Author: heathlander

In Turkey yesterday, an ethnic Armenian journalist was gunned down, apparently by a teenager, outside his office in Istanbul. Hrant Dink, editor of the Turkish-Armenian newspaper Agos, was considered a traitor by many in Turkey for daring to call the killing of Armenians by the Turks from 1915 to 1917 a “genocide”. He had faced trial several times for `violating laws against insulting the Turkish state and Turkish identity by referring to ethnic purity and genocide’.
No doubt this ugly incident will be used as further ammunition by those who would oppose Turkey’s accession to the EU for human rights reasons. Certainly, Turkey has an atrocious human rights record. No country whose body of law includes the following:

1) A person who publicly denigrates Turkishness, the Republic or the Grand National Assembly of Turkey, shall be punishable by imprisonment of between six months and three years.
2) A person who publicly denigrates the Government of the Republic of Turkey, the judicial institutions of the State, the military or security organizations shall be punishable by imprisonment of between six months and two years.

could possibly be called `progressive’, `democratic’ or – if you are inclined to use the word – `civilised’. Indeed, Hrant Dink had himself been tried and convicted under the above law (Article 301), serving a six month sentence.

Another high-profile case of civil rights abuse in Turkey is that of Orhan Pamuk, a Turkish novelist (and winner of the Nobel Prize for Literature in 2006) who faced trial in 2005 for the crime of “insulting Turkishness”. The charges were dropped after an international outcry, but similar cases continue today.

In 1991, Leyla Zana, a Kurdish-Turkish politician, dared to speak Kurdish in the Turkish Parliament. At her inauguration, she took the oath of loyalty in Turkish, as required, and then added in Kurdish:

“I shall struggle so that the Kurdish and Turkish peoples may live together in a democratic framework.”

The nationalists were outraged, but she was protected by parliamentary immunity for three years, until she joined the Democracy Party in 1994. The party was then banned by the authorities and she was charged with and put on trial for treason, later reduced to membership in the illegal Kurdish Workers’ Party (PKK). She was convicted in what Amnesty International called a “flagrantly unfair trial” based on testimonies from “witnesses who themselves faced prosecution or who later retracted their statements, which they said were extracted under torture”. She was sentenced to 15 years’ imprisonment, and was only released in 2004.

According to Amnesty International, “[t]orture and ill-treatment by law enforcement officials continued to be reported” in 2006, with “detainees allegedly being beaten; stripped naked and threatened with death; deprived of food, water and sleep during detention; and beaten during arrest or in places of unofficial detention.”

There can be no real dispute, then, about the state of Turkey’s human rights record. However, to attempt to deny Turkey membership in the EU on this basis is hypocritical in the extreme. Turkey’s use of torture has, for example, been a major stumbling block in its application. But only yesterday, British Foreign Minister Margaret Beckett admitted the UK had knowledge of the United States’ global network of secret CIA “black sites” prior to President Bush’s official acknowledgement of their existence last September. According to Amnesty International, “[r]enditions involve multiple layers of human rights violations”:

“Most victims of rendition were arrested and detained illegally in the first place: some were abducted; others were denied access to any legal process, including the ability to challenge the decision to transfer them because of the risk of torture. There is also a close link between renditions and enforced disappearances. Many of those who have been illegally detained in one country and illegally transported to another have subsequently “disappeared”, including dozens who have “disappeared” in US custody. Every one of the victims of rendition interviewed by Amnesty International has described incidents of torture and other ill-treatment.”

Amnesty reports that “[t]here is little doubt that transfers are intended to facilitate…abusive interrogation”, and quotes the former director of the CIA’s Counterterrorism Centre, Vincent Cannistraro, who described the “interrogation” of one detainee who was “renditioned” to Egypt:

“They promptly tore his fingernails out and he started telling things”.

The UK government actively hindered attempts by MPs and activists to gain information about the rendition flights and Britain’s role in them, cooperated (.pdf) in the CIA abduction of two British citizens by providing false intelligence about them and permitted American planes used for rendition to refuel at British airports. In December 2006, a draft European Parliament report “deplore[d] the way the British government…cooperated” with investigations into European collusion with rendition.

In other words, Britain is complicit in torture. Yet, strangely, there are no calls to expel the UK from the EU. In 2005, according to Amnesty International, the British government,

“continued to erode fundamental human rights, the rule of law and the independence of the judiciary, including by persisting with attempts to undermine the ban on torture at home and abroad, and by enacting and seeking to enact legislation inconsistent with domestic and international human rights law…Measures purporting to counter terrorism led to serious human rights violations, and concern was widespread about the impact of these measures on Muslims and other minority communities.”

In the same year, a court in Germany – another EU member – ruled that “evidence that could have been extracted under torture or ill-treatment was admissible in legal proceedings”, in “breach of the absolute ban on torture under international human rights law”. Also in 2005, Italy expelled more than 1,425 migrants to Libya, in “defiance of international refugee law”, whilst failing once again to make torture a specific crime within its penal code.

Many EU members, including Britain and France (which has its own unflattering history of torture), are guilty of human rights abuses committed in 1999, when NATO launched an illegal war on Serbia. According to Amnesty International (.pdf), NATO forces “failed to take necessary precautions to minimise civilian casualties”, committed “serious violations of the laws of war leading…to the unlawful killing of civilians” and, in the case of the bombing of Radio Television of Serbia network headquarters in Belgrade (which killed 16 civilians), perpetrated a “war crime”.

In 2003, many EU members participated in the illegal invasion of Iraq, including the UK, Italy, Spain, the Czech Republic, Poland, Holland, Denmark, Bulgaria, Estonia, Romania and Slovakia. They are all complicit in numerous violations of human rights, for example the criminal assault on Fallujah, and are all guilty of waging a war of aggression, the “supreme international crime”.

And so on and so on. In the light of the above, can anyone seriously maintain that Turkey is not “civilised” enough to join the EU? The fact that many people do illustrates an important point: most people still view the EU (and the West generally) as somehow more “civilised”, “democratic” and “virtuous” than the rest of the world. Many in Western Europe share an underlying assumption that, fundamentally, countries like Britain, France, Spain and Germany are benign. The result of this deluded self-image is that when the governments of these countries try to persuade their people to support a war by citing “humanitarian” or “security” reasons (as with the wars on Yugoslavia, Afghanistan and, in the case of Britain and Spain, Iraq), the public is pre-disposed to believe them. The consequences of this can be counted in bodies.

