Gaza’s Ministry of Health confirmed this figure on its Telegram channel on April 13, 2024. Some rights groups estimate the death toll to be much higher when accounting for those presumed dead. ** The death toll in the West Bank and Jerusalem is not updated regularly. According to the PA’s Ministry of Health on April 5, this is the latest figure. *** This figure is released by the Israeli military…
This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.
The latest Israeli heightening of violence in an already violent region presents the Biden administration with one of its biggest challenges yet in keeping the United States out of a new Middle East war. Israel’s bombing of an Iranian diplomatic compound in Damascus, killing a senior commander in Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Corps and several other Iranian officials in addition to at least four…
This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.
Every Friday since October 20, 2023, protesters in Yemen have hit the streets to protest the war on Gaza. This solidarity comes as no surprise given Yemenis have long experienced war and famine. In a similar show of solidarity, in November Yemen-based Houthi rebels started targeting ships in the Red Sea to put pressure on Israel to end its war on Gaza. The Houthis, initially a rebel group aligned…
This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.
Hossam Bahgat is demanding an apology and remedy after a travel ban and freeze on his assets was reversed on 20 March 2024 (AFP/Mada Masr/file photo)
On 22 March 2024 MEE reported on a very interesting development in Egypt, where dozens of rights defenders have been affected by travel bans and asset freezes for over decade in a ‘politically motivated’ case [see also: https://humanrightsdefenders.blog/tag/hossam-bahgat/].
Egypt has announced the closure of a 13-year landmark case in which human rights defenders were accused of receiving illicit foreign funding – but those affected by the allegations are demanding justice. An investigative judge on Wednesday declared the closure of case 173/2011, known in the media as the “foreign funding case”, due to what he described as “insufficient evidence”.
The case has been widely denounced as a politically-motivated attack on Egypt’s civil society. Judge Ahmed Abdel Aziz Qatlan’s decision marks the end of a probe against 85 organisations. It also means an end to asset freezes and travel bans imposed on members of these organisations, he added.
Before the decision on Wednesday, accusations against most of the organisations implicated had already been dropped and this week’s decision only affects five organisations.
These were the Egyptian Initiative for Personal Rights (EIPR); the Arabic Network for Human Rights Information (ANHRI); the Arab Penal Reform Organisation; the Cairo Institute For Human Rights Studies; and Al-Nadeem Center for Rehabilitation of Victims of Violence.
Rights groups and human rights defenders have called for an apology and compensation for the defendants. Hussein Baoumi, foreign policy advocacy officer at Amnesty International, who had previously monitored the case as Amnesty’s Egypt researcher, said the closure of the case is a welcome step but is “long overdue”.
“The government must issue a public apology and compensate the human rights defenders for years of smearing and punitive measures, merely because they defended the rights of millions of people,” he told Middle East Eye.
Baoumi expressed cautious optimism about the government’s respect for the court decision. “It is too early to say if this marks a serious shift in the government’s crackdown on civil society,” he said. “Closing case 173 must be followed by lifting all travel bans and asset freezes against human rights defenders, all those arbitrarily detained must be released and the NGO law must be amended to bring it in line with Egypt’s obligations.”
Hossam Bahgat, director of the EIPR, has been under a travel ban and barred from accessing his bank account for eight years. Following the closure of the case, he said he felt “vindicated but not relieved”.
He demanded “an official and public apology and restitution for the psychological and material damage resulting from this bogus case”. Gamal Eid, the founder of the ANHRI, welcomed the decision to lift his travel ban but said he still hopes for “the return of all the innocent and oppressed people to their families and loved ones”, referring to the estimated 65,000 political prisoners still languishing in Egyptian jails.
The Cairo Institute for Human Rights (CIHRs) said on Friday: “The decision does not remedy the injustices suffered by the dozens of human rights defenders targeted by the case over the course of the previous decade. Egyptian authorities must issue a formal apology to the victims of this persecution and compensate them for the losses and hardship they have been forced to endure.“
Bahey eldin Hassan, CIHRs director, has been sentenced to 18 years in jail in absentia and his sentence remains in effect, the group said. Hassan and dozens of other human rights defenders are currently living in exile because they fear arrest if they return to Egypt.
CIHR also called on Egypt to put an end to its ongoing crackdown on civil society and human rights defenders, including Ibrahim Metwally, Ezzat Ghoneim, and Hoda Abdelmoniem, who are still behind bars in connection with their work.
CIHR is calling for a review of Egypt’s counter-terrorism legislation and penal code to safeguard the freedom of human rights defenders to carry out their jobs without fear of reprisals.
“Only through a comprehensive review of repressive Egyptian legislation, the releasing of the tens of thousands of peaceful political prisoners, and a genuine opening of public space, can Egyptian authorities demonstrate genuine political will to reform,” it said.
This post was originally published on Hans Thoolen on Human Rights Defenders and their awards.
Haroon Siddiqui’s 2023 memoir, My Name is Not Harry, is a dazzling journey through Indian Sufism, pre-partition Muslim-Hindu harmony, the horrors of partition, a leap across the ocean to the middle of nowhere (sorry, Brandon Manitoba), finally finding his home at the Toronto Star, from whence, back to central Asia (Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan, India during the tumultuous 1979+), hobnobbing with media and political stars, stopping for heart surgery, all the time building and defending his new multicultural faith, adding his own distinct, Muslim flavour to what it means to be a Canadian. A whirlwind tour of the 20th-21st centuries, as if by a latter day Muslim Christopher Columbus, one meant to try to undo the five centuries of imperialist horror that Columbus unleashed.
He relishes slaying the dragons of bigotry he encounters, starting with
*Winston Churchill, the racist. He who had labelled Indians ‘a barbarous people’, ‘a beastly people with a beastly religion’, ‘the beastliest people in the world next to Germans’. Who exacerbated the 1943 Bengal famine that had killed millions by insisting that Indian rice exports for the allied war effort not be interrupted. He who had called Gandhi ‘a naked fakir’ whom he wanted ‘bound hand and foot at the gates of Delhi and then trampled by an enormous elephant with a new viceroy seated on its back.’
*Even the Toronto Star‘s iconic Gordon Sinclair, who won fame in the 1930s with his dispatches form India – ‘the pagan peninsula’ with its ‘wild and woolly Hindus’, Brahmins, the supreme high hooper-doopers of this impossible land’, ‘scrawny, underfed untouchables’, impossible-looking beggars’ and ‘yowling idiots’. In tune with those times, [the Star] still going ga-ga over Sinclair well into my own time.
*On Iran, the only Muslim ‘experts’ and commentators on TV and in print were anti-revolution or anti-Khomeini, authenticating the worst of western prejudices. Anything different, such as mine, must have been a welcome novelty, brought to them by Canada’s largest newspaper.
*On 9//11, Rushdie see below.
One of those should-haves of his life as dragonslayer was at the annual press gallery dinner in Ottawa, where he hosted Solicitor General Robert Kaplan. When they were walking to dinner, Kaplan started waxing eloquently about his love for India and yoga but his dislike of Muslims! He assumed that being from India I could only be a Hindu. What a testament to power the Zionist Jewish mindset had/has over even a proud Muslim like Siddiqui. But bravo, Harry (sorry, Haroon) for owning up. That’s the great thing about him. He lives his multiculturalism, which means meeting the other on his/her grounds, looking for the middle ground, not stoking enmity.
Iranian Ayatollahs, Afghan communists
He shines on the thorniest issue, one of which confronted him soon after arriving at the Star, when he was sent off to Iran in 1979. Speaking Urdu (close to Persian) and fully versed in Sunni and Shia Islam, he was able to make sense of the chaos, making his way to Qom to visit Ayatollah Madari, Khomeini’s rival, who lived just down the maze of alleys from Khomeini, who was already commanding the revolution from his modest home there, rather than Tehran.
He was told it was impossible to meet with Madari, even for a Canadian Muslim, but when he revealed that he’d just come from Tabriz, where Madari’s People’s Republican Party followers had risen up against Khomeini, rejecting the Islamic state constitution, Madari relented. Madari wanted a secular state and ‘the sovereignty of the people’ not a person. He answered every question patiently for nearly two hours. That was his only interview in the wake of the revolt. It would be his last. He was placed under house arrest until his death six years later.
He also met with Morteza Pasandideh, 82, Khomeini’s older brother, who was quite jovial. Siddiqui admired them all for their stress-free lives, their inner peace all, living productive lives into their 80s or 90s. Qom is famous for sohan halwa (sweet sweet) made with pistachios, almonds and butter. Back in Toronto, he asked John Ralston Saul to taste and guess which enemy country it was from. Whatever it is, it could only have been made by a great civilization.
He toured the now-occupied US embassy and chatted amiably (sympathetically?) with the students about how they had pulled off the siege, overpowering the bulky Marines. They said their resolve got strengthened after seeing a large-size picture of Khomeini on a dartboard and several crude cartoons of Khomeini from American and British newspapers in the embassy. At Christmas they made cookies for their captives. An American priest who had come to perform the Christmas Mass said: We should be grateful that we are in a Muslim country and there are not drunk guards. Canadian Ambassador Ken Taylor told him: There are no anti-Canadian feelings here. No one has indicated any inclination to leave Tehran. There’s no panic. When he met Taylor later, he said: Mr Taylor, you’re a great liar. Taylor: That’s what I got paid for.
After an exhausting year in Tehran, the Soviets invaded (came to the assistance of) secular revolutionary Kabul and he was ordered to get there asap. But first he flew to the Iranian border and crossed into Afghanistan to meet a local tribal chieftain, who told him, ‘We’ll kick the bastards out.’ How to get there legitimately? Pakistan? Better India, which had good relations with the communists in Moscow and Kabul, so off to New Delhi and the Afghan embassy. Indira Gandhi never condemned the Soviet invasion. (How wise in retrospect.) In Kabul he was told not to go anywhere and only communicate through an official guide. Ha, ha! He snuck out the back door of his hotel, spoke to a soldier in Urdu, said ‘Canada’ and quickly found a local driver.
He credits Canada’s reputation for peaceful relations, a well-known eye clinic in Kabul. Off to (Shia) Herat where he heard Long live Islam, Long live Iran! He bought a Russian fur cap but was told never to wear it in public or he might be shot. He left via Pushtunistan to Jalalabad, Pakistan, where he met the legendary 91-year-old frontier Gandhi Khan Abdul Ghaffar Khan, who like the Siddiquis had protested the division of India. He was ailing but contemptuous of Soviet attempts to appease religious Afghans. Everything in Afghanistan is done in the name of religion. But this is a political religion, not the religion of Islam and Allah and Muhammad. Communism has nothing to do with religion. It has to do with the stomach. The Russians knew this and tried to convince the Afghans that they could keep their religion, but it was too little, too late. The Russians refused to try to treat their Gandhi, fearing if he died, they would be accused of killing him.
He pressed on to the Khyber Pass, the route for a stream of invaders – Cyrus, Darius, Genghis Khan, Alexander, the Mughals. Tribal chief Mohammed Gul told him: if the Iranians can knock off the Shah and the Americans, we certainly can kick out the Russians. He saw that resistance was beginning to jell within weeks of the Soviet occupation. It took a decade for the Soviets to depart, the US and allies, including Canada, taking double the time to conclude that Afghans have both the courage and patience to bleed any occupier dry.
This being the days before internet, getting copy out required ingenuity. Siddiqui would go to the airport on the days Indian Airlines came to Kabul, meet the crew and cajole/tip them into taking copy and dropping it off at the Reuters news agency in Delhi for forwarding to Toronto. He also went on the day Pakistan International Airlines came just in case. Later he was told everything came, sometimes twice. He met Brzezinski in Peshawar (!) but he wouldn’t give Siddiqui the time of day.
Following the Iraq-Iran war, he was disgusted that western media ignored the poison gas supplied to Iraq by American, German, French, Dutch, Swiss and Belgian companies. On the Iranian front line he hid from Iraqi snipers and marveled at how soldiers dying from gassing were rushed from the front to Tehran hospitals. He was appalled by Khomeini’s hitman, a sadistic prosecutor Ayatollah Sadegh Khalkhali, the hanging judge. Later in Paris, he met Bani Sadr, the first president, who had been impeached and fled the country disguised as a woman in a chador, in an Iran Air Force jet piloted by a sympathizer. He laments that US hostility prompted Khomeini to restart the nuclear program begun under the Shah, after ending it as unIslamic.
Siddiqui’s credo
I must admit, I’ve become jaded about multiculturalism. Toronto is now mostly first or second generation immigrants. Our culture feels shallow and American now. I find the turban-wearing Uber electric scooters grazing me unawares on bike paths frightening, and pointless, as they ferry onion rings to lazy people with too much money. I bemoan the lack of interest in Canadian history, our struggle to define an identity that’s not American. Most immigrants really would prefer big, rich, warm America to Canada and would have no problem if the US decided to invade. What has happened to Canadian culture?
But then I’ve become equally jaded about our heroic history. We are all immigrants, in the case of the paleface, mostly riff-raff, having decimated our poor brown natives. The post-WWII immigrants from brown countries like Siddiqui’s India/ Pakistan are mostly university-educated, the elites of their countries, so they really are a step up from my Irish-English-Swedish peasant ancestors.
