Rice In The Middle East
Last year, the Israel waged a brutal aggressive war against Lebanon, killing over 1,000 civilians, roughly a third of them children. According to the Lebanese Higher Relief Council, another 4,054 people were injured and 970,000 were internally displaced – Amnesty International put the number at over a million. Amnesty concluded that the “evidence strongly suggests that the extensive destruction of public works, power systems, civilian homes and industry was deliberate and an integral part of the military strategy, rather than “collateral damage“.
Amnesty further reported that Israel employed “a policy of punishing both the Lebanese government and the civilian population in an effort to get them to turn against Hizbullah”, whilst according to Human Rights Watch, Israel consistently failed to “distinguish between combatants and civilians.” In other words, Israel committed state-terrorism in Lebanon. UN Emergency Relief Coordinator Jan Egeland described Israel’s use of cluster bombs as “shocking” and “immoral”, particularly since “90 per cent of the cluster bomb strikes occurred in the last 72 hours of the conflict when we knew there would be a resolution, when we really knew there would be an end of this”. In the words of an MLRS (Multiple Launch Rocket System) commander in the IDF,
“In Lebanon, we covered entire villages with cluster bombs, what we did there was crazy and monstrous”.
Israel’s use of cluster bombs meant that, unlike the Israelis who were forced to flee to the south or hide in bomb shelters during the war, tens of thousands of Lebanese remain unable to return to their homes. Of course, the clean-up operation would have got started earlier if Israel had provided the necessary grid references of its cluster bomb strikes on time.
The United States was complicit to the level of a partner in the Lebanon war. During the hostilities, America sent weapons shipments to Israel for use in Lebanon. It blocked a draft resolution calling for an immediate ceasefire, with Condoleeza Rice warning against a “false” ceasefire that would put in jeopardy her designs for a “new Middle East“. For Ms. Rice, and the United States, a ceasefire was “premature” – instead, despite repeated statements by Hizbullah and desperate pleas by the Lebanese government requesting an immediate ceasefire, the U.S. delayed and procrastinated for as long as it could to allow Israel the opportunity to achieve its political ends through the war. Hizbullah was the sole target for U.S. criticism. Meanwhile, both the House of Representatives and the Senate passed resolutions by overwhelming majorities (410-8, in the House) affirming Israel’s right to “self-defense”, praising it for “minimizing civilian loss” and congratulating President Bush for “fully supporting Israel”. Whilst the Senate resolution included the obligatory “urge” for “all sides” to avoid killing civilians, the House failed even to include that. Both Democrats and Republicans went on record as officially supporting Israeli war crimes in Lebanon.
Also in 2006, Israel waged a devastating economic war against the Palestinians, still ongoing, after the Palestinians voted for the wrong people in the January elections. As punishment for this heinous crime, Israel decided to withhold the tax revenues it collects on behalf of the Palestinian Authority, and upon which the PA depends to pay its workers’ salaries. Israel increased the number of military roadblocks in the West Bank by 40%, and began arbitrarily closing the border crossings upon which the Palestinian economy depends for extended periods of time. The UN accused Israel of violating every single one of the border crossing agreements reached in 2005, concluding that,
“The ability of Palestinian residents of the Gaza Strip to access either the West Bank or the outside world remains extremely limited and the flow of commercial trade is negligible”.
David Shearer, head of the UN Office for the Co-ordination of Humanitarian affairs (OCHA) described the effects of the border closures thus:
“Thousands and thousands of people have been stopped from moving – students, medical cases, people who have come to visit families, people returning from holidays…From a humanitarian point of view, it’s a major crisis for these people who are effectively trapped within and outside of Gaza.”
