David Horowitz and the Art of Slander – An Analysis

by Lawrence Davidson
　
Part I – Slander
　
On 24 April 2012 the New York Times (NYT) lent its editorial page to the propaganda of right- wing Zionist David Horowitz, thereby taking the “newspaper of record” down into the gutter for the price of a quarter-page advertisement. The ad , which purported to be “a public service” by the David Horowitz Freedom Center, told the following libelous story:
　
“The Holocaust began with boycotts of Jewish stores and ended with death camps. The calls for a new Holocaust can be heard throughout the Middle East and Europe as well. In the wake of the murders of a rabbi and three children in Toulouse, it is time for the supporters of the Boycott, Divest and Sanction Israel movement (BDS) to ask themselves what they did to contribute to the atmosphere of hate that spawned these and other murders of Jews.”
　
What is wrong with this story?
　
1. The analogy of BDS with “boycotts of Jewish stores” is (no doubt purposely) misleading. The Boycott movement is directed against Israel as a racist state and the economic and social agents (Jewish and non-Jewish) who support it. If you want a proper analogy to BDS, it is the effort by Jewish and other groups before and during World War II to organize boycotts of Nazi Germany. The notion that the BDS boycotts lead to death camps is fantasy. Whatever the crazy logic of the Nazis on the one hand and David Horowitz on the other, the BDS movement is an effort to prevent persecution and not to promote it.
　
2. The notion that the BDS movement either “calls for a new Holocaust” or is associated with those supposedly doing so, is nonsense. In reality it is the right-wing Israeli fanatics who are calling for, and actually carrying out their own version of a holocaust against the Palestinians. In the place of concentration camps they have created ghettos and Bantustans. In place of gas chambers they have promoted homelessness, cultural genocide and periodic pogroms. Indeed, the same week Mr. Horowitz placed his ad, Israel launched 57 military raids into Palestinian territory resulting in multiple injuries and death, destroyed at least 13 Palestinian shelters while beginning construction on 20 illegal settler houses. Yet the perpetrators of these crimes persist in portraying themselves as victims because once, under completely different historical circumstances, their ancestors were victims. But that was in the past. In the present the Zionists are the culprits and BDS seeks to bring out this tragic and ironic fact.
　
3. It is a gross misrepresentation to accuse those supporting BDS of contributing to “the atmosphere of hate that spawned…murder of Jews.” The BDS campaign has nothing to do with this atmosphere, but the actions of the Israeli leadership has everything to do with it. With the Zionist persecution of the Palestinians on-going one does not need a boycott movement to explain the upswing of anger. Some may unfortunately fail to make the proper distinction between political Zionists and Jews in general, just like Horowitz and his ilk fail to make the distinction between terrorists and Palestinians in general. Yet, if the Israeli leaders and their supporters want to know where this anger is coming from, they need look no further than their own behavior.
　
However, they refuse to look. Instead they attempt to confuse matters and shift the blame from fanatic Zionist settlers and racist Israeli politicians onto those who would publicly expose the viciousness of Israeli policies. That is one of the aims of the Horowitz ad in the New York Times and it pursues it in very specific ad hominem fashion. When in November 1938 the Nazis launched the pogroms which became known as Kristallnacht, they painted Jewish stars on the sites to be attacked. In a similar way Horowitz seeks to identify and label those he wishes to be “publically shamed and condemned.” What does that mean? Should they lose their jobs just like the Jews who were forced out of their occupations by the Nazis? Should they be segregated out and impoverished like Palestinians? Perhaps Mr Horowitz would applaud physical attacks? Just how Nazi-like does he wish the situation to get?
　
Part II – The New York Times
 

William Thomson of the University of Michigan, one of fourteen academics slandered by the Horowitz advertisement, notes that “groups and individuals will resort to unfounded character assassination and ad hominem attacks when reasoned discussion is beyond their abilities.” However, the country’s major national newspaper is not suppose to be an accomplice in such attacks. Yet, that is the case.
　
Ali Abunimah has pointed out that the New York Times has “advertising acceptability guidelines” which require advertisements to “comply with its (the NYT’s) standards of decency and dignity” and not be “misleading, inaccurate or fraudulent.” Horowitz’s offering is blatantly all of this. Yet there it was, in the April 24^th edition of the “paper of record.” Of course Horowitz’s propaganda was placed on the editorial page and not identified as an ad. What are we to make of this? It seems clear that the editors actually believe that the piece meets their standards of acceptability. But is the NYT also telling us that this libel is an acceptable editorial? The entire affair calls into question (not for the first time) the judgment of the people who run this famous newspaper.
　
Part III – Conclusion
 
David Horowitz probably wrote this propaganda piece not only to shift blame, but also to scare people. To frighten those named and scare off others from getting involved in the BDS movement. Yet he may well have overstepped and made himself the subject of critical attention rather than those he rails against. That is what happens when your message reflects a viewpoint that is ideologically driven and fanatical. Cast this viewpoint in a more normal light and it looks weird and distorted.
 
The 19^th century British essayist William Hazlitt once remarked that prejudice can only be convincing when it can pass itself off as reason. This is Horowitz’s rather gross effort to do just that. But identifying those opposed to Israeli behavior with Nazis is wildly unreasonable. Hopefully, at this stage of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, most Americans recognize this to be so.
 

by Lawrence Davidson
Professor of History
West Chester University
West Chester, PA 19383-2133
 
ldavidson@wcupa.edu

www.tothepointanalyses.com
www.twitter.com/pointanalyses

 (30 April 2012)

Refugees Voting – setting up an International Palestinian Electoral Commission

By Hugo van Randwyck

Is it time for Palestinian refugees and diaspora to take a pro-active initiative in organising their voting rights? I believe so. Currently only Palestinians in the West bank and Gaza have the vote, and have elected representatives. The majority of Palestinians live outside Palestine, and they also have more freedom to move and do things than Palestinians inside the Holy Land. There is a simple process that can give the majority of Palestinians, who are refugees, voter registration and voting in around 10 to 12 weeks, with a well trained team.

What sort of steps could be organised?

Firstly, list out all the organisations, processes, people and resources needed for such an initiative.

Organisation–Commissioners, Chief Electoral Officer and Electoral Offices

It is important to have an independent International Palestinian Electoral Commission, who can co-ordinate the voter registration and voting. Such an organisation could be modelled on the Palestine Central Elections Commission, which has a board of Commissioners, comprising a Chairman, Secretary General and seven other members.

The Commissioners appoint a Chief Electoral Officer, whose role is to oversee the administrative and executive bodies of the Electoral Commission. The Chief Electoral Officer runs the International Electoral Office.

The overall areas of responsibility for the Electoral office include:

• Developing strategies for each phase of the election processes and action plans for their execution
• Recruiting and training electoral employees.
• Preparing the preliminary and final Voters List.
• Coordinating with all organisations concerned with the electoral process
• Accrediting electoral lists, their candidates, independent candidates and their agents
• Raising voters’ awareness of the importance of elections and how to participate in them.
• Archiving all documents and files relating to the elections.
• Acting as a communications link between the International Electoral Commission and other bodies concerned with the elections, such as political parties, media, observers and candidates.
• Accrediting local and international observation bodies and media representatives

Electoral Commission Offices

To implement the work a number of main departments are needed to carry out the work:

The Field Operations Department: which is in charge of drawing up, conducting and administering plans elated to voter registration and polling and coordinating between the electoral districts and the headquarters. With sections for: planning and support, logistics, field coordination.

The Electoral Procedures Department: responsible for preparing all electoral procedures in terms of challenge and exhibition, nomination, observation, parties affairs, voting and counting. In addition, the department is responsible for preparing civic education and awareness programs. With sections for: procedures and training, political parties and candidates, voters education, graphic design.

Administration and Financial Department: overseas the administrative and financial aspects of the Commission in accordance with the laws and regulations instituted. With sections for: personnel, administrative services, accounting, procurement, financial audit.

The IT Department: works on providing technical resources, setting up and organising communication techniques and developing the software necessary for the Commission in a timely and secure manner. With sections for: management information systems (MIS), system/networking and Technical support.

A number of offices would need to be set up:

A Headquarters: which would have the offices of the Chairman and the Commissioners. The office of the Chief Electoral Officer and the various departments of the Electoral Office would also be there. London may be a good place, or Beirut as another option.

Regional Offices: they would likely be located in capital cities round the world. Since many of the refugees live near the Holy Land, offices in Beirut, Amman, Cairo, Damascus would be essential, and also in London, Washington, Toronto or Ottawa, Paris, Berlin, Copenhagen, Stockholm, Oslo, Sydney or Melbourne, Buenos Aires, Sao Paulo, Santiago, Bogota and other cities. These offices supervise the execution of the various electoral processes, such as voter registration, polling, and the counting of votes, within the boundaries of each district, each of these offices report to Headquarters. It may be possible to use mobile laptops for the voter registration, so no need to have offices set up in each major city in each country, and only have an office in each capital city.

Registration and Polling Centres: these are the centres at which members of the public register to vote and cast their ballots on polling day. These would need to be in schools, village halls, churches/mosques and used for the duration of the registering and voting, for example 6am in the morning to 10pm at night.

Some Qs & As

So who would be eligible to vote?

There would be three types of people with various proof of identity:

UNWRA records – which show who the people are and where they came from in 1948, which is clear enough

Birth Certificates – people who could leave and bring with them proof of identity, e.g. a birth certificate before 1948

No proof of identity – a possible option here is, for those people to have 2 people who have full identification papers, to vouch for them, and also be open for any challenge as to their identity.

Does everybody need to be registered before voting can take place? No. 80% of something is better than 100% of nothing. Or even 95% is better. There may be some logistical problems for some people, or lack of proof of identity, or other questions – it is better to not let this delay the elections by months, any delay would not help the Palestinians. Since 70% of Palestinian refugees live around Palestine, voter registration would be easy.

What if some governments won’t allow voter registration? Like a stream, start where it is easiest to move forward and go from there. Starting in European countries, would give momentum and make it difficult for countries to be against a pro-democracy approach. Countries in the Middle East have seen what happens when they are not in tune with their populations.

Where could all the data be stored safely? A possible option could be at friendly embassies with a good democracy record.

How could the voter registration and voting be funded? Typically voter registration costs around $2 per person, and there are a possible 2 million or more voters. So a fundraising effort could be launched. There are likely to be a number of people around the world who would be happy to also support a pro-democracy solution. A ‘ballots not bullets’ process, such as this, would be supported by a number of people.

What would be on the Voter Registration Card? The name of the Palestinian, their town of origin, district of origin and their current address, as a minimum.

Who would be eligible to register? Anyone who can trace their family to 1948 as a Palestinian, this could include children and grandchildren of families who left in 1948.

How could this be made public? Simplify by daily updates on the news, e.g. 300,000 voters for Jaffa, 250,000 for Haifa,, 275,000 for Acre, 100,000 for Nazareth, 70,000 for Tiberius, etc

Who would people be voting for? A representative for the town/district of origin, e.g. Haifa, Jaffa, Acre, etc, and also a Palestinian President.

Who could be the candidates for election? Anyone who has proved they are Palestinian. They can live anywhere in the world.

Could these elections be coordinated with other Palestinian elections? Yes, there could be Unity Elections, where the Refugees, Diaspora, West Bank and Gaza all vote on the same day.

How long between each election? Currently there are 4 years, however to overcome any problems of one party stronger than another for a period of time, perhaps a shorter period could be better. Initially the time between elections could be 1 year, then maybe 2 years, and see how it goes.

What would these newly elected representatives do? They would be able to coordinate with all other Palestinian representatives, and work on a number of things: visiting overseas Parliaments and explaining better what has been happening since 1948, help improve the lives of refugees and diaspora, look at referendum questions that refugees and diaspora may want to vote in, and other things that come up.

Where would the representatives meet? There are a number of options. The first option would be in Palestine itself, Jerusalem or Ramallah, however Israelis have a habit of arresting and detaining democratically elected Palestinian representatives. Another option would be to meet in another country e.g. Beirut or London. Beirut makes sense because it is close to teh region where most of the refugees live. London has benefits in that it is a western democracy and would be convenient for other western politicians to meet and visit and also for Palestinian representatives to travel to other western countries. Meetings with politicians in the West bank and Gaza, would need to be done for via video conferencing – not ideal, but better than now where over 50% of Palestinians have no elected voice.

