News, Video and Commentary Without the Censorship

Archive for the ‘Middle East’ Category

‘Ten big media lies’ about Israel

source: PressTV

Michel Collon, a Belgian journalist and author, in his book “Israel, let’s talk about it,” has slammed European media over decades of “lying” to people in order to support Israel.

Collon, in his book, has recounted “10 big lies” spread by Western media in order to “justify the existence and actions of Israel”, which are concisely presented below:

1. The first lie is that Israel was established in reaction to the massacre of Jews during the World War II.
This notion is completely wrong. Israel is in fact a domineering project which was approved in the First Zionist Congress in Basel, Switzerland, in 1897, when nationalist Jews decided to occupy Palestine.

2. The second justification for establishing and legitimizing Israel is that the Jews are returning to their forefathers’ land, from where they had been driven away in 70 A.D. This is a tale. I have spoken to the famous Israeli historian Shlomo Sand and other historians and they all believe that there has been no “exodus,” so “return” is meaningless. The people leaving in Palestine have not left their land in the ancient era.

In fact the descendents of Jews residing in Palestine are the people who are currently living in Palestine. Those who claim they want to return to their lands originate for Western and Eastern Europe and Northern Africa.

Sand says there is no Jewish nation. The Jews do not have common history, language or culture. The only common thing between them is their religion, and religion does not make a nation.

3. The third lie is that when Jewish immigrants occupied Palestine, it was an empty and uninhibited country.

However, there are documents and evidences that prove that in the 19th century the agricultural products of Palestine were exported to different countries, including France.

4. Fourth, some people say Palestinians left their country on their own free will.

This is another lie, which lots of people believed, including myself. Until Israeli historians like Benny Morris and Ilan Pappe said that Palestinians were driven away and banished from their lands by using force and terror.

5. It is said that today Israel is the only democracy in the Middle East and it should be protected; it is the “government of law.”

But in my opinion not only it is not the government of law; it is the only regime that no law defines its territory and boundaries. All the countries of the world have a constitution which defines their boundaries, but no such thing applies to Israel. Israel is an expansionist project which knows no boundary, and its law is completely racist; according to this law Israel is the country for Jews, and its non-Jew citizens are not considered human. Such law is a contradiction to democracy.

6. It is said that the US tries to protect democracy in the Middle East by protecting Israel. And we know that the US annual financial aid to Israel amounts to 3 billion dollars. This money is used for bombarding Israel’s neighbor countries.

But America is not after establishing democracy in the Middle East; it wants the undisturbed flow of oil.

7. They pretend that the US seeks an agreement between Israel and Palestine.

This is also completely wrong and a lie. EU former Foreign Policy Chief Javier Solana told the Israel that “you are the 21st country of the European Union.” The European weapons industries cooperate with the Israeli military industries and support them financially. But when Palestinians elected their government, Europe did not recognize it and gave the green light to Israel to attack the Gaza Strip.

8. When one talks about these facts and the history of Israel and Palestine, when one reveals the US interests in this situation, they call you anti-Semite to keep you silent.

But we should say that when we criticize Israel, it is not racism or anti-Semitism. We criticize a government that does not believe in the equality of Jews, Christians and Muslims, and so destroys the peace between followers of different religions.

9. The mass media say that Palestinians cause violence and terrorism. We say Israel army’s occupation is violence, the policy that has stolen land and home from Palestinians is violence.

10. An issue which is often raised is that there is no way for resolving this situation, and there is no solution for the hatred and the grudge caused by Israel and its accomplices.

But there is a solution. The only thing that can stop this process is the public pressure on the accomplices of Israel in the US and Europe and other parts of the world; public pressure on the mass media which refrain from telling the truth about Israel; and using the Internet or any other media out let to publish real news about Palestine.

source: Kurt Nimmo

Originally posted June 22,2010

Iran permitted the U.S. and Israel to score a propaganda victory on Monday when it refused to allow two International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors entry into the country for an inspection of its nuclear program.

“This action [banning the inspectors from entering Iran] is in reality a regulatory notice to Amano to be careful so that the agency’s inspectors do not violate the international entity’s charter,” Iran’s state news agency IRNA quoted Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki as saying on Tuesday. “Amano should manage the agency professionally.”

Yukiya Amano took over as head of the agency in December. The Japanese diplomat has adopted a less flexible approach toward Iran than his predecessor, Mohamed ElBaradei. On numerous occasions ElBaradei stated there is no evidence Iran is developing nuclear weapons.