Cross-posted at The Heathlander

I’ve just finished watching The Trial of Tony Blair, a “biting feature-length satire” originally broadcast on More4. We join Tony in 2010 as he prepares to leave office, making way for Gordon Brown. President Hilary Clinton is in the White House and a resolution is up before the UN Security Council to put those responsible for the criminal aggression against Iraq on trial in the Hague. We see Blair obsessing almost to the point of madness over his “legacy”, whilst suffering horrific visions of dead Iraqis and, at one point, his own coffin. The film ends with Blair in a jail cell, on his way to face trial for war crimes.
The Trial of Tony Blair is neither gripping nor funny, two qualities one would think essential for a “comedy drama”. The gags would feel more at home on the set of Have I Got News For You or Bremner, Bird and Fortune, such is their sophistication, and they distract and detract from the plot. As Greg Maughan writes,

“The Trial of Tony Blair lacks any real purpose; Beaton swings from trying to present us with a Shakespearian allegory, with Blair confronted by demonic visions of Iraq, to giving us a cheap sketch show where Cherie Blair steals all the light bulbs from No 10 before the Browns move in…there’s absolutely no attempt to explore the real underlying motives for the Iraq war – the massive oil supplies in the region and the prestige of US imperialism, which Blair kow-towed to.”

But some of the reactions to the show in the press have been extraordinary. Whether they enjoyed the film or not, I’ve yet to see a single mainstream journalist either use the film as a starting point to discuss the relevent background issues (has Blair committed war crimes? What were those crimes? What were their consequences? Should we bring him to trial?) or to point out that this drama, for all it’s faults, has done what the media has completely failed to: it has raised unafraid the issue of Tony Blair’s crimes and discussed the possibility of holding him accountable.

In the past six months, according to a database search, The Independent has carried only six articles that include the words `Tony Blair’ and `war criminal’. Two of those were by Robert Fisk, and a third – a comment piece by Steve Richards, described those who “conclude simplistically that he [Tony Blair] metamorphosed suddenly into a liar and a war criminal.” None of them directly labelled Blair a war criminal or discussed the possiblity of trying him in court.

The Observer, the supposed guardian of liberal values, published no articles in the past six months either calling Blair a war criminal or discussing the possiblity that he be tried for his crimes.

The Daily/Sunday Telegraph carried only one article in the past six months mentioning the words `Tony Blair’ and `war criminal’ – the topic was Israel’s war on Lebanon. However, the article did not call Tony Blair to account for his complicity in Israeli crimes, let alone accuse him of committing a crime himself.

Only two Guardian articles in the past six months directly associated Tony Blair with war crimes. In the first, Tommy Sheridan (former Member of the Scottish Parliament) writes,

“Blair’s part in Bush’s illegal and immoral war on Iraq makes him war criminal number two across the globe. For providing Bush with such cover, Blair should be in the dock for war crimes.”

The second, whilst not itself branding Blair a war criminal, quotes Hizbullah official Abu Zeinab as saying,

“He [Tony Blair] is a full partner in the atrocities and I think he should be prosecuted as a war criminal alongside Bush and Olmert.”

Of course, the article does not go on to provide details of any possible justification for Zeinab’s claim, and so, him being a Hizbullah member, the reader is not expected to take him seriously.

In addition, a comment piece very briefly notes that “hardline critics” were disappointed by inquiries that failed to indict Blair as a “war criminal”. Such is the depth of analysis permitted in the mainstream British press about the crimes our leader has committed in our names.

The Financial Times published only two articles linking Mr Blair to the war crimes he has undoubtedly committed, but in both cases the accusation appeared as a quote from an anti-war protestor. Since no explanation or discussion of the claim or Blair’s crimes accompanied them, the reader is again left to conclude that this was just a crazy anti-war protestor being crazy. Imagine if the press only accused Saddam Hussein (or any other official enemy of the state) of being a war criminal through quotes from anti-Saddam protestors that were not accompanied by any explanation or detail of the atrocities he committed. It’s inconceivable.

Neither The Times nor The Sunday Times published a single article in the past six months calling Blair a war criminal or discussing the possiblity of bringing him to trial.

In total, over the past six months, the combined coverage from the entire mainstream, respected British press that dared to discuss the possibility of Tony Blair being a war criminal consisted of just seven articles, at a push. Our `free’ press is too afraid and too docile even to take an honest look at the crimes our leader has commited in our names using our money.

We should not be surprised at this spineless subservience. An Economic & Social Research Council study into media performance during the build-up to the Iraq war concluded,

`Many reports about the military campaign favoured the coalition and all media outlets became more deferential towards government during the period of major combat operations…

`The Sun gave the most explicit support to coalition operations among newspapers but much newspaper coverage – even in the Independent and Daily Mirror, the most avowedly anti-war publications – was supportive of the military campaign…

`Coverage mainly served to reinforce official justifications for war, in particular the humanitarian case for regime change in Iraq. Media debate over the reasons for the action tailed off once the war started. The tendency was for news media to accept the official position and this enabled the coalition’s moral case for the war to go by default.’

The sad truth is, The Trial of Tony Blair succeeded where the mainstream British press has spectacularly failed – it was unafraid to call Blair what he really is and to discuss the issue of trying him in the International Criminal Court for war crimes. That is something the press should have been doing non-stop ever since the illegal invasion of Iraq. That the crucial task of holding politicians to account for their actions has been left to a “comedy drama” reveals a lot about the state of our democracy.

The Heathlander

In a “major speech” yesterday (transcript), Prime Minister Tony Blair defended his “controversial” foreign policy, insisting that Britain must continue to follow his doctrine of interventionism. A major theme of the address, repeated many times, is that the situation we face today is somehow radically different from anything we’ve ever faced before. Thus, Blair speaks of a security threat that is “qualitatively new and different”, of a “new security context”and a “new strategic reality”. The terrorist attacks of September 11th 2001, apparently, “changed everything”.
The propagation of this supposed paradigm shift is necessary in order to justify Bush and Blair’s radical doctrine of preventive war. If the paradigm has been so radically transformed, so goes the implication, the old systems of international law and morality are no longer relevant.

In reality, the “war on terror” declared after 9/11 is fundamentally similar to the first war on terror, declared by Reagan in the 1980s. This shouldn’t be surprising, since many in the Bush administration previously worked for Reagan – in terms of policy, their second stint in power is largely a continuation of their first. Both administrations used the construct of terror (and, in Reagan’s case, Communism) to justify illegal, imperial aggressions around the world combined with internal repression and domestic militarisation. The main difference with the Bush administration is the sheer unprecedented openness with which it carries out its policies. Aggressive war has been a de facto policy of virtually every American government since the Second World War, but the Bush administration is the only one, as far as I know, to have made it official policy. The primary reason for this is the terrorist attacks of September 11th, which shocked the American people and Congress into granting the President a literal blank cheque to “use all necessary and appropriate force” against those nations, organisations or people “he determines” to have “planned, authorized, committed or aided” the 9/11 terrorist attacks. Bush has used that cheque to pursue hegemonic policies (.pdf) he and his buddies had previously only dreamed about. That is the significance of the atrocities of 9/11.