What form could the structure be? It could be the Palestine National Council. Or the existing PA process of 66 seats directly elected for towns, with another 66 for party choice. While voter registration is happening, people could discuss this, and also after the first elections, a referendum could be organised, asking Palestinians which one they would prefer.

How long would it take to organise? The first Palestinian elections in 1996 took 10 weeks for 1 million Palestinians to be registered and vote and count the votes, including hiring and training new people. With a good team and resources, a timeframe in this area could be achievable. Some countries could be quicker than others.

Where could the people/Palestinians be found to run this process? There are many able and highly skilled Palestinians in refugee camps and around the world.

How could Palestinians around the world support such a process? By adding support onto their websites, by offering to help with any logistics, location ideas, people for helping with the process, fundraising activities, speaking at conferences in support, writing articles, also on English language, websites/media, etc

Are there resources that could assist? Yes, many are freely available on the internet, searches could be for: elections.ps , ifes.org, aceproject.org the Electoral Knowledge Network, voter registration manual, are some example. Friendly governments could also help. There are ideas for equipemtn, training etc. There are simple options of using laptops that can be taken from refugee camp to refugee camp and also city to city in a small briefcase, to register people easily.

Why not ask Palestinians to vote for representatives for their camps and countries they are in? There are a number of benefits of voting for town/district of origin in Palestine. Firstly, by voting for e.g. Jaffa, Haifa, Acre, the Palestinians are not seen to be getting involved in the internal politics of their host countries, e.g. Lebanon, and Jordan – so making it easier to get local support for the process. Also, since 70% of refugees live near Palestine, it is likely that people elected already live in the camps, so would be able to represent the camps and continue looking to improve conditions – after the first election, representatives would be allocated camps and countries to represent. By voting by town/district, it is possible to have ballot boxes with Jaffa, Haifa, Acre names in English and Arabic, on them, so the news media can show people casting votes into these boxes, making it easier for people to understand what has been happening all these years, also to see that in 1948 and 1967, Palestinian voters were expelled. This will help people around the world ‘see and hear’ the refugees.

Media

It would be possible to show the voter registration and also voting results on the news media with graphic illustration, with numbers for: Acre, Safed, Tiberius, Nazareth, Haifa, Jaffa, Beisan, Jenin, Tulkarm, Nablus, Ramallah, Ramleh, Jerusalem, Gaza, Hebron, Beersheba. Also the media could be invited to the voter registration and voting stations to show the world.

Palestine Central Elections Commission

The Palestine Central Elections Commission website has a lot of useful information, for helping organise Palestinian refugee/diaspora voter registration and voting. They organised the first 1996 elections, from nothing, within 10 weeks, 1 million voters were registered and had voted and votes counted.

International Recognition

A key benefit would be international recognition, so using Out of Country Voting (OCV) would be useful, since it has been used by other refugees/diaspora and have been recognised and supported also be western democracies, including America. So having international election observers and overseas media broadcasting the events would help in many ways.

Summary

The sooner Palestinians set up an International Palestinian Electoral Commission, along the lines of: a Chairman, Secretary General, seven other members and they choose a Chief Electoral Officer, who can oversee the administration of elections, the sooner refugees and diaspora can register and vote. The sooner departments for: Field Operations, Electoral Procedures, Administration and Financial and also IT, can be set up and working.

There are 2 phases, firstly voter registration and them voting. Each phase helps Palestinians in many ways. Giving a voting voice to the refugees and diaspora, would have many benefits, as well as allowing Palestinians a positive approach that includes all of them. Unity of all Palestinians being registered to vote and then all voting on the same day helps with unity.

Maybe it is the turn of the refugees and diaspora to have their own ‘voting intifada’ and ‘voting voice’ and translate that into a pro-democracy voting initiative. This would also be easy for politicians around the world to support

The opportunity for refugees and diaspora to express themselves in elections could help in many ways and assist the international efforts in peace and justice. The refugees and diaspora would like to see something positive that helps them, and a way for them also to help – this is such an initiative.

By Hugo van Randwyck.  He can be reached at hugo.vanrandwyck@gmail.com.

What should unnerve us about Friedman is the acclaim he receives in political and professional circles.

Friedman’s New York Times column appears twice a week on the most prestigious op-ed page in the United States; he has won three Pulitzer Prizes; his books are best-sellers; he’s a darling of the producers of television news shows; and he fills lecture halls for a speaking fee as high as $75,000.

Although his work is stunningly shallow and narcissistic, Friedman is celebrated as a big thinker.

MSNBC’s Chris Matthews was so excited after a 2005 “Hardball” interview with Friedman that he proclaimed: “You have a global brain, my friend. You’re amazing. You amaze me every time you write a book.”

How does a journalist with a track record of bad predictions and a penchant for superficial analysis – a person paid to reflect about the world yet who seems to lack the capacity for critical self-reflection – end up being treated as an oracle?

The answer is simple: Friedman tells the privileged, and those who aspire to privilege, what they want to hear in a way that makes them feel smart; his trumpeting of US affluence and power are sprinkled with pithy-though-empty anecdotes, padded with glib turns of phrases. He’s the perfect oracle for a management-focused, advertising-saturated, dumbed-down, imperial culture that doesn’t want to come to terms with the systemic and structural reasons for its decline. In Friedman’s world, we’re always one clichéd big idea away from the grand plan that will allow us to continue to pretend to be the shining city upon the hill that we have always imagined we were/are/will be again.

As a reporter, columnist, author or speaker, Friedman’s secret to success is in avoiding the journalistic ideals of “speaking truth to power” or “afflicting the comfortable.” Those ideals are too rarely met in mainstream journalism, but Friedman never goes very far beyond parroting the powerful and comforting the comfortable. Friedman sees the world from the point of view of the privileged, adopting in his own words the view of “a tourist with an attitude” when reporting on the rest of the world.

Here’s the problem with that mindset: Around the world, American tourists routinely are experienced as boorish and smug. Around the world, people smile at American tourists and take their money, all the while despising their arrogance and ignorance. Tourists never quite catch on, wondering why the “natives” don’t appreciate them.

In her examination of Friedman’s work, Belén Fernández explains the danger in America’s affection for its No. 1 Tourist Journalist. Her book, “The Imperial Messenger,” is as much about the cultural and political crises in the United States as it is about Friedman’s flaws. This larger focus transforms what could have been a sarcastic hit piece that took easy shots at Friedman’s most mangled prose into a thoughtful meditation from a young journalist willing to state the obvious: the emperor’s messenger has no clothes.

After graduating from Columbia University with a political science degree in 2003, Fernández traveled throughout the Middle East, Latin America and Europe. Eventually, her travel notes turned into journalism, as her accounts of people she met and interviewed became stories for web publications. Frustrated by the gap between what she knew from her education and reporting, and Friedman’s version of international affairs, she wrote a few short critiques of the Times’ columnist in 2009. Then she undertook the systematic review of all his columns since 1995, selections from his writing as a reporter and his books that led to “The Imperial Messenger.” In an email interview, she explained how that happened and why.

Robert Jensen: What sparks a relatively unknown journalist with no establishment credentials to research a book that argues one of the country’s most well-known journalists is, to put it bluntly, a fool and a fraud? That isn’t going to put you in the fast lane for a well-paying job in mainstream journalism.

Belén Fernández: Prior to 2009, my familiarity with the work of Thomas Friedman was basically limited to his notion that France should have been removed from the U.N. Security Council for refusing to support the Iraq war. When I began reading him more extensively, I couldn’t believe that no one had debunked him in book form and took it upon myself to do so – naïvely assuming that it would be an enjoyable and relatively simple task. This assumption proved unfounded, as I realized that a book of any real value had to consist of something more serious than 150 pages of making fun of Friedman’s blunders and general foolishness.

What kept me going throughout the months of reading and re-reading decades’ worth of Friedman’s drivel was anger – at his warmongering jingoism, his blatant racism vis-à-vis large sectors of the world’s population, and the fact that someone unable to keep track of his own arguments and to refrain from continually contradicting himself had risen to a position of such prominence in the US media.

RJ: What word or phrase would you use to describe Friedman’s analytical framework, his way of understanding the world?

BF: Perhaps Friedman’s own decree: “Many big bad things happen in the world without America, but not a lot of big good things.”

RJ: Good journalists inevitably have to simplify the complex events they report about. You suggest Friedman’s work is reductionist. What’s the difference between the two?

BF: It’s one thing to simplify events and phenomena so that audiences can more easily understand them; it’s quite another to brand Palestinians as “gripped by a collective madness” and to whitewash war crimes such as collective punishment.

Recall Friedman’s justification [on the "Charlie Rose Show"] in 2003 for the Iraq war: A “terrorism bubble” had emerged in “that part of the world” and had made itself known on 9/11. In order to burst the bubble, US troops needed to go “house to house, from Basra to Baghdad,” wielding a “very big stick” and instructing Iraqis to “Suck. On. This.” No matter that Friedman himself acknowledged that there was absolutely no link between Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein.

Or recall Friedman’s reductionist Tilt Theory of History, which applies to situations in which “you take a country, a culture, or a region that has been tilted in the wrong direction and tilt it in the right direction.” Again, “right” and “wrong” as conceived of by Friedman and the US military are passed off as universal truths.

Then we of course have the Golden Arches Theory of Conflict Prevention, which posits that no two countries that host McDonald’s establishments have gone to war with each other since each acquired its McDonald’s. This delightful discovery regarding the harmonious effects of American fast food and US corporate dominance is cast into doubt when, shortly after the theory’s birth, 19 McDonald’s-possessing NATO countries go to war with McDonald’s-possessing Yugoslavia.

Around this same time, Friedman’s reductionist assessment that “America truly is the ultimate benign hegemon” is contradicted by such things as his simultaneous entreaties for “sustained,” “unreasonable,” and “less than surgical bombing” of Serbia.

His economic reductions meanwhile rarely withstand the test of reality. Friedman exulted over the Irish economic model in 2005, threatening Germany and France that they had better follow the “leprechaun way” – by, inter alia, making it easier to fire workers – in order to avert economic decadence. The leprechaun way merits no further mention following the collapse of the Irish economy.

RJ: Friedman seems to defy easy political categorization. He doesn’t fit into the categories of liberal or conservative typically used in mainstream politics in the United States. What word or phrase would you use to sum up Friedman’s politics?

BF: Schizophrenic? For example, he advertised the Iraq war as “the most radical-liberal revolutionary war the US has ever launched” while simultaneously defining himself as “a liberal on every issue other than this war” and the war as part of a “neocon strategy.” During an encounter with Haaretz journalist Ari Shavit in 2003, Friedman described the alleged war for democracy in Iraq as not a war that the American masses demanded but rather a war of an elite.

Friedman’s consistent championing of policies benefiting the corporate elite – most recently in his campaign to slash corporate taxes and entitlements in the aftermath of the financial recession – would locate him on the right of the ideological spectrum, though he intermittently endeavors to disguise himself as a “Social Safety Netter” or a “radical centrist.” According to Friedman, the current key to establishing a “party of the radical center” is a bizarre entity called Americans Elect, which will field a third presidential ticket in 2012 elected via “internet convention” and which Friedman acknowledges is funded with “some serious hedge-fund money” courtesy of investor Peter Ackerman. Centrism indeed.

At a presentation at a university in Istanbul in 2010, Friedman classified himself politically as neither a Democrat nor a Republican but rather a disciple of billionaire investor Warren Buffett’s theory that “everything I got in life was because I was born in this country, America, at this time, with these opportunities and these institutions.” Friedman reiterated his duty to pass on a similar situation to his children. As I say in my book, foreign audiences and non-billionaires might be forgiven for a lack of complete sympathy.

RJ: You decided to focus on three subjects in the book: “America,” “the Arab/Muslim world” and the United States’ “special relationship” with Israel. Why did you pick those?

BF: No book on Friedman would have been complete without a section on his grating patriotic obsession with the United States and his view of the country as a global role model and civilizing force. Given that the Arab/Muslim world is so often on the receiving end of the US military’s civilizing endeavors, I decided it was also crucial to devote a section to Friedman’s unabashed Orientalism and his dehumanizing and patronizing contempt for Arabs and Muslims, which he naturally attempts to disguise as concern for their freedom.