The obvious purpose of these border closures was to pressure the Palestinian people to force the release of Cpl. Shalit and to topple the Hamas government. Israel has admitted as much itself; in a meeting, the IDF’s Planning Commission argued that the Rafah crossing “should be opened on occasion only after the kidnapped soldier is released and the shooting from the Gaza Strip stops. (To use the crossing as a means of applying pressure).” Shin Bet opposed the opening of the crossing “even for a few hours, so long as the matter of the abducted soldier remains unchanged. Pressure on this matter must remain in place at this stage.” This, of course, is collective punishment, and is illegal.
The United States (amongst others) follwed suit by enforcing economic sanctions against the Palestinians – “the first time”, as UN special rapporteur for human rights in the Occupied Territories John Dugard notes, “that an occupied people has been so treated.”. Medecins Sans Frontiers described the effects of the sanctions on the people living in Gaza:
“Since major international donors (namely US, EU, Japan, Canada) suspended their financial support to the Palestinian Authority, the social and economic situation in the territories has decreased to a precarious level. One visible consequence of the funding cuts to the Palestinian Ministry of Health (MoH) is a critical shortage of drugs and medical materials, in spite of direct donations made by different agencies…
In Hebron, the effects of the strike are particularly evident. As elsewhere in the West Bank, only emergency services for the most severe cases are assured – even the maternity wards are closed – and the 112 MoH primary health care centers are closed.
In Hebron and in Nablus, all MoH pharmacies are closed, although they do give out a few emergency medicines such as insulin. Access to the health services and to drugs has therefore been dramatically reduced…Once again, MSF wishes to express its concern about the repercussions that the political decision to suspend aid to the Palestinian Authorities is having on a population which is already suffering from an almost total paralysis of its economy and from the movement restrictions inside the Territories.”
John Dugard reported,
“Israel has turned the Gaza Strip into a prison for Palestinians and have thrown away the key…in other countries this process might be described as ethnic cleansing…life in Gaza has turned to be intolerable, appalling and tragic…If … The international community cannot … take some action, it must not be surprised if the people of the planet disbelieve that they are seriously committed to the promotion of human rights…Israel violates international law as expounded by the Security Council and the International Court of Justice and goes unpunished. But the Palestinian people are punished for having democratically elected a regime unacceptable to Israel, the US and the EU…”
“Poverty in Gaza stands at 75 per cent. Food prices have inflated and sugar, dairy products and milk are low as commercial supplies from Israel are limited. Fish is no longer available as a result of Israel’s sea blockade.
Gaza’s border crossings, for persons to Egypt, and for goods to Israel, have been mostly closed since 25 June. This has brought to a virtual end the export of produce; and drastically limited the import of foodstuffs and other goods…In short, the people of Gaza have been subjected to collective punishment in clear violation of article 33 of the Fourth Geneva Convention…it seems the people of Gaza are being punished for having elected a Hamas government earlier this year.
Regime change, rather than security, probably explains Israel’s punishment of Gaza.”
In the summer, Israel escalated the collective punishment to include direct military attack, under the banner “Operation Summer Rains.” In the course of this campaign it,
“seized members of a democratically elected government; bombed its interior ministry, the prime minister’s offices, and a school; threatened another sovereign state (Syria) with a menacing overflight; dropped leaflets from the air, warning of harm to the civilian population if it does not “follow all orders of the IDF” (Israel Defense Forces); loosed nocturnal “sound bombs” under orders from the Israeli prime minister to “make sure no one sleeps at night in Gaza”; fired missiles into residential areas, killing children; and demolished a power station that was the sole generator of electricity and running water for hundreds of thousands of Gazans.”
All under the “pretext of forcing the release of a single soldier “kidnapped by terrorists” (or, if you prefer, “captured by the resistance”)”. One of Israel’s biggest crimes in Gaza this summer was the cynical bombing of Gaza’s only operating electrical power plant, depended upon by much of the population for electricity, for the purpose of inflicting civilian suffering. The IDF used F-15 or F-16 jets to perpetrate the crime, bought from the U.S. and most likely with U.S. military aid. Since the start of ‘Operation Summer Rains’ on June 25, 488 Palestinians have been killed by Israel, 311 of whom were civilians, including 92 children. The number of Palestinian children killed by Israel in 2006 almost doubled the number killed in 2005.