The U.S. National Security Strategy (.pdf) (NSS) of 2002 was effectively an announcement that, to quote Noam Chomsky, the United States will `maintain global hegemony permanently. Any challenge will be blocked by force, the dimension in which the US reigns supreme.’ To this effect, the NSS authorised the use of preventive war, which under international law is indistinguishable from the “supreme international crime” of aggression. In his speech, Tony Blair did the same, arguing that:

“The frontiers of our security no longer stop at the Channel. What happens in the Middle East affects us. What happens in Pakistan; or Indonesia; or in the attenuated struggles for territory and supremacy in Africa for example, in Sudan or Somalia. The new frontiers for our security are global. Our Armed Forces will be deployed in the lands of other nations far from home, with no immediate threat to our territory (my emphasis)“

Blair advocates the use of force for “”security” in the broadest sense”, in an “assertion of our values against theirs”. The values we will, literally, fight are “anti-democratic, anti-freedom and anti-everything that makes modern life so rich in possibility.” It is indeed hard to imagine a broader license for the use of force. Britain will, Blair continues, use force to “protect our security and advance our interests and values in the modern world”. In essence, then, Blair is reserving the right to use force anywhere in the world, regardless of any “immediate threat” to our territory, in order to advance British “interests” and “values”. As a 2006 government White Paper entitled `Active Diplomacy for a Changing World (.pdf)` put it, the UK `must be engaged around the globe to shape developments at a time of rapid change’.

As noted above, preventive war (or `aggression’) is the “supreme international crime”. Tony Blair’s support for it – which, as we saw with Iraq, goes beyond mere rhetoric – completely contradicts official UK policy, which is to pursue a `truly international and co-operative’ response to terrorism that is `vigorous’ but remains `within the rule of law’.

Blair doesn’t expand on what right the UK has to “shape” the world in its “interests” and according to its “values”. He doesn’t need to; it’s a given. We, Britain, pursue only noble goals. What is good for us is good for everyone. Our foreign policy over the past decade has, says Blair, been “governed as much by values as interests”. This is a standard feature of establishment propaganda – that `we’ are the good guys, who try our best to be a “force for good” in the world, even if we sometimes make mistakes. As Blair puts it:

“The reality is we are those charged with making decisions in this new and highly uncertain world; trying, as best we can, to make the right decision. That’s not to say we do so, but that is our motivation.”

Bush’s National Security Strategy also paints the U.S. as fundamentally benign, stating that the aim of U.S. foreign policy is to `make the world not just safer but better’. What gives the U.S. – the most feared and hated nation on the planet – the right to use force to `make the world…better’ is, again, not discussed. In reality, virtually every oppressor and aggressor in history – including Hitler – has proclaimed noble intent in carrying out their crimes. Flowery statements about promoting “values” and “freedom” are thus utterly meaningless.

Blair criticises those in the West – including the “media” – who succumb to “enemy propaganda” and believe that somehow terrorism is “our” fault. The roots of global terrorism developed “long before any of the recent controversies of foreign policy”, argues Mr Blair, and so to “retreat” from battle now would be “futile”. Blair is right – terrorism did develop before “recent” atrocities the West has inflicted upon the developing world, such as the invasion of Iraq. So what? That would only mean something if there did not exist less-recent “controversies” – like, for example, the 1953 U.S.-backed coup of Iran’s democratically elected leader Mossadegh, and subsequent decades of U.S. support for the brutal Shah. But there does, and so it doesn’t.

The Foreign Office is a bit less confused on the subject:

“There can never be any justification for the use of terrorism. But we need to understand the causes and deal with them. There are no simple causal relationships between conditions such as political or economic failure, rapid modernisation or partial or inadequate reform, conflict, bad governance, failed states, and terrorism. But they can in certain circumstances create a starting point. We also need to respond to powerful motivating factors such as moral outrage and injustice in the international arena, (and the exploitation by some groups of that moral outrage). In addition, we need to address the perception of some groups that they are facing an existential threat from the economic, political or cultural dominance of the West.”

The most reasonable strategy I’ve come across for combating terrorism directed against the West (because it should not be forgotten that terrorism is primarily a weapon of the strong, and one that is oft used by both the U.S. and the UK) was expressed by Noam Chomsky, who writes that:

`The first step, plainly, is to try to understand its roots. With regard to Islamic terror, there is a broad consensus among intelligence agencies and researchers. They identify two categories: the jihadis, who regard themselves as a vanguard, and their audience, which may reject terror but nevertheless regard their cause as just. A serious counter-terror campaign would therefore begin by considering the grievances , and where appropriate, addressing them, as should be done with or without the threat of terror’.

Put simply, we need a two-pronged approach: with regards to the jihadis themselves, we should deal with them as we would any other criminal – they should be arrested and brought to trial. To deal with the broader problem of why ideologies like al-Qaeda’s find so much sympathy in certain parts of the world, we must examine and address the legitimate grievances many around the world hold against the West. Bush and Blair like to paint a picture of a grand conflict between “values” and ideology – freedom vs. oppression, democracy vs. dictatorship, civilisation vs. barbarism – but this apocalyptic showdown is a fiction; it doesn’t exist. As Chomsky writes:

`The senior CIA analyst responsible for tracking Osama bin Laden from 1996, Michael Scheuer, writes that “bin Laden has been precise in telling America the reasons he is waging war on us. None of the reasons have anything to do with our freedom, liberty, and democracy, but have everything to do with U.S. policies and actions in the Muslim world…A Pentagon advisory Panel concluded a year ago that “Muslims do not `hate our freedom,’ but rather they hate our policies,” adding that “when American public diplomacy talks about bringing democracy to Islamic societies, this is seen as no more than self-serving hypocrisy.”‘

Blair uses the construct of a “global” enemy and an ultimate showdown between two conflicting ideologies to justify the criminal aggressions the UK has perpetrated around the world. In this respect, it is fitting that he compares terrorism to “radical Communism” – both have been used as excuses for campaigns of terror, support for brutal dictatorships and the militarisation of society to insane levels.

Blair repeatedly draws the distinction between “hard” and “soft” power. He advocates the use of both – the alternative, says Blair, is a catastrophic “retreat” that will merely “postpone” the conflict with radical Islamism. But the important distinction is not between “hard” and “soft” power, but between what is legal and what is not. That is the most important distinction. For Blair, the invasion of Iraq was an example of the use of “hard” power, and he tries to defend it on those terms. In reality, whether “hard” or “soft”, the important fact is that the invasion of Iraq was illegal. It was a crime, an aggression, and moreover was a crime that was opposed by the vast majority of the world. That Blair has the gall to talk about working “in alliance with others” after treating the authority of the UN with such contempt and undermining it almost to the point of its collapse is amazing.

According to the government’s `Defence Vision`, the key role of British foreign policy and defence establishment is to `Defend…the United Kingdom and its interests.’ According to the government’s Strategic Defence Review (.pdf) (SDR) of 1998, `there is today no direct military threat to the United Kingdom or Western Europe. Nor do we foresee the re-emergence of such a threat.’ Since even Blair admits terrorism cannot be defeated by “conventional means”, that leaves just one purpose for the second biggest defence budget in the world – defending advancing UK interests abroad. What are those interests? The SDR refers to `vital economic interests’ that are `not confined to Europe’. Specifically, the UK has `particularly important national interests…in the Gulf. Oil supplies from the Gulf are crucial to the world economy’. It is in our interests, apparently, to ‘support…the international order’. The SDR advocates using `all the instruments at our disposal’ – including the `military’ – to `pursue our interests’.