But then, I find that equally disturbing. We stole the land from the real Canadians. Now we steal the intellectual wealth from poor countries. Sure we’re richer; the imperialist ‘centre’ is always richer. Our Canadianism was and is still a fraud. So, white flag, hello multiculturalism, for better or worse. But one that should give first place to our natives as the real owners, spiritually, of the land. And no more stealing, whether it be minds from ‘over there’, or land here or ‘over there’. That means Israel, our ‘best friend’, according to PM Harper in 2013 and PM Trudeau in 2015.
Siddiqui is unapologetically for mass immigration and has no time for the ecological problems that mass migration entails. He boasts having visited India 50 times in 40 years, not to mention his other peregrinations. That grates. Yes, brown/black is just as good as white, but what’s holding us together anymore? I don’t know, but I’m happy for Siddiqui, who at least has helped Canada transform from a country of bigotry and chauvinism to … a nice, tame, bland cosmopolis.
His journey through the swinging ’60s into the terrible ’20s is an upbeat panorama of not only Canada at its peak of popularity and feel-goodness, but, reading between the lines, also the decline of Canada, its loss of feel-good innocence transformation into an unapologetic toady of US empire. He took pride in being Canadian when Ambassador Taylor helped US hostages escape Tehran in 1980, when Chretien refused to go along with the invasion of Iraq in 2003, but it’s been downhill since then, with Harper’s disastrous commitment of Canadian troops to Afghanistan, his open Islamo- and Russophobia, his worship of Israel. While Trudeau has welcomed Syrian refugees (and now Afghans, fall out from Harper’s war), he did not fulfill his pledge to renew relations with Iran, despite the Iranian exile community’s pleas. His Russophobia is pathetic. Multiculturalism is looking mighty threadbare.
Yes, following Trudeau senior, Siddiqui’s credo is that all cultural communities have ‘the right to preserve and develop their own cultures within Canadian society’, which he notes is the ethos of India, best articulated by Indian novelist Shivaram Karanth: There’s no such thing as Indian culture. Indian culture is so varied as to be called cultures. But what has happened to India’s multiculturalism under arch-Hindu nationalist Modi?
Star Foreign Editor Jimmy Atkins (R) with Star chair John Honderich, South African President Nelson Mandela & first lady Graca Machel, Star editorial board editor Haroon Siddiqui.
Free trade, Sikhs, Laïcité
Siddiqui gets along with everyone, doesn’t drink or smoke (anymore), a model Muslim in the House of War.1 He traces his ancestors to the first caliph Abu-bakr Siddiq, and second caliph Umar al-Khattab al-Faruq. A worthy disciple of the Prophet Muhammad, the multiculturalist par excellence.2 The fearsome Bee (Star editor-in-chief Beland Honderich) famously got along with Haroon. Siddiqui started from scratch in Brandon (no halal, no yogurt in 1968), then the Star, rising quickly through the ranks to foreign correspondent, front page editor, editorial page editor, and finally columnist, all the time the only Muslim in mainstream Canadian media.
He and the Star were against Mulroney’s ‘free’ trade pact with the yankee devil, realizing it was only good for fat cats. He has acted as a public spokesman explaining the problems of all immigrants and BIPOC,3 an acronym he promotes. He highlights the racism which feeds on the changing demographics from white to nonwhite, recountiing a Tanzanian immigrant pushed onto Toronto’s subway tracks, crippling him, and the existence of a KKK chapter operating openly in Toronto.
The case of Sikhs is thorny. Sikh Canadians were mostly quietist, but when Sikh separatists were ejected from the Golden Temple by Indira Gandhi in 1984, she was assassinated, and Sikh separatists blew up an Indian Airlines plane full of Hindu Canadians in 1985. This still ranks as Canada’s worst such tragedy, but was downplayed by the Canadian government with the investigation bungled by the RCMP, as anti-Sikh/ Hindu racism grew. And it continues, the latest being a hit job on a (Sikh separatist) Canadian, openly, by India’s militant Hindu nationalist government. Multiculturalism is easily abused and hard to defend.
To their credit, the Sikhs in Canada have bounced back, entering politics (Justin Trudeau boasted more Sikhs in his cabinet than Modi), joining the RCMP, police, army, working hard, being good citizens. The bad apples didn’t spoil the whole barrel, though Sikhs have no use for India, and they really did capture the lackluster leadership convention of the NDP out of nowhere in 2017. The unlikely NDP leader Jagmeet Singh has been earnest, if not inspiring.
How does this multiculturalism pan out? Quebec separatists don’t like immigrants much, as they are not interested in living in a parochial, xenophobic province, and have enough trouble learning passable English, let alone Quebecois. They voted en masse against independence, and the pesky Muslim women want to wear hijab or worse, niqab. Vive la laïcité. Quebec has chosen to copy France’s punitive banning hijab and other restrictions. Still, English and French get along.
Tribalism, French vs English, Sikhs vs Hindus, Buddhists remains strong. That contrasts with Muslims, who quickly drop their ethnic identity for universal Islam and Canadianism (84% cite being Muslim and 81% cite being Canadian as their primary identity),4 as I’ve noticed at Muslim conferences, where a truly united nations reigns. That brings us to Jewish Canadians vs Muslim Canadians, the most tragic stand-off of the past century. Siddiqui doesn’t go to this forbidding territory. On the contrary, (wisely) he has spoken to Bnai Brith and Canadian Jewish Congress gatherings and kept a low profile as a Muslim Canadian. As the sole prominent Muslim journalist here, he was operating in enemy territory, as his encounter with Kaplan confirmed.
Enlightening Canadians on things Islamic
More important, he wrote engagingly about Muslims in Toronto, which hosts the largest Iranian emigre community after the US, mostly in ‘Tehronto’, a mix of pro- and anti-Khomeini, but able to live peacefully, all agreeing that the Canadian government nonrecognition of Iran and boycott is bad politics for everyone. His appreciation for this ‘great civilization’ contrasts with the negative press that Iran uniformly gets here.
Siddiqui realized quickly that Canadian media coverage and commentary ‘smelled of American propaganda’ and the US and allies were inflicting too many horrors on Muslims and Muslims lands. In 1988, the US warship Vincennes shot down an Iranian civilian airliner killing 290, prompting Bush I to boast: I will never apologize for the US. I don’t care what the facts are. Instead, Washington awarded medals to the captain and crew of the Vincennes. Did any other mainstream journalist note this then or now? He refused to blacken Islam after 9/11. Now a columnist he wrote his third post-9/11 column ‘It’s the US foreign policy, stupid,’ causing a storm of letters to the editor, a majority ‘thank you for saying it’.
Ismailis came in 1972, expelled by Idi Amin of Uganda, joined later by Ismailis from Kenya and Tanzania. Self-reliant, educated, entrepreneurial, they inspired the Aga Khan to build a museum of Islamic culture in Toronto in 2014, the only such museum in the West. Ironically it was officially opened by arch-Islamophobe PM Harper. We celebrate today not only the harmonious meeting of green gardens and glass galleries. We rejoice above all in the special spirit which fills this place and gives it its soul. But then, to Islamophobe Harper, Ismailis are Islam-lite, not considered real Muslims by most.
There are two chapters dealing with the ummah: Cultural Warfare on Muslims, and Harper and Muslims (In his ugliness, he was well ahead of Trump – and more effective). Some particularly painful episodes he covered:
*Harper invited (till then terrorist) Modi to Canada in 2014 when first elected, accompanying him to Ottawa, Toronto and Vancouver,
*He established an office of religious freedom, which he unveiled at a Mississauga Coptic church. He announced the position of a new ambassador of religious freedom at the Ahmadiyya mosque in Vaughan, defending Christian and other minorities in Muslim nations, doing nothing for Uighurs, Rohingyas, Shia in Saudi Arabia and Pakistan.
I could go on – I haven’t even got to the Rushdie circus – but I urge all Muslim Canadians, no, all Canadians, to read for yourselves. Siddiqui provides an excellent survey of all the post-9/11 Islamophobic nonsense, especially in Euroland.
The West has discredited democracy by allowing anti-Islam and anti-Muslim discourse to be one of our last acceptable forms of racism and bigotry. It’s in this milieu that Rushdie and the Rushdie affair have thrived. Has Rushdie been exploiting western prejudices or has the West been using him as a shield for its own prejudices? Or is this a case of mutual convenience?
Having rid ourselves of Harper, how quickly we forget the pain when it stops. As it has under Trudeau Jr. For all his silliness and US-Israel fawning, Justin Trudeau is true to his father’s legacy, and undid much of Harper’s bigotry, especially relating to Muslims.
We should be wary of letting the unrepentant Conservatives take back Parliament Hill. However, I don’t think it’s possible to relaunch the Harper take-no-hostages Crusade. 9/11 (whoever did it) is what motivated me and many more to become a Muslim, and October 7 is now rapidly expanding the Muslim ummah, especially in the West, the heart of the beast. The trouble for the Harpers is that the more Islam and Muslims are reviled, the more Muslims (re)turn to their religion. But then that’s the way of imperialism, creating its enemies, stoking them, as Israel did with Hamas, thinking they can then pick off the ‘terrorists’, ‘mow the grass’.
Siddiqui draws from his experience surviving partition in India, adhering to Shaykh Madani’s view that ‘there is too much diversity within Islam for democracy to work, that an Islamic state would inevitably be authoritarian.’ Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Iran are the leading examples. The best protection for peoples of faith was a democratic state that stayed neutral between faiths and advanced mutual respect.5
The Harpers accuse Muslims of being unwilling to integrate. Canada, Britain and the US are shining examples of the opposite.
*In the 2021 federal election 12 Muslims won seats. Two hold senior Cabinet portfolios: Omar Alghabra and Ahmed Hussen.
*In Britain, in 2019, 19 were elected. Sadiq Khan has been mayor of London since 2016.
*Humza Yousaf became first minister in Scotland in 2023, the first Muslim to lead a western nation. When Khan was sworn in as a member of the Privy Council at Bukhingham Palace in 2009, it was discovered there was no Quran in the palace, so he brought his own and left it as a present to the Queen.
*In the US 57 Muslims were elected in 2020. Keith Ellison, the first member of the House was sworn in on a copy of the Quran owned by President Jefferson, who had bought an English translation out of the ‘desire to understand Islam on its own terms.’
*Arab and Muslim entertainers, stand-up comedians, writers, actors, Little Mosque on the Prairie …
*To welcome Syrian refugees arriving in Canada, Ottawa French public schools joined to sing Talaʽ al-Badru ʽAlaynā,6 which went viral on YouTube.
Siddiqui’s openmindedness and lack of prejudice are his not-so-secret weapon, able to find common humanity where western propaganda serves up bile. To no small degree, thanks to Haroon and other new (brown) Canadians, Marshall McLuhan’s global village is a reality at home, the most successful heterogeneous experiment in human history.
ENDNOTES
The post Haroon Siddiqui’s My Name is NOT Harry first appeared on Dissident Voice.This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.
Saying her job at a State Department office that advocates for human rights in the Middle East has become “impossible” as the Biden administration continues to back Israel’s assault on civilians in Gaza, foreign affairs officer Annelle Sheline resigned from her position on Wednesday in protest of President Joe Biden’s policy in the region. Sheline noted in an interview with The Washington Post…
This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.
In his address at the National Press Club last week, Yanis Varoufakis, the former Greek finance minister and renowned economist, took a firm stance on the ongoing crisis in Gaza, shining a spotlight on the Australian government’s weak and often contradictory one-sided position. Varoufakis, whose expertise stretches beyond economics to encompass a broad understanding of global geopolitical dynamics, criticised Australia’s implicit support for Israel’s actions in Gaza, East Jerusalem, and the West Bank, actions he described as deliberate war crimes.
Varoufakis’s poignant words, “children are not starving in Gaza today; they are being deliberately starved,” underscore a grave accusation against Israel’s policies, which is an intentional strategy to subjugate and eventually displace the Palestinian population. By drawing parallels with historical instances of apartheid and the ideological justifications used to erase native populations, such as the doctrine of terra nullius in Australia, Varoufakis not only condemned Israel’s policies but also called out Australia’s complicity in these actions, arguing that Australia’s diplomatic defence of Israel’s actions, uncritically supporting the right to self-defence—for Israel, but not for Palestinians—and its decision to defund the United Nations Relief and Works Agency, the only agency capable of alleviating the humanitarian crisis in Gaza, has tarnished its international reputation. Varoufakis urged Australia to lead a campaign against apartheid in Israel–Palestine, reminiscent of its historical campaign against apartheid in South Africa in the 1980s, to restore equal civil liberties to both Israelis and Palestinians.
The Australian government’s lacklustre response to the crisis in Gaza, suggests that it’s primarily parroting U.S. policies without forging an independent foreign policy stance. The ongoing violence in Gaza, resulting in the deaths of over 32,000 Palestinian people in just five months, has been met with a cowardly silence from Australia, marked by a failure to unequivocally condemn the actions of the Israeli Defense Forces. This stance is a significant stain on the legacy of the Albanese government, raising questions about the moral and ethical lines that must be drawn in international relations and human rights advocacy.
