Spotlight on Israel's War Crimes - Cluster Bombs

Updated: See end of post
Last summer, Israel unleashed a massive assault aimed, supposedly, against Hizbollah fighters. It was Lebanon's innocent civilians who paid the price... and it was a huge one. More Lebanese children died in the offensive than adult fighters; it is a despicable reality that everyone should feel the shame of. It will take billions of dollars and years for Lebanon to repair the physical damage (with the emotional damage likely to fuel a new generation of animosity). In fact, Lebanon lost all the economic and social progress it so painstakingly forged over the past dozen years; an outcome perhaps not lost on the Israeli cabinet.

While the rest of the world seems to have moved on after a momentary whimper of indignation, the US government looked into some of the practices of the Israeli army. Specifically, the US probed into the use by Israel of cluster bombs against civilians, behavior which is illegal under international law. It is estimated that Israel dropped over 4 million cluster bombs on Lebanon. Israel itself admits to 1 million. It is difficult to see how this can be justified against a few hundred Hizbollah fighters. It is even more difficult to find credible the Israeli claim that they were justified in dropping them on civilian neighborhoods.

Well, the verdict has come in and it seems that Israel will be declared guilty; small vindication to the hundreds who died in a brutal way.

Yet, the horror is not over for the Lebanese. Tens of thousands of intact bomblets still litter neighborhoods, farms and groves. As though this were not bad enough, upon exiting last summer, Israel also laid landmines across south Lebanon, according to the United Nations.

Now that it has been determined that Israel used these weapons illegally, will the world demand that it provide the resources to have these bombs removed so that they do not explode killing and maiming hundreds more?

Update: It seems that being associated with Israeli war crimes is not enough to stop the US military-industrial complex grind. IHT reports that Israel signed a $100 million deal with Boeing in Chicago to buy more bombs to "replenish" its stock depleted by the Lebanon onslaught. Go figure....

Tens of Thousands March in DC Against War in Iraq

Yes, tens of thousands rallied and marched today in Washington DC (it looked to me like a few hundred thousands). That strip of green stretching from the Congress to the Washington Monument saw today what it has seen many times before... people coming out in large numbers to protest their government's actions. Their voices, calls, and banners reaffirming all that is good about the United States.

The event was organized by United for Peace and Justice, and people came streaming on to the mall off of buses from across America. They were joined by celebrities and members of Congress.

Today on the mall people of all political persuasions and backgrounds came together because they are angry. Their banners expressed the frustration they all feel... they want that bad about the US that the world has come to see to end (and Jane Fonda thanked them for giving the world a reason to see that good again).

While some carried signs and cried for the impeachment of Bush and Cheney for taking the country to war on false pretenses, others demanded that Congress step up to its constitutional obligations. All demanded the return of the troops to save them from dying for a senseless war. Many also warned against a new war with Iran.

The rally speakers invoked the memory of Vietnam and the civil rights movement. Indeed the scenes were reminiscent of that era (including hearing Jane Fonda and Jesse Jackson). They demanded that America learn from its mistakes of Vietnam. One mistake the crowd has learned from that time is that the onus of guilt does not rest on the shoulders of the soldiers; it belongs to the leaders who sent them there. Unfortunately, it is those leaders who have failed to learn.

As Tim Robbins rallied the crowd to tell Congress that impeachment is not off the table, the question many asked, "Bush, are you listening?"

He may have heard (he actually stayed in DC for the weekend), but it is unlikely that he will listen. Being the "decider", or as he revised it yesterday, the "decision-maker", he is on track to send the 21,000 additional troops to Iraq.

Although I feel good about being one of those out there today, let's hope that today was more than a "feel-good" day.

Contemptuous Cheney, Delusional Works Too

Vice President Cheney not only seems to see a world only revealed to him, but he also places the will of the Bushites above the annoying "will of the people" (see earlier post). Delusional and leadership do not belong in the same sentence, let alone in the same White House. Add contemptuous to the mix and you have near half a million killed civilians, thousands of dead and wounded soldiers, and billions of tax payer dollars in big business coffers. For what?