The “special relationship” with Israel is more a reference to Friedman’s own function as an apologist for crimes committed by the Jewish state. He purports to be a serious critic of Israel, but his criticism is largely restricted to the issue of settlements, which he criticizes because he views them as jeopardizing the perpetuation of ethnocracy and Israel’s ability to continue denying Palestinians equal rights in a single multi-ethnic democracy. Right-wing Zionists are increasingly condemning Friedman as anti-Israeli and a pro-Palestinian militant, which raises a question – with enemies like Friedman, who needs friends?

RJ: Your own political views are clearly at odds with Friedman’s. How would you answer critics who might suggest your book is just a polemic about those issues, not about Friedman?

BF: One of the most fundamental problems I have with Friedman is that he uses his elevated position to belittle human suffering and to encourage the slaughter of civilians, as he did during Israel’s Operation Cast Lead in Gaza (2008-09), when he invoked Israel’s “logical” mass targeting of civilians in Lebanon in 2006 as an optimistic precedent.

I don’t think it’s possible to reduce this to a clash between political views. As I point out in the book, it is not up to Friedman to decide that the Fourth Geneva Convention prohibiting collective punishment and targeting of civilians in wartime is illogical. Given his influential position in foreign policy circles, I don’t classify his promotion of the notion that some human beings are inherently inferior and more expendable than others, and that corporate profit supersedes human life in importance, as merely politically misguided. I classify it as criminal, and I consider him to be personally responsible and not just a product of the system in which he flourishes.

RJ: After this rather unorthodox start to your publishing career, what comes next?

BF: For the moment my plan is to travel to Peru and Bolivia and see what happens, and hopefully to not encounter anyone who has ever heard of Thomas Friedman.

Originally published as a Truthout book review by Robert Jensen here.  Belen Fernandez is a journalist, author, and co-editor at Pulse Media.  Her book is available from Verso Publishers and online booksellers.

Thomas Friedman’s “Festival of Lies” – An Analysis

by Lawrence Davidson
 
Part I – Friedman’s Frustrations
 
In a piece entitled “A Festival of Lies” published in the New York Times on the 25^th of March, editorialist Thomas Friedman expressed his frustration with American foreign policy in the Middle East. “It’s time to rethink everything we are doing out there” he proclaimed. To be sure he is not the only one frustrated by this situation, but in Friedman’s case it is best to ask just what it is he finds disconcerting about U.S. behavior?
 
Actually, he doesn’t formulate a list of his own, but instead latches on to one put together by the historian Victor Davis Hanson (a military historian whose specialty is ancient warfare) and published in the National Review. This is neither here nor there because Friedman tells us that Hanson is correct in all his particulars. So here are some examples of what Friedman via Hanson find frustrating about U.S. policy in the region:
 
1. Giving all that military assistance (when we really should be helping the Arabs build schools)
 
2. Mounting punitive attacks (but then letting the results fade away because we “fail to follow through”)
 
3. “Keeping clear of maniacal regimes” (which then allows these regimes to either acquire nuclear capabilities, commit genocide, or create “16 acres of rubble in Manhattan”)
 
4. Propping up dictators (which is “odious and counterproductive”)
 
Friedman notes the obvious: these sort of “policy options” cannot change the Middle East for the better. According to both him and Hanson the region is a perpetual “mix of tribalism, Shiite-Sunni Sectarianism, fundamentalism and oil – oil that constantly tempts us to intervene or to prop up dictators.”
 
All this might make sense to some readers of the NYT, but it seems superficial and confused to me. And after all I am an historian too. My speciality is the development of U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. So what do I find frustrating about Friedman’s frustrations?
 
Part II – Frustrating Frustrations
 
1. To reduce the Middle East to tribalism, sectarianism, fundamentalism and oil is just stereotyping and inappropriate reductionism. You might as well reduce the U.S. to Christian fundamentalism, tea-party fanaticism, south-west-east sectional animosity and gas guzzling pick- up trucks. Are they there? Yes. Are they the sum total of the U.S.A.? No. It is the same for the Middle East.
 
2. It is certainly a very good idea to stop giving so many of the region’s armies American weapons and training (and so stop “propping up the dictators), but before you go using the savings to build “community colleges across Egypt” as Friedman suggests, you better consider that Egypt and many other nations in the region are awash in college graduates who cannot find employment. The economies of the Middle East suffer from structural problems, part of which have to do with their ties to a Western controlled world economy.
 
3. I can only imagine what Hanson and Friedman mean by “punitive interference without follow-up” being bad policy.
 
– Maybe they mean that when Ronald Reagan put troops in Lebanon in 1982 in support of the minority Maronite Christian attempt to subvert the country’s constitution there should have been sufficient military follow-up to decimate their rivals, the majority Lebanese Shiites. Keep in mind that a similar follow-up in Iraq in 2003 killed up to a million people.
 
– Or perhaps when that same president (darling of all neo-cons) attacked the home of Muammar Gaddafi in 1986, killing the man’s adopted baby daughter and setting in motion a chain of events that led two years later to the Pan Am bombing over Lockerbie Scotland, he should have immediately followed through with a full scale invasion of Lybia.
 
– Or when George Bush Sr. chased Saddam Hussein out of Kuwait in 1991 he should of followed-up with an invasion of the country then and there instead of following through with draconian sanctions that eventually helped kill up to a million Iraqi poor children.
Supposedly all of these “follow-ups” represent policy options that would have resulted in a better, happier and more American friendly Middle East. This sounds doubtful to me.
 
4. And what about the supposed mistake of “staying clear of maniacal regimes” which in turn allows for “nuclear acquisition or genocide–or 16 acres of rubble in Manhattan.” What the heck does this mean? It was not a “maniacal regime” that launched the 9/11 attacks; the U.S. did not stay clear of the “maniacal regime” of Saddam Hussein but instead sold it the poison gas used against the Kurds; and the Iranians (who are arguably less “maniacal” than the Israelis) have no nuclear weapons program.
 
What all this points out is that Thomas Friedman, one of the most widely read editorial writers in the country, is confused and unreliable when it comes to the Middle East. And, his relying on a conservative military historian venting in the National Review does nothing to sharpen his perception. What is worse is that none of this prevents Friedman from telling us that the U.S. government, which he has just accused of utter failure for decades, now has the responsibility to tell the people of the Middle East some “hard truths.” And what might they be?
 
Part III – Hard Truths
 
1. Tell the Afghans that the Karzai government is corrupt and will be abandoned by most of its troops as soon as we stop paying them. Alas, the Afghans already know this. What Friedman actually should be suggesting is that the U.S. government tell the U.S. people this hard truth.
 
2. Tell the Pakistanis that they are “two-faced” and the only reason that their military is not “totally against us” is because, again, we pay them. Alas, the Pakistanis know this. What Friedman actually should be suggesting is that the U.S. government tell the U.S. people this hard truth.
 
3. Tell the Saudis that they are a bunch of Wahhabi religious fanatics and dictators and that we don’t want their oil. But wait, it is not the U.S. that should be telling the Saudis this. It should be the European and Japanese governments because they are the ones who buy Saudi oil. We get most of ours from Mexico and Canada.
 
4. Tell the Israelis that they are a bunch of Jewish fundamentalist fanatics who are putting their (alleged) democracy in danger with all that settlement building on the West Bank. Before you can tell the Israelis that, you will have to tell the U.S. Congress to forego the largess of certain special interests, or even better, tell the American people that they must change the lobby-based nature of their government.
 
Part IV – Conclusion
 
Friedman ends by lamenting that the U.S. government has chosen to tell the easy lie that all is OK to the Middle Eastern regimes it supports rather than tell them the hard truth. However, he has it wrong. Sure we haven’t gone around telling the corrupt, dictatorial, fanatical leaders of those regimes [deleted] that they have made a mess of the place–largely because we helped them do it. The people of the Middle East know this. It is the people of the U.S. who do not. We have not been lying to the people of the Middle East so much as to ourselves.
 
And it appears that Thomas Friedman also doesn’t know these hard truths. Hence his contradictory conclusion: “…we must stop wanting good government [for them] more than they do, looking the other way at bad behavior….” It is a contradiction to say that you want good government for this region while simultaneously turning a blind eye to bad governmental behavior that you yourself have underwritten. But the contradiction is there only in Friedman’s version of history. In truth the U.S. has not and does not give a damn for either good government or good behavior in the Middle East. What it cares about are governments that cooperate with us in terms of trade, acceptance of Israel and now hostility toward Iran.
 
One has to wonder about Thomas Friedman. He seems to have periodic problems thinking straight. But in an oblique fashion he is on to something. There are lies aplenty when it comes to U.S. actions in the Middle East. However, they are not lies we tell to others but rather to ourselves. And from that, nothing good can come.
　

by Lawrence Davidson
Professor of History
West Chester University
West Chester, PA 19383-2133
 
ldavidson@wcupa.edu

(30 March 2012)

Editor’s note: See also Belen Fernandez’s latest publication The Imperial Messenger: Thomas Friedman at Work http://www.versobooks.com/books/1024-the-imperial-messenger

Confined cruelty: Israeli treatment of Palestinian minors

By Graham Peebles

They shoot children don’t they

The innocence of childhood is a precious jewel, to be gently cared for and nurtured, allowing the child, whose future we are building, to develop happily and safely in an atmosphere of love and peace. For many Palestinian children their childhood is lived under a cloak of fear, and the threat of violence and abuse at the hands of an armed force that stalks the streets of their homeland.

In the eleven years since 2000 Israeli forces have killed “1,471”[1] children in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, the bulk of which are aged between 13 and 17 years old. The children of Gaza have been and continue to be at greatest risk, with almost a thousand murdered in the last twelve years, on the streets of their city, on their way to and from school, whilst playing with friends, shopping for their family or simply relaxing in their homes. Most are shot randomly, indiscriminately, or killed as a result of Israeli air and ground attacks. Around 50 were taken prematurely from their families by unexploded ordnance.

This latest attack on the people of Gaza began on Friday 9^th March, “killing 25 Palestinians.”[2] The Israeli air force fired missiles from the comfort of their warplanes at civilians in an arbitrary way, shooting onto the streets of Gaza and into peoples homes, “in the Jabaliya refugee camp that were mostly full of women and children,” (PM) The faceless attackers even shot at mourners attending a funeral. Such is the callous, vicious nature of the Israeli security forces, that kills, injures and intimidates innocent women and children, destroying all hope of living peaceful decent lives, and all in the name of ‘security’. Nonsense, this is criminal violence nothing more or less. These most recent atrocities come on the back of the massacre that took place in December ‘08/January’09, when a total of “1417”(IOAK) Palestinians were murdered, of which ‘318”(IOAK) were children and 116 women. Fresh in the children’s young memories lie the echo of that horrendous time, the constant bombardment, the loss of loved ones, and the shootings. In addition to the deaths around 1000 children were injured in the three-week assault, many children were left with severe physical disabilities and deep psychological wounds. The mental/emotional effects more difficult to see and or to treat than broken bones and scared flesh. “The Gaza Community Health Programme estimates that half Gaza’s children – around 350,000 – will develop some form of post-traumatic stress disorder.”[3] This is staggering but unsurprising, and the attacks this March on unarmed civilians, will serve to intensify the mental suffering and anguish that these children are living with, “both parents and psychologist fear that Gaza children could be affected psychologically in the long run.” (OP)

Children make up around 45% of the four million or so total Palestinian population[4] – a fact that terrifies an aging Israel. And what impact does living under the brutal Israeli occupation have on them, are they inclined towards peace and brotherhood, is tolerance fostered in their hearts and minds or are the seeds of hate and the desire for revenge being carefully sown. Does violence ever bring peace, or perpetuate conflict. Violence we see begets not harmony but further violence. Colonel Travers, “we spoke to a psychiatrist in Gaza,”[5] who said, “We already see in our schools in Gaza the next generation of Hamas revolutionaries, children exposed to so much violence, they have no option but to terminate their childhood and move into a different frame, and the likelihood is that they will never stabilize.”(Ibid) In order to justify the un justifiable, the unjust Israel needs to instil hate into another generation of Palestinians – to maintain their (Israel’s) position as the ‘enemy within’, thereby excusing in some perverted distortion of the facts, their continued aggression, violence and violation of international laws, too many to count.