The dialogue surrounding this issue highlights a broader critique of global inaction and the need for a concerted effort to address the root causes of the conflict in Gaza. The lack of a strong, principled stance from countries like Australia not only undermines their moral authority but also implicates them in the ongoing humanitarian disaster. As the international community watches, the call for Australia to revisit its foreign policy priorities and stand on the right side of history grows louder, urging an end to the violence and a move towards lasting peace and equality in the region.
If people such as Varoufakis—and many others in the world community—can be so critical of the actions of Israel, why is it so difficult for political leaders to make the same strident calls? What are the barriers that make Australian leaders such as Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and Foreign Affairs Minister Senator Penny Wong so reluctant to call out the actions of Israel? What are the factors that have made them determine that supporting Palestinians—as well as being on the right side of history—will cause them far greater political and electoral damage, than calling out Israel for obvious war crimes, attempted genocide and ethnic cleansing?
At the heart of Australia’s foreign policy are its strategic and diplomatic alliances, particularly with Western nations. The longstanding military and diplomatic co-operation between Australia and Israel, reinforced by mutual interests in the Middle East, underscores a significant aspect of this relationship. The alliance with Israel aligns Australia with its primary ally, the United States, which exerts considerable influence over Australian foreign policy. This alignment reflects a broader geopolitical strategy, positioning Australia within a network of Western democracies facing shared security concerns.
Domestic politics also play a crucial role in shaping Australia’s stance. The influence of the Jewish community, while numerically small, is notable in political and business circles. This community’s support is seen as vital for political leaders of the Labor and Liberal parties, and there is a palpable fear among politicians of alienating these and other pro-Israel voters. This fear is compounded by the broader Australian public’s perception of Israel some kind of like-minded democracy in a turbulent region, which many politicians are loath to challenge. Whether this notion of democracy is the case or not—Israel currently has an extremist far-right government that doesn’t seem to be representative of the will of the electorate—this is the perception that exists within the Australian community.
The media’s portrayal of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict significantly influences public opinion and, by extension, political stances. Media coverage often sympathetic to Israel’s security dilemmas tends to shape a narrative that discourages overt support for Palestine and Australian leaders, wary of backlash or accusations of not supporting Israel, often find themselves navigating a media landscape that can be hostile to nuanced positions on the conflict.
The conflation of criticism of Israel with anti-Semitism is a significant factor in the Australian political discourse. Politicians are acutely aware of the fine line between legitimate criticism and being perceived as anti-Semitic—maniacally monitored and pushed by groups such as the Zionist Federation of Australia and the Australian Jewish Association—and it’s this fear leads to more cautious public statements that often favour Israel or express neutrality, even when faced with significant evidence of humanitarian crises or disproportionate responses in conflicts like that in Gaza.
And, of course, there is the grand old sentiment of racism in Australia, which has historically had a fear of outsiders and people who are ‘different to us’, and this is an issue that cannot be underplayed.
Australia’s cautious approach to the conflict in Gaza and the broader Israeli–Palestinian conflict reflects a complex interplay of strategic, domestic, ethical, religious, and racial considerations. The challenge for Australia lies in navigating these multifaceted issues while maintaining its strategic interests and upholding its values, necessitating a more assertive and principled stance in foreign policy. Whether or not Australia will rise to this challenge remains to be seen, however, it is evident that many politicians in federal politics—particularly within the Labor government—prioritise their political careers over the lives of the 32,000 individuals who have been lost in Gaza over the past five months.
For most governments, attempted genocide, ethnic cleansing and apartheid would be reasons for political leaders to speak out, irrespective of where it’s occurring in the world, but especially in a case where we can see exactly what is happening and have been constantly outraged by these events. Should Australia cultivate a more autonomous foreign policy direction, distinct from the overarching influence of the United States, so it can discuss more openly—and more accurately—the events that are taking place in Gaza?
The relationship between Australia and the U.S. is undoubtedly deep-rooted, characterised by extensive military, security, and intelligence collaborations. However, this intertwined relationship has sparked debates over the extent of Australia’s foreign policy autonomy, particularly in its current position on Israel and the ongoing situation in Gaza.
The unwavering support of the United States for Israel, epitomised by President Joe Biden’s unequivocal backing—a self-proclaimed Zionist—raises questions about the implications of such alliances for Australian domestic and foreign policy. While the solidarity with Israel may resonate with American political narratives, it simultaneously tests the waters of Australia’s political leadership, challenging the Prime Minister and Foreign Affairs Minister to navigate a complex geopolitical landscape.
Historically, figures such former prime ministers Bob Hawke and Paul Keating have demonstrated that Australian foreign policy can indeed be formulated with a degree of independence, mindful of the country’s unique geographical and strategic interests. Their efforts to differentiate Australian foreign policy from that of its allies, while maintaining amicable relations, offer valuable lessons for the current administration. The proximity of nations like Indonesia, Papua New Guinea, India, and China underscores the strategic imperative for Australia to pursue a foreign policy that not only respects its alliances but also recognises the importance of its immediate neighbourhood.
By positioning itself as a significant middle power within the South-East Asia region—where it geographically belongs—rather than merely acting as a subordinate player to the United States, Australia could assume a more impactful role in international affairs. This shift would not only enhance Australia’s standing but also provide itself with greater moral authority on issues in the Middle East, allowing it to address the death, destruction, and suffering of the Palestinian people more effectively, rather than continually overlooking these grave concerns.
The challenges facing the Foreign Minister are considerable as she endeavours to navigate the intricate landscape of international diplomacy and her goal is to strike a balance between maintaining Australia’s long-standing alliances and advocating for a distinctive and principled stance in foreign policy. At present, it is a balance that is not being achieved. The ongoing debate over Australia’s autonomy in foreign policy, especially highlighted by the Gaza conflict, prompts a wider discussion about the nation’s role on the global stage.
In the evolving narrative surrounding Australia’s position on the Gaza conflict, criticism towards the Foreign Minister and the Labor government has intensified, underscoring a perceived failure to navigate the diplomatic tightrope with the finesse expected of a nation with Australia’s international standing. The delayed decision to restore funding to the UNRWA for humanitarian aid in Gaza, as highlighted by former Foreign Affairs Minister Gareth Evans where he urged the government to “stop sitting on the fence”, epitomises this critique. The eventual reinstatement of aid, while a positive step, has been overshadowed by the protracted hesitation that preceded it, casting a shadow over Australia’s commitment to humanitarian principles.
There have also been incidents where Palestinians in Gaza, having been granted visitor visas to Australia, managed to escape from Gaza into Egypt and board flights to Australia, only to be told mid-flight that their visas had been cancelled, forcing them to return. Although over 2,000 visitor visas have been granted to Palestinians—and more than 2,400 to Israeli citizens—only 400 have actually arrived in Australia. Many have been left stranded due to these mid-flight visa cancellations, a situation influenced by pressure from Israeli lobby groups in Australia and political figures such as the Shadow Home Affairs Minister, Senator James Paterson.
Once again, a lacklustre justification was offered by Minister Clare O’Neil, stating that the government was investigating the manner in which some of these visa holders had exited Gaza “without explanation”—just a guess, but perhaps the daily bombings, genocide, and ethnic cleansing in Gaza could provide some context? This situation underscores the influence of the Israeli lobby and demonstrates the Australian government’s readiness to perpetuate the persecution of Palestinians, extending the suffering initiated by the state of Israel. It’s reminiscent of the ships of Jewish refugees turned back from the ports of the United States during Word War II, under the belief by the U.S. State Department that they could “threaten national security”. Short memories.
The conversation around Australia’s diplomatic language and actions—or the lack of action—regarding the situation in Gaza is marked by a palpable frustration. The government’s rhetoric often resorts to what could be best described as “weasel words,” a diplomatic contortion that fails to adequately address the gravity of the conflict or the disproportionate number of Palestinian casualties.
Amidst these critiques, voices within the Labor government, such as Tony Burke, Ed Husic and Senator Fatima Payman, have been acknowledged for their condemnation of the violence in Gaza—their outspokenness serves as a reminder that strong, principled stances on international human rights issues do not necessarily precipitate political fallout and these example underscores the possibility for the Australian government to adopt a more unequivocal stance in condemning the actions of the Israeli government and advocating for a ceasefire, without fear of reprisal from domestic political opponents or lobby groups. It shouldn’t be necessary to point this out, but surely it’s acceptable for political leaders to condemn genocide, ethnical cleansing, apartheid and the slaughter of over 32,000 Palestinians in Gaza and not be accused of anti-Semitism. Surely.
The discussion around response to the conflict also extends beyond diplomatic and humanitarian concerns, touching on broader issues of identity, morality, and the politics of criticism. The controversy surrounding writer-director Jonathan Glazer’s Oscar speech, wherein he called out the genocide in Gaza—only for him to be accused of anti-Semitism by the Combat Antisemitism Movement and Holocaust Survivors groups—encapsulates the fraught terrain of public discourse on this issue, where even a small and legitimate criticism of the state of Israel and the actions of the Israel Defense Forces—whether it’s a real or perceived criticism—brings on the torrents and waves of abuse and claims of anti-Semitism. What is the meaning of anti-Semitism if every course of debate has the label throw at it?
As Australia navigates its response to the crisis in Gaza, the calls for a more assertive and morally consistent foreign policy grow louder and the aspiration for an Australian foreign policy that aligns with the nation’s values and international human rights standards, while managing diplomatic relationships, presents a challenge. Yet, it is a challenge that Australia must meet if it is to fulfill its potential as a force for good on the world stage, advocating for peace, justice, and the protection of human rights for all, irrespective of political pressures or alliances. The path forward requires courage, clarity, and a recommitment to the principles that should guide international relations in the twenty-first century. We’re not seeing that at the moment.
The post <strong>The great Australian silence in Gaza</strong> appeared first on New Politics.
This post was originally published on New Politics.
Alongside all the heartbreaking tragedies in the Middle East, a radical alternative is under threat in the region. In northeast Syria, not long ago the scene of this century’s most horrible bloodshed, millions of people of different ethnicities are building a stateless, post-capitalist, post-domination society. Since October 2023, the Turkish military has bombed Rojava’s villages…
This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.
There has been much talk of the possibility of a regional war in the Middle East ever since Hamas’s brutal assault on Israel on October 7, 2023, and Israel’s genocidal invasion of Gaza, in the context of a U.S. administration not willing to call for an immediate ceasefire. As an Iranian American socialist feminist activist with ties to activists in Iran, the U.S., Israel and Palestine…
This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.
Israeli airstrike on an apartment building in Rafah, the last refuge in southern Gaza. Photo credit: MENAFN
On February 7, 2024, a U.S. drone strike assassinated an Iraqi militia leader, Abu Baqir al-Saadi, in the heart of Baghdad. This was a further U.S. escalation in a major new front in the U.S.-Israeli war on the Middle East, centered on the Israeli genocide in Gaza, but already also including ethnic cleansing in the West Bank, Israeli attacks on Lebanon and Syria, and the U.S. and U.K.’s bombing of Yemen.
This latest U.S. attack followed the U.S. bombing of seven targets on February 2, three in Iraq and four in Syria, with 125 bombs and missiles, killing at least 39 people, which Iran called “a strategic mistake” that would bring “disastrous consequences” for the Middle East.
At the same time, U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken has been touring the shrinking number of capitals in the region where leaders will still talk to him, playing the United States’ traditional role as a dishonest broker between Israel and its neighbors, in reality partnering with Israel to offer the Palestinians impossible, virtually suicidal terms for a ceasefire in Gaza.
What Israel and the United States have proposed, but not made public, appears to be a second temporary ceasefire, during which prisoners or hostages would be exchanged, possibly leading to the release of all the Israeli security prisoners held in Gaza, but in no way leading to the final end of the genocide. If the Palestinians in fact freed all their Israeli hostages as part of a prisoner swap, it would remove the only obstacle to a catastrophic escalation of the genocide.
When Hamas responded with a serious counter-proposal for a full ceasefire and Israeli withdrawal from Gaza, Biden dismissed it out of hand as “over the top,” and Netanyahu called it “bizarre” and “delusional.”
The position of the United States and Israel today is that ending a massacre that has already killed more than 27,700 people is not a serious option, even after the International Court of Justice has ruled it a plausible case of genocide under the Genocide Convention. Raphael Lemkin, the Polish holocaust survivor who coined the term genocide and drafted the Genocide Convention from his adopted home in New York City, must be turning in his grave in Mount Hebron Cemetery.
The United States’ support for Israel’s genocidal policies now goes way beyond Palestine, with the U.S. expansion of the war to Iraq, Syria and Yemen to punish other countries and forces in the region for intervening to defend or support the Palestinians. U.S. officials claimed the February 2 attacks were intended to stop Iraqi Resistance attacks on U.S. bases. But the leading Iraqi resistance force had already suspended attacks against U.S. targets on January 30th after they killed three U.S. troops, declaring a truce at the urging of the Iranian and Iraqi governments.< A senior Iraqi military officer told BBC Persian that at least one of the Iraqi military units the U.S. bombed on February 2nd had nothing to do with attacks on U.S. bases. Iraqi Prime Minister Mohammed Shia Al-Sudani negotiated an agreement a year ago to clearly differentiate between Popular Mobilization Force (PMF) units that were part of the “Axis of Resistance” fighting a low-grade war with U.S. occupation forces, and other PMF units that were not involved in attacks on U.S. bases.