In summary, in 2006 alone the U.S. was complicit in collective punishment, state terrorism, aggression, murder and numerous other war crimes committed by Israel against the Lebanese and the Palestinians. It was not merely complicit in the sense that it saw what was going on but did nothing; rather, it actively aided and abetted the crimes. That’s not even mentioning the continued U.S. support for the illegal Israeli occupation, the illegal annexation wall and the illegal settlements.
The reason I mention all of this is that U.S. Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice is currently in the Middle East for talks with Israeli leaders (including, disturbingly, Avigdor Lieberman), PA President Mahmoud Abbas and Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak.
Now, all of the above information is, it seems to me, relevant when it comes to assessing the purpose of and intention behind Ms. Rice’s trip to the Middle East. The U.S. bills Condi’s visit as an attempt to further peace and to move towards a settlement to the Israel/Palestine conflict. However, when we consider the relevant facts, such as those detailed above, the idea that Rice is actually working towards peace can be dismissed instantly as laughable. Taking into account the relevant facts would require us at the very least to question the official stated U.S. goals for the region, and not simply accept them at face value.
And yet, the BBC reports confidently that Rice is making a “bid for peace in the Mid-East”. The New York Times reports as a statement of fact that the “secretary of state hopes the meeting with the Israeli and Palestinian leaders will push along peace efforts.” Even if the events of last year are too remote for the notoriously forgetful media, surely the fact that Israel today issued tenders for 44 new homes to be built in the illegal settlement of Ma’ale Adumim even as Rice was conducting her speaking tour merits at least a bit of reflection on the true purpose of Rice’s visit? Surely the fact that Olmert has yet to honour any of the basic “goodwill gestures” he promised Abbas a few weeks ago is enough to provoke even the tiniest speck of critical thought?
Because the media aspires to a false sense of “balance”, in which simply reporting without question the statements of those in power is regarded as “neutral”, the media is effectively a mere mouthpiece for official propaganda. So for the BBC, for example, a neutral article is one that simply reports what the Prime Minister or some other elected official says. Any attempt to call into question the sincerity of what is being said is eliminated as “biased”. But of course, to simply report unquestioningly what power says is itself a bias – it is a tremendous bias towards the establishment. The media displays an excellent capacity for critical thought and healthy skepticism when it comes to analysing the rhetoric or actions of our enemies, but it simply loses this when it comes to analysing the statements made by our government, or those by our allies. The result is that the media becomes as complicit in war crimes and murder as Ehud Olmert and Condoleeza Rice.
Filed under: Israeli / Palestinian, Lebanon, Media, News and politics, US | 10 Comments
Tags: International & Foreign Policy, War
-
Subscribe to The Heathlander feed
-
Site Meter
Wow, what a horrendous one-sided account by an obvious lover of terrorist regimes, kidnapping, terrorism, and brutality
Wow, what a failure this is. Through the lens of history we can see that Israel has repeatedly made ceasefire agreements with Hezbollah and Hamas only to have them broken and new “outrages” found.
Would you prefer that a force gave it back to the “palestinians”? Should we have the British occupy it again?
For someone who banks so hard on the “forgotten history” of the land, you’re ignoring the not-so-forgotten history that is modern terrorism.
I thought this was going to be a recipe. Anyway, isn’t couscous more popular in the Middle East than rice?
Heroic Anony: It is: it’s a recipe for disaster. Swish!
What is wrong with the jews (except Jamie) that comment here? Just remember that you have only squatted in Palestine for a very short time, your zionist enterprise will go the same way as the Crusader Kingdoms did. Your shield the USofA is slowly grinding to a halt, it cannot support its welfare-gobbling stepchild forever. And when Iran or Syria or Egypt next launch a strike againt you, the US will no longer come to your aid and the rest of the world WILL NOT CARE. Have you EVER wondered why you have been despised thruout centuries of history in just about every country in the world?
