Homs Opposition: Al Farouq Battalion is Killing Us Sunday, May 13 2012 

Arab Awakening and Human Rights and Media and Middle East and Syria and United Nations , , , , , , , , , , , , , Sandboxer 6:30 pm


By Sharmine Narwani

It is extremely rare to have a direct peephole into events on the ground in Syria. The hard-fought battle over narratives often leaves truth in the dust. But among the cache of recently leaked emails (exclusive to Al Akhbar) from Syrian National Council (SNC) President Burhan Ghalioun’s inbox, comes this gem – important information that further highlights the glaring loophole in UN Envoy Kofi Annan’s demilitarization plans for Syria: rogue fighters.

The email sent to Ghalioun on March 25 summarizes a meeting held by members of various armed opposition groups operating in Homs – chiefly to address the pressing problem of the rogue al-Farouq Battalion.

The email’s author “Abu Majd” claims that 24 different armed groups in Homs started to work together in part because of the behavior of the Farouq Battalion, some of whose members are shown in this video from a few days ago. The problem with al-Farouq, says the email, is:

“Its monopoly over decision-making in its areas, its attempts to subjugate whoever is outside its command by force, and adopting what they call a “big stick policy” in dealing with other fighters.”

Confirming occasional Arab media accounts of fighters turning on each other inside opposition-dominated neighborhoods, Abu Majd accuses the Farouq Battalion of:

Unjustified violence against their adversaries and other anti-regime groups that are not subsumed under the rubric of al-Farouq Battalion resulting in a heavy human toll. For example, al-Farouq’s mild punishment/warning to fighters in Bab al-Sibaa led to the death of five martyrs.

One wonders how these deaths were characterized in the daily “casualty counts” disseminated by Homs activists and reported widely by foreign media. (more…)

 

Surprise Video Changes Syria “Timeline” Wednesday, Apr 4 2012 

Arab Awakening and Foreign Affairs and Human Rights and Media and Syria , , , , , , , , Sandboxer 5:43 pm

By Sharmine Narwani

Of all the myths obstructing the honest portrayal of events in Syria this past year, none has been more fiercely guarded by regime-change advocates than this one stark falsehood:

Myth – the Syrian regime has been shooting only unarmed, peaceful protestors until very recently when opposition groups finally decided to arm themselves in self-defense.

On the contrary, there is clear evidence that armed groups have targeted and killed security forces and civilians from within weeks of the first small protests in March 2011. An earlier investigative piece I wrote on the Syrian casualty lists identifies the shooting deaths of nine Syrian soldiers in Banyas on April 10, 2011 as one important timeline marker for premeditated opposition violence.

Ignoring this vital piece of information about the security landscape has helped shape a fundamentally flawed narrative of events in Syria. Furthermore, this false storyline has directly contributed to the escalation of the crisis by inciting rage against the “one-sided” violence of the regime, and emboldening opponents with a misplaced “righteousness” that kills legitimate debate on Syria.

But this narrative has been unraveling in the past few months. Photos and video footage of armed men with heavy weapons proudly declaring their stripes – some of them religious extremists advocating the killing of civilians based on sectarian differences – have been recently making the rounds.

Jihadist web chatter about armed groups in Syria, suicide bombings in Damascus and Aleppo, and now Al Qaeda’s “call to battle” have forced western pundits – who know a red line when they see one – to grudgingly acknowledge there are two sides in Syria’s violent tug of war.

Quite suddenly, this has forced a shift in the discourse on Syria. Regime opponents have taken care, however, to ensure that the new narrative incorporates the existence of armed groups without challenging the core premise that “the regime massacres peaceful protestors.”