According to Vice President Cheney, every drop of blood and penny was worth it to achieve the better world we now live in...... As he tells CNN's Wolf Blitzer,

CHENEY: You can go back and argue the whole thing all over again, Wolf. But what we did in Iraq in taking down Saddam Hussein was exactly the right thing to do. The world is much safer today because of it. There have been three national elections in Iraq. There's a democracy established there, a constitution, a new democratically elected government. Saddam has been brought to justice and executed. His sons are dead. His government is gone. And the world is better off for it. You can argue about that all you want. That's history.

History??? The world is a safer place???? Someone please tell that to all the decimated and lost lives in Iraq and the US. Saddam's sons are dead, but so are too many others.

But according to Cheney, "we have, in fact, accomplished our objectives of getting rid of the old regime..."

Is that what our objective was? What happened to weapons of mass destruction, axis of evil, and Saddam's support of Al Qaeda? Oh, yes, those "objectives" were proven ungrounded... perhaps even fabricated.

(Spin 101: when you make up stuff to get people to do what you want, always have a back up story so they don't feel they did it in vain when the s*** hits the fan... and hope they forget the original story.)

Memo to Cheney: We did not forget.

But that's not all... Not only did we achieve "our objective", but we were also successful... (yes, we had our cake and ate it too!) and all is well in Iraq.

CHENEY: ... They have got a democratically written constitution, the first ever in that part of the world. They've had three national elections. So there's been a lot of success.

But when pressed by Blitzer:

BLITZER: Some of your good Republican friends in the Senate and the House, are now seriously questioning your credibility, because of the blunders, of the failures.
CHENEY: Wolf -- Wolf, I simply don't accept the premise of your question. I just think it's hogwash

He doesn't accept the premise? What premise is he rejecting here? The premise of Congressional oversight? The premise of accountability? Is that akin to declaring he doesn't feel obligated to answer to the American people or their representatives?

Sarcasm aside, although it may be the last refuge of the helpless, Cheney is putting forth a very dangerous precedent. Assuming, just for the sake of argument, that the US objective in Iraq was merely to take down the Saddam regime and at this the US was successful, that can only be half the equation. Measuring success cannot be only in terms of outcome or benefit... It must also take into account cost, both immediate and ongoing.

At what cost did the US achieve the downfall and death of the Saddam and his progeny?

Answering that must balance that outcome against the death of hundreds of thousands, destruction of an entire country's infrastructure, loss of US world stature and solidarity, a generation of US and Iraqi orphans, widows, and disabled, the opportunity cost of the billions of dollars gone towards the war effort, and last, but not least, the immediate and long term political impact on the region. That last calculation would need to consider what the impact of the US invasion and occupation of Iraq has been on the balance of power in the region.

The only thing more dangerous than a fool is an unbridled powerful one.

Proof In The Carter Defamation Pudding

In case anyone doubted that the Israeli "lobby" (I use the word loosely since the lobby is actually a wide-spread network) immediately circles the wagons at every opportunity and provocation, the recent hate-fest over President Carter's recent book, Palestine Peace Not Apartheid, is sad proof. As soon as anyone dares to shed light on the human tragedy suffered by the Palestinians at the hands of successive Israeli governments, the Israeli army and illegal Israeli settlers, the daggers are immediately drawn and cries of anti-semitism are heard.

To all those 14 "friends" and advisors of the Carter Center, who felt the compulsion to resign, and to all those frenzied critics, including all the Alan Dershowitz's and the Jeffrey Goldberg's out there, I have have a few questions. If you don't like the word "apartheid", what would you call what the Palestinians are suffering? Second question: if it was you or your kin who were suffering it, what would you call it? Third question: what would you call those who were perpetrating it against you and/or your kin? Fourth question: wouldn't you want the world to know about your suffering? Fifth question: wouldn't you hope and pray (since you have scant little else by way of defense) that someone would make the suffering stop, let alone hold those causing the suffering accountable?