Intimidation and Torture

Palestinian children living in the West Bank and the Gaza strip under the illegal Israeli occupation are subjected to brutal treatment, illegal imprisonment, torture and intimidation by the Israeli security forces. Defence for Children International states “a pattern of systematic ill-treatment [of Palestinian children] emerges, [from their report ‘Bound, Blindfolded and Convicted’] much of which amounts to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, as defined in the UN Convention against Torture, and in some cases, torture – both of which are absolutely prohibited.”[6] Since 1967 Palestinian children as well as adults have been subjected to Israeli Military Law, a legal system based on prejudice and short on justice. In the time since this emergence system was instigated 726,000 Palestinians have been arrested and detained. The numbers of children arrested and taken from their homes is shocking. “In the past 11 years alone, around 7,500 children, some as young as 12 years, are estimated to have been detained, interrogated, and imprisoned within this ‘system. This averages out at between 500-700 children per year, or nearly two children, each and every day.” (BBCC) Mostly the arrested children live in villages in areas of tension, “friction points, namely settlements built in violation of international law, and roads used by the Israeli army or settlers.” (Ibid) The situation seems to be escalating particularly in certain areas of the West bank. “The extreme Golani Unit of the Israeli military is escalating its arrests of Palestinian children in Al Khalil (Hebron), targeting boys between the ages of 12 to15 years old with at least 10 reported cases of child arrests made (in early February 2012) just in the span of one week.”[7]

As well arrests, incarceration in solitary confinement has also increased, with almost a quarter of all children arrested being held in isolation. Children, mainly boys, aged from 12 to 17 years old are forcefully taken from their family, often at night, imprisoned in a tiny, dank cell, illegally beaten and tortured, intimidated and on occasion subjected to electronic shock treatment. Most children are detained for the terrible crime of throwing stones at soldiers armed with M16 rifles and tear gas, all courtesy of the American arms industry.

Like 15-year-old Yahia, who, with four friends was arrested and taken to the [illegal] Israeli settlement of Zuffin, where there “hands tied behind their backs, they were blindfolded, before being forced to kneel on the ground for several hours.” (BBCC)The inevitable insults then began to rein down on the children. “After about two and a half hours the boys were loaded into a truck and transported to a police station………the boys were interrogated………the interrogator grabbed the boys head and slammed it against the wall, slapping him twice, a short time later he returned holding a small electric shock device [Taser]. ‘He placed the device on my body and I felt a great powerful shock and my body started shivering’. This shock treatment continued until ‘I couldn’t feel my arms or legs and I felt extreme pain in my head. I felt I was going to be paralysed, so I decided to confess”(BBCC) In another example of torturous abuse at the hands of the Israelis, there is 16-year-old Mohammad Shabrawi from the West Bank town of Tulkarm, arrested in January 2001, again accused of throwing stones. His ordeal mirrors in part that of Yahia – taken to a settlement, his hands tied and being forced blindfolded to kneel on the asphalt for an hour or so, before being taken to “Cell 36, deep within Al Jalame prison in northern Israel.”[8] Reports The Guardian. “It is one of a handful of cells where Palestinian children are locked in solitary confinement for days or even weeks. One 16-year-old claimed that he had been kept in Cell 36 for 65 days.” (Ibid) Mohammad spent “17 days in solitary, apart from interrogations. He first saw a lawyer 20 days after his arrest, he said, and was charged after 25 day” And the effect of this terrible ordeal on the boy, “Since his release, he said, he was “now afraid of the army, afraid of being arrested.” His mother said he had become withdrawn.” (Ibid)

The use of hand ties and blindfolds is extensive, in 2010 the UN documented 90 cases of “ill treatment”[9] of Palestinian children in Israeli detention, of which 75 had their hands tied behind their backs and were also blindfolded. Almost a third of children were under 15 years of age. Of the 90 detained “62 children reported being beaten, 35 children reported position abuse and 16 children were kept in solitary confinement. In three cases, children reported the use of electric shocks on their bodies. Particularly concerning was the fact that there was an increase in documented cases of sexual violence” (UNDOPI) All of this contravenes international law and conventions signed and ratified by Israel and the democratic principles Israel so loudly proclaims. Mark Regev, the chief Israeli purveyor of propaganda and deceit, and Spokesman for Prime Minister, Benyamin Netanyahu in The Guardian, “The test of a democracy is how you treat people incarcerated, people in jail, and especially so with minors.”(TG) Democracy damned by words of duplicity. Much of the mistreatment exercised towards Palestinian children not only contravenes international law, but also violates Israel’s own domestic laws.

When in Israeli custody children are violently interrogated; they are shackled, blindfolded and bound to a chair whilst being questioned. According to Israeli Law, “Interrogation of a minor may be conducted only by an interrogator who is trained as a youth interrogator. A parent is allowed to be present at all times,”[10] and ”Minors have the right to consult with the parent before the interrogation.” (BTSR) They are verbally insulted “You’re a dog, a son of a whore is common. Many are exhausted from sleep deprivation. Day after day they are fettered to the chair, then returned to solitary confinement.” (TG) Eventually the majority of children sign confessions that they later state were coerced, “Children under interrogation unsurprisingly eventually admit to the ‘crimes’, DCI “in the end at least 90 percent will plead guilty, as this is the quickest way out of a system that denies children bail in 87 percent of cases.”(BBCC) Accusations of crimes justifying these illegal detentions are commonly, throwing stones, or occasionally Molotov cocktails at soldiers or settlers – both of whom let us remember are illegally present upon Palestinian land. A few are arrested for “more serious offences such as links to militant organisations or using weapons.”States The Guardian

Major violation Minor insecurity

And what ‘National security information’ is being elicited from the interrogation of these children, who the Israelis are abusing? “They are pumped for information about the activities and sympathies of their classmates, relatives and neighbours.” (TG)) Within walls of intimidation a child can be forced to betray their friends and families, eliciting the names of other stone throwers is a primary aim of the torturer. B’Tselem “One method the police use to identify juvenile stone throwers is incrimination: the police arrest one or more youths, they are required to give names of other youths whom they saw throwing stones, and these youths are then arrested and required to provide the names of others, and so on.”(BTSR) The children under interrogation in a frightening isolated place, far from the sanctity of home, are under great emotional stress and inevitably give up the names of friends, the experience then compounded by the added trauma of guilt.

Children are mostly held inside Israel itself, which restricts access to legal support and excludes family members from visiting, their freedom of movement is constrained under the occupation, the necessary permit to visit the prisons is often impossible to obtain. Families are therefore unable to support their children through the ordeal of confinement. Holding children in prisons inside Israel is in violation of Article 76 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, which prohibits such transfers. According to DCI, “testimonies [from 310 children] reveal that the majority of children are taken away to an unknown location for interrogation.”(BBCC) This process of arrests, detention and torture operating inside Israel and outside international and national law, offers the victims no legal recourse, DCI (“there is a general absence of effective complaint mechanisms.” (Ibid)

Legally binding Illegally bound

The Israeli judicial system as it currently pertains to Palestinian children, allows illegal practices to take place within the walled settlements –themselves illegal, inside police stations and Israeli prisons. International law on the rights of the child, to which Israel is bound, is clear and extensive “The main document establishing the rights of children is the Convention on the Rights of the Child, adopted by the UN in November 1989. Israel signed the Convention in July 1990 and ratified it in August 1991.”(BTSR) In the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on the involvement of children in armed conflict, we find  “Condemning the targeting of children in situations of armed conflict and direct attacks on objects protected under international law, including places that generally have a significant presence of children, such as schools and hospitals.”[11]  Schools are repeatedly targeted by Israeli security forces, according to the UN in 2010 there was an increase in the number of attacks on education institutions.“ The Un continues its findings, “these attacks resulted in damage to schools or interruption of education, placing the safety of the children in Gaza and the West Bank at risk. The majority of cases involved the presence of Israeli security forces within school compounds following raids, forceful entry, and search and arrest operations, including the use of tear gas on students.” (UNDOPI) All international treatise and conventions signed by the lawbreaker, Israel, safeguard children in conflict, and Israel ignores them all, DCI “These treaties relevantly provide that: in all actions concerning children their best interests shall be a primary consideration; children should only be detained as a measure of last resort and for the shortest appropriate period of time;” (BBCC) Held for ‘17 days in solitary’ as Mohammed was, is neither short nor appropriate, indeed it is illegal. It is one example within a catalogue of atrocities, that sees Israel contravening another convention, breaking yet another international law and doing so with impunity. This must stop, urgent action is required to safeguard the children of Palestine and protect them from the tyranny that is Israeli policy in the OPT’s.

In order to fuel what is a raging furnace of legal standards raging around Israel, let us add The Fourth Geneva Convention, which “grants special protections to minors” (IOAK) and provides 146 articles that protect in law the lives of all Palestinians living under the illegal Israeli occupation. Israel is in breech of them all. Indeed ‘grave breaches’, which in itself constitutes war crimes, “the world has seen those [grave breaches] inflicted every day by Israel against the Palestinian People living in occupied Palestine: e.g., wilful killing of Palestinian civilians by the Israeli army and Israel’s illegal paramilitary settlers.” (Ibid)  Israel is guilty of ‘grave breaches’ of the convention and the more serious offense of ‘Crimes Against Humanity’ against Palestinians “as determined by the U.N. Human Rights Commission” (Ibid), which is the “legal precursor to the international crime of genocide as defined by the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide.” (Ibid) The argument that Israel is or has in fact already committed the crime of genocide, is powerful and to many indisputable.

Genocide, ethnic cleansing, apartheid, crimes against humanity; titles that all fit Israel bespoke. Call it what you will, the actions of Israel in the OPT’s are vile, murderous, calculated and illegal. It is for the international community acting in unity, and led by the UN to finally stand up and act to protect the lives of the innocent men, women and children of Palestine, lifting the shadow of constant fear, intimidation and aggression from their lives. Humanity is one. Together we must stand in the face of injustice, violence and hate to safeguard the lives of the innocent, the oppressed the defenceless.

[1] If only Americans Knew. (IOAK) http://www.ifamericansknew.org/cur_sit/dec08.html

[2] The Palestine monitor (PM) 13^th March 2012 http://www.palestinemonitor.org/?p=4401

[3] Occupied Palestine (OP) 17^th March 2012 http://occupiedpalestine.wordpress.com/2012/03/17/memories-of-violence-haunt-gaza-children/

[4] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_the_Palestinian_territories – UN_estimates_.5B14.5D

[5] Mondoweiss.  http://mondoweiss.net/2011/07/col-travers-israels-treatment-of-palestinian-children-shows-that-it-does-not-seek-peace.html

[6] Defence for Children International report, bound-blindfolded-and-convicted-children-held-military-detention-2012 (BBCC)  http://www.dci-palestine.org/documents/new-dci-report-bound-blindfolded-and-convicted-children-held-military-detention-2012

[7] International Solidarity Movement. http://palsolidarity.org/2012/02/hebron-at-least-10-children-arrested-by-israeli-military-in-one-week/

[8] The Guardian (TG) The Palestinian children – alone and bewildered – in Israel’s Al Jalame jail http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/jan/22/palestinian-children-detained-jail-israel 

[9] United Nations Developments in the Occupied Palestinian Territory and Israel (UNDOPI)

 http://www.un.org/children/conflict/english/palestine.html

[10] B’TSELEM report No Minor Matter: Violation of the Rights of Palestinian Minors Arrested by Israel on Suspicion of Stone-Throwing (BTSR) http://www.btselem.org/publications/fulltext/201107_no_minor_matter

[11]  OHCHR  Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on the involvement of children in armed conflict http://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/crc-conflict.htm

International Obligations: Some facts about Iran’s nuclear activities

by David Morrison

Summary

“The United States, European allies and even Israel generally agree on three things about Iran’s nuclear program: Tehran does not have a bomb, has not decided to build one, and is probably years away from having a deliverable nuclear warhead.” (Reuters Special Report, 23 March 2012 [1])

• · Iran has no nuclear weapons
• · Iran has no nuclear weapons programme
• · Iran is not in breach of any obligations under the NPT
• · Uranium enrichment is Iran’s “inalienable right” under the NPT
• · The US and its allies are trying to deny Iran its right to uranium enrichment under the NPT
• · Iran’s nuclear facilities are open to IAEA inspection
• · A double standard is being applied with regard to nuclear weapons in the Middle East:-

(1) Iran, which has none, is the object of ferocious economic sanctions and threats of military action;

(2) Israel, which has many (perhaps as many as 400) and the ability to deliver them to any capital in the Middle East, is the object of over $3 billion a year of military aid.