This effectively means that armed opposition can only be introduced into the Syrian crisis “timeline” at a date long after the outbreak of protests. (more…)

 

Dear Western Journalist…Stay Home Thursday, Mar 15 2012 

Arab Awakening and Foreign Affairs and Hamas and Human Rights and Iran and Israel and Media and Middle East and Palestine and peace process and Syria and US Foreign Policy , , , , , Sandboxer 10:08 pm

Dear Western journalist,

Please cease using the argument that the reason you are writing crap about Syria is because “media is not allowed there.” The Arab League report lists 147 media outlets – Arab and foreign – working in Syria in January, 2012. I and a few others who were there at the time were not even on the list. Ahead of me in line at the border was the CBC crew, who was on that list. Perhaps the reason you have such a hard time getting in is because you need to wait – like CBC Suzy – for visas for 47 staff and support staff members, including people to hold your over-sized coffee cup as you interview an opposition gunman in that special breathless way you do it. Of course you need a translator for that too, because otherwise you wouldn’t have a fucking clue if you were in Idlib or Homs now, would you?

You are delighted to air shaky cell phone footage from a person you have never met at the top of the news hour, but balk when there are 50,000 cell phone witnesses at a pro-regime rally. “Media is not allowed in” you explain condescendingly. Tell us then, what explains your inability to ask the most elementary of questions when you do write your Syria stories every day, anyway, from outside? You know, questions that go something like this: “How do you know how many people died today? How do you know their names? Who verified this? Where did the explosion take place? How do you know who was responsible for the explosion? Why do you support Bashar al Assad? Why do you not support the militarization of the conflict? Why do you not support the internationalization of the conflict? Why do you not support sanctions against Syria? Who kidnapped your father? Who shot your uncle? Who killed your child? Who was the sniper?”

None of us have ever heard a major western journalist ask any of those questions. They are questions that 1) ask for evidence, 2) are addressed to a pro-regime Syrian and 3) are asked of domestic opposition figures. Oh yes – we need you to be in Syria to “verify” things for us precisely because you publish “unverified” stories every day and seek to inject “balance” into the Syrian story…in much the same way you do the Palestinian-Israeli story and the Israeli-vs-Iranian nukes one, and the Saudi Arabians-are-moderate-Arabs one – and that one really poignant story about how Muslims are “collateral damage” who become “terrorists” when they shoot back.

The idea that Joe Journo needs to be in Syria to tell the world (and Syrians) what is going on, is YOU on colonial crack.

Take your time,

Syria

 

Questioning the Syrian “Casualty List” Tuesday, Feb 28 2012 

Arab Awakening and Foreign Affairs and Human Rights and Middle East and Syria and United Nations , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , Sandboxer 11:28 pm

By Sharmine Narwani

“Perception is 100 percent of politics,” the old adage goes. Say something three, five, seven times, and you start to believe it in the same way you “know” aspirin is good for the heart.

Sometimes though, perception is a dangerous thing. In the dirty game of politics, it is the perception – not the facts of an issue – that invariably wins the day.

In the case of the raging conflict over Syria, the one fundamental issue that motors the entire international debate on the crisis is the death toll and its corollary: the Syrian casualty list.

The “list” has become widely recognized – if not specifically, then certainly when the numbers are bandied about: 4,000, 5,000, 6,000 – sometimes more. These are not mere numbers; they represent dead Syrians.

But this is where the dangers of perception begin. There are many competing Syrian casualty lists with different counts – how does one, for instance gauge if X is an accurate number of deaths? How have the deaths been verified? Who verifies them and do they have a vested interest? Are the dead all civilians? Are they pro-regime or anti-regime civilians? Do these lists include the approximately 2,000 dead Syrian security forces? Do they include members of armed groups? How does the list-aggregator tell the difference between a civilian and a plain-clothes militia member?

Even the logistics baffle. How do they make accurate counts across Syria every single day? A member of the Lebanese fact-finding team investigating the 15 May 2011 shooting deaths of Palestinian protesters by Israelis at the Lebanese border told me that it took them three weeks to discover there were only six fatalities, and not the 11 counted on the day of the incident. And in that case, the entire confrontation lasted a mere few hours.

How then does one count 20, 40, or 200 casualties in a few hours while conflict continues to rage around them?

My first port of call in trying to answer these questions about the casualty list was the United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR), which seemed likely to be the most reliable source of information on the Syrian death toll – until it stopped keeping track last month.