And, please, don't even try to respond with, "they brought it on themselves." Blaming the victim is not only lame, it is wrong.

What is sadder is that this insane, completely emotional, and totally counterproductive, not to mention, divorced from reality on the ground, stance of the pervasive Israeli "lobby" is neither beneficial to Israel, the United States, or Palestinians (but, on that last score, who really cares, right?). This fact has long dawned on many Israelis, as well as level-headed US-based organizations such as Tikkun. The uproar facing Carter is mostly US-based. Any cursory review of the Israeli press will find even more scathing commentary on the apartheid-like policies perpetrated against the Palestinians.

For example, read this article by Former Israeli Minister of Education Shulamit Aloni, who argues that apartheid is alive and well in the West Bank under Israeli rule. (Thanks to Tony B. for bringing this to my attention).

"Hebrew original: Yediot Aharonot, Israel's largest circulating newspaper
Indeed there is Apartheid in Israel
A new order issued by the GOC Central command bans the conveyance of Palestinians in Israeli vehicles. Such a blatant violation of the right to travel joins the long list of humans rights violations carried out by Israel in the [Occupied] Territories.
by Shulamit Aloni

Jewish self-righteousness is taken for granted among ourselves to such an extent that we fail to see what's right in front of our eyes. It's simply inconceivable that the ultimate victims, the Jews, can carry out evil deeds. Nevertheless, the state of Israel practises its own, quite violent, form of Apartheid with the native Palestinian population.

The US Jewish Establishment's onslaught on former President Jimmy Carter is based on him daring to tell the truth which is known to all: through its army, the government of Israel practises a brutal form of Apartheid in the territory it occupies. Its army has turned every Palestinian village and town into a fenced-in, or blocked-in, detention camp. All this is done in order to keep an eye on the population's movements and to make its life difficult. Israel even imposes a total curfew whenever the settlers, who have illegally usurped the Palestinians' land, celebrate their holidays or conduct their parades.

If that were not enough, the generals commanding the region frequently issue further orders, regulations, instructions and rules (let us not forget: they are the lords of the land). By now they have requisitioned further lands for the purpose of constructing "Jewish only" roads. Wonderful roads, wide roads, well-paved roads, brightly lit at night - all that on stolen land. When a Palestinian drives on such a road, his vehicle is confiscated and he is sent on his way.

On one occasion I witnessed such an encounter between a driver and a soldier who was taking down the details before confiscating the vehicle and sending its owner away. "Why?" I asked the soldier. "It's an order - this is a Jews-only road", he replied. I inquired as to where was the sign indicating this fact and instructing [other] drivers not to use it. His answer was nothing short of amazing. "It is his responsibility to know it, and besides, what do you want us to do, put up a sign here and let some antisemitic reporter or journalist take a photo so he that can show the world that Apartheid exists here?"

Indeed Apartheid does exist here. And our army is not "the most moral army in the world" as we are told by its commanders. Sufficient to mention that every town and every village has turned into a detention centre and that every entry and every exit has been closed, cutting it off from arterial traffic. If it were not enough that Palestinians are not allowed to travel on the roads paved 'for Jews only', on their land, the current GOC found it necessary to land an additional blow on the natives in their own land with an "ingenious proposal".

Humanitarian activists cannot transport Palestinians either.

Major-General Naveh, renowned for his superior patriotism, has issued a new order. Coming into affect on 19 January, it prohibits the conveyance of Palestinians without a permit. The order determines that Israelis are not allowed to transport Palestinians in an Israeli vehicle (one registered in Israel regardless of what kind of numberplate it carries) unless they have received explicit permission to do so. The permit relates to both the driver and the Palestinian passenger. Of course none of this applies to those whose labour serves the settlers. They and their employers will naturally receive the required permits so they can continue to serve the lords of the land, the settlers.

