, the on-duty doctor of the intensive care unit (ICU) said.

Manasra added, "Since the Israeli strikes began on Saturday, we have received at least 30 unidentified wounded at the ICU; most of them were later identified, but this took some time. We just labeled them with figures like, unknown number 1, number 2, etc."

Manasra explained the challenges faced by the ICU with the mounting number of wounded: "We suffer a severe lack of medicines, equipment and beds at our unit. In the first day of the air strikes alone, we received almost 50 cases, and that has overloaded our capacity.

"We have only 12 beds, so we have been forced to open new emergency ICUs in other sections like the cardiac, the orthopedic and the maternity wards. Also, I would like to add that we lack basic ICU medicines like antibiotics ... In addition we are in need for equipment like ventilators and monitors."

In the Gaza Strip, home to 1.5 million residents, there are seven main hospitals. According to Hammam Nasman, spokesperson of the Hamas-run health ministry, such an emergency situation in Gaza cannot be dealt with by the hospitals.

"The health situation in Gaza is still miserable as Gaza's [medical professionals] try relentlessly to cope with this unprecedented emergency situation. Our field crews are at risk and four medics have been killed and a few others injured during rescue operations," Nasman explained.

Nasman added that there are 1,534 physicians at all the main hospitals and they cannot serve the needs of all of those requiring treatment during this emergency situation. As a result, many cases have been transferred to other private hospitals or clinics.

Nasman pointed out that so far, his ministry has been coordinating with concerned Egyptian and other Palestinian bodies in order to distribute some Arab-provided assistance. He alluded to the need for more assistance as the hospitals lack 230 medical needs including alcohol, Bludine and stitching thread.

He also confirmed that most of the power generators at the hospitals have been depleted of their fuel stocks and that many of them have broken down and need spare parts, the import of which Israel denies. Gaza has been experiencing electricity blackouts for more than 70 percent of the time, on a daily basis, since Israel severely restricted the import of fuel to Gaza's power plant in November of last year, when a six-month Egyptian-brokered truce collapsed following an Israeli attack on Gaza.

Dr. Moawiya Abu Hassanein, chief of the emergency and ambulance department at the health ministry, said that the ambulances run by the ministry are operating at less than 50 percent of their actual capacity, as Israeli air raids have so far damaged five ambulances and three fire trucks. Two ambulance crew members are reported to have lost their lives while responding to the scenes of Israeli strikes.

The Israeli attacks from air, sea and ground that began last Saturday on the pretext of halting the firing of rockets from the coastal enclave have so far claimed the lives of more than 400 Palestinians and wounded at least 2,000. Most of the casualties are civilians and non-combatants, like the unidentified patient lying in al-Shifa hospital.

Unidentified Palestinians are being victimized for the sake of unidentified objectives. Israel claims it is targeting Hamas, while in fact, it is targeting whoever and whatever in Gaza. For the past seven days, Israeli air raids completely devastated scores of civilian ministerial buildings, municipal premises, charities, universities, schools, homes and mosques.

Israeli pilots in fighter jets do not see or care about the identities of those who receive their bombs as it is not just Hamas but the whole of the Palestinian people who are their targets. Meanwhile, Gaza doctors struggle to find the identities of what is left of the victims after those bombs are delivered.
_________________________________________________________________
Rami Almeghari is contributor to The Electronic Intifada, IMEMC.org and Free Speech Radio News and is a part-time lecturer on media and political translation at the Islamic University of Gaza. Rami is also a former senior English translator at and editor-in-chief of the international press center of the Gaza-based Palestinian Information Service. He can be contacted at rami_almeghari @hotmail .com