The UN began its effort to provide a Syrian casualty count in September 2011, based primarily on lists provided by five different sources. Three of their sources were named: The Violations Documenting Center (VDC), the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights (SOHR) and the Syrian Shuhada website. At that time, the lists varied in number from around 2,400 to 3,800 victims.

The non-UN casualty list most frequently quoted in the general media is the one from the Syrian Observatory – or SOHR.

Last month, SOHR made some headlines of its own when news of a rift over political viewpoints and body counts erupted. Two competing SOHRs claimed authenticity, but the group headed by Rami Abdul Rahman is the one recognized by Amnesty International.

OHCHR spokesman Rupert Colville stated during a phone interview that the UN evaluates its sources to check “whether they are reliable,” but appeared to create distance from SOHR later – during the group’s public spat – by saying: “The (UN) colleague most involved with the lists…had no direct contact with the Syrian Observatory, though we did look at their numbers. This was not a group we had any prior knowledge of, and it was not based in the region, so we were somewhat wary of it.” (more…)

 

Rats, Roaches and Shiites Friday, Apr 22 2011 

Foreign Affairs and Foreign Policy and Hezbollah and Human Rights and Middle East and US Foreign Policy , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , Sandboxer 8:19 pm

By Sharmine Narwani

A Shiite martyr being washed for burial

I’m not arguing that Shiites have a lot in common with rodents and insects. But you wouldn’t know it by watching Bahrainis and Saudis snuff them out with barely a peep from Western and majority-Sunni Arab nations, both.

Shia-majority Iran, Iraq and the Lebanese resistance group Hezbollah have been the most vocal in condemning the outrageous killings, arrests and beatings of Shiites in the Persian Gulf — but they have had to do so with a muffled voice. Each objection from Iran or Hezbollah unleashes a barrage of opportunistic rants by Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and the U.S. about “Iranian interference” and expansionism.

Which means as long as we can successfully infer a nefarious connection between these groups, one can simply yell “Iran” or “Hezbollah” and kill, torture and imprison Shiites with impunity — in much the same way that we yelled “al Qaeda” and buried hundreds of Sunni Muslims in Guantanamo for years. No matter that we have never ever proven a connection of significance between these coreligionists.

It’s the equivalent of saying all Irish Catholics have a connection to the Irish Republican Army. Or that all Jews take marching orders from Israel.

The Sectarian Bogeyman
To be fair, this isn’t really a sectarian battle — although some would like to spin it that way. This is about autocratic regimes stifling protest, and it just so happens that the largest disenfranchised populations in these places are Shiites.

At the very heart of the matter lies the growing battle for influence in the greater Middle East. These domestic Arab uprisings — while highly desired by their national populations — on a geopolitical level threaten to fundamentally alter the balance of power in the region toward the “Resistance Bloc” — state and non-state actors that reject U.S. and Israeli hegemony in the Mideast.

Shiite-majority Iran is a major influencer in this bloc, which is why it has been so important for Washington and Riyadh to keep the pressure on the Islamic Republic and deprive it of any opportunity to gain further footholds or popular support from non-Shia populations in the region.

When mass protests kicked off in Bahrain on February 14, the peaceful demonstrations in Pearl Square were decidedly non-sectarian. Sunni and Shia came together to demand reform across the board. Yes, the majority of protesters were Shia, but that number falls along demographic lines in a country of around 70% Shiites who have been marginalized politically, economically and socially.

When a brutal, regime-led clampdown ensued with killings and beatings, the mood changed and protesters called for the downfall of the Al Khalifa ruling family. Suddenly “Iran” was being invoked as an instigator for regime change and Saudi troops were “invited in” to quell the protests.

The past month has seen a violent clampdown of a different kind. Bahraini troops — many imported from other Sunni countries — and Saudi forces troll largely-impoverished Shia neighborhoods and villages, arresting activists and violently suppressing any signs of protest — or even normal Shia religious activity.