The US, Israel and others, who are threatening military action against Iran, are in breach of Article 2.4 of the UN Charter, which requires that all UN member states “shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state”.

Some facts about Iran’s nuclear activities

Iran hasn’t got a nuclear weapons programme

According to the US intelligence services, Iran hasn’t got a nuclear weapons programme, let alone a nuclear weapon [2].

That has been their consistent view since November 2007, when they first published it in the National Intelligence Estimate Iran: Nuclear Intentions and Capabilities [3]. This view has been reiterated every year since then in reports to the US Congress by the US Director of National Intelligence.

On 16 February this year, for example, giving evidence to the Senate Armed Services Committee, the present Director, James Clapper, was asked by the committee chairman, Senator Carl Levin, to confirm that in his opinion Iran has not yet decided to develop nuclear weapons. The Director replied unequivocally: “That is the intelligence community’s assessment” [4].

According to the US intelligence services, the Israeli intelligence services “largely agree” with their assessment of Iran’s nuclear activities. The Director said so in later evidence to the Committee [5].

A Reuters Special Report, dated 23 March 2012, entitled Intel[ligence] shows Iran nuclear threat not imminent [1], came to the following conclusions: “The United States, European allies and even Israel generally agree on three things about Iran’s nuclear program: Tehran does not have a bomb, has not decided to build one, and is probably years away from having a deliverable nuclear warhead.”

The Report says that those conclusions were “drawn from extensive interviews with current and former US and European officials with access to intelligence on Iran” and “contrast starkly with the heated debate surrounding a possible Israeli strike on Tehran’s nuclear facilities”. Indeed, they do.

Iran is not in breach of its obligations under the NPT

Iran is not in breach of its obligations as a party to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) [6].

As a “non-nuclear-weapon” state party to the NPT, Iran is obliged under Article II of the treaty “not to manufacture or otherwise acquire nuclear weapons” – which it hasn’t done – and, under Article III, to subject its nuclear facilities to IAEA inspection to ensure that nuclear material is not diverted for the production of weapons – which it has done.

As regards the latter, Iran has declared to the IAEA 15 nuclear facilities, including its uranium enrichment plants at Natanz and Fordow, and 9 other locations (LOFs) where nuclear material is customarily used. All these sites are being monitored by the IAEA. In his latest report to the IAEA Board on 24 February 2012 [7], the IAEA Director General confirmed for the umpteenth time that there was no diversion of nuclear material from these facilities:

“… the Agency continues to verify the non-diversion of declared nuclear material at the nuclear facilities and LOFs declared by Iran under its Safeguards Agreement …” (Paragraph 50)

Uranium enrichment is Iran’s “inalienable right” as a party to the NPT

It must be emphasised that Iran is not breaching the NPT by enriching uranium. On the contrary, uranium enrichment for peaceful purposes is “the inalienable right” of all parties to the NPT, Article IV(1) of which states:

“Nothing in this Treaty shall be interpreted as affecting the inalienable right of all the Parties to the Treaty to develop research, production and use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes without discrimination and in conformity with Articles I and II of this Treaty.” [6]

Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Germany, Japan, Netherlands and South Korea, which like Iran are “non-nuclear-weapon” state parties to the NPT, have uranium enrichment facilities (as have the 5 “nuclear-weapon” state parties to the NPT: China, France, Russia, the UK and the US) [8].

Iran is not in breach of the NPT by engaging in uranium enrichment, so long as this activity is under IAEA supervision to ensure that no nuclear material is diverted for military purposes. That is the case at Iran’s uranium enrichment plants at Natanz and Fordow – and the IAEA has verifed that no material is being diverted and that each facility is operating as declared by Iran in the relevant design document.

In order to produce fissile material for a nuclear weapon, uranium has to be enriched to over 90% U235. At the moment, enrichment has not gone beyond the 20% figure, which is required to fuel a research reactor in Tehran (supplied to Iran by the US in the late 60s). This has been verified by the IAEA, which in each of its reports on Iran’s nuclear activity gives an inventory of the amounts of uranium enriched to 5% and 20% at each facility (see, for example, paragraphs 10 to 27 of its latest report [7]).

If Iran were to proceed to enrich uranium to a level above 20%, that is, towards the 90% level required to produce fissile material for a nuclear weapon, this would be immediately apparent to the IAEA.

(Iran would not be in breach of the NPT, even if it produced fissile material. The NPT requires “non-nuclear-state” parties “not to manufacture or otherwise acquire nuclear weapons”, but it doesn’t forbid the acquisition of the materials, or the technical knowledge, required to manufacture nuclear weapons).

The US and its allies are trying to deny Iran its right to uranium enrichment

So, what’s the problem with Iran’s nuclear activities? Why are the US and its allies imposing ferocious economic sanctions on Iran and are contemplating a military assault on its nuclear facilities?

These days, the message from the US and its allies is that Iran is failing to meet unspecified international obligations. Speaking alongside President Obama at the White House on 15 March 2012, British Prime Minister, David Cameron, put it this way:

“We also discussed the continuing threat posed by Iran’s failure to meet its international obligations. On this, we are fully united. We are determined to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon. We believe there is still time and space to pursue a diplomatic solution and we are going to keep  coordinating closely with our P5+1 partners. At the same time, we are going to keep up the pressure with the strongest US sanctions to date and the European Union preparing to impose an embargo on Iranian oil. Tehran must understand that it cannot escape or evade the choice before it: meet your international obligations or face the consequences.” [9]

But, if the US intelligence services are to be believed, Iran hasn’t got a nuclear weapon, or even a programme to develop nuclear weapons. And its nuclear facilities are being monitored by the IAEA as required by the NPT. So, how can there be a “continuing threat posed by Iran’s failure to meet its international obligations”?

What are the “international obligations” which Iran’s failure to meet warrants ferocious economic sanctions and possible military attack?

These days, the US and it allies rarely specify the “international obligations” that Iran is evading, understandably so, because they are obligations that no other state in this world is being asked to fulfil.

First and foremost, as we will see below, Iran is being asked to cease  uranium enrichment on its own soil and cease it permanently. This is a transparent attempt to deny Iran its “inalienable right” under Article IV(1) of the NPT “to develop research, production and use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes without discrimination”.

It demands that Iran accept permanent treatment as a second-class party to the NPT, with fewer rights than all other parties. That is why, despite having to endure economic sanctions of increasing severity and being threatened with military attack, Iran continues to refuse to meet what the US and its allies term “international obligations”.

The UK, France and Germany proposed that Iran cease enrichment permanently

A little bit of history. In October 2003, the Foreign Ministers of the UK, France and Germany visited Tehran and initiated discussions with Iran on a broad range of issues, including its nuclear programme. In a statement issued with Iran at the time, the three EU states said:

“Their governments recognise the right of Iran to enjoy peaceful use of nuclear energy in accordance with the NPT.” [10]

This was a clear statement that these EU states accepted that Iran had a right to uranium enrichment on its own soil like other parties to the NPT. This clear statement was repeated in the later Paris Agreement signed by Iran and the three EU states (aka E3/EU) on 15 November 2004 [11], which said:

“The E3/EU recognise Iran’s rights under the NPT exercised in conformity with its obligations under the Treaty, without discrimination.”

The Paris Agreement set the scene for negotiations between the E3/EU and Iran, which were supposed to lead to a long term comprehensive agreement. In the Paris Agreement, Iran agreed “on a voluntary basis” to suspend “all enrichment related and reprocessing activities”. In turn, the E3/EU recognized that “this suspension is a voluntary confidence building measure and not a legal obligation”.

The final agreement was supposed to “provide objective guarantees that Iran’s nuclear programme is exclusively for peaceful purposes”, that is, arrangements over and above the requirements of the NPT for monitoring Iran’s nuclear activities so as to give confidence to the outside world that they are not for military purposes.

The UK, France and Germany published proposals for a final agreement on 5 August 2005 [12]. These demanded that Iran make “a binding commitment not to pursue fuel cycle activities other than the construction and operation of light water power and research reactors”, in other words, all enrichment and related activities on Iranian soil had to cease for good. Iran was required to make permanent its voluntary suspension of these activities.

The UK, France and Germany had negotiated in bad faith and broken their commitment at the outset to “recognise the right of Iran to enjoy peaceful use of nuclear energy in accordance with the NPT”. Iran was to be the only party to the NPT that was forbidden to have uranium enrichment on its own soil.

The EU states made no attempt to devise “objective guarantees that Iran’s nuclear programme is exclusively for peaceful purposes”, as required by the Paris Agreement. In the course of the negotiations, Iran made a number of proposals in this regard [13], for example,

• · immediate conversion of all enriched uranium to fuel rods to preclude the possibility of further enrichment
• · continuous on-site presence of IAEA inspectors at the conversion and enrichment facilities to provide unprecedented added guarantees.

Iran also suggested that the IAEA be asked to devise appropriate “objective guarantees”. All of these suggestions were ignored by the EU states. In a speech at the UN on 17 September 2005, President Ahmadinejad made a further proposal:

“As a further confidence building measure and in order to provide the greatest degree of transparency, the Islamic Republic of Iran is prepared to engage in serious partnership with private and public sectors of other countries in the implementation of uranium enrichment program in Iran. This represents the most far reaching step, outside all requirements of the NPT, being proposed by Iran as a further confidence building measure.” [14]

This offer by Iran to have its enrichment programme managed by an international consortium was also ignored. US Under Secretary of State, Nicholas Burns, went so far as to describe Ahmadinejad’s speech as “excessively harsh and uncompromising” [15].

The EU states (and the US) were not interested in “objective guarantees that Iran’s nuclear programme is exclusively for peaceful purposes”. Their goal was to halt permanently the core elements of the programme – uranium enrichment and related activities.

Peter Jenkins confirms that the “objective was to put a stop to all enrichment in Iran”

That this was the goal of the US and its allies in 2005 was confirmed recently by Peter Jenkins, who was the UK Ambassador to the IAEA from 2001 and 2006 and was involved in these negotiations. Looking back, he regrets that Iran’s offer of additional safeguards was not taken up. Writing in the Daily Telegraph on 23 January 2012, he said:

“My hunch is that this gathering crisis could be avoided by a deal along the following lines: Iran would accept top-notch IAEA safeguards in return for being allowed to continue enriching uranium. In addition, Iran would volunteer some confidence-building measures to show that it has no intention of making nuclear weapons.

“This, essentially, is the deal that Iran offered the UK, France and Germany in 2005. With hindsight, that offer should have been snapped up. It wasn’t, because our objective was to put a stop to all enrichment in Iran. That has remained the West’s aim ever since, despite countless Iranian reminders that they are unwilling to be treated as a second-class party to the NPT – with fewer rights than other signatories – and despite all the evidence that the Iranian character is more inclined to defiance than buckling under pressure.

“But that missed opportunity need not prove lethal if the West can pull back now and join the rest of the world in seeing an agreement of this kind as the prudent way forward.” [16]

This is persuasive evidence that the obstacle to a settlement with Iran on the nuclear issue at that time was the refusal of the US and its allies to recognise Iran’s right under the NPT to uranium enrichment on its own soil. There is no reason to believe that this policy has changed.

Iran referred to the Security Council and sanctioned

Understandably, Iran rejected the August 2005 proposals from the UK, France and Germany and over the next six months or so resumed the various activities which it had voluntarily suspended during the negotiations. As a result, the US and its allies persuaded the IAEA Board to pass a resolution on 4 February 2006 [17] demanding, inter alia, that Iran “re-establish full and sustained suspension of all enrichment-related and reprocessing activities, including research and development” and referring the matter to the Security Council.

Subsequently, the Security Council passed a series of resolutions demanding that Iran cease uranium enrichment, amongst other things. Four of these resolutions included tranches of economic sanctions against Iran.

These UN-approved sanctions were relatively mild. However, in December 2011, legislation was passed by the US Congress at the behest of the Israeli lobby (and accepted by President Obama, who dare not offend the Israeli lobby), which may do significant damage to the Iranian economy.