Did man of peace President Carter truly err in concluding that Israel is creating Apartheid? Did he exaggerate? Don't the US Jewish community leaders recognise the International Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Racial Discrimination of 7 March 1966, to which Israel is a signatory? Are the US Jews who launched the loud and abusive campaign against Carter for supposedly maligning Israel's character and its democratic and humanist nature unfamiliar with the International Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid of 30 November 1973? Apartheid is defined therein as an international crime that among other things includes using different legal instruments to rule over different racial groups, thus depriving people of their human rights. Isn't freedom of travel one of these rights?

In the past, the US Jewish community leaders were quite familiar with the meaning of those conventions. For some reason, however, they are convinced that Israel is allowed to contravene them. It's OK to kill civilians, women and children, old people and parents with their children, deliberately or otherwise without accepting any responsibility. It's permissible to rob people of their lands, destroy their crops, and cage them up like animals in the zoo. From now on, Israelis and International humanitarian organisations' volunteers are prohibited from assisting a woman in labour by taking her to the hospital. [Israeli human rights group] Yesh Din volunteers cannot take a robbed and beaten-up Palestinian to the police station to lodge a complaint. (Police stations are located at the heart of the settlements.) Is there anyone who believes that this is not Apartheid?

Jimmy Carter does not need me to defend his reputation that has been sullied by Israelophile community officials. The trouble is that their love of Israel distorts their judgment and blinds them from seeing what's in front of them. Israel is an occupying power that for 40 years has been oppressing an indigenous people, which is entitled to a sovereign and independent existence while living in peace with us. We should remember that we too used very violent terror against foreign rule because we wanted our own state.And the list of victims of terror is quite long and extensive.

We do limit ourselves to denying the [Palestinian] people human rights. We not only rob of them of their freedom, land and water. We apply collective punishment to millions of people and even, in revenge-driven frenzy, destroy the electricity supply for one and half million civilians. Let them "sit in the darkness" and "starve".

Employees cannot be paid their wages because Israel is holding 500 million shekels that belong to the Palestinians.
And after all that we remain "pure as the driven snow".
There are no moral blemishes on our actions.
There is no racial separation.
There is no Apartheid.
It's an invention of the enemies of Israel.
Hooray for our brothers and sisters in the US!
Your devotion is very much appreciated.
You have truly removed a nasty stain from us.
Now there can be an extra spring in our step as we confidently abuse the Palestinian population, using the "most moral army in the world".
[Translated by Sol Salbe]"

Autocracy By Any Other...

According to the American Heritage New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy, Third Edition, autocracy is defined as:
"(aw-TOK-ruh-see) A system of government in which supreme political power is held by one person. (Compare constitutional monarchy, democracy, and oligarchy.)
+ Iraq under Saddam Hussein is an autocracy."

I have been at a loss for words (but even that is a lame excuse for my limited blogging lately) .... because what the US is doing in the Middle East has gone beyond the pale. Bush and his guiding voice (other than God), Cheney, have become totally immune not only to the voices of wisdom offering a virtual menu of policy options for addressing the debacle and travesty of Iraq, but more importantly to the will of the American people. And so thousands more troops march off, needlessly, into harm's way.... not to mention the scores of Iraqis who will also suffer.

Last Sunday, on no other than Fox News (surprise, surprise), Cheney made a startling revelation to Chris Wallace and the American people. He basically said that the Bush Administration would not be swayed by the will of the people. (Read David Ignatius piece in the Wash Post - great analysis). Forget polls, which arguably may be seen to be whimsical; he even dismissed general election results. (Please refer to the definition of autocracy above). So if the people are not to be heeded when they cast their ballots, what then is left for democracy?

(Read - only slightly tongue in cheek- I guess there is no wonder that the US can't impose democracy abroad; apparently, if the VP is to be believed and the Bushites observed, it can't even maintain it at home... The only reason this is a half-serious comment is because democracy can never be imposed even by paragons of it.)