Hundreds of activists have “disappeared” in the small Persian Gulf nation of 600,000 citizens – one in every 1,000 Bahraini, by one count — and masked men storm into private homes regularly in the middle of the night to detain Shia human rights workers, bloggers and opposition members. (more…)

 

Egypt’s Fake Election — Covering the Electoral Shenanigans of a Top US Ally Thursday, Dec 2 2010 

Egypt and Human Rights and US Foreign Policy , , , , , , , , Sandboxer 12:14 pm

This entry has been UPDATED – see below.

Welcome to the Pyramids. Here, to your right, lies the ancient world in all its glory and splendor. The birthplace of a civilization, the incubator of innovation, arts, sciences. And to your left lies modern Egypt and an example of the intrinsic ability of man to sabotage his successes and amount to almost nothing.

Welcome to the elections that will propel Hosni Mubarak to his sixth term as president of the Republic — if his health improves, that is. Otherwise his son Gamal is likely to be named president.

A recipient of $1.56 billion per annum in US assistance, Egypt’s population of roughly 80 million still enjoys a per capita income of less than $3,000. And three decades of aid has ensured virtually no diversification of its economy — tourism remains the country’s main industry. Welcome to those pyramids, indeed.

Egypt’s legislative elections held on Sunday were a sham from the start. A number of opposition parties are boycotting the elections in protest of the government’s machinations. The Muslim Brotherhood (Ikhwan), the largest opposition bloc and a moderate Islamist party, decided to run, although they are participating blindfolded and shackled for all intents and purposes.

Since the Ikhwan gained a hefty 88 seats in the 2005 elections — often credited to pressure inflicted by U.S. President George W. Bush for more free elections there — the government has sought to reduce their influence by implementing electoral reform in 2007, which Amnesty International called the “biggest erosion of human rights since emergency laws were introduced in 1981.”

In further electoral trickery, the government has rejected the participation of international observers, barred dozens of Ikhwan candidates from running as independents, arrested more than 1,306 members of the group and raised the number of parliamentary seats to further dilute the opposition. Human Rights Watch published a 24-page report in the weeks leading up to the election that should have Egypt’s friends at the U.S. State Department reeling.

And don’t be distracted by the oddly progressive designation of 64 seats in the 508-member “majlis” for women. This bizarre quota system that was approved for two five-year election cycles in 2009 is more likely another way for Mubarak’s ruling National Democratic Party (NDP) to assure more seats and is meant to appeal largely to secular elites. A good article here on the “pro-women” aspect of Sunday’s elections.

A Brookings Doha Center study this summer warned about upcoming elections in the Arab world — polls that, under their democratic-looking facade, have actually snuffed out largely moderate Islamist opposition parties in countries like Jordan and Egypt.

The report analyzes how “nonviolent Islamist groups in the Arab world are responding to a new, sometimes unprecedented, set of challenges” and warns that the U.S., international community, and Arab governments need to “incorporate Islamists into the democratic equation lest more radical elements fill the vacuum.” The study finds that many of the moderate Islamist groups like Jordan’s Islamic Action Front (IAF) and Egypt’s Ikhwan have more “democratic” experience than most of the governments within which they aspire to participate.

These Islamist parties are “building grassroots support, assembling cross-ideological coalitions, and oiling their electoral operations… Their reorientation away from the application of Islamic law (or Sharia) toward an aggressive reform program” presents a serious threat to the autocratic regimes in much of the Arab Mideast. (more…)

 

Israel’s Human Shields and Live Bait Wednesday, Oct 27 2010 

Foreign Affairs and Human Rights and Israel and Middle East and Palestine and peace process and US Foreign Policy , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , Sandboxer 4:22 pm

“Sharmoota!” hisses the Jewish settler as she presses up against the bars of a Hebron home where she has forced a Palestinian woman to take cover. “Whore” in Arabic, the shameful word hangs in the air like verbal dynamite – and shocks again and again as rapid-fire “Sharmootas” are spat out at their victim. An Israeli soldier stands by and watches this provocation. He does nothing. Video 1, Video 2

Young teenage settlers hang around outside a Palestinian schoolhouse, waiting for the stream of Arab mothers and their children to make their way home. The settler youths – all girls – shriek abuses at the frightened Palestinian kids, kick the elders and pull headscarves off the heads of pious women – “terror games” to pass time on a Jewish holiday, all under the watch of armed Israeli soldiers who do not intervene. Video

There are 500,000 illegal Jewish settlers in occupied Palestinian territories today – a number that has increased five-fold since the US-sponsored “peace process” began 19 years ago.

  • Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, August 12, 1949, 6 UST 3516, provides, in paragraph 6: “The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.”

 

Peace advocates contend that this Israeli push to “settle” Jews in the occupied territories reflects the determination of an increasingly right-wing government to prevent the establishment of a Palestinian state in the West Bank and East Jerusalem. Logic dictates that the physical presence of half a million Jews in illegal settlements and outposts – connected through a maze of Jewish-only roads – has stealthily destroyed the possibility of a land-for-peace compromise. And Israel’s government has spent $17 billion on settlements since occupation began.

But here’s something we don’t talk about readily. Why would consecutive Israeli governments heavily subsidize and incentivize the relocation of young families – women and children – into hostile environments? Why would Israel – which claims security dangers wherever there are Palestinian populations – deliberately and systematically place its Jewish civilian population in “harm’s way?”

The settlers are Israel’s human shields and live bait.

“Naatzi! Naaaatzi!” This word, amazingly enough, is a settler favorite. “Nazis!” they screech at foreign TV crews, while waving their infants around. “Nazi, Nazi, Nazi,” they chant as they provocatively try to stop Palestinians from harvesting their olive crops. And the IDF soldiers wait and watch – occasionally intervening to push a frustrated and humiliated Palestinian objector away from a taunting, threatening Jewish settler.

Eventually, a half-crazed Palestinian will fight back, even kill some settlers. Israeli authorities immediately step in and claim the “Security Risk” has increased and more Palestinian land has to be confiscated to ensure Israel’s security. More Palestinians are detained, harassed, punished. More Palestinian homes are occupied or demolished. See how that works? Unleash your craziest Jews onto a Palestinian civilian population until someone blows a fuse and hits back. Then use that as the pretext to encroach further into the lives and onto the land of Palestinians.

Jewish settlers. Half a million of them in 121 illegal settlements and 102 illegal outposts. Human shields and live bait for Israel. The Jewish state’s frontline army for depopulating Palestinian land.  (more…)

 

The Day US Jewish Groups Went Too Far With the Word “Terrorist” Wednesday, Oct 27 2010 

Human Rights and Israel and Lebanon , , , , , , , , , , , , Sandboxer 2:11 pm

Enough is enough. How have we reached a point in politics where lies are the norm, and populations can’t be heard through the media machinations bent on keeping the disinformation afloat?

Today I realized that being a “terrorist” is maybe a good thing. Many thanks to the lovely ladies of the Lebanese aid flotilla who are the latest group of civilians attempting to bust open Israel’s illegal economic blockade of the Gaza Strip.

I was sitting in my summer-rental in Beirut this morning, enjoying a leisurely Sunday and surfing the web to catch up on some news when I came across a despicable commentary piece by Ben Cohen, a run-of-the-mill propagandist at the American Jewish Committee (AJC).

Right here on the Huffington Post, Cohen launched into a diatribe against the latest aid flotilla headed for Gaza – this time an all-female ship called the “Mariam” which is named after the Virgin Mary and boasts a crew of Lebanese ladies and foreign nationals from the Arab world, US, Canada, France, Serbia, Holland, Finland and other countries. With zero evidence whatsoever, Cohen tries to malign this humanitarian effort by linking the flotilla and its participants to Lebanese resistance group Hezbollah:

“This flotilla is being organized by Yasser Kashlak, a Palestinian businessman based in Lebanon. Kashlak is known for his ties to terror groups, having shared the platform at a January “pro-resistance” conference in Beirut with representatives of Hezbollah, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, the Syrian Ba’ath Party and the Iranian Vice-President, Reza Mir Tajeddini. Kashlak insists that his flotilla is an independent initiative, but Al Manar, Hezbollah’s broadcasting arm, disagrees, noting that the voyage was announced less than a day after Nasrallah appealed for more flotillas to head for Gaza. The assertion of no connection with Hezbollah is further undermined by the presence of Samar Hajj, the wife of a former Lebanese General jailed for his part in the assassination of Lebanese Prime Minister Rafiq Hariri.”