Sharon is a perfect metaphor for the zionist enterprise, a rotting mountain of hog blubber kept alive by infusions of American aid.
Sigh. kassandra, you keep doing that racist thing of conflating Israel and Zionism with Jews, which makes it impossible to take you seriously.
What does that even mean? Firstly, it’s plain false, but even if it wasn’t – are you suggesting that somehow Jews deserved the discrimination, the libels, the pogroms and the Holocaust?
BRAP
This is not only a one-sided and biased view of Lebanon War but it leaves out critical information.
First, consider any other country in the world, which had it’s citizens kidnapped and then had thosands of rockets fired at its civillian population from a bordering country. This is by all treaties and precedents and “Act of War” by Lebanon. Now it is the case that the Lebanese government has been intimidated if not highjacked by another force–in this case Hezbollah. However that does not relieve Lebanon of its responsibility to TRY to stop the acts of war. Even if they did, Israel was still entitled to use as much force as they had to to stop the rockets. When Mexican warlords and bandits crossed the border and attacked American civillians, the Mexican Government did not stop them or send soldiers to try. Therefore General Pershing and the American Army had to do the job. If rockets were fired from Georgia into Russia, does anyone doubt that the Russions would and should takie action to stop the slaughter of their own civillians. If insurgents in Spain fired thousands of rockets into France, Spain would have the obligation to stop the aggression, and if not, France can legally and must morally act. So Israel was legally and morrally entitled to defend itself under international law and the United Nations Charter.
Then you describe the Israeli war as an “aggressive” one. While it may be argued that Israeli behavior re the West Bank is aggressive in that some in Israel want land, there was no aspiration for any Lebonese territory. In the entire history of warfare there are few examples of a war that was as purely defensive and non-aggressive as this one.
And then the casualties are reported including the children on one side but not the other. There is a legitimate question of whether or not the Israeli Defense Forces used inappropriate force in causing those casualties and whether or not they were proper military targets.
On the latter point, the Geneva and Hague conventions are very clear. Any time combatants place their fighters or their arms in an otherwise protected site, that site BECOMES A LEGITIMATE military target. When the Nazis in Italy in WWII placed soldiers and artillary in the Monte Casino Church atop a mountain, the allies after asking them to remove, proceeded to bomb and shell the church and rightly so. If weapons are stored in a Mosque, that Mosque is as much a legitimate military target as a training base or a missle site. Unfortunately, if fighters use civillian homes for ANY purpose–storing equipment, hiding soldiers, firing from windows, or even planning their military activity, they have turned that home into a legitimate military target. Israel had the Hobsen’s choice between attacking these new military tagets or continuing to suffer rocket attacks which no government could countenance. Even when they chose the latter, they made announcenents, they dropped leaflets and told the civillian population which areas had been made targets by Hesbollah and gave the civillians a chance. Never once has a suicide bomber ever warned civillians away from a target area in Israel. Never once have the specific targets if the rockets been told in advance.
Then, if the Israeli’s wanted to kill or maim Lebonese civillians, does anyone doubt that they could have done so to a million and not a thousand. Such restraint has been rare in human history despite the great tragedy of even a few civillians killed. And even then, the israeli government, defense forces, and people have expressed their regrets. In contrast there is a deafening Arab silence of regrets for the Israeli civillians who were killed and wounded.
Finally, for those who claim that force was not the way to go, to stop the rocket attacks, consider that Israel has been trying to negotiate a peace treaty with Lebanon for decades. Egypt and Jordan have done so, but Lebanon has constitently REFUSED to even try to negotiate a treaty. So they are still at war, and by their own choice tragicly, so even if the rockets had not been fired the state of war legally would have existed. Lebanon wants to claim to be at war, but is outraged by the consequence of the war; they want the benefits of peace without making peace; they want secure borders but will not control aggression from their own borders.