Tragically, because the U.S. failed to coordinate its attacks with the Iraqi government, al-Sudani’s agreement failed to prevent the U.S. from attacking the wrong Iraqi forces. It is no wonder that some analysts have dubbed al-Sudani’s valiant efforts to prevent all-out war between U.S. forces and the Islamic Resistance in his country as “mission impossible.”
Following the elaborately staged but carelessly misdirected U.S. attacks, Resistance forces in Iraq began launching new strikes on U.S. bases, including a drone attack that killed six Kurdish troops at the largest U.S. base in Syria. So the predictable effect of the U.S. bombing was in fact to rebuff Iran and Iraq’s efforts to rein in resistance forces and to escalate a war that U.S. officials keep claiming they want to deter.
From experienced journalists and analysts to Middle Eastern governments, voices of caution are warning the United States in increasingly stark language of the dangers of its escalating bombing campaigns. “While the war rages in Gaza,” the BBC’s Orla Guerin wrote on February 4, “one false move could set the region alight.”
Three days later, Orla would be surrounded by protesters chanting “America is the greatest devil,” as she reported from the site of the U.S. drone assassination of Kataib Hezbollah leader Abu Baqir al-Saadi in Baghdad – which could prove to be exactly the false move she feared.
But what Americans should be asking their government is this: Why are there still 2,500 U.S. troops in Iraq? It is 21 years since the United States invaded Iraq and plunged the nation into seemingly endless violence, chaos and corruption; 12 years since Iraq forced U.S. occupation forces to withdraw from Iraq at the end of 2011; and 7 years since the defeat of ISIS, which served as justification for the United States to send forces back into Iraq in 2014, and then to obliterate most of Mosul, Iraq’s second largest city, in 2017.
Successive Iraqi governments and parliaments have asked the United States to withdraw its forces from Iraq, and previously scheduled talks are about to begin. But the Iraqis and Americans have issued contradictory statements about the goal of the negotiations. Prime Minister al-Sudani and most Iraqis hope they will bring about the immediate withdrawal of U.S. forces, while U.S. officials insist that U.S. troops may remain for another two to five years, kicking this explosive can further down the road despite the obvious dangers it poses to the lives of U.S. troops and to peace in the region.
Behind these contradictory statements, the real value of Iraqi bases to the U.S. military does not seem to be about ISIS at all but about Iran. Although the United States has more than 40,000 troops stationed in 14 countries across the Middle East, and another 20,000 on warships in the seas surrounding them, the bases it uses in Iraq are its closest bases and airfields to Tehran and much of Iran. If the Pentagon loses these forward operating bases in Iraq, the closest bases from which it can attack Tehran will be Camp Arifjan and five other bases in Kuwait, where 13,500 U.S. troops would be vulnerable to Iranian counter-attacks – unless, of course, the U.S. withdraws them, too.
Toward the end of the Cold War, historian Gabriel Kolko observed in his book Confronting the Third World that the United States’ “endemic incapacity to avoid entangling, costly commitments in areas of the world that are of intrinsically secondary importance to [its] priorities has caused U.S. foreign policy and resources to whipsaw virtually arbitrarily from one problem and region to the other. The result has been the United States’ increasing loss of control over its political priorities, budget, military strategy and tactics, and, ultimately, its original economic goals.”
After the end of the Cold War, instead of restoring realistic goals and priorities, the neocons who gained control of U.S. foreign policy fooled themselves into believing that U.S. military and economic power could finally triumph over the frustratingly diverse social and political evolution of hundreds of countries and cultures all over the world. In addition to wreaking pointless mass destruction on country after country, this has turned the United States into the global enemy of the principles of democracy and self-determination that most Americans believe in.
The horror Americans feel at the plight of people in Gaza and the U.S. role in it is a shocking new low in this disconnect between the humanity of ordinary Americans and the insatiable ambitions of their undemocratic leaders.
While working for an end to the U.S. government’s support for Israel’s oppression of the Palestinian people, Americans should also be working for the long-overdue withdrawal of U.S. occupying forces from Iraq, Syria and elsewhere in the Middle East.
The post US Chooses Genocide Over Diplomacy in the Middle East first appeared on Dissident Voice.This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.
Secretary of State Tony Blinken is on his fifth trip to the Middle East since Hamas attacked Israel on October 7, reportedly pushing for a pause to Israel’s assault on Gaza and for Hamas to release all remaining hostages. Blinken’s trip to Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Israel and the West Bank comes in the wake of U.S. strikes in Syria, Iraq and Yemen against militant groups across the region.
This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.
Warhawks in the United States wasted no time agitating for direct military conflict with Iran after a drone attack on a military base just inside Jordan’s border with Syria on Sunday killed three American troops and injured dozens more. Both Republican and Democratic members of Congress called on U.S. President Joe Biden to quickly respond with strikes inside Iran, which denied any connection to…
This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.
Houthi-affiliated Yemeni coastguard patrols the Red Sea, flying Palestinian and Yemeni flags. [Credit: AFP]
In the topsy-turvy world of corporate media reporting on U.S. foreign policy, we have been led to believe that U.S. air strikes on Yemen, Iraq and Syria are legitimate and responsible efforts to contain the expanding war over Israel’s genocide in Gaza, while the actions of the Houthi government in Yemen, Hezbollah in Lebanon, and Iran and its allies in Iraq and Syria are all dangerous escalations.
In fact, it is U.S. and Israeli actions that are driving the expansion of the war, while Iran and others are genuinely trying to find effective ways to counter and end Israel’s genocide in Gaza while avoiding a full-scale regional war.
We are encouraged by Egypt and Qatar’s efforts to mediate a ceasefire and the release of hostages and prisoners-of-war by both sides. But it is important to recognize who are the aggressors, who are the victims, and how regional actors are taking incremental but increasingly forceful action to respond to genocide.
A near-total Israeli communications blackout in Gaza has reduced the flow of images of the ongoing massacre on our TVs and computer screens, but the slaughter has not abated. Israel is bombing and attacking Khan Younis, the largest city in the southern Gaza Strip, as ruthlessly as it did Gaza City in the north. Israeli forces and U.S. weapons have killed an average of 240 Gazans per day for more than three months, and 70% of the dead are still women and children.
Israel has repeatedly claimed it is taking new steps to protect civilians, but that is only a public relations exercise. The Israeli government is still using 2,000 pound and even 5,000 pound “bunker-buster” bombs to dehouse the people of Gaza and herd them toward the Egyptian border, while it debates how to push the survivors over the border into exile, which it euphemistically refers to as “voluntary emigration.”
People throughout the Middle East are horrified by Israel’s slaughter and plans for the ethnic cleansing of Gaza, but most of their governments will only condemn Israel verbally. The Houthi government in Yemen is different. Unable to directly send forces to fight for Gaza, they began enforcing a blockade of the Red Sea against Israeli-owned ships and other ships carrying goods to or from Israel. Since mid-November 2023, the Houthis have conducted about 30 attacks on international vessels transiting the Red Sea and Gulf of Aden but none of the attacks have caused casualties or sunk any ships.
In response, the Biden administration, without Congressional approval, has launched at least six rounds of bombing, including airstrikes on Sanaa, the capital of Yemen. The United Kingdom has contributed a few warplanes, while Australia, Canada, Holland and Bahrain also act as cheerleaders to provide the U.S. with the cover of leading an “international coalition.”
President Biden has admitted that U.S. bombing will not force Yemen to lift its blockade, but he insists that the U.S. will keep attacking it anyway. Saudi Arabia dropped 70,000 mostly American (and some British) bombs on Yemen in a 7-year war, but utterly failed to defeat the Houthi government and armed forces.
Yemenis naturally identify with the plight of the Palestinians in Gaza, and a million Yemenis took to the street to support their country’s position challenging Israel and the United States. Yemen is no Iranian puppet, but as with Hamas, Hezbollah, and Iran’s Iraqi and Syrian allies, Iran has trained the Yemenis to build and deploy increasingly powerful anti-ship, cruise and ballistic missiles.
The Houthis have made it clear that they will stop the attacks once Israel stops its slaughter in Gaza. It beggars belief that instead of pressing for a ceasefire in Gaza, Biden and his clueless advisers are instead choosing to deepen U.S. military involvement in a regional Middle East conflict.
The United States and Israel have now conducted airstrikes on the capitals of four neighboring countries: Lebanon, Iraq, Syria and Yemen. Iran also suspects U.S. and Israeli spy agencies of a role in two bomb explosions in Kerman in Iran, which killed about 90 people and wounded hundreds more at a commemoration of the fourth anniversary of the U.S. assassination of Iranian General Qasem Soleimani in January 2020.
On January 20, an Israeli bombing killed 10 people in Damascus, including 5 Iranian officials. After repeated Israeli airstrikes on Syria, Russia has now deployed warplanes to patrol the border to deter Israeli attacks, and has reoccupied two previously vacated outposts built to monitor violations of the demilitarized zone between Syria and the Israeli-occupied Golan Heights.
Iran has responded to the terrorist bombings in Kerman and Israeli assassinations of Iranian officials with missile strikes on targets in Iraq, Syria and Pakistan. Iranian Foreign Minister Amir-Abdohallian has strongly defended Iran’s claim that the strikes on Erbil in Iraqi Kurdistan targeted agents of Israel’s Mossad spy agency.
Eleven Iranian ballistic missiles destroyed an Iraqi Kurdish intelligence facility and the home of a senior intelligence officer, and also killed a wealthy real estate developer and businessman, Peshraw Dizayee, who had been accused of working for the Mossad, as well as of smuggling Iraqi oil from Kurdistan to Israel via Turkey.
The targets of Iran’s missile strikes in northwest Syria were the headquarters of two separate ISIS-linked groups in Idlib province. The strikes precisely hit both buildings and demolished them, at a range of 800 miles, using Iran’s newest ballistic missiles called Kheybar Shakan or Castle Blasters, a name that equates today’s U.S. bases in the Middle East with the 12th and 13th century European crusader castles whose ruins still dot the landscape.
Iran launched its missiles, not from north-west Iran, which would have been closer to Idlib, but from Khuzestan province in south-west Iran, which is closer to Tel Aviv than to Idlib. So these missile strikes were clearly intended as a warning to Israel and the United States that Iran can conduct precise attacks on Israel and U.S. “crusader castles” in the Middle East if they continue their aggression against Palestine, Iran and their allies.
At the same time, the U.S. has escalated its tit-for-tat airstrikes against Iranian-backed Iraqi militias. The Iraqi government has consistently protested U.S. airstrikes against the militias as violations of Iraqi sovereignty. Prime Minister Sudani’s military spokesman called the latest U.S. airstrikes “acts of aggression,” and said, “This unacceptable act undermines years of cooperation… at a time when the region is already grappling with the danger of expanding conflict, the repercussions of the aggression on Gaza.”
After its fiascos in Afghanistan and Iraq killed thousands of U.S. troops, the United States has avoided large numbers of U.S. military casualties for ten years. The last time the U.S. lost more than a hundred troops killed in action in a year was in 2013, when 128 Americans were killed in Afghanistan.
Since then, the United States has relied on bombing and proxy forces to fight its wars. The only lesson U.S. leaders seem to have learned from their lost wars is to avoid putting U.S. “boots on the ground.” The U.S. dropped over 120,000 bombs and missiles on Iraq and Syria in its war on ISIS, while Iraqis, Syrians and Kurds did all the hard fighting on the ground.
In Ukraine, the U.S. and its allies found a willing proxy to fight Russia. But after two years of war, Ukrainian casualties have become unsustainable and new recruits are hard to find. The Ukrainian parliament has rejected a bill to authorize forced conscription, and no amount of U.S. weapons can persuade more Ukrainians to sacrifice their lives for a Ukrainian nationalism that treats large numbers of them, especially Russian speakers, as second class citizens.
Now, in Gaza, Yemen and Iraq, the United States has waded into what it hoped would be another “US-casualty-free” war. Instead, the U.S.-Israeli genocide in Gaza is unleashing a crisis that is spinning out of control across the region and may soon directly involve U.S. troops in combat. This will shatter the illusion of peace Americans have lived in for the last ten years of U.S. bombing and proxy wars, and bring the reality of U.S. militarism and warmaking home with a vengeance.
Biden can continue to give Israel carte-blanche to wipe out the people of Gaza, and watch as the region becomes further engulfed in flames, or he can listen to his own campaign staff, who warn that it’s a “moral and electoral imperative” to insist on a ceasefire. The choice could not be more stark.
The post Biden Must Choose between a Ceasefire in Gaza and a Regional War first appeared on Dissident Voice.This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.
New Zealand’s defence minister has defended a decision to send six NZ Defence Force staff to the Middle East to help “take out” Houthis fighters as they are “essentially holding the world to ransom”.
On Tuesday, Prime Minister Christopher Luxon, Foreign Minister Winston Peters and Defence Minister Judith Collins confirmed the plan at the first Cabinet meeting for the year.
The deployment, which could run until the end of July, will support the military efforts led by the United States to protect commercial and merchant vessels.
No NZ military staff would be entering Yemen.