 

2010-06-21-Photo0208.jpg
Samar Hajj

 

The article – ostensibly about the flotilla – uses every trick in the substandard-journalism book to connect individuals and groups by mashing together tidbits of information to suggest a coherent linkage. Have an Arab-sounding name? Palestinian is better. Have a beard? Headscarf? Good. I can make you into a terrorist in 24 hours or less.  (more…)

 

Being Anti-Israel and Anti-Zionist Is the “New Anti-Semitism” Monday, Jan 4 2010 

Human Rights and Israel and Politics , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , Sandboxer 11:33 pm

A Jewish woman, deriding protesters at a UK rally on Sunday in support of charging former Israeli Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni with war crimes, declared loudly into a TV camera that being anti-Israel and anti-Zionist is the “new anti-Semitism.”

Such licentious language. Meant primarily, I might add, to inflame passions and mislead public opinion by invoking a word – anti-Semitism – that we have been well-conditioned to condemn above all other forms of racism or prejudice.

I am sorry the woman fears anti-Semitism, pogroms and hatred around every corner. It’s not my problem, frankly. Let her get therapy. Does that sound harsh? Sorry, again. But I for one get pretty irritated hearing false cries of anti-Semitism against anyone who criticizes Israel, its human rights crimes, its crazy settler movement, its unique brand of crypto-racism against non-Jews living within the state and its occupied territories.

These targets include Jews as well. Like Richard Goldstone – a man who served the international community honestly and fairly by rooting out the perpetrators of real evil and putting them on trial for the most despicable of human rights violations in Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia. A Jewish man, a Zionist too. “Anti-Semite,” they roared when he charged Israel with war crimes in his UN report on the 2009 Gaza War.

Or Harvard scholar Stephen Walt and the University of Chicago’s John Mearsheimer, whose paper The Israel Lobby And US Foreign Policy was skewered in a Washington Post column as anti-Semitic. Writer Eliot Cohen says:

If by anti-Semitism one means obsessive and irrationally hostile beliefs about Jews; if one accuses them of disloyalty, subversion or treachery, of having occult powers and of participating in secret combinations that manipulate institutions and governments; if one systematically selects everything unfair, ugly or wrong about Jews as individuals or a group and equally systematically suppresses any exculpatory information — why, yes, this paper is anti-Semitic.

I read this paper, and it is well researched, fair and thought-provoking. Cohen’s claim is far and away the most emotionally muddled interpretation by an academic I have yet to encounter.

Yet other targets of this convoluted connection between criticism of Israel and anti-Semitism are – well – entire countries. Like Norway, Sweden, Finland and Denmark, for instance. Yup, anti-Semites, one and all. “Norway is the most anti-Semitic country in Scandinavia,” said Dr. Manfred Gerstenfeld, a scholar of Western European anti-Semitism from the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, who spoke last year at a gathering of Israeli scholars highlighting anti-Semitism in Scandanavia. Read full article

 

Netanyahu’s ‘Shame’ And The Fiction He Weaves Monday, Jan 4 2010 

Gaza War and Human Rights and Israel and Politics and United Nations , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , Sandboxer 5:32 pm

Almost a week after the UN General Assembly speeches by various heads of state, where one statement after another was dissected and laid bare by the thousands of reporters and analysts covering the annual plenary session, one speech has almost universally been ignored. And something rankles.

“Have you no shame,” thundered Benjamin Netanyahu to the throngs of senior diplomats, heads of state and assorted dignitaries watching the Israeli prime minister admonish those who remained in the room when Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad delivered his speech a day earlier.

Shame, indeed. This, from the leader of a nation that has a pitiful human rights record, standing accused by a United Nations body for War Crimes and Crimes against Humanity. A country that has an illicit stash of weapons of mass destruction which it refuses to subject to international scrutiny of any sort. A state whose very existence seems possible only through the systemic persecution of the non-Jewish population under its protection.