It is clear that Britain’s armed forces are not being used for `defence’ (or even, as Tony Blair posits, for “security in the broadest sense”). It is, on reflection, a profound propagandistic achievement that spending on our military is labelled the “defence budget”. That the branch of government responsible for maintaining our weapons of war is labelled the “Ministry of Defence” is an exercise in doublespeak comparable with Orwell’s `Ministry of Love’. What we have in Britain is a Ministry of War, led unquestionably by Tony Blair. The Prime Minister has undoubtedly pursued policies that have made British citizens less secure, both by increasing the threat of terrorism and by leading us further down the paths to nuclear war and environmental catastrophe. The “Ministry of Defence” wants (.pdf) Britain’s armed forces to be able to fight either three small foreign wars simultaneously or one large one, which `could only be concievably undertaken alongside the US’. “In other words”, as George Monbiot writes, “our “defence” capability is now retained for the purpose of offence. Our armed forces no longer exist to protect us. They exist to go abroad and cause trouble.”

Blair’s “controversial” foreign policy is a recipe for devastating war and the further erosion of international law. It has, predictably, resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent people. He finished the speech by saying he looks “forward to the debate” about the future of British foreign policy. Of course, the time for “debate” would have been before Blair lied the country into an illegal war, and before he decided to ignore international law and the Non-Proliferation Treaty by renewing Trident. The time for debate is over; what we need now is an intervention. Not the imperialist kind that Bush and Blair are so familiar with, but rather a democratic intervention by the people to put a stop to the warmongering that has left us all complicit in Bush and Blair’s aggression, terrorism and murder.

Cross-posted at The Heathlander

On Thursday, U.S. troops, backed by helicopters, raided an Iranian consulate in the northern Iraqi town of Irbil. The soldiers “detained” six workers and “confiscated” documents and computers. This is, perhaps, the first instance of direct U.S. military action against Iran in years, and so represents a significant escalation in what can only be described as the slow, steady march to war.
A U.S. statement makes no mention of the Iranian consulate, merely noting that six people were taken into custody in the course of “routine security operations”. The Iranians have appealed to the Iraqi government to obtain the release of the staffers, as happened in December, when it expelled back to Iran two senior Iranian agents detained by the U.S. on suspicion of gun-running and planning sectarian attacks, much to the Americans’ annoyance.

An anonymous senior U.S. military official at the Pentagon has denied that the building was a consulate, as did Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman, but this is hardly credible. Iraqi, Kurdish and Iranian officials all describe the building as a consulate. A Kurdish official recalled how American forces “disarmed the Kurdish guards of the consulate and used force to enter the building”. As a consulate, the building enjoyed diplomatic immunity, and in attacking it the U.S. violated international law. Since the raid was illegal, the six Iranian workers were not “detained” by the U.S.; they were abducted.

Iran, correctly, issued a “strong condemnation of the US forces’ action which was against all international regulations.” Even the Kurdish government, normally very supportive of U.S. policy, condemned the move and demanded an immediate release of the detainees in a statement from regional president Massud Barzani’s office, which read, “The presidency and the government of the Kurdish region of Iraq express their disapproval of the operation against the Iranian consulate” .

The anonymous Pentagon official cited above went on to describe the captives as “suspected of being closely tied to activities targeting Iraq and coalition forces.” Similarly, national security spokesman Gordon Johndroe defended the operation, stating:

“If we get information that is actionable that the Iranians are interfering with Iraq, with Iraqis, or in any way going to harm Americans that (sic) we’re going to take action…The president made it clear last night that we will not tolerate outside interference in Iraq. And that’s what the Iranians are up to.”

That is, of course, a ludicrous display of hypocrisy – the U.S. will not tolerate “outside interference” in Iraq? Is that a joke? The U.S. illegally invaded Iraq in 2003 contrary to the wishes of the majority of the world’s population and currently has over 130,000 troops stationed there. Despite the fact that a vast majority of both Iraqis and Americans want the occupation to end (so much so that most Iraqis support attacks against Coalition troops), President Bush recently announced an escalation, planning to send another 21,500 soldiers to Iraq. Does this not count as “outside interference”? Moreover, if American officials argue that Iran’s “interference” (which is undoubtedly on a smaller scale than the U.S.’ ) justifies an illegal attack on Iranian property and the abduction of Iranian diplomatic workers, surely Iran is entitled to “detain” American troops and civilians in Iraq, too? By the logic of Bryan Whitman and Gordon Johndroe, Iran is entitled to barge into the American super-embassy still under construction in Baghdad, steal documents and computers and kidnap American workers.

The incident occurs after President Bush, in a delusional and nonsensical 20-minute speech to the nation, declared once again that he would not be following the recommendations of the Iraq Study Group by engaging in diplomacy with Iran and Syria, and would instead move to confront them. In the speech, Bush described how Iran is “providing material support” to insurgents and terrorists in Iraq, before promised that the U.S. would “seek out and destroy” those responsible for providing “advanced weaponry” to the America’s “enemies” in Iraq. Not very subtle, George. This is just the latest in a long series of violent threats the Bush administration has made against Iran. Bush made clear that he that he has no time for specifics, nuance, reality – rather, he supposedly believes the West is currently engaged in a grand conflict between civilisation and barbarism, democracy and dictatorship, freedom and oppression, good and evil. Or, as he put it, the “decisive ideological struggle of our time”. Of course, it’s bullshit – the conflict has nothing to do with ideology and everything to do with economic hegemony, but the `clash of civilisations’ rhetoric allows Bush to justify the utter contempt with which he is treating the fundamental principle that states should use dialogue rather than force to solve disputes.

Meanwhile, Condoleeza Rice joined in the chorus of barely-veiled threats against Iran. “We will do what is necessary for force protection”, she said. “Networks are identified. They are identified from intelligence and they are acted upon . . . whatever the nationality.” Rice also stressed that she would meet with Iran’s leadership “any time, anywhere”, once it halts its uranium enrichment programme. That’s the Bush administration’s version of the `carrot-and-stick’ approach to diplomacy: if you surrender, we will deign to speak with you (the carrot); if you don’t, we will bomb you (the stick). It’s not a conventional interpretation of negotiations, for sure – after all, once Iran has surrendered, what would there be to talk about?

Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen, Peter Pace, referring to the raid on the Iranian consulate, repeated the mantra: Tehran’s involvement in Iraq is “destructive…They are complicit…and we will do what is necessary (my emphasis).”

President Bush has accompanied these threats by ordering yet another aircraft carrier and its supporting fleet of battleships to the Persian Gulf, within quick sailing distance of Iran. Mr Bush also announced the deployment of Patriot missiles in the gulf, in addition to the battery already stationed in Qatar.

What is becoming clearer and clearer, with every speech and every threat and every military escalatation, is that, in the words of William Arkin, Bush is “willing…to go to war with Syria and Iran”. Said Republican Senator Chuck Hagel to Condoleeza Rice,

“You cannot sit here today — not because you’re dishonest or you don’t understand — but no one in our government can sit here today and tell Americans that we won’t engage the Iranians and the Syrians cross-border”.