The Houthis attacks are disrupting supply lines, and forcing ships to voyage thousands of kilometres further around Africa in protest against the Israeli war on Gaza.
But opposition parties have condemned the government’s plan, saying it had “shades of Iraq”.
‘Firmly on side of Western backers of Israel’
A security analyst also said the US-requested deployment could be interpreted as New Zealand “planting its flag firmly on the side of the Western backers of Israel”.
Speaking to RNZ Morning Report, Defence Minister Judith Collins denied it showed New Zealand being in support of Israel over the war on Gaza.
She said it was a “very difficult situation”, but not what the deployment was about.
“It’s about the ability to get our goods to market . . . we’re talking about unarmed merchant vessels moving through the Red Sea no longer able to do so without being attacked.”
Collins said New Zealand had been involved in the Middle East for a “very long time” and it needed to assist where possible to remain a good international partner and to make sure military targets were “taken out”.
Houthis had been given a number of serious warnings, Collins said, and its actions were “outrageous”.
“They are essentially holding the world to ransom.”
NZ would not allow ‘pirates’
New Zealand was part of the world community and would not stand by and allow “pirates to take over our ships or anyone’s ships”.
Collins said she was not expecting there to be any extension or expansion of the deployment which would end on July 31.
Iran-backed Houthi rebels have been attacking ships in the Red Sea, which they say are linked to Israel, since the start of the Israel-Gaza conflict. In response, US and British forces have been carrying out strikes at different locations in Yemen, with support from Australia, Bahrain, Canada and the Netherlands, according to a joint statement signed by the six countries.
The opposition Labour Party is condemning the coalition government’s deployment of Defence Force troops to the Middle East, saying it has “shades of Iraq”.
Labour foreign affairs spokesperson David Parker made clear his party’s opposition to the deployment.
“We don’t think we should become embroiled in that conflict . . . which is part of a longer term civil war in Yemen and we think that New Zealand should stay out of this, there’s no UN resolution in favour of it . . . we don’t think we should get involved in a conflict in the Middle East.”
‘Deeply disturbing’, say Greens
The Green Party’s co-leaders have also expressed their unhappiness with the deployment, describing it as “deeply disturbing”.
In a statement, Marama Davidson and James Shaw said they were “horrified at this government’s decision to further inflame tensions in the Middle East”.
“The international community has an obligation to protect peace and human rights. Right now, what we are witnessing in the Middle East is a regional power play between different state and non-state groups. This decision is only likely to inflame tensions.”
Davidson and Shaw indicated they would call for an urgent debate on the deployment when Parliament resumes next week.
This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.
“How dare we have a conversation about trade when there are children right now being treated without anaesthetic?”
British journalist Myriam Francois on the Houthis blockade of shipments in the Red sea amid Israel’s war on Gaza. pic.twitter.com/Yg9RV2ek4p
— Al Jazeera English (@AJEnglish) January 24, 2024
This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.
When my husband and I were flying to Beirut, Lebanon to co-edit the English-language Daily Star, we noticed our tickets were paid by ARAMCO (since 1988, “Saudi Aramco,” then one of the world’s largest American oil companies. That was a factor the publisher somehow neglected to explain, along with the pro-West bias of this influential and major Arabic newspaper chain. Not long after, we took a bomb in the lobby that shook the building, but no one was killed.
Having then just departed from two years in Tulsa—he on the World, me, as a journalism professor—we were well aware of oil’s power and domination over Oklahoma, let alone the world. Because neither industries nor the military could last without oil—even before WWII—Allies and Axis nations then fought to seize and/or control the flow from Iran (650 billion barrels ) and pander for the rest from oil-rich Arab countries.
Today’s Department of Defense (DOD) requires at least an estimated annual 4.6 billion gallons of fuel to cover its global military reach. Small wonder decades of Administrations and lawmakers have been unwilling, or downright frightened, to end the U.S. military’s dependence on the availability and prices of Mideast oil.
So from 2001 to at least 2019, wars in the Mideast and Asia have cost American taxpayers an estimated $6.4 trillion , not to mention millions of dead and wounded, environmental destruction, and millions from the Mideast seeking refuge in Europe. Not to count millions spent by the ferocious joint response of American oil producers and military contractors and their legendary use of election donations to influence both Congress and presidents. Add advertising “buys” to the mainstream-media—all vested interests as usual defending American (business) interests abroad.
Wars to Seize, Control Oil Supplies
The Pentagon’s insatiable fuel demands explain why the Bush Administration almost too quickly used 9/11 as an excuse to invade and occupy Iraq. The real motive was more to “secure” its oil fields and production than to overthrow Saddam Hussain and destroy his nonexistent weapons-of-mass-destruction. It also explains why Iran—with its vast oil reserves—has been sanctioned as a U.S. enemy and is constantly under presidential and Pentagon threats ultimately to seize them as well.
As for Syria, the Pentagon has supported the Kurds’ separation of northern Syria to “help” protect its oil fields supposedly against possible reappearance of ISIS (the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria). That rationale has meant taxpayers unknowingly have spent millions to support 10 U.S. bases (900 troops in Syria, 2,500 in Iraq ). They’ve only become aware of that factor because of recent rocket and drone attacks: 32 times in Iraq, 34 in Syria (70 casualties ) from anti-US militants allegedly supported by Iran.
The response seemingly has been a shocked “Why are our kids still there?”—and sitting ducks for local target practice. The official reason for U.S. bases in Iraq and Syria was the “enduring defeat” of ISIS . But that occurred five years ago. Those recent attacks resulted in three U.S. retaliatory air strikes killing eight Iraqis, and an outraged Iraqi government (“…a clear violation of the coalition’s mission to combat [ISIS] on Iraqi soil”).
The bigger question now being raised, however, is whether the Administration and Pentagon even have a need for Mideast oil. This despite President Biden’s recent decision to permit $582 millions in weapon sales to ingratiate this country once again to Saudi Arabia despite unneeded oil.
Or teaming earlier this month with Britain to use a blunderbuss against the Houthi “mosquito” guerillas attacking Red Sea shipping: Two massive retaliatory bombings by air and submarine of more than 28 mostly “militant” targets along Yemen’s mountainous coast —and warnings of more to come if the Houthis don’t stop. Never did the Biden Administration consider demanding shippers equip vessels with weapons and hiring “shot-gun” crews for protection. Nor are taxpayers likely to learn the raids’ cost from the Pentagon.
In today’s global uproar for a Gaza cease-fire, at least it’s now unlikely the Pentagon’s Joint Chiefs or Biden will put American boots on the ground for Israel. They appear to be keeping their powder dry for the “pivot” to Asia, particularly China which will require massive shifts of personnel and war materiel from the Mideast. But quick exits from Vietnam and Afghanistan have demonstrated the Pentagon’s prowess in rapid-transfer logistics on short notice.
U.S. Is Now Top Global Producer of Oil and Natural Gas
The point is that the U.S. really is no longer dependent on Mideast oil. New drilling techniques such as fracking have made it possible to produce enough oil and gas domestically, as well as importing it abroad.
Millions of Americans probably are unaware that since 2014 the U.S. has become the world’s “top oil and natural gas liquids” producer (2022: 19.1 million barrels per day). It even leads Saudi Arabia and Russia.
To arrive at this point took Biden’s betrayal of millions of environmentally conscious voters of his March 2020 campaign promise (“No more drilling on federal lands. No more drilling, including offshore. No ability for the oil industry to continue to drill, period, ends.”). What followed has been his steady approval of 6,430 new permits for oil/gas drilling on public lands. He also revealed that 9,000 permits previously issued to companies have yet to be used.
Four key signals have been afoot for months that U.S. decision-makers are planning a Mideast exit after Israel has “cleared” Gaza of Palestinians. The Yemen bombings may be the last hurrah of U.S. meddling in the Mideast. Such an historic, earthshaking shift of policy and subsequent monumental move could be immediately ahead—possibly before the presidential election.
Another telling exit signal is new resistance by American taxpayers to the Armed Services budget (FY24: $841.1 billion ) and endless wars, just demonstrated by Congressional Republicans opposed to Ukraine spending in FY2024 and/or the Pentagon’s never-ending budgetary increases. Or hiding expenses by its sixth audit failure . Among the expenses revealed by the Pentagon’s inspector-general’s report to Congress was failure to track more than $1 billion of “highly sensitive and sophisticated equipment and weaponry” to Ukraine.
Too, the Yemen attack without the Constitutional requirement of notifying Congress first brought dozens of lawmakers to the Capitol steps to object, echoing Rep. Cori Bush’s online protest of: “The people do not want more of our taxpayer dollars going to endless wars and the killing of civilians. Stop the bombing and do better by us.”
The Pentagon seems impervious even to possible budget cuts from Congress, illustrated by its latest cliffhanging decision over its allocation and future supplemental appropriations. And with good reason. The House did pass the initial FY 2024 bill by a whisker (218-210 ), then, a reassured temporary resolution (395-95 ). The Senate soon followed (87-11 ). Even in the Yemen attack, Pentagon officials’ influence over Biden is such that his knowing the nation’s overwhelming mood opposes any more Mideast wars, he failed to go immediately on TV to explain this massive action.
A third signal of a U.S. departure is Saudi Arabia’s replacement effort by seeking new oil customers in Africa and Asia. No fools about the loss of a major customer, its visionary decision makers have been have been working on an Oil Demand Sustainability Program to:
“…promote oil-based power generation, deploy petrol and diesel vehicles… work with a global auto manufacturer to make a cheap car, lobby against government subsidies for electric vehicles, and fast-track commercial supersonic air travel.”
Influential Media Calls for a Mideast Departure
A fourth indication of a U.S. pullout is that increasing recommendation by influential publications seemingly based on clues perceived from the Biden Administration and Pentagon.
For example, a November op-ed in Foreign Affairs strongly suggests the Administration needs a course correction in the Mideast, a rapid withdrawal of the Armed Forces to let the locals handle their affairs.
Jason Brownlee , in the Quincy Institute’s Responsible Statecraft newsletter, claims the Administration’s “prolonged… deployment” in the Mideast has been “driven by policy inertia more than strategic necessity.” The White House: “should scrap, not reinforce, America’s outdated and unnecessarily provocative troop presence in Syria and Iraq.” His firsthand observations of Taliban rule since the 2021 Afghanistan withdrawal, he wrote, showed the country finally had “internal stability” because political violence “plummeted by 80%” in the first year.
Military expert William D. Hartung added that fears of other great powers filling a withdrawal vacuum were “overblown.” That:
A more restrained strategy would provide better defense per dollar spent while reducing the risk of being drawn into devastating and unnecessary wars. The outlines of such an approach should include taking a more realistic view of the military challenges posed by Russia and China; relying on allies to do more in defense of their own regions; [and]… paring back the U.S. overseas military presence, starting with a reduction in basing and troop levels in the Middle East.
In the face-off against the monumental challenge of an uninhabitable planet, TIME magazine’s Alejandro de la Garza noted even two years ago that:
…the military cannot maintain its globe spanning presence and become carbon neutral at the same time. A sustainable military will have to be smaller, with fewer bases, fewer troops to feed and clothe, and fewer ships and airplanes ferrying supplies to personnel from Guam to Germany.
Leaving the Mideast carries the benefit of loosening the rigid thinking Pentagon leaders fixed on plotting wars to secure Arab and Iranian oil. Shifting plans for the Pacific Rim—North Korea and China—just might transform the Armed Forces into being smaller, fewer, and better. Especially removing our troops as moving targets in Iraq and Syria when we no longer need its oil, nor Iran’s. Trading and diplomatic policies could then lead the way instead of expending any more blood and taxpayers’ treasure on that region of the world.
The post Does the U.S. Really Need Mideast Oil—or the Mideast—Anymore? first appeared on Dissident Voice.This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.
Asia Pacific Report
A group of foreign policy critics alarmed at the Aotearoa New Zealand government’s “undemocratic decision” to step up support for US-led strikes against Yemen have warned against “inflaming” the Red Sea maritime crisis.
They have urgently called for an immediate and permanent ceasefire in Gaza as they say the Israeli war that has killed more than 25,000 Palestinians is the root cause of the crisis.
The foreign policy group, Te Kuaka, said in a statement that the government’s decision to deploy a six-member NZ Defence Force team to the Middle East was “deeply alarming”.
The government announcement came this afternoon at a post-Cabinet media conference.
Group co-director Dr Arama Rata said: “New Zealand’s involvement in the Red Sea will just inflame regional instability and cause more civilian deaths without addressing the root cause of the Houthi actions, which is ending the genocide in Gaza.”
Dr Rata said it was deeply alarming that this decision was made without a Parliamentary mandate, particularly given the incredibly high stakes of the crisis.
“There has been no explicit authorisation of military action in self defence against Yemen by the UN Security Council either,” she said.
‘Frightening precedent’
“This sets a frightening precedent for how foreign policy decisions are made.
“There are huge risks to not just the Middle East, but New Zealand directly, when we take the side of the US and the UK, nations that have a long history of oppressive intervention in the Global South.”
Co-director Dr Marco de Jong said: “We know that public opinion and a Parliamentary mandate would have swayed any foreign policy decisions in the direction of calling for an immediate and permanent ceasefire in Gaza.
“Public polls and weekly protests for Palestine, since October 7, have shown this to be the case.”