The legislation requires the Obama administration to bully other states around the world to stop trading with Iran, specifically, to stop buying Iranian oil, by threatening to cut off foreign financial institutions from the US financial system, if they conduct transactions with the Central Bank of Iran or other Iranian financial institutions. (Whatever happened to the US commitment to free trade?) Its own trade with Iran will be unaffected since it has been negligible since the Islamic Revolution in 1979.

The EU has meekly followed the US lead, even though this may be economically painful for some EU states (eg Greece and Italy) who get a significant amount of their oil requirements from Iran.

On 20 March 2012, the US graciously conceded that the financial institutions in 11 states would, for the next 180 days at least, be exempt from US sanctions, because they had obeyed Washington’s edict. In a statement, Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, said:

“I am pleased to announce that an initial group of eleven countries has significantly reduced their volume of crude oil purchases from Iran – Belgium, the Czech Republic, France, Germany, Greece, Italy, Japan, the Netherlands, Poland, Spain, and the United Kingdom. As a result, I will report to the Congress that sanctions pursuant to Section 1245 of the National Defense Authorization Act for 2012 (NDAA) will not apply to the financial institutions based in these countries, for a renewable period of 180 days.” [18]

The degree to which this US bullying will succeed remains to be seen. For instance, will China reduce its substantial oil purchases from Iran? And, if it refuses to do so, will the US cut off Chinese financial institutions from the US financial system – which has the potential for disrupting trade between the US and China?

Iran & Israel: applying a double standard

What a strange world we live in? The US and its allies, which claim they want to see the Middle East free from nuclear weapons, are applying ferocious economic sanctions, and threatening military action, against Iran, which hasn’t got a single nuclear weapon – and its nuclear facilities are open to IAEA inspection.

However, they are utterly opposed to applying any sanctions to Israel, despite its possession of perhaps as many as 400 nuclear warheads with the ability to deliver them by aircraft, ballistic missile and submarine-launched cruise missiles and wipe any capital in the Middle East (and probably much further afield) off the map – and its nuclear facilities are almost entirely closed to the IAEA.

Far from sanctioning Israel, the US gives it over US$3 billion a year in military aid and, despite an enormous budget deficit, the amount has increased every year under the Obama administration, as the President was at pains to emphasise in his speech to AIPAC on 4 March 2012 [19]. More US tax dollars go to Israel than to any other state in this world.

One could be forgiven for thinking that a double standard is being applied to Iran and Israel in this regard. The US and its allies frequently say that, if Iran acquires nuclear weapons, this would inevitably lead to widespread proliferation of nuclear weapons in the Middle East. That, they say, is one of the reasons why Iran must not be allowed to acquire them.

What is rarely mentioned is that, because of Israel’s acquisition of nuclear weapons, Iran and other states in the region would at this moment be within their rights to withdraw from the NPT and develop nuclear weapons as Israel, which never joined the NPT, has done, without breaching any international obligations. Article IX of the NPT says:

“Each Party shall in exercising its national sovereignty have the right to withdraw from the Treaty if it decides that extraordinary events, related to the subject matter of this Treaty, have jeopardized the supreme interests of its country. It shall give notice of such withdrawal to all other Parties to the Treaty and to the United Nations Security Council three months in advance. Such notice shall include a statement of the extraordinary events it regards as having jeopardized its supreme interests.” [6]

By any objective standard, Iran and other states in the region have good grounds for withdrawal, because, since they signed the NPT, Israel has acquired a large nuclear arsenal, which is sure to be targeted on them. There could hardly be a better example of “extraordinary events, related to the subject matter of this Treaty”, which “have jeopardized [their] supreme interests”.

It might not be wise for Iran or other states in the region to withdraw from the NPT at the present time but there is no doubt that such an action would be within Article IX of the NPT. (Saudi Arabia is usually mentioned as being certain to acquire nuclear weapons, if Iran does so. In this context, it is worth drawing attention to remarks by Jack Straw, the former British Foreign Minister, in the House of Commons on 20 February 2012 [20].

He questioned whether there would be a race for nuclear capability in the region and quoted a senior Saudi diplomat who told him: “I know what we’re saying publicly, but do you really think that having told people that there is no need for us to make any direct response to Israel holding nuclear weapons, we could seriously make a case for developing a nuclear weapons capability to deal with another Muslim country?”)

On breaching “international obligations”

The US and its allies are forever lecturing other states about living up to their “international obligations”. The UN Charter contains a set of international obligations, which all UN members are supposed to fulfil. The most fundamental of all is in Article 2.4, which requires that all UN member states “shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state” [21].

By threatening military action against Iran, the US and Israel and other states (including the UK) are in flagrant and continuous breach of Article 2.4. The US and Israel should be expelled from the UN under Article 6 of the Charter, which provides for the expulsion of a member which “has persistently violated the Principles contained in the present Charter”. That’s not going to happen, of course, since the US is a veto-wielding member of the Security Council (which must recommend any expulsion) and the other is its close ally.

That’s the way the UN system works, or rather doesn’t.

By David Morrison, 25 March 2012.  By David Morrison, board member of Sadaka.  He can be reached at david@sadaka.ie.

References:

[ 1] uk.reuters.com\article\2012\03\23\uk-iran-usa-nuclear-idUKBRE82M0GI20120323

[2 ] www.david-morrison.org.uk/iran/iran-no-nuclear-programme.htm

[3 ] www.dni.gov/press_releases/20071203_release.pdf

[4 ] c-spanvideo.org/program/ThreatstoUSN (39 minutes in)

[5 ] c-spanvideo.org/program/ThreatstoUSN (96 minutes in)

[6] www.iaea.org/Publications/Documents/Infcircs/Others/infcirc140.pdf

[7] www.iaea.org/Publications/Documents/Board/2012/gov2012-9.pdf

[8] www.ieer.org/reports/uranium/enrichment.pdf

[9] www.number10.gov.uk/news/press-conference-by-david-cameron-and-barack-obama/

[10] www.iaea.org/newscenter/focus/iaeairan/statement_iran21102003.shtml

[11] www.iaea.org/Publications/Documents/Infcircs/2004/infcirc637.pdf

[12] www.iaea.org/Publications/Documents/Infcircs/2005/infcirc651.pdf

[13] www.payvand.com/news/05/nov/1211.html

[14] www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/iran/2005/iran-050918-irna02.htm

[15] www.nytimes.com/2005/09/27/politics/27assess.html

[16] www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/iran/9033566/The-deal-the-West-could-strike-with-

Iran.html

[17] www.iaea.org/Publications/Documents/Board/2006/gov2006-14.pdf

[18] www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2012/03/186086.htm

[19] www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2012/03/04/remarks-president-aipac-policy-conference-0

[20] www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201212/cmhansrd/cm120220/debtext/120220-0002.htm

[21] www.un.org/en/documents/charter/

The Roots of Israeli Behavior:  Sabotage Peace at any Cost

By Adrian Salbuchi

On the morning of 17th March 1992, a tremendous explosion ripped through downtown Buenos Aires.  A fashionable 3-storey building housing the Israeli Embassy had been terror-bombed, collapsing into itself.  The powerful shockwave broke windows and plaster in buildings on the corner of Arroyo and Suipacha streets.  In all, 29 people were killed and 242 injured.  Twenty years on, we still don’t know who did it…

A little over two years later, this unsolved mystery would become inextricably linked with yet another, more devastating terror bombing in downtown Buenos Aires that on 18th July 1994 demolished the AMIA/DAIA Jewish Mutual Association building a dozen blocks away, this time killing 80 and injuring 300.

Since then, both investigations have been maliciously mishandled, purposely embroiled, grossly interfered with by the governments of Israel and the United States, and have become riddled with local and foreign corruption, cover-ups and deceit.  The years went by, acting judges were replaced, some even impeached, however both attacks remain unsolved.   Israel and the US continue in their quest of putting the blame on Iran, Syria, Hamas and Hezbollah… No matter what!

Israel insists that both explosions were caused by “car bombs”, but no car bombs were ever found. The AMIA building which also housed the local Zionist political lobby “DAIA” was at the time led by its banker president Rubén Beraja who funded a US$ 400.000 kickback to a local used-car crook (with the agreement of presiding judge Juan Galeano!), so that he would implicate Hamas and Hezbollah (Beraja was later jailed for collapsing his own bank).  

To understand all of this, there are subtler aspects that can both help to shed light on these attacks as well as help understand the roots of Israeli behaviour.  Especially in what refers to the often violent conflicts that exist inside Israel between moderate sectors who genuinely desire peace with the Palestinians and extreme right-wing fundamentalists who seem willing to go to any extreme to sabotage peace, to ensure that their Messianic dreams of an “Eretz Israel” – a Jewish Empire spanning from the Nile to the Euphrates – may one day come true.  This conflict takes on a global character when they extend out to the Jewish Diaspora, including Argentina’s large Jewish community.

Thus, the bombings in Argentina take on a different dimension when inserted within a timeline of key milestones in these intra-Israeli conflicts:

• 30 Sept 1991 – Start of the US-sponsored Madrid Peace Conference between Israelis and Palestinians. Increasingly, the ultra right-wing fundamentalist settlers’ movement in Israel goes on the warpath.
• 17 March 1992 – At 2:50PM, just after a top level lunch of Israeli government and security officers hosted by the Ambassador leaves the Israeli Embassy building in Buenos Aires, the bomb went off. 
• 13 July 1992 – Rabin elected prime minister. He quickly re-shuffled the Shin Beth, Israel’s secret service in charge of investigating fundamentalist Jewish settler movement groups inside Israel, and of providing security for Israel’s embassies abroad.
• August 1992 – Rabin declares Israel will return the Golan Heights to Syria
• 13 Sept 1993 – Israel and PLO sign Oslo Accords, mutually recognizing each other: the famous Rabin / Arafat / Clinton handshake on the White House lawn.
• 25 Feb 1994 (Purim Feast) – US Jewish fanatic Baruch Goldstein easily passes Israeli Army checkpoints in Hebron carrying a machine gun with which he opened fire on Palestinians at prayer in the Cave of the Patriarchs Mosque, killing 29, injuring 125.  Goldstein was beaten to death and his tomb soon became a pilgrimage shrine for Israeli settlers.
• Feb to May 1994 – Cairo Agreements between Israel and Palestine establish borders of Gaza and Jericho.
• 1 July 1994 – After 27 years in exile Rabin allows Yasser Arafat back into Palestine.  Anger peaks in the ranks of Israeli settler hardliners.
• 18 July 1994 – Terror bombing of the AMIA Jewish Mutual Building in Buenos Aires, at that time very pro-Rabin/Labour.
• 26 Oct 1994 – Peace Treaty signed between Israel and Jordan
• 28 Sept 1995 – Taba-Oslo II Agreements signed over Palestine conflict
• 4 November 1995 – Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin is assassinated at a rally in Tel Aviv.  His assassin was neither an Islamic Fundamentalist nor a Neo-Nazi, but rather a young fundamentalist close to the Jewish Settler movement, also linked to Shin Beth (Ygal Amir).   Supreme Court president Meir Shamgar presided the Shamgar Commission that investigated the assassination, concluding in March 1996 that Shin Beth was responsible for exposing Rabin to “serious risks,” and for failing to act on threats against his life made by Jewish extremists.

The really serious geopolitical consequences of Rabin’s assassination were that Israel’s moderate Labour Party was quickly replaced by the ultra the rightwing leadership of the Likud and Kadima parties: Benjamin Netanyahu, Ariel Sharon, Ehud Olmert and today, again, Netanyahu and Avigdor Liberman.

Since then, they have abandoned “Peace for Territory” policies, replacing them with militant ethnic cleansing as described by former president Jimmy Carter in his 2006 book “Palestine: Peace not Apartheid”. 

When both terror bombings in Argentina are inserted within this timeline of internal events in Israel, we get an inkling of why they have not been solved. 

Because although Israel – as usual, dragging the US behind it – insists that Iran/Syria/Hamas/Hezbollah perpetrated both terror bombings and grossly interfere with Argentina’s judiciary and executive powers, a different more plausible scenario has yet to be investigated: that Israeli intelligence and secret services themselves may have been directly involved in both attacks, within the logic of increasing intra-Israeli violence taking place in the nineties.

Since the obviously false “Iranian and Syrian connections” never got anywhere, perhaps it’s time for Argentine and international authorities to recommend pursuing a possible “Israeli Connection” into both attacks.