Even Republicans in the heart of government are voicing their concerns over a future war with Iran that is looking more likely by the day. Their fear is justified. To allow Bush to drag the U.S. into yet another Middle Eastern war, even as American forces are currently embroiled in a devastating occupation of Iraq, would be disastrous. We must not let him do it.

Cross-posted at The Heathlander

This is a thought experiment. Both Israel and the United States have been openly advocating and planning for the use of force to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons for some time now. This is preventive war, and is illegal under international law. According to a high-level 2004 UN panel, unilateral force is only justified in the event of an “armed attack” or if a “threatened armed attack is imminent, no other means would deflect it and the action is proportionate”. For an action to qualify as `preemptive’ (as opposed to the uncontroversially illegal `preventive’), it must be in response to “incontrovertible evidence that an enemy attack is imminent”. Now, it is obvious that no such evidence exists in the case of Iran. Thus, any use of force aimed at destroying Iran’s nuclear capacity would be preventive, not preemptive, and would thus be illegal.
However, let’s for a moment accept that the U.S.’ and Israel’s claims that the use of force against Iran is justified are accurate. In other words, that the threat posed by Iran to Israel and United States satisfies the conditions required to justify preemptive use of force. The point of the thought experiment is this: if we accept such a ludicrous standard governing the use of force, we cannot help but conclude that Iran has a right to send planes to bomb Jerusalem and Washington tomorrow.

The case for attacking Iran essentially rests on two main contentions: that Iran is developing nuclear weapons and that, once it has them, it will use them against Israel (either directly or through Hizbullah). I will not discuss the accuracy of the first assertion here; suffice to say that both the CIA and the IAEA (.pdf) disagree. In any event, even if we accept that Iran is developing nuclear weapons, that would not qualify for a preemptive strike, even under the ridiculous standards of Israel and the United States. If it did, we would be forced to conclude that the majority of the states on the planet (including Iran) have a right to attack America, Israel, France, Britain, India and the other members of the `nuclear club’.

No; what’s important is the second assertion – that, should Iran develop nuclear weapons capacity, it would use it against Israel. This is a very serious accusation and so requires plenty of evidence to back it up. The standard of evidence required is especially high because the idea that Iran would use a nuclear weapon against another nuclear state is so counter-intuitive; states don’t commit suicide. In reality, the only `evidence’ used to suggest that Iran would use a nuclear weapon is a few statements by President Ahmadinejad to the effect that the `Zionist regime’ will be destroyed. Therefore, by this standard, all we have to do to show that Iran would be justified in sending fighter jets to bomb Washington and Jerusalem is provide stronger evidence than a few abstract statements by a populist President who has no authority of matters of war or nuclear policy of a country that hasn’t the ability to carry out those threats even if they were sincere that Israel and the U.S. pose a real threat to Iran.

That shouldn’t be too hard to do. Israeli politicians (who most definitely do have authority over such matters) have been openly saying for months that, if dialogue fails to persuade Iran to halt uranium enrichment, Israel will not hesitate to use force. Statements by Israeli officials branding [http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/804551.html a] nuclear Iran as “intolerable” and sanctioning the use of force in order to prevent one developing are numerous and sincere. Deputy Defense Minister Ephraim Sneh has been particularly prominent, declaring that the Iranian nuclear programme must be stopped “at all costs”, noting further that although military action is a “last resort”, the “last resort is sometimes the only resort”. Moreover, unlike Iran, Israel has the ability to carry out its threats and, unlike Iran, which has not attacked a country outside its border for over 200 years, Israel has repeatedly shown a willingness to use aggressive force to further its strategic objectives.

Likewise, the U.S. has made it clear that it has no objection in principle to a military strike on Iran. For example, President Bush recently declared that he would “understand” if Israel chose to attack Iran, and has refused to rule out military action, stating that “all options are on the table.” Meanwhile John Bolton, then U.S. ambassador to the UN, promised Iran “painful and tangible consequences” if it failed to halt enrichment.

But the threat posed by the U.S. and Israel has gone far beyond mere rhetoric. As I wrote in a previous post:

In September the U.S. started to plan the deployment of a major “strike group” of battleships to the Persian Gulf. In October, the U.S. led a naval war game off the Iranian coast intended to display to Iran both military might and aggressive intent, whilst a couple of days ago newspapers reported that both Britain and the U.S. are sending additional warships and fighter planes to the Gulf. The message couldn’t be clearer: if the sanctions don’t stop you, our military will.

Today, the Sunday Times reports that Israel is planning a nuclear strike on Iran. According to the Times, two Israeli air force squadrons are training to blow up an Iranian nuclear facility using `tactical’ nuclear weapons (or “bunker busters”). According to one of the Times‘ sources inside the Israeli military,

“As soon as the green light is given, it will be one mission, one strike and the Iranian nuclear project will be demolished”.

Indeed, Israeli pilots have already flown to Gibraltar in recent weeks to train for the journey to Iran, for which three possible routes have already been mapped out.

Israel’s Foreign Ministry has denied the report, claiming,

“The focus of the Israeli activity today is to give full support to diplomatic actions and the expeditious and full implementation of Security Council resolution 1737. If diplomacy succeeds, the problem can be solved peaceably.”

Except…that isn’t really a denial, is it? The question is: what if diplomacy doesn’t succeed? Olmert has refused to comment on the story, as has Avigdor Lieberman, the minister in charge of the Iranian ‘strategic threat’. Their silence speaks volumes.

In America, House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer confirmed once again that the use of force against Iran remains an option. “I’ve not ruled that out,” he said. Writing in Foreign Affairs, Ze’ev Schiff (chief military correspondent for Ha’aretz) reports that, despite pursuing diplomatic solutions to end the crisis, Israel has `nonetheless continued to relentlessly develop its military options’.

In short, Israel and the U.S. have not only talked about attacking Iran (although they have certainly done that; they have already started to translate those verbal threats into action on the ground. It cannot be seriously doubted that Israel and the U.S. pose a far greater threat to Iran than vice versa. Iranian citizens have far more justification to feel afraid than their Israeli and American counterparts. When Ephraim Sneh declares that Israel will stop Iran’s nuclear programme “at all costs”, Iranians know that the “costs” could well be their lives.

I am not here advocating an Iranian `preemptive’ strike on Israel or the U.S. But those who argue for a U.S./Israeli first-strike on Iran should be, at least if they have even a modicum of respect for the basic moral principle of universality (that we apply to ourselves the same standards we apply to others, if not more stringent ones – to paraphrase Noam Chomsky). Those that don’t – at last count, all of them – should not be taken seriously.