And the great tragedy is it is the civillians and children of both countries suffer the most while the extremists and ideologues hide behind them.
No – ever since the ceasefire of 2000 there has been an on-going minor border conflict between Hizbullah and the IDF. Both sides have regularly exchanged tit-for-tats, and both sides have broken the ceasefire agreement countless times. The kidnapping of Regev and Goldwasser was nothing special in the long-running low intensity conflict, and Hizbullah certainly did not intend to provoke a full war (Hizbullah’s TV station al-Manar immediately broadcast after the abductions saying that Hizbullah wanted a prisoner exchange, not a war).
But for its own political reasons, Israel decided that it would use this particular Hizbullah attack as a justification to launch an all-out war on Lebanon. It was a war of aggression, just as if me and my friend kept poking each other for 10 minutes, and I suddenly shot him in the face, I would be the aggressor.
That’s nonsense. Firstly, Hizbullah only began firing rockets at Israeli settlements after Israel had already killed 40 Lebanese civilians. Secondly, Hizbullah repeatedly offered a ceasefire, which Israel repeatedly rejected in favour of continued (and escalated) bombing. It was not about stopping the rockets.
See above.
No, it’s not in question – all the human rights organisations and all the UN agencies agree and meticulously document that Israel deliberately targeted civilians and civilian infratructure, consistently failed to distinguish between civilian and military targets and violated the doctrine of proportionality.
I suggest you read Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch and the other mainstream human rights organisations. Even if Hizbullah did hide amongst civilians, that does not relieve Israel of the duty to minimise civilian casualties and avoid completely any acts which would likely entail “excessive” civilian suffering. But at any rate, HRW conducted a report into these claims that Hizbullah hid amongst civilians. They did not just take the word of the IDF for granted – as I suspect you have done – but actually did on the ground research for themselves. They investigated a third of the total civilian deaths at the time (I think it was around 200, but I cant recall the exact number), and found that none of those civilian deaths could be explained by the official justification of ‘Hizbullah hiding amongst civilians’. They concluded that although in some cases Hizbullah did locate itself amongst civilians, this “neither explains nor justifies the scale of the civilian casualties” inflicted by Israel.
Lastly, I was in Israel for the very end of that conflict. I stayed in a moshav, which was located not 5 minutes drive from a military air-strip. Several times we heard rockets fly overhead – they landed in the surrounding fields. Is this not “hiding behind civilians”, to use your words? In the port of Haifa, Israel had military ships docked that were used to fire missiles into Lebanon. Is this not “hiding behind civilians”? The IDF at one point stationed many soldiers inside a northern Israeli town. Is this not “hiding amongst civilians”? Does that mean that all of Hizbullah’s rockets on Haifa were legitimate, that all the civilians killed in Haifa were mere “collateral damage”?
This is sheer nonsense. Firing a million cluster bombs in 72 hours all over south Lebanon and then refusing for weeks to provide the necessary coordinates to allow a clean-up operation is not “restraint”. It’s criminal.
For decades, you say? Erm, I think you are ignoring the Israel’s brutal 18-year military occupation. You are also ignoring the fact that Lebanon, together with the rest of the Arab League, has made crystal clear its conditions for peace – it involves peace with the Palestinians, as stipulated in the 2002 Arab Peace Initiative. That Arab peace plan essentially calls on Israel to respect international law in exchange for peace with the region. That’s a no-go for Israel, and so no peace with Lebanon (or Syria, or Saudi Arabia, or most of the rest of the Arab countries).
Yes. But some suffer more. (And in Israel at least, the “extremists” are actually in the mainstream).
Only a child or a fool would willfully ignore the facts. As for kassandra, if it makes you feel good to consider us newcomers, be my guest. The fact is that we never left our land.