In the case of the Embassy bombing, in 1996 Argentina’s Supreme Court ordered the National Academy of Engineers to make a thorough survey and investigation into what caused the explosion.  They concluded it occurred deep inside the Embassy building, which means, no car bomb. 

In August of that year a public row erupted between Supreme Court president Julio Nazareno and then Israeli Ambassador to Argentina Itzhak Aviram, with the latter insulting the Court over its findings.  Hysterical shrieks of “Anti-Semitism!” were very much in the air… 

If it were to turn out to be true that Israeli players were behind both terror bombings, then it’s important that the international community should insist on clarifying both events, so that we may know who was really to blame. 

Israel’s insistence that Iran is to blame can and will be used by them, the US, UK and France, to further their frenzied search for an excuse to unilaterally attack Iran.  Today’s Israeli Ambassador to Argentina, Daniel Gazit, insists: “we believe Iran is to blame”; he even talks about a coming “third terror attack against Jewish interests in Argentina”.

Now, who could be planning that?!?    Clearly, the world needs to better understand some of the more subtle fundamentals regarding the roots of Israeli behaviour.  That will, no doubt, help promote world peace.

By Adrian Salbuchi, March 2012.  ­Adrian Salbuchi is a political analyst, author, speaker and radio/TV commentator in Argentina.  More info at www.asalbuchi.com.ar.

How Many Violations of US Arms Laws are Too Many?

By Franklin Lamb

It depends whether the miscreant enjoys “We will always have your back regardless” status.

On March 6, 2012, the US Congressional Research Service released a report to the US Congress concerning Restrictions on the use of American weapons by recipient countries. For those who have followed the subject there was not a whole lot new in the CRS study, yet it is instructive in identifying Israel once again as far and away the most egregious violator of virtually every provision of every US law which purports to regulate how American weapons are used.

According to one CRS researcher, requesting anonymity during a Skype conversation and subsequent memo:

“An intern and I decided, almost for amusement, to count violations of US Arms Export Control laws by Israel between the date of ACEA enactment, 1976, through  last month and we estimated more than 2.5 million violations if we applied the law given the legislative history and intent of Congress at the time of its passage.  We based that figure on our estimation of each individual violation of the act as well as of the 1961 Foreign Assistance Act.  It could be firing a US 155 mm artillery shell, various missiles, bombs, rockets and of course cluster munitions. For example, were Israel brought before a Court, the prosecutors would surely argue that each cluster booklet dropped on Lebanon in 2006 was a separate violation plus the two million estimated dropped during the 1982 invasion of Lebanon and during the 1978, 1993 and 1996 invasions.  Add to this figure Israel’s records of violating US Arms export laws in Gaza, the West Bank and Syria and the true number is surely several million violations.  Essentially all committed with impunity.”

In accordance with U.S. law, the U.S. Government is mandated to enforce strict conditions on the use against civilians, of weapons it transfers to foreign recipients. Violations of these conditions can lead to the suspension of deliveries or termination of contracts for such defense items, and even the cutting off of all aid to the violating country.

Section 3(a) of the 1976 US Arms Export Control Act (AECA) sets the standards for countries to be eligible to receive American arms and it also sets express conditions on the uses to which these arms may be put. Section 4 of the AECA states that U.S. weapons shall be sold to friendly countries “solely” for use in “legitimate self-defense, for use in “internal security,”  and to enable the recipient country to participate in “collective measures requested by the United  Nations for the purpose of maintaining or restoring international peace and security.”

Should the President or Congress determine pursuant to section 3(c)(3)(A) of the Arms Export Control Act that a “substantial violation” by a foreign country of an applicable agreement governing an arms sale or grant has occurred, then that country is automatically ineligible for further U.S. military hardware. This action would also terminate provision of credits, loan guarantees, cash sales, and deliveries pursuant to previous sales or grants. Other options include suspension of deliveries of defense items already ordered and refusal to allow new arms orders.

The United States has only once used such an option against Israel.

Questions raised by researchers in Beirut during the summer of 1982 and by Washington Post journalist Jonathan Randal regarding the use of U.S.-supplied military equipment by Israel in Lebanon in June and July 1982, led the Reagan Administration to determine on July 15, 1982, that Israel “may” have violated its July 23, 1952, Mutual Defense Assistance Agreement with the United States (TIAS 2675) and the AECA.

The pertinent language of the 1952 agreement between Israel and the United States states:

“The Government of Israel assures the United States Government that such equipment, materials, or services as may be acquired from the United States … are required for and will be used solely to maintain its internal security, its legitimate self-defense, or to permit it to participate in the defense of the area of which it is a part, or in United Nations collective security arrangements and measures, and that it will not undertake any act of aggression against any other state.”

Alarm centered on whether or not Israel had used U.S.-supplied antipersonnel cluster bombs against civilian targets during its carpet bombing West Beirut during the nearly three month siege.

The House Foreign Affairs Committee held hearings on this issue in July and August 1982. On July 19, 1982, the Reagan Administration announced that it would prohibit new exports of cluster bombs to Israel. This prohibition was lifted by the Reagan Administration in November 1988 under US Israel lobby pressure on the White House designed to assist the Presidential campaign of George H. W. Bush against Senator Walter Mondale.

The facts of this case which mainly centered on events in Lebanon are instructive.  During the 1973 Ramadan war, Israeli Prime Minister Golda Meir, watching Arab forces advance on Israel troops following the October 6 Egyptian and Syrian offensive, and being advised by the Israeli Defense Ministry of a pending disaster, threatened President Nixon with Israel using nuclear weapons unless the US rescued Israel. Nixon’s immediate response was to order a massive air lift to Israel of US arms stockpiled for use in Vietnam at Clark air force base near Subic Bay, Philippines. The base commander at Clark immediately resigned because being on the defensive in Vietnam, he advised Washington US troops needed those weapons.  Included were eight types of US cluster bombs including the M-42, M-46,CBU-58 A/B, APAM (BLU) 77/B, MK 20 “Rockeye”, MK 118 and he M-43 “Birdie” as the U.S. Marines in Beirut referred to the M-43 it in late 1982 and 1983.

During a late June 1982 meeting with Israeli Prime Minister Begin, Reagan was handed a note from George Shultz.  Based on the information he had in hand, Reagan directly told Begin that the US had reliable information than Israel was using American weapons against civilians in Lebanon. At this point according to Reagan, Begin became very agitated.  He lowered his glasses and while glaring at Reagan and shaking his index finger said, “Mr. President, Israel has never and would never use American weapons against civilians and to claim otherwise is a blood libel against every Jew, everywhere.”  Following their meeting Reagan told Defense Secretary Casper Weinberger, as reported by Weinberger and by various biographers of Reagan that “I did not know what the term “blood libel” meant, but I know that the man looked me straight in the eyes and lied to me.”

The original Secretary of State George Schultz suggestion to Reagan of Israel using two types (the M-42 and the CBU-58) of American cluster bombs was soon changed to the charge that Israel in fact used all eight types of American cluster bombs Nixon had sent to Meir during October 1973.

Proof of the use of the eight types of US cluster bombs was delivered to an assembly of US Pentagon and other officials in late July 1982 at the Indian Head Ordnance facility on the Potomac River in Southern Maryland on instructions from the late American Journalist Janet Lee Stevens to this observer.  Substantive and still preserved demonstrative and physical evidence, including photographs and US cluster bombs, some of which still were filled with the high explosive minol, that were carried in my suitcase,  that had been gathered from around West Beirut by Janet and her research team that included Palestinian fighters delegated by Yassir Arafat and Khalil al Wazir (Abu Jihad) some Marabatoun fighters, as well several Amal milita as well as this observer  to aid with the task.

The US / Israel lobby accurately considers American arms control laws as meaningless. The prohibitions against Israel’s use of American weapons against civilians have not, are not and in all likelihood will never be enforced against Israel given the regime’s continuing occupation of much of the US government.

 The once cherished American value of building a nation based on humane laws and the American national security interest of achieving  a foreign policy that deals on the basis of equality with other nations have been sacrificed  so as to delay the inevitable  collapse of the apartheid colonial enterprise implanted on Palestine.

 The Obama “we’ve got your back regardless” genuflection endangers America as surely as it threatens with US weapons, every country in the Middle East and beyond that may even contemplate challenging Zionism’s regional hegemony.

It’s high time for true American patriots to take back their country and rejoin the community of nations on the basis of equality and mutual respect for all, entangling and corrupting alliances with none.

Franklin Lamb is doing research in Lebanon and is reachable c/o fplamb@gmail.com

Palestine: Homes destroyed, land stolen, lives shattered

By Graham Peebles

Criminal demolitions in the OPT’s

Within the catalogue of criminality that is Israel’s occupation of the West Bank and Gaza, the destruction of Palestinian homes must rank as one of the most cynical and heinous. “Some 90,000 people are currently reported to be at risk of displacement as a result of Israeli policies such as restrictive and discriminatory planning, the revocation of residency rights, the expansion of settlements and the construction of the West Bank Separation Wall.” [[1]] All, let us note and explore further, with the tacit engagement of America, who bank-roles the entire operation.

Home, a refuge from the world, safe and secure, somewhere to relax with family and friends, and breathe easy, free from fear. This simple image of normality is unknown to many Palestinians living under the brutal illegal occupation by Israel. “The Israeli practice of demolishing homes, basic infrastructure and sources of livelihoods continues to devastate Palestinian families and communities in East Jerusalem and the 60 per cent of the West Bank controlled by Israel, known as Area C. Many of the people affected already live in poverty, and demolitions are a leading cause of their on-going displacement and dispossession in the West Bank.” [[2]]

Last year (2011) saw more homes demolished than in the previous six years, and record numbers of people made homeless and displaced, “by November 2011 Israeli authorities had demolished 467 Palestinian homes and other buildings in the West Bank (including East Jerusalem), displacing 869 people.” [[3]] The UN puts the figure even higher, at 1000. (HRWHD) Alongside the illegal destruction of Palestinian homes, the settlement expansion has accelerated and with it, according to Human Rights Watch, “an escalation of violence perpetrated by settlers.” [[4]]  

The total number or recorded house demolitions since the occupation began in 1967 is estimated to be 24,813. [[5]]  With Palestinians perversely being forced to either demolish their own home or face a charge for the IDF to do it, some homeowners undertake the task themselves: “it [the family] is liable for the costs of the house demolition which can run up to tens of thousands of dollars. To avoid these costs, Palestinians subject to administrative house demolitions may “opt” to undertake the demolition of their own home -it is not known how many Palestinians choose this route.” [[6]] These ‘homemade’ demolitions are not included in the (IAK) figure quoted, making the actual total much higher.

Let us ponder for a moment on the absurdity of living under the cloud of an illegal authority that forces families to bulldoze their own home.

 Lives demolished

The impact on the families whose homes are demolished and the effects, immediate and long-term are devastating. Children are particularly vulnerable, as too are pregnant women and the elderly. Families are displaced and separated, children made homeless, frightened and unsettled for years. “Children who have had their home demolished fare significantly worse on a range of mental health indicators, including: withdrawal, somatic complaints, depression/anxiety, social difficulties, higher rates of delusional, obsessive, compulsive and psychotic thoughts, attention behavior – even six months after the demolition. They cry more, are afraid to go to school, feel they are not loved or that others are bad to them, feel guilty, nervous and are very tense.” (BH)

House demolitions add to the numbers of Palestinian refugees, who constitute the largest single group of refugees in the World. “In 2007, there were an estimated seven million Palestinian refugees worldwide and 450,000 internally displaced in Israel and the OPT.” (BH)

Propaganda permitting violence

As well as the demolition of homes, places of work, businesses and sources of livelihood are destroyed, in addition to basic groundwork, “wells, rainwater harvesting cisterns, and other essential structures.”(HRHD) When in the West Bank in 2009 I witnessed numerous roadside market stalls outside Hebron being demolished. I counted eight smashed to ruin or in the process of being destroyed at the hands of the Israeli Defence Force (IDF), America’s occupying security force. “Most demolitions in 2011 affected livelihood structures, negatively affecting the sources of income and living standards of some 1,300 people.” [[7]] The reason given: “Palestinians set up shop without the required official permits.” (ISOPT)

Israeli explanations justifying demolitions serve only as propaganda, seeking to justify the unjust, the illegal, the inhumane. The nonsense of permits tramples on sanity. It is the Israeli authorities (IDF) that grant, or refuse to grant permits for a variety of aspects of daily life: housing, importing goods, travel, trading and infrastructure development, such as water pipes, electrical lines, communication etc. The IDF claims it only destroy homes that are built without a permit “13%” (BH), or for ‘military reasons’ “41%” (BH). Disingenuous nonsense. The locution of the deceiver attempting to trap the right minded into legitimising the actions of the IDF and validating its illegitimate authority.