Cross-posted at The Heathlander

Four Palestinian civilians have been killed in an Israeli raid on the West Bank city of Ramallah. The IDF entered Ramallah with the stated objective of locating and detaining Rabiah Hamad, a senior militant with the al-Aqsa Martyrs’ Brigades. Israeli soldiers exchanged fire with the armed Hamad and injured him, but he was able to escape. Four other Palestinians were detained – Israel claims they are militants, Palestinian sources say none of them are operatives of the organisation.
In the course of the “routine” incursion (and it is indeed routine: between 21-27 December, for example, Israeli forces carried out no less than 22 incursions into the West Bank, arresting 37 Palestinians in the process, including six children), Israeli bulldozers and armoured cars swept through the city,  `clearing cars out of the way and turning some over on the pavement,’ and blocked off streets close to the central square.

A helicopter is reported to have opened fire, while gunfire and explosions could be heard in the area. Understandably angry Palestinians started throwing stones and Molotov cocktails at the Israelis, who responded with gunfire. The confrontation lasted almost an hour, during which the four civilians were killed. No Israeli soldier was wounded.

Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak, who is currently hosting Olmert in Sharm el-Shiekh, condemned the Ramallah raid, stating, “Israel’s security cannot be achieved through military force but by serious endeavors toward peace”. President Abbas declared that it, “proved that the Israeli calls for peace and security are fake.” “The continued aggression will only lead to the destruction of all efforts aimed at realizing peace”, he went on to say.

He is, of course correct. As I wrote at the time, the ceasefire between Israel and the various militant factions in Gaza was doomed from the minute Israel refused to extend it to the West Bank. It is completely unreasonable to expect that members of the al-Aqsa Martyrs’ Brigades or the Popular Resistance Committees (PRC) in Gaza would sit back and do nothing whilst Israeli forces continued to `arrest’ and kill militants and civilians in the West Bank. It’s as if Hamas made a truce with the residents of Haifa whilst continuing to fire on Tel Aviv. Indeed, the al-Aqsa Brigades said as much from the start, declaring,

“The Israeli aggression must stop in both the West Bank and Gaza Strip…This is a temporary cease-fire and any Israeli assault on our people in the West Bank will be viewed as a violation of the agreement.”

Olmert refused, inexplicably, to extend the ceasefire to the West Bank, and Israeli Occupation Forces (IOF) have continued to `arrest’ and kill Palestinians in the West Bank. As a result, the Qassams have continued to fall on southern Israel. For example, on November 27, the IOF shot dead a PRC militant in the West Bank. In retaliation, the PRC in Gaza launched two Qassams into Israel.

I say `inexplicably’, but that is only the case if one accepts that Israel truly wanted the ceasefire to last.  Considering the evidence, this is can only be described as a faith position. Olmert’s government initially rejected a ceasefire in favour of expanding military operations, describing the Palestinian offer “a media stunt”. When force failed to stop the Qassams, however, he performed an about-face. Even then, he refused to agree to the one condition that might have made the ceasefire work, neglecting to provide even a remotely reasonable justification for doing so. The best he has come up with is that Israel would like to extend the truce to the West Bank, but will only do so after Gaza militants stop firing Qassams. This barely merits a response – the point, obviously, is that the militants won’t stop firing Qassams unless Israel stops killing Palestinians in the West Bank.

In any event, when one considers the horrendous violence, criminality and suffering Israel has inflicted on the Palestinian people this year, the idea that Olmert simply woke up one morning wanting peace is not credible. Events since the ceasefire have merely confirmed that Israel is not looking to sustain the ceasefire or use it as the basis for a lasting peace. When Olmert met with President Abbas, he promised to release $100 million of the $600 million in tax revenues Israel is withholding from the Palestinians, to dismantle 59 roadblocks in the West Bank and to release a small number of Palestinian prisoners as a gesture of goodwill. Said Defence Minister Peretz (whose days may well be numbered) of the roadblocks,

“We must consider easing roadblocks in places where this does not pose a danger,”

thereby admitting what everyone already knew: that Israel constructs roadblocks in the West Bank for reasons other than security. Despite the promising talk, the roadblocks have not been dismantled, the money has not been released and neither have the prisoners.

The irony of the Ramallah raid is that it was supposedly aimed at detaining a senior al-Aqsa Martyrs’ Brigades militant, even as Israel and its allies are funding, arming and training the private army of President Abbas, whose Fatah party is the political wing of – who else? – the al-Aqsa Martyrs’ Brigades!

Israel and its international allies’ strategy is clear: they have, through sustained economic sanctions and brutal military aggression (termed `Operation Summer Rains’ by Israel), brought Palestinians to the point where internal factions are fighting each other and Palestinian society is slowly but surely descending into civil war. That strategy has worked – only today, three Palestinians were killed and 18 wounded when fighting broke out between Fatah and Hamas forces in northern Gaza, whilst earlier this evening three Hamas members were kidnapped by Fatah. In total, eight Palestinians have been killed today due to factional violence. Now that civil war looks likely, Israel, the U.S. and Britain are busy arming and training the side they want to win (Abbas, incidentally, should be ashamed at his flagrant collaboration with the aggressors and the occupier). It’s textbook: despite Haniyeh’s pleas, the Palestinians are killing each other, Hamas’ days in government look numbered and there is no longer a unified Palestinian front against Israel.

The ceasefire is unlikely to hold out much longer, and civil war in Gaza looks increasingly probable. This is obviously disastrous for the Palestinians, but in the long term, it is also harmful to Israel’s security interests. As history demonstrates, the toppling of Hamas will serve only to further radicalise both the organisation itself and the Palestinian population as a whole. A just peace truly is the only alternative to war – unfortunately; we cannot help but conclude that Olmert simply isn’t interested in it.

Cross-posted at The Heathlander

The deed is done.

To sum up: a monstrous mass-murderer and brutal dictator is gone and will not be missed. Indeed, witnesses report that after the hanging there were celebrations and “dancing around the body”. He did not recieve a fair trial and his hanging is a travesty of justice (and, like all executions, morally despicable).
It was sadly with no hint of irony that Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki declared, “Our respect for human rights requires us to execute him.” In reality, Alexander Cockburn was right when he wrote back in December 2003, upon the capture of Saddam, that:

“All the U.S. wants is for the former Iraqi president to be hauled into some kangaroo court and, after a brisk procedure in which Saddam will not doubt be denied opportunities to interrogate old pals from happier days like Donald Rumsfeld, be dropped through a trap door with a rope tied around his neck, maybe with an Iraqi, or at least a son of the Prophet pulling the lever.”

Apparently, the Iraqi government is going to publish images of the corpse (as with the images of the bodies of Saddam’s sons Uday and Qusay, released by the U.S. when they were killed in July 2003 – I didn’t think civilised nations paraded the carcasses of the people they kill around like sick trophies…and I still don’t), which only confirms that the trial was a political affair serving more to satiate the thirst for revenge than to further the interests of justice.

The execution appears to have been rushed – according to the New York Times, one Western official said that American legal advisors working on the case were “stunned” at the “hasty pace” of events leading up to the execution. This is almost definitely in order to prevent Saddam giving embarrassing evidence about U.S. complicity in the gassing of the Kurds, which is a crime against justice in itself, since Western complicity in Saddam’s atrocities may now be erased forever from mainstream public history (we can be sure that the media aren’t going to bring the subject up – see below).