But, you be the judge... here are the VPs words:

"WALLACE: I want to ask you one more question about this, and then we'll talk about other issues.
Iraq was a big issue in the November election. I want you to take a look at some numbers from the election. According to the National Exit Poll, 67 percent said the war was either very or extremely important to their vote, and only 17 percent supported sending in more troops.
By taking the policy you have, haven't you, Mr. Vice President, ignored the express will of the American people in the November election?
CHENEY: Well, Chris, this president, and I don't think any president worth his salt, can afford to make decisions of this magnitude according to the polls. The polls change day by day...
WALLACE: Well, this was an election, sir.
CHENEY: Polls change day by day, week by week. I think the vast majority of Americans want the right outcome in Iraq. The challenge for us is to be able to provide that. But you cannot simply stick your finger up in the wind and say, "Gee, public opinion's against; we'd better quit.""

I think it is time to recognize that we already have a third party in this country, and they hold the power. For lack of a better word, and because neo-con has become hackneyed, I will anoint the Bushites, the Imperialist Party. Last November we took the first step at running them out of town, but we still have a ways to go.

Will the real Republicans please stand up??

Perhaps they already have in the form of Senator Chuck Hagel. Here is a man who is true to his soul and essential republican principles (small "R") ... like growing the economy, maintaining international respect, leadership and citizenship, and heeding the people. His has been a lone Republican voice of reason which is only now resonating from amidst the howl of Bushite imperialist, autocratic dogma and self-delusion.

And the Bushites sense the danger... Once again read the VPs words:

"WALLACE: Mr. Vice President, it's not just Democrats, though, who oppose the plan. This week there were a number of leading Senate Republicans who also came out against it. Let's watch.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. NORM COLEMAN, R-MINN.: I'm not prepared, at this time, to support that.
SEN. DAVID VITTER, R-LA.: Too little, maybe too late.
SEN. CHUCK HAGEL, R-NEB.: The most dangerous foreign policy blunder in this country since Vietnam.
(END VIDEO CLIPS)
WALLACE: Aren't you losing a lot of support in your own caucus?
CHENEY: Well, I don't think Chuck Hagel has been with us for a long time.... We have to prevail, and we have to have the stomach for the fight, long term. And for us to do what Chuck Hagel, for example, suggests or to buy into that kind of analysis — it's not really analysis; it's just criticism — strikes me as absolutely the wrong thing to do.
These are tough decisions, but the president's made it. It's a good decision. It's a good policy. We think, on reflection, it's the best way for us to move forward to achieve our objectives..."

Not only do the Bushites sense the heat from within, they are even throwing bones to the Democrats. After many an outcry but only moved to act under the threat of congressional hearings, the Bushites have, in small part, rescinded their self-declared right to unlimited power by placing the NSA eavesdropping transgression under judicial review. However, despite being once again subject to FISA oversight, the Bushites maintained the prerogative to act however they see fit, suggesting that the program could be instituted once again at any time (assuming that they are to be believed in having stopped it in the first place).

"de·moc·ra·cy /[di-mok-ruh-see] –noun, plural -cies.
1. government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system.
2. a state having such a form of government: The United States and Canada are democracies."

More on the Mother of All Ironies

More than 16 years after Saddam made his infamous "Mother of All Battles" exhortation, his own death has resulted in the Mother of All Ironies. As I wrote in my last post, instead of representing long over due justice, the way he was executed has turned Saddam Hussein into a martyr. The ugly taunting by his Shia executioners on the first day of the Sunni Eid El-Adha has done more to fan the flames of sectarian strife than any insurgent or terrorist action.