Thousands took to Queen Street in the heart of Auckland for the 15th consecutive week to protest over the war and to call for a ceasefire and an end to genocide. One of the Palestinian speakers addressing the crowd reminded them millions of citizen protesters were demonstrating all over the world.
The protesters condemned Prime Minister Christopher Luxon and Foreign Affairs Minister Winston Peters for failing to call for an immediate and permanent ceasefire in Gaza.
At today’s, post-cabinet media conference Luxon claimed the Houthi attacks were hurting New Zealand exporters.
Global trade
“Nearly 15 percent of global trade goes through the Red Sea, and the Houthi attacks are driving costs higher for New Zealanders and causing delays to shipments,” Luxon said.
However, Dr de Jong said: “By pre-empting these criticisms [such as by critics and protesters] in its own announcement, the government is wrongly suggesting that our intervention in the Middle East will not be viewed in the context of genocide in Gaza and highlighting NZ’s previous involvement in US-led misadventures — which have been similarly deadly and destructive.”
Dr Rata added: “We need to have an honest reflection about our positioning alongside the US and the UK.
“Instead of colluding with these colonial powers, we should be standing with countries like Brazil and South Africa, which are challenging old colonial regimes, and represent the majority of the international community.”
This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.
The Biden administration is reportedly planning for a “sustained” assault on Yemen after a barrage of U.S. airstrikes in recent days failed to halt Houthi attacks on commercial shipping vessels in the Red Sea. The Washington Post reported over the weekend that the White House “convened senior officials on Wednesday to discuss options for the way ahead” in Yemen, which has endured years of deadly U.
This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.
In a stark statement, President Joe Biden has admitted that the widely decried U.S. bombing campaign in Yemen isn’t actually having an effect on the Houthi blockade — but vowed to continue the bombings anyway. Outside of the White House on Thursday, a reporter asked Biden if the airstrikes in Yemen have been “working.” “Well, when you say ‘working,’ are they stopping the Houthis? No.
This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.
Military actions by various actors across the Middle East are compounding fears that Israel’s assault on Gaza is escalating into a full-blown regional war. In recent days, the United States has carried out strikes against Houthi rebels in Yemen who have resumed their attacks on container ships in the Red Sea; Iran has struck targets in northern Iraq, Syria and Pakistan; while Hezbollah and Israel…
This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.
COMMENTARY: By Caitlin Johnstone
The US has carried out another air raid on Yemen, with targets reportedly including the international airport in the capital city of Sanaa. This comes a day after US and UK airstrikes on Yemen in retaliation for Houthi attacks on Red Sea commercial vessels.
For weeks Yemen’s Houthi forces have been greatly inconveniencing commercial shipping with their blockade, with reports last month saying Israel’s Eilat Port has seen an 85 percent drop in activity since the attacks began.
This entirely bloodless inconvenience was all it took for Washington to attack Yemen, the war-ravaged nation in which the US and its allies have spent recent years helping Saudi Arabia murder hundreds of thousands of people with its own maritime blockades.
Yemen has issued defiant statements in response to these attacks, saying they will not go “unanswered or unpunished”.
The U.S. can have a multi-decade long blockade on Cuba and it’s normalized.
Israel can have a decade and a half long total air, land, and sea blockade on Gaza and it’s normalized.
But Yemenis block some ships to stop a genocide and all the sudden it’s indefensible.
— James Ray
(@GoodVibePolitik) January 13, 2024
The Biden administration’s dramatic escalation toward yet another horrific war in the Middle East has been hotly criticised by lawmakers on both sides of the aisle, who argue that the attacks were illicit because they took place without congressional approval.
This impotent congressional whining will never go anywhere, since, as Glenn Greenwald has observed, the US Congress never actually does anything to hold presidents to account for carrying out acts of war without their approval.
But there are some worthwhile ideas going around.
After the second round of strikes, a Democratic representative from Georgia named Hank Johnson tweeted the following:
“I have what some may consider a dumb idea, but here it is: stop the bombing of Gaza, then the attacks on commercial shipping will end. Why not try that approach?”
By golly, that’s just crazy enough to work. In fact, anti-interventionists have been screaming it at the top of their lungs since the standoff with Yemen began.
All the way back in mid-October Responsible Statecraft’s Trita Parsi was already writing urgently about the need for a ceasefire in Gaza to prevent it from exploding into a wider war in the region, a position Parsi has continued pushing ever since.
“Huge Miscalculation”: Biden’s Refusal to Push for Gaza Ceasefire Could Drag U.S. into Middle East War https://t.co/eJuzswi2BJ
— Democracy Now! (@democracynow) January 8, 2024
As we discussed previously, Israel’s US-backed assault on Gaza is threatening to bleed over into conflicts with the Houthis in Yemen, with Hezbollah in Lebanon, with Iran-aligned militias in Iraq and Syria, and even potentially with Iran itself – any of which could easily see the US and its allies committing themselves to a full-scale war.
Peace in Gaza takes these completely unnecessary gambles off the table.
And it is absolutely within Washington’s power to force a ceasefire in Gaza. Biden could end all this with one phone call, as US presidents have done in the past. As Parsi wrote for The Nation earlier this month:
“In 1982, President Ronald Reagan was ‘disgusted’ by Israeli bombardment of Lebanon. He stopped the transfer of cluster munitions to Israel and told Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin in a phone call that ‘this is a holocaust.’ Reagan demanded that Israel withdraw its troops from Lebanon. Begin caved. Twenty minutes after their phone call, Begin ordered a halt on attacks.
“Indeed, it is absurd to claim that Biden has no leverage, particularly given the massive amounts of arms he has shipped to Israel. In fact, Israeli officials openly admit it. ‘All of our missiles, the ammunition, the precision-guided bombs, all the airplanes and bombs, it’s all from the US,’ retired Israeli Maj. Gen. Yitzhak Brick conceded in November of last year. ‘The minute they turn off the tap, you can’t keep fighting. You have no capability.… Everyone understands that we can’t fight this war without the United States. Period.’ ”
In the end, you get peace by pursuing peace. That’s how it happens. You don’t get it by pursuing impossible imaginary ideals like the total elimination of Hamas while butchering tens of thousands of innocent Palestinians.
You don’t get it by trying to bludgeon the Middle East into passively accepting an active genocide. You get it by negotiation, de-escalation, diplomacy and detente.
The path to peace is right there. The door’s not locked. It’s not even closed. The fact that they don’t take it tells you what these imperialist bastards are really interested in.
Caitlin Johnstone is an Australian independent journalist and poet. Her articles include The UN Torture Report On Assange Is An Indictment Of Our Entire Society. She publishes a website and Caitlin’s Newsletter. This article is republished with permission.
This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.
The United States and Britain launched dozens of military strikes on Yemen on Thursday, raising fears of an escalation of conflict in the region. The strikes, launched in response to Houthi attacks on ships in the Red Sea that have disrupted global trade, left at least five people dead. The Houthi movement began targeting ships in November “essentially using a naval blockade in the Red Sea to…
This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.
The United States and Britain launched dozens of military strikes on Yemen on Thursday, raising fears of an escalation of conflict in the region. The strikes, launched in response to Houthi attacks on ships in the Red Sea that have disrupted global trade, left at least five people dead. The Houthi movement began targeting ships in November “essentially using a naval blockade in the Red Sea to…
This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.
The International Court of Justice. Photo credit: ICJ
On January 11th, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in The Hague is holding its first hearing in South Africa’s case against Israel under the Genocide Convention. The first provisional measure South Africa has asked of the court is to order an immediate end to this carnage, which has already killed more than 23,000 people, most of them women and children. Israel is trying to bomb Gaza into oblivion and scatter the terrorized survivors across the Earth, meeting the Convention’s definition of genocide to the letter.
Since countries engaged in genocide do not publicly declare their real goal, the greatest legal hurdle for any genocide prosecution is to prove the intention of genocide. But in the extraordinary case of Israel, whose cult of biblically ordained entitlement is backed to the hilt by unconditional U.S. complicity, its leaders have been uniquely brazen about their goal of destroying Gaza as a haven of Palestinian life, culture and resistance.
South Africa’s 84-page application to the ICJ includes ten pages (starting on page 59) of statements by Israeli civilian and military officials that document their genocidal intentions in Gaza. They include statements by Prime Minister Netanyahu, President Herzog, Defense Minister Gallant, five other cabinet ministers, senior military officers and members of parliament. Reading these statements, it is hard to see how a fair and impartial court could fail to recognize the genocidal intent behind the death and devastation Israeli forces and American weapons are wreaking in Gaza.
The Israeli magazine +972 talked to seven current and former Israeli intelligence officials involved in previous assaults on Gaza. They explained the systematic nature of Israel’s targeting practices and how the range of civilian infrastructure that Israel is targeting has been vastly expanded in the current onslaught. In particular, it has expanded the bombing of civilian infrastructure, or what it euphemistically defines as “power targets,” which have comprised half of its targets from the outset of this war.
Israel’s “power targets” in Gaza include public buildings like hospitals, schools, banks, government offices, and high-rise apartment blocks. The public pretext for destroying Gaza’s civilian infrastructure is that civilians will blame Hamas for its destruction, and that this will undermine its civilian base of support. This kind of brutal logic has been proved wrong in U.S.-backed conflicts all over the world. In Gaza, it is no more than a grotesque fantasy. The Palestinians understand perfectly well who is bombing them – and who is supplying the bombs.
Intelligence officials told +972 that Israel maintains extensive occupancy figures for every building in Gaza, and has precise estimates of how many civilians will be killed in each building it bombs. While Israeli and U.S. officials publicly disparage Palestinian casualty figures, intelligence sources told +972 that the Palestinian death counts are remarkably consistent with Israel’s own estimates of how many civilians it is killing. To make matters worse, Israel has started using artificial intelligence to generate targets with minimal human scrutiny, and is doing so faster than its forces can bomb them.
Israeli officials claim that each of the high-rise apartment buildings it bombs contains some kind of Hamas presence, but an intelligence official explained, “Hamas is everywhere in Gaza; there is no building that does not have something of Hamas in it, so if you want to find a way to turn a high-rise into a target, you will be able to do so.” As Yuval Abraham of +972 summarized, “The sources understood, some explicitly and some implicitly, that damage to civilians is the real purpose of these attacks.”
Two days after South Africa submitted its Genocide Convention application to the ICJ, Israeli Finance Minister Smotrich declared on New Year’s Eve that Israel should substantially empty the Gaza Strip of Palestinians and bring in Israeli settlers. “If we act in a strategically correct way and encourage emigration,” Smotrich said, “if there are 100,000 or 200,000 Arabs in Gaza, and not two million, the whole discourse on “the day after” will be completely different.”
When reporters confronted U.S. State Department spokesman Matt Miller about Smotrich’s statement, and similar ones by National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir, Miller replied that Prime Minister Netanyahu and other Israeli officials have reassured the United States that those statements don’t reflect Israeli government policy.
But Smotrich and Ben-Gvir’s statements followed a meeting of Likud Party leaders on Christmas Day where Netanyahu himself said that his plan was to continue the massacre until the people of Gaza have no choice but to leave or to die. “Regarding voluntary emigration, I have no problem with that,” he told former Israeli UN Ambassador Danny Danon. “Our problem is not allowing the exit, but a lack of countries that are ready to take Palestinians in. And we are working on it. This is the direction we are going in.”
We should have learned from America’s lost wars that mass murder and ethnic cleansing rarely lead to political victory or success. More often they only feed deep resentment and desires for justice or revenge that make peace more elusive and conflict endemic.
Although most of the martyrs in Gaza are women and children, Israel and the United States politically justify the massacre as a campaign to destroy Hamas by killing its senior leaders. Andrew Cockburn described in his book Kill Chain: the Rise of the High-Tech Assassins how, in 200 cases studied by U.S. military intelligence, the U.S. campaign to assassinate Iraqi resistance leaders in 2007 led in every single case to increased attacks on U.S. occupation forces. Every resistance leader they killed was replaced within 48 hours, invariably by new, more aggressive leaders determined to prove themselves by killing even more U.S. troops.
But that is just another unlearned lesson, as Israel and the United States kill Islamic Resistance leaders in Gaza, the West Bank, Lebanon, Iraq, Yemen and Iran, risking a regional war and leaving themselves more isolated than ever.
If the ICJ issues a provisional order for a ceasefire in Gaza, humanity must seize the moment to insist that Israel and the United States must finally end this genocide and accept that the rule of international law applies to all nations, including themselves.
The post A Chance to Hold Israel and the US to Account for Genocide first appeared on Dissident Voice.This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.
The role of the US State Department regarding Israel’s continued obliteration of Gaza is becoming increasingly clear. As the actions of the Israeli Defence Forces continue, the Secretary of State, Anthony Blinken, is full of meaningless statements about restraint and control, the protection of civilians, the imperatives of humanitarianism in war. As the war continues, so do those statements.
As the new year began, an official from the White House expressed satisfaction at what appeared “to be the start of the gradual shift to lower-intensity operations in the north that we have been encouraging”. But the revised Israeli approach did not “reflect any changes in the south”. The monstrous death toll, in short, would continue to rise.