The U.S.’ role in Saddam’s worst crimes, committed throughout the 1980s when Saddam was still America’s best friend, has never been fully explored in the Western mainstream press, and the trial against Saddam for the genocide of the Kurds (which was ongoing at the time of the execution) might have forced some much needed discussion of the issue.

—————————————————–

Neither the New York Times, the Guardian, CNN or the Washington Post mention U.S. complicity in Saddam’s worst crimes in their coverage. That the mass media is so eager to write about the atrocities Saddam committed but continues to fail spectacularly in its most basic obligation to inform the public of the crimes committed in their names tells us a lot about the state of our ‘free’ press.

The only mention of Western complicity in the seven page New York Times obituary was this:

`The fear that an Islamic revolution would spread to an oil producer with estimated reserves second only to Saudi Arabia tipped the United States and its allies toward Baghdad and they provided weapons, technology and, most important, secret satellite images of Iran’s military positions and intercepted communications.’

Notice how the New York Times cannot bring itself to mention that the U.S. gave material support to Saddam without immediately providing a justification for it doing so. That one paragraph, containing no depth or analysis or attempt to link our support for Saddam then to our policies today, was alone amongst seven pages – a shameful display from the supposed bastion of the liberal media.

Of course, FOX News was no better – this article does not discuss Western support for Saddam, and their obituary makes only this small mention:

`After the Iranians counterattacked, Saddam turned to the United States, France and Britain for weapons, which those countries gladly sold him to prevent an outright Iranian victory. They turned a blind eye when Saddam ruthlessly struck against Iraqi Kurds, who lived in the border area and were dealing secretly with the Iranians.’

Again, an immediate justification is provided for our complicity with Saddam’s crimes and there is no real discussion of the history.  And we didn’t `turn a blind eye’; we actively aided and facilitated the slaughter.

The Times of London did a little better, managing these three lines,

‘Yet, until he invaded the oil-rich state of Kuwait, he enjoyed the collaboration of many governments abroad – including those in the West – who had given him backing in his unprovoked assault on Iran.’

The obituary also notes that the U.S. ‘covertly supported’ Iraq whilst ‘the Soviet Union and France continued to sell weapons to Baghdad, while Britain doubled Iraq’s export credit guarantees’ and describes how ‘[Western powers] had allowed him to buy chemical weapons technology and had apparently turned a blind eye to his agents buying nuclear triggers and fissile material, often with money borrowed from themselves under such guises as credit for agricultural products’ (in reality, it was not so much ‘allow him to buy’ as it was ‘sold him’). This is better than most mainstream coverage (it at least mentions Western involvement) but this tiny, superficial treatment is not impressive seeing as it, together with a reference to a very brief reference to the U.S, Britain and France as Saddam’s ‘former sponsors’ in Andrew Cockburn’s article, represents the only discussion of Western support for Saddam in the whole of the four-page obituary and two other full-length articles by The Times on the topic. Furthermore, both the obituary and Andrew Cockburn’s piece glide over the decade of murderous sanctions imposed on Iraq, which resulted in what has been called the “Children’s Holocaust”, killing half a million Iraqi children. The sanctions caused two successive UN humanitarian coordinators to Iraq to resign in protest. One of them, Dennis Halliday, described the sanctions as “genocidal”. And yet they are given only a couple of paragraphs, and even then the scale of the suffering caused – and, crucially, those responsible – is left unsaid. One would have thought Western complicity in genocide would warrant a bit more attention.

In The Independent, Robert Fisk once again proved to be the honourable exception with his article, ‘A dictator created then destroyed by America‘. Fisk’s piece is so far the only one I’ve read in the mainstream press that points to the absurdity of a situation where Saddam’s chief partner-in-crime (the U.S.) is responsible for trying Saddam for the crimes they committed together. Fisk continues:

‘Who encouraged Saddam to invade Iran in 1980, which was the greatest war crime he has committed for it led to the deaths of a million and a half souls? And who sold him the components for the chemical weapons with which he drenched Iran and the Kurds? We did. No wonder the Americans, who controlled Saddam’s weird trial, forbad any mention of this, his most obscene atrocity, in the charges against him. Could he not have been handed over to the Iranians for sentencing for this massive war crime? Of course not. Because that would also expose our culpability.’

The Independent’s leader was similarly commendable, noting both that Saddam was a ‘creature of the United States’ who was ‘armed and encouraged by Washington in earlier times’ and that the trial that led to his execution was a ‘travesty of justice’.

Sadly, the same cannot be said of the Daily Telegraph, whose editorial not only failed to note the fraudulent trial and failed to mention Western complicity in Saddam’s worst crimes, but went on to use the removal of Saddam to justify the invasion of Iraq:

‘His removal alone justified the 2003 invasion. Now, under Iraqi auspices, justice, inconceivable before that event, has taken its course.’

That the Telegraph has the nerve to even talk about justice after supporting (and continuing to support) an illegal imperialist war that has cost the lives of over 600,000 Iraqis and is well on the way to destroying a country is shocking. That a leading newspaper in a country that has long abolished the death penalty describes the hanging of a man convicted in a show-trial as “justice” is disgusting.

Overall then, notable exceptions aside, the media has kept its long and unblemished record of subservience to power most firmly intact. Western complicity in Saddam’s most terrible crimes has been, for the most part, whitewashed from history by our so called ‘free’ press.

Cross-posted at The Heathlander

There are two important event threads currently at the fore of the Israel/Palestine conflict. The first is the (literal) embracing of PA President Mahmoud Abbas by Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert. This, of course, is nothing new – Israel, the U.S. and Britain have hailed Abbas as the voice of `moderation’ ever since Hamas was elected to power (such support was notably absent when Abbas was Prime Minister). This support must be understood in terms of the relentless U.S./Israeli campaign to topple the Hamas government. After the U.S. failure (not for lack of trying) to ensure Fatah’s victory in the January elections, this has taken the form of both devastating economic strangulation and brutal military aggression (under the banner, `Operation Summer Rains’). Both are collective punishment, the idea being that the Palestinians would blame Hamas for their suffering and vote/kick them out of office.

This has worked, to a degree. Hamas were unable to pay the huge wage bill of civil servants (including the police) for months, because the international community withheld aid and Israel refused to hand over tax revenues it collects on behalf of the Palestinian Authority. After months without pay and with the economy collapsing, workers began staging huge strikes. Fatah has shamefully capitalised on this suffering by using it as a basis to attack Hamas, despite knowing that the economic failure is not due to Hamas mismanagement but is rather a result of foreign intervention.

The siege of Gaza has as-of-yet been unsuccessful in so far as Hamas remains in power. But it has succeeded in turning public opinion against Hamas (60% now support early elections), setting Palestinians against each other and reducing Palestinian society to a point where regime change looks likely. As Amira Hass wryly observed, the `experiment’ has worked: the Palestinians are killing each other. Numerous truces between Fatah and Hamas militants have resulted in numerous violations, and the slide to civil war continues. Civil war is not inevitable, but unless either Hamas or Fatah change their positions (Hamas on recognising Israel and renouncing violence, Abbas on calling early elections and demanding Hamas recognise Israel) it is hard to see how it can be avoided.