The head of Iran’s Atomic Energy Agency, Ali Akbar Salehi, said on Monday that the two inspectors made an ”untruthful” assessment of the Islamic Republic’s nuclear program, according to state media. Salehi added that the ban imposed on United Nations personnel falls under an IAEA “safeguards agreement” and stressed Iran’s commitment to the the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

On June 3, Salehi questioned the IAEA’s failure to mention a nuclear fuel swap declaration signed between Iran, Brazil and Turkey in Tehran on May 17, an effort by Iran to demonstrate that it is not secretly using its nuclear energy program to develop nuclear weapons. “Such an approach does not indicate good intentions on behalf of the agency and we hope that the agency will change its approach,” ISNA quoted Salehi as saying.

“It is worrisome that Iran has taken this step, which is symptomatic of its longstanding practice of intimidating inspectors,” U.S. State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley said following Iran’s action. “This will not … encourage the international community to believe that Iran’s program is peaceful in nature.”

Also on Monday, Congress announced legislation that would block foreign banks that do business with Iranian institutions from gaining access to the U.S. financial system. In addition, Congress has drafted sanctions that would impose third-party sanctions against companies, countries and individuals that deal with Iran’s energy and shipping sectors. The American Israel Public Affairs Committee has praised the pending legislation.

A United Nations Security Council resolution passed on June 9 significantly expands sanctions. The resolution envisages a tighter embargo including military, commercial and financial measures.

In April, Rep. Ron Paul of Texas stated the obvious — sanctions imposed on Iran are tantamount to a declaration of war against the country.

“This legislation, whether the House or Senate version, will lead us to war on Iran. The sanctions in this bill, and the blockade of Iran necessary to fully enforce them, are in themselves acts of war according to international law. A vote for sanctions on Iran is a vote for war against Iran,” said Paul during debate on HR 2194, the Comprehensive Iran Sanctions, Accountability and Divestment Act.

“We need to see all this for what it is: Propaganda to speed us to war against Iran for the benefit of special interests,” Paul added.

Earlier this month, gathered at the Dolce luxury hotel in Sitges, Spain, a “special interest” known as the Bilderberg Group signaled its approval of an attack on Iran. “Sadly, Bilderberg remains committed to a U.S. attack on Iran on Israel’s behalf,” Bilderberg hound Jim Tucker wrote on June 10.

On Saturday, it was reported that more than twelve U.S. and Israeli warships, including an aircraft carrier, had passed through the Suez Canal and were headed for Iran.

Meanwhile, in Israel, Shabtai Shavit, a former Mossad boss, has added his voice to the growing chorus in favor of attacking Iran. “I am of the opinion that, since there is an ongoing war, since the threat is permanent, since the intention of the enemy in this case is to annihilate you, the right doctrine is one of pre-emption and not of retaliation,” Shavit told a conference held at the Likudite Bar Ilan University outside Tel Aviv.

Israel pioneered the art of pre-emptive warfare when it attacked Egypt in 1967. As Israeli historian Benny Morris has stated, the Egyptian army did not pose an existential threat to Israel and the Arabs “served as rather bewildered, sluggish punching bags.”

Iran also does not pose a threat to Israel or — as the United States claims — Europe. Iran’s response after the U.S. and Israel attack will not be bewildered and sluggish. It will send missiles into Israel and shut down all shipping in the Persian Gulf.

source: Asia Times

By Marc Erikson

PART 1
Links between neo-Nazis and the radical ideology of Islamism have surfaced since the terrorism of September 11, 2001 – an event that was celebrated by both groups. But fascism and Islamism have an 80-year history of collaboration based on shared ideas, practices and perceived common enemies.

PART 2
Substitute religious for racial purity, and most ideological and organizational precepts of Nazism are essentially identical to the later precepts of the Muslim Brotherhood. Marc Erikson traces the Brotherhood’s collaboration with fascism from the present-day brains behind al-Qaeda to the era of the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem during World War II.

PART 3
The West is waging war not against the religion of Islam, but against the little-understood political philosophy of Islamism, which, upon close examination, reveals itself as a distinct – and distinctly noxious – form of the same kind of fascism that went down in defeat in World War II, but which never quite died out, especially in the Middle East.

PART 4
The key personality behind the global Islamist jihad of the 1990s was not Osama bin Laden; rather, it was his deputy, Ayman al-Zawahiri, the man whose critical acumen and organizational and operational skills were central to the success of al-Qaeda. Now his fascist Islamism has seized the ideological initiative in the Muslim world of today.

“….. US was providing Israel with everything it needed “in a tough neighborhood,” integrating Israel into America’s “military architecture,” especially in the missile defense sphere.”