As Washington feigns a reproachful attitude to the IDF’s grossly lethal tactics, claiming success in restraining them, another, failing front is also being pursued in the Arab world and beyond. As Israel’s great defender, the US is attempting to hold back fury and consternation as the dirty deeds by their favourite ally in the Middle East are being executed.
Blinken’s latest round of travelling has the flavour of swinging by tetchy neighbours to see how they are faring in the sea of blood and acrimony. The itinerary includes Istanbul, Crete, Amman, Doha, Abu Dhabi, Al-’Ula, Tel Aviv, the West Bank, Manama and Cairo. The State Department’s media release on January 4 outlines the obsolete agenda any sensible diplomat would do best to discard. “Throughout his trip, the Secretary will underscore the importance of protecting civilian lives in Israel and the West Bank and Gaza; securing the release of all remaining hostages; our shared commitment to facilitating the increased, sustained delivery of life-saving humanitarian assistance to civilians in Gaza and the resumption of essential services; and ensuring that Palestinians are not forcibly displaced in Gaza.”
So far, Palestinians are being massacred by the IDF in Gaza, forcibly deprived of life-saving humanitarian assistance and essential services in a sustained act of strangulation while being forcibly displaced. They are being oppressed, harassed and murdered by vigilante Israeli settlers in the West Bank, even as the army looks the other way.
It follows that Blinken is telling tall stories and hoping that legs carry them far. They are also being told as proceedings before the International Court of Justice instituted by South Africa commence to determine whether Israel’s conduct in Gaza satisfies the definition of genocide in international law.
The strategy becomes clearer in the second part of the disingenuous traveller’s agenda. Blinken “will also discuss urgent mechanisms to stem violence, calm rhetoric, and reduce regional tensions, including deterring Houthi attacks on commercial shopping in the Red Sea and avoiding escalation in Lebanon.”
The Houthi attacks and the increasingly violent situation in Lebanon serve as golden distractions for Washington, since they give the Biden administration room to simultaneously claim to be preventing a widening of the conflict while permitting Israel’s butchery to continue.
Corking the conflict, however, is not proving such a success. The war is widening, even if reporting on the subject remains sketchy in the negligently lazy news outlets of the Anglosphere. In addition to the bold moves of the Houthis and escalating violence on the border between Israel and Lebanon come ongoing, harrying efforts from the Islamic Resistance in Iraq. An Al-Mayadeen report on January 7 took note of an announcement from the group, also known as the Iraqi al-Najuba Movement, that it had fired an al-Arqab long-range cruise missile at Haifa “in support of our people in Gaza and in response to the massacres committed by the usurping entity against Palestinian civilians, including children, women, and the elderly.”
A spokesperson for the Iraqi Resistance, Hussein al-Moussawi, was bullish in claiming that the group had the capacity to strike targets beyond Haifa. Conditions to develop the group’s weapons had also been “favourable”.
In a separate statement, the Islamic Resistance also revealed that its fighters had targeted an Israeli base on the occupied Golan Heights, usin drones. To this can be added drone attacks on the US army base of Qasrok, located in the countryside of Hasakah in northeastern Syria, and the Ain al-Asad airbase in western Iraq. The base continues to host US forces.
Perhaps the greatest canard of all in this briefest of trips by Blinken is the continued, now absurd claim, that Washington is committed “to working with partners to set the conditions necessary for peace in the Middle East, which includes comprehensive, tangible steps towards the realization of a future Palestinian state alongside the State of Israel, with both living in peace and security.”
In his remarks to President Mahmoud Abbas in Ramallah, Blinken showed the hardened ignorance that will ensure the Israeli-Palestinian conflict will continue in some form. In his mind, a “reformed” Palestinian Authority will take over the reins of a ruined Gaza (“effective responsibility”) whatever the residents of Gaza think.
Palestinians will never, given current conditions, be permitted sovereignty and anything remotely resembling a thriving, viable state. Israel, whose very existence is based on predation, dispossession and war, will never permit a Palestinian entity to be given equal standing at the diplomatic or security table. The US, in the tatty drag of an independent broker, will go along with the pantomime, promoting, as Blinken is, a sham, counterfeit form of autonomy, one forever subject to conditions, demarcations and restraints. And one thing is almost certain about any future rump Palestinian entity: it will be deprived of any right to defend itself.
The post Tall Tales and Murderous Restraint: Blinken on Gaza and Israel first appeared on Dissident Voice.This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.
Middle East policy expert Trita Parsi says President Biden’s reluctance to press Israel for a ceasefire in Gaza has the potential to drag the U.S. into a war with Iran and its allies in the region. On Monday, Israel reportedly killed a Hezbollah commander in southern Lebanon, just days after an airstrike killed a senior Hamas leader in the capital Beirut. Meanwhile, the U.S.
This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.
Twin explosions in the Iranian province of Kerman killed dozens and injured hundreds Wednesday at a memorial for top Revolutionary Guards general Qassem Soleimani, who was assassinated in a U.S. drone strike four years ago in Iraq. No one has yet claimed responsibility for the attack, but Iran has placed blame on Israel and the U.S, while U.S. officials and regional experts have suggested ISIS as…
This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.
The failure of the United States to convince the Australian government to send one vessel to aid coalition efforts to deter Houthi disruption of international shipping in the Red Sea was a veritable storm whipped up in a teacup. The entire exercise, dressed as an international mission titled Operation Prosperity Guardian, is intended as a response to the growing tensions of the ongoing Israel-Hamas War.
Washington has made no secret of the fact that it wants to keep Iran away from Israel’s predations by deterring any provocative moves from Teheran’s proxies. But Israel’s murderous war in the Gaza Strip is not exactly selling well, and a special coalition is being seen as something of a distracting trick. But even within this assembly of states, the messages are far from uniform.
France’s Defence Minister, for instance, has promised that its ships would remain under French command, supplementing an already pre-existing troop presence. Italy’s Defence Ministry, in sending the naval frigate Virginio Fasan to the Red Sea, has its eye on protecting the interests of Italian shipowners, clarifying that the deployment would not take place as part of Operation Prosperity Guardian. Likewise Spain, which has noted that EU-coordinated and NATO-led missions took priority over any unilateral Red Sea operation.
To that end, the Australian government has been unusually equivocal. In recent months, the tally of obedience to wishes from Washington has grown. But on the issue of sending this one vessel, the matter was far from certain. Eventually, the decision was made to keep the focus closer to home and the Indo-Pacific; no vessel would be sent to yet another coalition effort in the Middle East led by the United States.
The sentiment, as reported in The Guardian Australia, was that Australia would reduce its naval presence in the Middle East “to enable more resources to be deployed in our region.” In doing so, Canberra was merely reiterating the position of the previous Coalition administration.
In October 2020, the Morrison government announced an end to the three-decades long deployment of the Royal Australian Navy in the Middle East. Then Defence Minister Linda Reynolds revealed that Australia would no longer be sending a RAN ship to the Middle East on an annual basis, and would withdraw from the US-led naval coalition responsible for patrolling the Strait of Hormuz by 2020’s end.
It was good ground for Australia’s current Labor Prime Minister, Anthony Albanese, to build on. In his words, “We’ve actually consulted our Australian Defence Force heads about these matters and with our American friends. That’s why you’ve seen no criticism from the US administration”. When pressed for further clarification about the allegedly inadequate state of Australia’s naval capabilities, the PM simply affirmed the already guaranteed (and dangerous) commitment of Canberra to “the Indo-Pacific, a fairly large region that we look after” with “our American friends.”
The warmongers were particularly irate at the modest refusal. Where there is war, they see no reason for Australia not to participate. And if it concerns the United States, it follows, by default, that it should concern Australian military personnel and the exercise of some fictitious muscle. This slavish caste of mind has dominated foreign policy thinking in Canberra for decades and asserted itself in an almost grotesque form with the surrender of sovereignty to the US military industrial complex under the AUKUS agreement.
The Coalition opposition, displeased with Albanese’s decision, had no truck for diplomacy. Lurking behind their reasoning were script notes prepared for them by the US-Israeli concern that Iran, and its Houthi allies, be kept in their box. “Is Mr Albanese seriously claiming that Australia can assert diplomatic influence over the Houthi rebels?” asked the Shadow Minister for Defence Andrew Hastie and the Shadow Treasurer, Angus Taylor.
In the Murdoch press, two-bit, eye-glazing commentary on Australia neglecting its duties to the US war machine in distant seas could be found in frothy fury. Here is Greg Sheridan, more cumbersome than ever, in The Australian: “We are saying to the Americans and the Brits – under AUKUS we expect you to send your most powerful military assets, nuclear submarines, to Australia to provide for our security, but we are so small, so lacking in capability and so scared of our own shadow, that under no circumstances can we spare a single ship of any kind to help you protect commercial shipping routes – from which we benefit directly – in the Red Sea.”
The Royal Australian Navy, Sheridan splutters, is simply not up to the task. One of its eight ANZAC frigates is almost never in the water. The RAN is short of crews and short of “specialist anti-drone capabilities.” The implication here is evident: the government must, in the manner of Viv Nicholson’s declaration on her husband winning the football pools in 1961, “spend, spend, spend.”
Paul Kelly, another Murdoch emissary also of the same paper, was baffled about the “character” of the Labor government when it came to committing itself to the Middle East. The Albanese government should have been more bloodthirsty in its backing of Israel’s war against Hamas. It dared back, along with 152 other UN member states, “an Arab nation resolution calling for ‘an immediate humanitarian ceasefire’ – a resolution, given its wording, that was manifestly pro-Palestinian.”
What struck Kelly as odd, suggesting the glaring limits of his understanding of foreign relations, was that Australia did not commit to the coalition to protect shipping through the Red Sea because it does not have the naval capability to do so. But armchair pundits always secretly crave blood, especially when shed by others. And to have members of the RAN butchered on inadequate platforms was no excuse not to send them to a conflict.
Aspects of Sheridan’s remarks are correct: Australian inadequacy, the fear of its own shadow. The conclusions drawn by Sheridan are, however, waffling in their nonsense. It is precisely such a fear that has led the naval and military establishment fall for the notion that Canberra needs nuclear-propelled boats to combat the spectre of a Yellow-Red Satan to the north. With a good degree of imbecility, an enemy has been needlessly created.
The result is that Australian insecurity has only been boosted. Hence more military contracts that entwine, even further, the Australian military with the US Armed Forces. Or more agreements to share military technology that give Washington a free hand in controlling the way it is shared. In history, Albanese’s refusal to commit the RAN to the Red Sea will be seen as a sound one. His great sin will be the uncritical capitulation of his country to US interests in the Indo-Pacific.
The post Red Sea Deployments: Canberra Says No first appeared on Dissident Voice.This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.
For those interested, here is a previous article on a significant past event that gives a background to contemporary events. George W. Bush organized the Annapolis peace conference; predictions had it going nowhere and the last ”peace conference” went nowhere. While U.S. administrations warned Israel not to expand settlements, claimed they favored a two-state solution, and acted as the principal mediator in the crisis, Israel continued to expand settlements, made certain the Palestinians could never have a viable state, and eschewed all mediations. The day that the Annapolis conference failed is the day the Western world failed the Palestinians and the moment that inexorably led to the present destruction of the Palestinian people.
Discussing the 2008 Annapolis Conference, in face-to-face talks with the prime ministers, foreign ministers, and non-government officials (NGOs) of Israel, Palestinian Authority, Jordan, Syria, and Lebanon, revealed how far we are from achieving peace in the Middle East, and how far Annapolis is from the Earth that others walk upon. As part of a delegation of six intrepid fact finders, supported by the Council for the National Interest (CNI), a Washington-based NGO that labors intensively to determine paths towards Middle East peace, I found a hopeful wind that moved Israelis and Palestinians to portray optimism. This hopeful wind slowly reduced in force in Jordan, quickly diminished when meeting Syrian vice-presidents, and turned to an ill wind in meetings with the then Lebanese president, prime minister, and foreign minister.
The search for Middle East peace started on a discordant note at a meeting with Gush Shalom (peace bloc) spokesperson Uri Avnery, the most notable advocate for a just peace with the Palestinians. Uri used the words “unsure” and “window dressing” to describe the conference. He didn’t sense that Hamas, with whom he has close contacts, would agree to a piece of paper and voiced the opinion that Hamas would “only make a truce and not a peace pact.”
Kadima’s Knesset member Amira Dotan spoke of “Annapolis as a symbol,” with its “success defined as starting a process.” Deputy Speaker Dr. Ahmed Tibi said: “The U.S. should create the conditions for making it a success. Its failure will strengthen Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Iranian/Syrian axis.” Other official sources were more open; expressing views that Israel is an army that has a state and Defense Minister Barak is the major culprit in preventing any peace initiative.
The Ramallah landscape of enormous white brick housing developments against the brown dirt background disguises the actual despondency and poverty of the Palestinian people. Palestinian Authority (PA) officials, especially Foreign Minister Riad al-Maliki, tried to be optimistic about the Annapolis conference. Prime Minister Salam Fayed’s words were more cautious. “We want a complete agenda with final talks, but have become more motivated by fear of failure than promises of success, and are being forced into unwanted compromises just to justify a meeting.” President Abbas’ Chief of Staff Rafiq Husseini insisted that Israel must move the separation wall to the Green Line. Interior Minister Abdel Razzah al-Yahya reiterated that “there will be no two-state solution if Israel does not withdraw to the 1967 boundaries and does not give the Palestinians oxygen to breathe.”