Of course, the U.S. and Israel are hardly going to stay out of a civil war they helped engineer. In October 2006, U.S. Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice met with Abbas in Ramallah, where she expressed “great admiration” for his leadership and pledged to him the “strong commitment of the United States”. This was accompanied by an announcement that the U.S. would allocate $26 million to expand Abbas’ Presidential Guard from 3,500 to 6,000 men (despite fears that, through the Fatah-allied Al-Aqsa Martyrs’ Brigades, those weapons could end up being used against Israeli civilians) and the launch of a $42 million programme to `bolster’ Hamas opponents in any upcoming election.

In this way, the U.S. has safeguarded against both possible outcomes of Abbas’ call for early elections – if Hamas refused (as it has) Abbas’ private military force would be strong enough to win a civil war (or so the theory goes). If Hamas complied, it would lose the elections thanks to the economic sanctions and the American funding of Fatah’s election campaign. Either way, the U.S./Israeli goal of toppling the Hamas government would have been achieved. Naturally, the U.S. defended Abbas’ decision to call for early elections. Likewise, Tony Blair has added his official support for Abbas and announced that Britain will spend £1 million expanding and strengthening Abbas’ private army. The U.S. has even gone so far as to start training Fatah forces in Jericho. As Khaled Abu Toameh, Palestinian affairs correspondent for the Jerusalem Post, writes,

`The U.S. believes that by giving Abbas more rifles and cash, it would be able to bring about regime change…What the Palestinians need is not more rifles — which they never use to stop Hamas, Islamic Jihad or other militias anyway — but good governance and credible leaders’.

In short, then, the U.S. and Britain have worked to engineer a civil war in Gaza and are now busy arming and training the side they want to win.

It is in this context that we should view Olmert’s meeting with Abbas, where he offered to release $100 million of the more than $600 million in tax revenues Israel has withheld from the PA this year, to remove 59 roadblocks in the West Bank (although he didn’t give a date for when) and to release a small number of Palestinian prisoners as a gesture of goodwill. Of course, Israel has no right at all to hold the vast majority of the roughly 9,000 Palestinians currently rotting in Israeli jails and, unless followed up with concrete diplomatic moves towards a peace settlement, this gesture will not prevent future militants (like those who captured Cpl. Shalit), from continuing to fight for the release of the prisoners. Likewise, the offer to dismantle 59 roadblocks should be seen in the context of a 40% increase in military roadblocks in the West Bank this year.

Seen in this light, it becomes obvious that Israel’s diplomatic overtures toward Abbas are not aimed at peace but rather are just the latest instalment in the long campaign to discredit, undermine and topple the Hamas government. By channelling aid and conducting diplomacy through Abbas and Fatah only, Israel and sections of the international community hope, essentially, to bribe and bully the Palestinians into supporting Fatah over Hamas. It may well be working.

Further evidence that Israel is not in fact interested in peace came today, with the approval of the first new settlement in the West Bank since 1992. Maskiot, in the northern Jordan valley, will comprise 30 homes and will house families evacuated from Gush Katif during the `disengagement’ from Gaza. The connection between the Gaza `disengagement’ and expansion in the West Bank has never been made so obvious. Said one of the Gush Katif evacuees,

“We aren’t moving to the Jordan Valley just to be evacuated in two years…Some say the Jordan Valley is a question mark, in which case, we are the exclamation point.”

This continued settlement confirms that Israel’s true commitment is to expansion, not peace. This is further confirmed by the other thread dominating the conflict at the moment, namely Israel’s continued refusal to talk to Syria. Syria has made several explicit overtures towards dialogue with Israel recently, all of them dismissed by Israel. For example, Syrian Foreign Minister Walid Moallem said earlier this month that Syria wanted negotations with Israel without pre-conditions:

“There are no preconditions [to talks with Israel]…A constructive dialogue has to start without preconditions. Dialogue has a literature (of proper procedure). You don’t put demands. You put agreed goals. Under this, you put each side’s commitment to achieve the goals in a parallel way”.

Olmert rejected this outright, declaring vaguely that conditions are `not ripe’ for talks with Syria. Israel has demanded that Syria first stop supporting Hizbullah and Hamas before it will deign to grant it an audience. Of course, demanding the other side accede to all your demands before engaging in negotiations is simply rejectionism – to quote Israeli author Amos Oz,

`Israel is demanding, as a precondition, that Syria give all that it has to give — even before sitting down at the negotiating table…That is a ludicrous demand.’

Syria has made clear many times its price for peace with Israel – the Golan Heights. However, the decades of quiet on that front have left Israel feeling complacent. Why should it give up the Golan? It was exactly the same with the Sinai; rejectionism then led directly to the Yom Kippur war. On the other hand, peace with Egypt has brought Israel far more security than any of its wars against Lebanon or the Palestinians. The lesson seems clear. But Olmert’s refusal to talk to Syria is not just about a desire for the Golan. It has more to do with placating the Bush administration, which is following a policy of isolating Syria as a member of the dreaded `axis-of-evil’. As Olmert explained:

“At a time when the president of the United States, Israel’s most important ally, with whom we have a network of strategic relations — when he is fighting in every arena, both at home in America, in Iraq and in other places in the world, against all the elements that want to weaken him — is this the time for us to say the opposite?”

This is very dangerous thinking, especially since it appears that Syria is sincere in its desire for peace. According to Nimrod Barkan, director of the Foreign Ministry Centre for Policy Research,

“Syria is ready for negotiations and there are sources in the Arab states who believe that Syria will ally itself to the Western bloc headed by the United States and Britain”.

Of course, if that `Western bloc’ rejects Syria as it is doing now, it is inevitable that Syria will becoming more closely allied to Iran. A senior Israeli security source said that, “[t]here is no doubt that there is a movement within Syria that is interested in talks with us. The only way to gauge their level of seriousness is to talk to them…But Olmert is inflexible on the issue at the moment – he is more driven by political considerations regarding American reservations [on the issue of talks] than by renewing contacts with Damascus.”

Israel’s Military Intelligence concurs. “Syria is genuinely interested in negotiations,” said Brig. Gen. Yossi Baidatz before a Knesset panel. “The Syrian regime believes that dialog with Israel will only better its position and improve its standing.”

In both dismissing Syrian calls for peace and continuing to ferment internal Palestinian conflict whilst expanding settlements, Israel is once again choosing confrontation and violence over peace. This is against the interests of all the peoples in the region – including Israelis. If peace is to be given a chance, Israel must engage in dialogue with Syria and conduct meaningful peace negotiations with the Palestinian leadership, whoever it may be. The Israeli public must pressure their leadership to break with U.S. policy in the region and choose dialogue over force, integration over confrontation – because, for everyone’s sake, peace must be given a chance.

Cross-posted at The Heathlander