Perhaps most shocking is the fact that the US released Saddam to the Iraqis that morning knowing full well what the outcome would be. Attempts to distance the US from the events of that morning ring hollow especially when coupled with claims that the US had "urged" the Iraqi government not to execute Saddam that day. If that is how the US Administration felt, then why did it release him? Either the US is an occupational force with power or it is a patsy to the new Iraqi government after it paved the way for the Shia to seize power. If the latter, then why are US soldiers dying in a "battlefield" over which the US has no power???? The US can't have it both ways. Either the US is in control or it is not, and, if it is not, then it should either regain control or it should get out!

Nuri Al-Maliki's claim that his government was driven by the desire to execute Saddam in 2006 and thus had no choice but to execute him on Dec. 30 rather than Dec. 31st because that was the first day of the Eid El-Adha for Shias is an excuse more offensive than the original offense. In other words, so as to avoid the Shia holy day, the Sunni holy day was chosen. And, what was wrong with Dec. 29 or Jan. 1, for that matter? For a government claiming to be concerned with national reconciliation and quelling sectarian strife, the bigotry is disgusting. Even more disgusting is that the only aspect of the circus around the execution that the Nuri Al Maliki government is upset about is that clandestine cell phone videos were made to document the spectacle!

Now, other leaders in the Middle East agree. BBC is quoting Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak as saying: "No-one will ever forget the way in which Saddam was executed - they turned him into a martyr, and the problems in Iraq remained."

Cartoon:
Main caption - "Hanging of Saddam the morning of Eid El-Adha"
Comment on garb: "To all Arab and Moslem leaders"
Note: The hand gesture is a Middle East version of "giving the finger"

(Apologies for the crudeness... I found this cartoon (on Palestinian Pundit) to be quite representative of the general sentiment in the Middle East after the execution.)

BBC also offers excerpts from media coverage of the execution indicative of the general dismay and disgust with the way in which the execution was handled.
Press condemns Saddam footage
As the Iraqi government launches an inquiry into the mobile phone footage showing Saddam Hussein's hanging, the regional press sees the video as proof that sectarian motives, rather than the rule of law were behind the execution.

One commentator complains of a violation of rights, while others maintain that the hanging was based on sectarian "vendetta".

Others criticise the timing of the hanging, which coincided with the start of celebrations marking the Muslim festival of sacrifice, Eid al-Adha, and warn of further violence.

Turgut Tarhanli in Turkey's Radikal
How can the recording of Saddam's execution minute by minute and exhibition of it to the whole world be compatible with the understanding that a person's moment of death is among his most private personal rights? Isn't the performance of this execution by the Shia militia equivalent to a crude crowning of a pre-modern understanding of vengeance rather than a principle of justice?

Yahya al-Amir in Saudi Arabia's Al-Riyad
This unofficial video tape explains the negative choice of the timing of the execution and the hasty 'sacrifice' of Saddam... This indicates that there are sectarian motives and vendetta that ran and carried out the execution.

Rifqi Fakhri in Egypt's Al-Akhbar
Saddam Hussein was murdered, not executed... Those who carried out the execution are the Shia, Saddam's archenemies... The end was an assassination operation, not the implementation of a fair verdict of execution. We have not reached the end of a page of acts of violence. Rather we are at the start of new pages.

Libya's Al-Jamahiriyah
Were the reasons for the hanging of Saddam Hussein in this way and at this timing US, Arab or Iraqi ones?... Did the execution in this way, which was leaked 'intentionally', aim to turn it from an occupier's mistake to a sect's sin, thus fomenting sectarian fighting?

Egypt's Al-Jumhuriyah
The US administration intentionally executed Saddam in this provocative humiliating way to give a warning to whomsoever it may concern that this administration is going ahead with the Greater Middle East project.

Usamah Sarayah in Egypt's Al-Ahram
The symbolism of this incident is represented in the failure to respect our sanctuaries and sanctities on the Eid al-Adha holiday.

Ali Ibrahim in pan-Arab Al-Sharq al-Awsat
The new year 2007 has just begun and the Arab region is witnessing sectarian splitting and conflict. This is a phenomenon which will spare no one and will leave people locked in a cycle of unprecedented violence and hatred.