The lack of oxygen stifles the Palestinians, who are already torn by internecine warfare between Fatah and Hamas and by conflict with organizations in Nablus that are a combination of criminals, protesters against social and economic negligence, and militants against Israel’s occupation. The Palestinian Authority is powerless and it is not obvious how it can negotiate anything and receive approval from a majority of Palestinians, especially when they continue to experience Israel’s brutal occupation of the West Bank.
Illegal settlements have destroyed Palestinian life in central Hebron. When the Israeli military attempted to evict the settlers, the settlers broke windows and ruined the Palestinian shops. For an incomprehensible reason, the settlers have returned to their illegal positions and Palestinian shops and houses are now empty. To enforce the settler presence, Israeli security checkpoints have been installed at all former entrances to the market.
These settlers claim properties “taken” from Jews during riots against Hebron Jews back in 1929,” with a sign over emptied Palestinian shops, but do not display any rights of inheritance or deeds to any of the properties. Can this claim of a ‘collective right’ have a legal basis? Contrast the Hebron settlers’ illegal positions and false claims with Palestinians, who have legal deeds to properties in Israel, and are prevented from recovering their properties.
A separation wall winds through West Bank territory and completely encircles West Bank cities, such as Qualqilya and Abu Dis. Residents are hindered from leaving these cities, going to schools, and cultivating lands. The wall has also caused accumulations of water and created puddles in Palestinian neighborhoods. The obstructive wall includes 580 fortified checkpoints, one occurring, on average, every five miles. There are also flying checkpoints, settler bypass roads, a planned super highway for Israelis only, blocked Palestinian village roads, and travel restrictions to Jerusalem. These restrictive conditions have separated Palestinian communities and families, choked the Palestinian economy, and obstructed daily exchanges between peoples. Highways slice through Palestinian lands and completely separate farm homes from agriculture. The inhumanity of all these installations and regulations is beyond belief. Chief of Staff, Rafiq Husseini, summed the PA attitude with a sigh and said, “Don’t worry, this is the land of miracles. What we need is a prayer meeting.”
Jordan is also a land of miracles, its capital city Amman spanning hills with an advanced network of bridges, tunnels, and super highways. Traffic is horrific and only moves because there are few traffic lights in the entire city. Jordan’s increasing prosperity and touchy stability depends upon Western investment, special export privileges, and friendly relations with neighbors, especially Israel.
Dependence upon foreign investment, coping with the 500,000 – 700,000 Iraq displaced persons, still contending with the integration of the massive Palestinian population within, and maintaining friendly relations with Israel guide Jordan’s foreign policies. Foreign Minister Abdelelah al-Khatib, similar in outlook to most Middle East leaders, considered the Israel/Palestinian conflict as the core issue to be resolved before peace and stability can arrive in the Middle East. He volunteered that Avigdor Lieberman, Israel’s’ Russian immigrant hardliner, has become most influential in the “peace process.” A highly important Jordanian official was blunt. He was not positive on Annapolis, believes Israel does not want peace, does not have the political will to seek peace, and wants to shift the burden of more displaced Palestinians to Jordan. Minister of Planning Suhair al-Ali, as gracious as a woman can be, noted that deceased “King Hussein was into politics,” but the new King Abdullah “is more into development.” She had one plea: “No matter the results of Annapolis, don’t demonize Islam.”
Damascus is a surprise. Expect a faded gray and ancient city, still struggling with the 20th century, and find a lively, advanced city with some sparkling new neighborhoods, highways that don’t interfere with the city’s appearance, and a population that is amicable and sympathetic; never a harsh look, never a bitter word, although Syria remains a totalitarian government that does not allow much free expression. To its credit, Syria has succored Palestinians forced from Israel, who have established their own neighborhoods, but still remain committed to return to their homeland. Added to its credit is the recent sacrifice in allowing an estimated 1.2 million Iraqi displaced persons (similar to Jordan, Syria refuses to call them refugees) to move among its population and secure housing, free education, and entry to the health system. Syria deserves commendation for acting as a safety valve to the calamities resulting from displaced Palestinians and Iraqis, innocent casualties from several wars.
Not surprisingly, Syrian vice-president of Foreign Relations, Farouk Sharaa, didn’t have much expectation for the Annapolis conference, believes all Israel’s political parties fear peace, and senses that U.S. policies encouraged Israel to attack Lebanon and continue the conflict. “Israel is on a suicide path, and, if Israel is a decision-maker in the U.S. then the U.S. loses.” The vice president contradicted an accepted belief that Syria will not accept direct assistance for the Iraqi displaced persons. NGOs and the U.S. government are welcome to contribute their assistance. CNI made news by revealing to the U.S. Press a Syrian commitment to screen Iraqi displaced persons for entry into the U.S.
The Vice president of Cultural Affairs, Najah al-Attar, exhibited welcoming smiles, and sensitivity and empathy for oppressed peoples. She spoke of “there not being peace without justice,” made references to the destruction of the Palestinians, and noted that Jews lived in peace in Syria, where they were prosperous and accepted members of the parliament. A small Jewish community survives in Northern Syria, and a Rabbi is flown in each week from Turkey to perform the rabbinical rites and assure the food is kosher.
Not kosher was a clandestine trip to meet a “minor” Hamas official, who turned out to be Khalid Meshal, an official leader of Hamas, exiled in Damascus. The world became more aware of Meshal when Israel’s Mossad tried to assassinate him in Amman. Jordan’s King Abdullah forced Israel to immediately supply an antidote to the poison given to Meshal by threatening to publicly hang the Mossad agents who tried to kill the Hamas leader. Meshal does not fill the Western media description of a wild-eyed fanatic. On the contrary, he is a friendly, deliberate, and well-spoken person who makes sense to those who subscribe to similar positions.
He said that Israel does not want peace and both negotiating parties aren’t strong enough to market their results to their people. Meshal doesn’t delineate Hamas’ position, but defers to a Palestinian position that accepts 1967 borders and an Arab position that has accepted the two-state solution. Since 2002, Bush has repeatedly spoken of support for a two-state solution, but where is it? The Hamas leader expects the region to be more explosive. Nevertheless, if the PA feels the Palestinian rights have been fulfilled, Hamas will welcome that. He has proposed a Hudna (truce), and if Israel responds positively, Hamas will not be an obstacle to peace. If the Right of Return is the only remaining problem, Hamas will compromise, and accept the will of the people. He claims Hamas does not encourage militancy, does not desire a theocratic state, is a national liberation movement, and will let the Palestinian people decide their own government.
Lebanon greets the visitor with an ominous view of the famous Mdairej Bridge, the highest bridge in the Middle East, and the pride of Lebanon. The mid-section of its elegant span remains gone, destroyed by Israeli jets on the first day of the war.
Beirut and Southern Lebanon still show scars of the war; destroyed bridges, damaged roads, and huge holes in Beirut sections. The old section of Bent Jabal (daughter of the mountain), which was invaded by Israeli troop, is completely damaged. It is now a rubble of ancient rocks.
Lebanon was again in one of its perpetual crises; an inability to reach a parliamentary consensus and elect a new president. Although some are quick to blame Syria and Hezbollah for creating a climate of fear and for the lack of consensus, major Lebanese officials don’t agree that Hezbollah is the culprit for the impasse, just the opposite, the majority holds power by an archaic law and fears becoming a minority
The majority is most represented by billionaire Member of Parliament (MP), Saad Hariri, son of assassinated former Prime Minister Rafic Hariri. Saad Hariri senses a significant negative shift in Israel’s attitude towards wanting peace after Rabin’s assassination. Nevertheless, he feels Abu Mazen wants peace and Annapolis, even if delayed, must still happen. “The two sides can reach an agreement.” He is less optimistic concerning his nation: “Money and arms are pouring into the arms of the allies of Syria.” Hariri had not moved about Beirut for 2 ½ years and had received death threats. Fifty of his fellow MPs were barricaded in the Phoenician hotel, fearful of their lives. Except for Prime Minister Siniora, who accuses Syria and Hezbollah of creating this fear, of being uncooperative and wanting to keep situations unresolved so that Hezbollah can maintain its arms, the other principal government officials support Hezbollah’s position.
Former General and MP, Michael Aoun, described the year 2000 law that gerrymandered the nation so that the March 14 Party and its allies acquired a majority of 72 parliament seats, although receiving only 1/3 of the vote. This makes the 2007 government illegitimate and favors Hezbollah’s proposition that the only fair solution to the impasse is a new election law, followed by a new election that will award seats in proportion to yhe popular vote. President Emil Lahoud claims the present parliament majority has the backing of the major Western powers and is working against the constitution. For this reason, the opposition, meaning Hezbollah, has the right to avoid reaching consensus. Foreign Minister Fawzi Sallougkh read carefully from a prepared document. He doesn’t believe Iran wants to dominate Lebanon and believes the U.S. should establish good relations with Iran.
Lebanese leaders were particularly angered with Israel’s aggressive attitude towards the Arab world and what they perceived as U.S. support for this attitude. They are most concerned with the negotiations that will decide the fate of the Palestinian refugees, the reason being that the refugees cannot receive citizenship in Lebanon and have created social and economic havoc for decades. Prime Minister Fouad Siniora was more sanguine and more universal in his characterization of what he termed to be an Arab/Israeli conflict. He considered Israel to be guilty of the situation and leading the world into a catastrophe that will affect all peoples. He allowed permission to quote him, and my notes show these remarks:
“The Arab/Israel conflict is the maker of most problems and control of Jerusalem is a paramount issue. The conflict consumes most efforts in the region, is not restricted to the Middle East, and diverts attention from other meaningful issues in all regions. The conflict started from the Balfour Declaration, arose from the extent of injustice inflicted upon the Palestinian people, is leading to further frustration in the Arab world, and is generating extremism. The Israeli 1980 invasion created Hezbollah and a new set of problems. Now, Syria, and other parties (meaning Hezbollah), are not showing cooperation and want to keep issues unresolved. Nevertheless, President Bush has been unfair to Lebanon, Arab nations, and also to his own United States. The U.S. keeps preaching democracy but defends dictatorships.”
Hezbollah, the Party of God, remains the contentious focus of Lebanon politics. Nevertheless, the Lebanese government has denominated Hezbollah as a resistance movement rather than a militia so that they can keep their arms, despite the truce agreement that banned militias. Hezbollah leaders are firm that they will never recognize Israel. Surprisingly, they favor a single democratic state where all peoples are equal and all religions can be practiced without interference. They claim to be politically secular and their government operations don’t contradict that thesis.
Annapolis is 50 miles from the nation’s capital, but it is light years away from the hearts and minds of Arab peoples who want assurance of peace and stability in the Middle East. That is one observer’s conclusion from travels through the Middle East capitals.
The post Turbulent Winds of the Last Peace Conference: Annapolis first appeared on Dissident Voice.This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.
With four years passing since the Tishreen Uprising in Iraq, the echoes of the protests for justice, accountability, and a better future still resound within the nation. However, these demands have remained largely unmet, overshadowed by a grim reality of enforced disappearances and a lack of accountability for the brutal crackdown on peaceful demonstrators.
The anti-government protests, which began in October 2019, were met with excessive force by Iraqi security forces, leading to numerous deaths, injuries, and the disappearance of activists, lawyers, and ordinary citizens. Organizations like Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch have highlighted the grim aftermath, shedding light on the tragic stories of those forcibly disappeared.
Successive Iraqi governments have promised justice, but these pledges have largely remained unfulfilled. Investigations into the atrocities have been meager and far from meeting international standards. The families of the disappeared, courageously seeking answers, have been met with threats and intimidation, preventing them from pursuing justice. Tragically, in some cases, family members advocating for their missing loved ones have themselves become victims of violence.
Despite assurances and promised investigations, the lack of transparency has further compounded the issue. Committees formed to investigate these violations have failed to deliver the much-needed truth or justice. While reparations have been provided to some families, it falls short of addressing the core issue of accountability for the crimes committed.
The plight of the disappeared persists. Names and faces of those missing continue to haunt their families and communities. Many have been abducted without a trace, their loved ones left in anguish, seeking answers from authorities who have yet to provide any substantial information.
The United Nations Committee on Enforced Disappearances has raised concerns and urged the Iraqi government to take urgent steps. Incorporating enforced disappearance as a distinct crime in domestic law and implementing recommendations for addressing disappearances are imperative. Civil society organizations, including Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, and International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH), among others, have urged the Iraqi government to take immediate action and address the devastating issue of enforced disappearances.
Iraq stands at a critical juncture, where justice for the disappeared remains a pressing concern. The voices of those who sought change through peaceful protests continue to resonate. Yet, their absence underscores the urgency of the situation. The Iraqi government must heed the calls for justice, uphold human rights, and ensure accountability for the disappeared protesters, bringing closure to their families and the nation.
The post Seeking Justice for Iraq’s Disappeared Protesters: A Continuing Struggle appeared first on Americans for Democracy & Human Rights in Bahrain.
This post was originally published on Americans for Democracy & Human Rights in Bahrain.