Break down Netanyahu’s speech and you have more fiction than fact, albeit fiction that has very adeptly been spun by successive Israeli governments into the lexicon of our political language.

“For eight long years, Hamas fired from Gaza thousands of missiles, mortars and rockets on nearby Israeli cities. Year after year, as these missiles were deliberately hurled at our civilians, not a single UN resolution was passed condemning those criminal attacks,” accused Netanyahu, before the very audience he scorned in his speech.

Fact: Between 2005 and 2007, Palestinian groups in Gaza fired about 2,700 rockets into Israel. Israel fired more than 14,600 artillery shells into Gaza during this same period, a statistic Israeli government officials always seem to omit.

But the essence of Netanyahu’s fiction remains that Palestinians, and specifically the resistance group Hamas, are the ones who initiate armed conflict.

In a far-reaching and exhaustive study of the issue, MIT Scientist Nancy Kanwisher tracked the entire timeline of killings of Palestinians and Israelis by the other between September 2000 and October 2008. In an article right here on the Huffington Post, she draws some telling conclusions about ceasefires, lulls in conflict, and resumption of hostilities between the two sides:

“It is overwhelmingly Israel that kills first after a pause in the conflict: 79% of all conflict pauses were interrupted when Israel killed a Palestinian, while only 8% were interrupted by Palestinian attacks (the remaining 13% were interrupted by both sides on the same day). In addition, we found that this pattern — in which Israel is more likely than Palestine to kill first after a conflict pause — becomes more pronounced for longer conflict pauses. Indeed, of the 25 periods of nonviolence lasting longer than a week, Israel unilaterally interrupted 24, or 96%, and it unilaterally interrupted 100% of the 14 periods of nonviolence lasting longer than 9 days.”

Kanwisher’s data goes on to contest the assumption popular with American and Israeli politicians that Hamas broke the ceasefire leading up to Israel’s brutal December 2008 Gaza onslaught:

“The ceasefire was remarkably effective: after it began in June 2008, the rate of rocket and mortar fire from Gaza dropped to almost zero, and stayed there for four straight months…what happened to end this striking period of peace? On November 4th, Israel killed a Palestinian, an event that was followed by a volley of mortars fired from Gaza. Immediately after that, an Israeli air strike killed six more Palestinians. Then a massive barrage of rockets was unleashed, leading to the end of the ceasefire.”

But Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu was just getting started, and with all the righteous indignation he could muster, proclaimed: “In 2005, hoping to advance peace, Israel unilaterally withdrew from every inch of Gaza.”

Oh. The withdrawal of Israeli troops from Gaza had nothing whatsoever to do with the fact that the Gaza Strip, one of the most densely populated territories in the world, had become an impoverished hell-hole that nobody wanted to deal with – or that daily confrontations with Palestinian resistance groups and, well, school kids hurling rocks, had taken a toll on the battered Israeli Defense Forces. “Disengagement” from Gaza achieved several other objectives too. It reduced the growing non-Jewish demographic problem for Israel, and freed up resources to focus on carving up the West Bank and significantly increasing the population of Jewish settlers there.

But again, the devil is in the details. Lost in the media euphoria over Israeli troops rolling out of occupied Palestinian territory, a vital fact was overlooked: the occupation of Gaza never actually ended. According to the United Nations, the US State Department, Amnesty International and a whole slew of other NGOs, Israel is the occupying power in the Gaza Strip. It “retains sole control of Gaza’s airspace and territorial waters and does not allow any movement of people or goods in or out of Gaza via air or sea,” says Amnesty International. And we have seen how often and easily the IDF tanks roll in and out at will.

Back at the General Assembly podium, Netanyahu’s fiction-spinning tirade was reaching a fevered pitch – the crux of his message, the thing that Israel most fears. Understand now, that the Jewish state’s raison d’etre has always been based on the mass persecution and genocide of Jews by Nazi Germany – the nation was a gift, so to speak, to the victims who deserved a break. So what would happen if, even for an instant, the entire international community catches a view of Israel outside the parameters of victimhood, an image, if shattered, that could undermine its very premise as a safe haven for the persecuted?