This bureaucratic maze of madness, established, maintained and administered as instruments of control adds to the armoury employed by Israel to bring Palestinians to their physical and emotional knees. “Military law (that) systematically deprives Palestinians of their rights and denies them the ability to have any real effect on shaping the policy regarding the land space in which they live and with respect to their rights.” [[8]]  

The two-tier legal structure installed by the occupying force is designed and implemented to maximise the suffering of the Palestinians, leaving them with no choice but to live outside the system. “Israel’s discriminatory planning restrictions result in the lack of building permits for the Palestinian population in the West Bank forcing them to build without permits and live under the constant threat of eviction and demolition.“  (ISOPT) 

Flouting conventions.

Whilst Palestinian homes and essential structures are destroyed, Israelis living comfortably and secure within the illegal settlements are allowed to flout the law. Peace Now has documented “a dramatic increase in the number of new illegal buildings in the settlements, construction is proceeding according to plans that were never approved by the IDF. At least 507 unapproved housing units are currently being built in 29 settlements,” these (Israeli) developments are not subject to a demolition order, even though they are building without the necessary permits ‘compulsory’ under Israeli law. “House demolitions exercised exclusively against Palestinians have displaced thousands of families, while neglecting to enforce the planning laws on Israeli settlers.” (ISOPT) Contradictions coil around the IDF, strangling its actions within a web of dishonesty and deceit as they justify atrocities with bureaucracy, whilst supporting criminality.

Israel has no legitimacy under international law to build themselves, creating subsidized settler ghettos, or to destroy structures of those that do so without their permission. Full and complete domination of Palestinians is the aim, with all land under Israeli control. Israeli leader Menachem Begin states: “The return of even one bit of earth to the Arab would be a betrayal of the nation.”(MM)

Demolitions of Homes, infrastructure and places of livelihood, are illegal under international law: “The systematic policy of house demolitions carried out against Palestinian residents in Jerusalem contravenes the 4th Geneva Convention which forbids “any destruction by the Occupying Power of real or personal property belonging individually or collectively to private persons” except where such destruction is rendered “absolutely necessary by military operations.” [[9]]  Furthermore, “extensive destruction of property not justified by military necessity and carried out unlawfully and wantonly constitutes a grave breach to the Convention, which can theoretically be prosecuted under the universal jurisdiction of States party to the convention.” [[10]] Theory needs to turn into action, collective complacency giving way to international outrage. Implement and enforce the law.

Add to the above a raft of relevant articles in the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC), where we find:

• Article 9, 1 State Parties shall ensure that a child shall not be separated from his/her parents against their will,
• Articles 24, 1. States Parties recognize the right of the child to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of health.
• Article 27. 1. States Parties recognize the right of every child to a standard of living adequate for the child’s physical, mental, spiritual, moral and social development. 
• Article 31 The right of the child to rest and leisure, to engage in play and recreational activities appropriate to the age of the child and to participate freely in cultural life and the arts, and crucially article 38, State parties undertake to respect and to ensure respect for rules of international humanitarian law applicable to them in armed conflicts which are relevant to the child.” [[11]]

All are implicitly relevant in the impact of house demolitions on children.  A plethora of International law engulfs Israel. What is required and most urgently is the implementation and enforcement of the law.

Quiet please, Ethnic transfer 

The demolition policy is a tool of terror in a planned campaign, with the clear intention of subjugation, control and intimidation. House demolitions are tied in with the overall strategy of expansion by Israel and the realisation of imperialist goals: “the grand design of Judaic-Zionist expansionist doctrine is to seize all the oil-rich lands from the shores of the Euphrates to the banks of the Nile,” [[12]] which includes the continuing illegal settlement building, and violence at the hands of settlers and the Israeli Defence Force (IDF) “Israel has continued to flout agreements for a moratorium on illegal construction in Israeli settlements, evictions of Palestinian families to make way for incoming settlers continue apace” [[13]] “throughout the eastern half of the city [Jerusalem] nonstop pressure is applied as part of “quiet transfer”. (GHD)

The ‘quiet transfer’ is far from quiet or peaceful. It is the violent, forced eviction and displacement of Palestinian families in East Jerusalem. ‘Quiet Transfer’ refers to the technique by the IDF of disempowering the Palestinians and extinguishing all hope by making daily life tortuous, leading to the ‘transfer’ of East Jerusalem citizens out of the city into the West bank. “The increasing rate of settlement expansion and house demolitions is pushing Palestinians to the brink, destroying their livelihoods and prospects for a just and durable peace.” (HRWHD)  Just after Christmas last year, “Jerusalem mayor Nir Barkat announced plans to strip IDs from 70,000 Palestinian residents of Jerusalem, and transfer them to the West Bank civil administration. Though not a physical transfer, this stripping of IDs will mark the largest en masse stripping of citizenship rights, since 1967.” The process of ethnic cleansing continues apace in Jerusalem. It is illegal–enforce and implement the law.

Intimidation, unjust house building controls, the theft and rationing of water and the issuing of demolition notices constitute a methodology of suffering underpinning the policy of ‘quiet transfer’ in East Jerusalem.  Eventually wearing the people down, until sooner or later they simply give up. “Once they leave, they rescind their rights to Jerusalem ID papers, destroying any hopes of employment in Israel proper – effectively keeping them caged in the poverty of the West Bank forever.” (GHD) Homes, infra-structure, and businesses are demolished within East Jerusalem and Area C of the West Bank, ‘C’ for cleansing – ethnic cleansing it is, “the rate and the method of house demolitions show that this is more a policy of gradual ethnic cleansing than anything else, with clear political and strategic purposes.” [[14]] Everything Israel does inside the OPT’s forms a constituent part to an overall plan, a vision of total domination. Demolitions are no exception to this rule. “Each demolition is a microcosm of the occupation: why they are demolishing a particular house in a particular area exposes how the wider occupation works and how the process of house demolitions is contributing to the wider occupation. We want to unmask the way Israel frames the occupation as a conflict of security. The policy of house demolitions shows exactly the opposite. In more than 90% of the cases the families whose house was demolished didn’t have a security record. House demolitions go hand in hand with land expropriation for settlements expansion.”[[15]] Settlement building is illegal under international law. Implement and enforce the law.

American Partners in crime

Israel disregards international law, with the support and involvement of their chief criminal ally and partner in crime, America. Every time a Caterpillar bulldozer from the US storehouse of suffering smashes into a Palestinian home, Israel commits another illegal act and the US corporate giant is an accessory to a crime, causing ever more human agony and distress. “Caterpillar [has a] long history of complicity in widespread human rights violations within the occupied Palestinian Territories. Caterpillar routinely provides Israel with equipment designed specifically for military use knowing it is used to demolish Palestinian homes, to kill and injure Palestinian and international civilians, to destroy olive trees and farmland, and to facilitate expropriation of Palestinian territory through construction of Jewish-only settlements and Israel’s apartheid wall.” [[16]]

America is the supplier of all that destroys and contaminates in the OPT’s, from white phosphorous bombs burning the children of Gaza to Caterpillar bulldozers demolishing their homes. “The U.S. is providing Israel with at least $8.2 million each day” (IAK) in military aid alone. Amnesty International’s report Fuelling Conflict states, “transferring weapons to a consistent violator of human rights is illegal under international law.”  Norman Finkelstein referring to Amnesty’s findings, states “Israel is a consistent violator of human rights, [emphasis mine] and therefore there has to be a comprehensive arms embargo on Israel.” The consistent supplying of arms by America to Israel maintains and sustains the occupation, “the US is by far the biggest supplier of weapons to Israel; supplying those weapons to Israel is not only illegal under international law, it’s illegal under domestic US law.” [[17]] Implement and enforce the law, international and domestic, within America and the OPT’s.

Those sitting in comfort, shrouded in complacency, with the White House know well what US corporations are supporting, where US arms are deployed and what consecutive US administrations’ silence is allowing to continue. By their support the US is condoning the steady on-going demolition of homes and the destruction of lives too many to count. And what words of condemnation issue from the Obama administration, that plays lip service only to justice and the rule of law Secretary of State Hilary Rodham Clinton, “described the demolitions as “unhelpful,” noting that they violated Israel’s obligations under the US “road map” for peace.” [[18]] The US ‘road map for peace’ is a blood splattered road of rubble leading directly and swiftly nowhere, at the hands of a broker, whose vision is not of peace: “the US has blocked the two state-vision supported by virtually the entire World since the mid 1970’s” [[19]], but of extended hegemony and dominance, throughout the Middle East and the World.

Any ‘road map’ to peace, could be swiftly navigated and gently traversed were America to withdraw the manifest support it gives to Israel, the diplomatic, economic and military tools that are fuelling the illegal occupation and causing untold suffering to the Palestinian people.

The days are numbered for such tyranny and injustice. A growing movement of solidarity, cooperation, demanding change daily builds in strength throughout the World. Shining light into the darkest corners, and there are few darker than Israel, sustaining all those who call for justice, freedom and unity. All that would pervert and soil the life of men, women and children everywhere shall be exposed and seen clearly. Goodness will out, justice shall be done. Implement and enforce the law is the cry

By Graham Peebles

February 2012

Graham is Director of The Create Trust, a UK registered charity, supporting fundamental social change and the human rights of individuals in acute need.  E: graham@thecreatetrust.org

A Wake-Up Call for Lebanese National Unity

Recently the Israeli daily Haaretz ran a story highlighting Israeli Army preparations for the next wave of aggressions against Lebanon. Published under the rather sensational title ‘WATCH: IDF prepares for tunnel warfare in future Lebanon, Gaza conflicts‘, the article explicitly seeks to reassure the Israeli public that its war dogs will correct past failures and ‘get it right’ next time round.

To begin with, it is apparent that the paper suffers from virtual ink-space constraints. The author, Gili Cohen, obviously did not have room to raise straight-forward questions like: ‘what drastically different approach will these war dogs take, which they somehow failed to enact in nearly two-decades of direct military occupation?’; or perhaps, ‘how does this new bravado measure up against the simple reality of Israel’s startling military failures of the July 2006 war?’

But that’s not the real cookie-winner. Buried towards the end of the piece are the mind-blowing words of an evidently amnesiac Zionist high-ranking officer:

“Occupation is the only narrative that can provide an image of victory” … “A state in which both sides continue firing at each other is bad. Best case scenario – it’s a tie, and a tie is a loss, which will not do. We need to occupy the territory.”

One would expect that some sense of reality might have dawned on the nation’s war generals after the scathing criticisms of the Winograd commission (particularly concerning the issue of having well-defined and achievable war aims). It seems however, that Zionist military officials have locked themselves in an Alice in Wonderland like dream-world where military calculations are governed by the limitless reveries of a fictive realm. ‘Same old, same old’, one is inclined to say.

At the same time though, there is another angle from which one can view these words. We have the massive misfortune of having an irrational, racist and expansionist entity whose war drums never stop beating at our gates. Such words should serve, then, as a clear wake-up call for us to get our acts together.

Weakness, internal strife and defeatism are simply not options in the face of such an enemy. Even more specifically, if we have learnt anything from the experiences of the past three decades, it is that the only formula for success is national unity.

In this respect, we should pay particular attention to the ‘quality’ of our reactions to the tumultuous regional events which have mired the domestic debate in recent months. Sadly, the bunker mentality of ‘erecting walls’ at the first chance still lingers across sections of the political spectrum.

It is important to acknowledge, in no unclear terms, that those who ‘aggravate’ (note, aggravate) the internal situation under the influence of regional ‘bloc-politics’ are simply undermining the national interest for their own narrow gains. Whilst we can agree to have divergent readings on the regional situation, it is imperative not to lose sight of the crude reality of our present situation. To do so, would be no less demented than the utterances of the Zionist military official.