Never say. Netanyahu’s two-fold mission at the UN last Thursday was firstly to whip up animosity against Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and his alleged nuclear weaponization program, and secondly, to neutralize the damaging effects of the Goldstone Report on Israel’s three-week military adventure into the Gaza Strip earlier this year.

Selected by the UN High Commission for Human Rights to conduct an investigation into “Operation Cast Lead,” Israel’s code name for the Gaza War, Richard Goldstone was ideal for the role in part because he is a Jew, an acknowledged Zionist, and importantly, the well-respected former chief prosecutor of the United Nations International Criminal Tribunals for Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia. In other words, beyond reproach.

In a September 15 press release introducing his 574-page report, Justice Goldstone concluded that “Israel committed actions amounting to war crimes, and possibly crimes against humanity.”

Netanyahu at the UN: “Faced with such a clear case of aggressor and victim, who did the UN Human Rights Council decide to condemn? Israel.“

He fails to mention that given ample opportunity to participate in the investigation, his government not only refused, but also denied the Mission access to both Israel and the West Bank for interviews related to the inquiry. Palestinian authorities in both the West Bank and Gaza cooperated.

The damning parts of the report undermine entirely Israel’s assertions to the international community about its conflict with Gaza, Palestinians and Hamas. It states that “in the lead up to Israel’s assault on Gaza, Israel imposed a blockade amounting to collective punishment and carried out a systematic policy of progressive isolation and deprivation of the Gaza Strip.” So much for disengagement.

“Never has a country gone to such extraordinary lengths to remove the enemy’s civilian population from harm’s way,” claims Netanyahu.

But Goldstone’s Mission found instead “that the following grave breaches of the
Fourth Geneva Convention were committed by Israeli forces in Gaza: willful killing, torture or inhuman treatment, willfully causing great suffering or serious injury to body or health, and extensive destruction of property, not justified by military necessity and carried out unlawfully and wantonly.”

The Report continues: “The repeated failure to distinguish between combatants and civilians appears to the Mission to have been the result of deliberate guidance issued to soldiers, as described by some of them, and not the result of occasional lapses.” Furthermore, “There were almost no mistakes made according to the Government of Israel. It is in these circumstances that the Mission concludes that what occurred in just over three weeks at the end of 2008 and the beginning of 2009 was a deliberately disproportionate attack designed to punish, humiliate and terrorize a civilian population.”

Yet with no hint of embarrassment whatsoever, Netanyahu insisted, “”Faced with an enemy committing a double war crime of firing on civilians while hiding behind civilians – Israel sought to conduct surgical strikes against the rocket launchers.”

Ah, yes. Human shields. During the carnage, our media and our politicians belted out the Israeli propaganda line that “barbaric” Hamas was using its own population as human shields. Instead, it turns out “the Mission investigated several incidents in which Israeli armed forces used local Palestinian residents to enter houses which might be booby trapped or harbour enemy combatants (this practice, known in the West Bank as “neighbour procedure”, was called “Johnnie procedure” during the military operations in Gaza).”

And so on and so forth.

Netanyahu, prime minister of Israel once before – from 1996 to 1999 – has had a history of scandal plague him in office, even an indictment for which he was later acquitted. Former Clinton White House Spokesman Joe Lockhart, in his book “The Truth About Camp David” calls the Israeli prime minister, “one of the most obnoxious individuals you’re going to come into – just a liar and a cheat. He could open his mouth and you could have no confidence that anything that came out of it was the truth.”

Netanyahu replaced former PM Ehud Olmert, who was brought down by corruption allegations, and indicted on three charges this past August. And that, just a month before former Israeli President Moshe Katsav’s trial for rape and other sex crimes got underway.

The apple is rotten at its core. The international community must turn the cries of “shame” back on Israel and its human rights record. And the US administration, which stands so staunchly behind Israel at every turn, must play fair with the Goldstone Report if it is to maintain any credibility in the Middle East as it attempts to launch yet another round of peace talks.

First published: October 1, 2009

Bookmark and Share

 

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,695 other followers