Read full article at Jerusalem Post

source:AFP
by Lachlan Carmichael Lachlan Carmichael – 2 hrs 37 mins ago

RIYADH (AFP) – Saudi Arabia on Monday played down suggestions it could encourage China not to block sanctions against Iran over its nuclear programme by giving Beijing oil supply guarantees.

Saudi Foreign Minister Saud al-Faisal said after talks with US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton that Beijing needed no prodding from Riyadh over how to deal with Iran in the UN Security Council.

The Chinese “carry their responsibility” as one of the major world powers and “they need no suggestion from Saudi Arabia to do what they ought to do,” Prince Saud said at a joint news conference with Clinton.

He was questioned about suggestions that Saudi Arabia could provide oil supply guarantees to China to win Beijing’s support for sanctions sought by Washington against Iran over its controversial nuclear programme.

“Sanctions are a long-term solution (but) … we see the issue in the shorter term because we are closer to the threat,” Prince Saud said.

“If we want security for the region, it requires an Iran at peace and happy with themselves,” he added.

Clinton said that “increasingly, more and more aspects of Iranian society … are being controlled not by the clerical leadership, not by the political leadership” but by the Revolutionary Guards.

She warned earlier that Iran was turning into a “military dictatorship” bent on building a nuclear bomb.

Clinton held more than four hours of private talks with King Abdullah at his desert camp 60 miles (35 miles) northeast of Riyadh, aiming to rally support for tough new UN sanctions against Iran.

Ahead of her talks with Prince Saud and the king, aides said she would press Saudi leaders to use their influence with China to secure a change of heart on sanctions against Iran over its controversial nuclear programme.

China appears to be the strongest holdout to sanctions among the five veto-wielding permanent members of the UN Security Council.

Clinton’s top assistant for the Middle East, Jeffrey Feltman, told reporters travelling with her that China had an “important trading relationship” with the Saudi oil kingpin.

“We would expect them (the Saudis) … to use their relationship in ways that can help increase the pressure that Iran feels,” said Feltman, the assistant secretary of state for Near East Affairs.

Speaking to students earlier on Monday in Qatar, Clinton said the whole region had reason to fear Iran’s nuclear programme and the growing influence of the elite Revolutionary Guards.

Clinton said the United States was not aiming to use military action to curb Iran’s nuclear ambitions but rather seeking to build support for tough new sanctions at the UN Security Council.

She said the package Washington wanted adopted “will be particularly aimed at those enterprises controlled by the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, which we believe is in effect supplanting the government of Iran.

“We see the government of Iran, the supreme leader, the president, the parliament is being supplanted and Iran is moving toward a military dictatorship,” she said.

“They are in charge of the nuclear programme.”

Saudi leaders were also expected to raise the Middle East peace process in their talks with Clinton amid growing frustration with the failure of US efforts to secure a relaunch of talks.

Israeli-Palestinian negotiations have been frozen since Israel launched its devastating offensive against Gaza in December 2008.

“The peace process is the main issue, of course,” said Saudi foreign ministry spokesman Osama Nugali. “Our position is still the same … that we need to revive the peace process.”

In Qatar, Clinton said she was optimistic that talks would resume this year. “I’m hopeful that this year will see the commencement of serious negotiations,” she said.

The White House, meanwhile, announced that US Vice President Joe Biden will tour the Middle East in early March with stops in Israel, the Palestinian territories, Egypt and Jordan.

Clinton travelled on to the Saudi Red Sea city of Jeddah where she was to wrap up here Gulf mini-tour on Tuesday by meeting the head of the Organisation of the Islamic Conference.

spource: wtop.com
By ROBERT BURNS
AP National Security Writer
U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton walks with Saudi foreign minister Prince Saud Al-Faisal, unseen, upon her arrival at King Khalid International Airport in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, Monday, Feb. 15, 2010. (AP Photo/Hassan Ammar)

DOHA, Qatar (AP) – U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said Monday that Iran is becoming a military dictatorship, a new U.S. accusation in the midst of rising tensions with Iran over its nuclear ambitions and crack down on anti-government protesters.

Speaking to Arab students at Carnegie Mellon’s Doha campus, Clinton said Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Corps appears to have gained so much power that it effectively is supplanting the government.

“Iran is moving toward a military dictatorship,” she said. “That is our view.”

Last week the U.S. Treasury Department announced that it was freezing the assets in U.S. jurisdictions of a Revolutionary Guard general and four subsidiaries of a previously penalized construction company he runs because of their alleged involvement in producing and spreading weapons of mass destruction.

The Revolutionary Guard has long been a pillar of Iran’s regime as a force separate from the ordinary armed forces. The Guard now has a hand in every critical area, including missile development, oil resources, dam building, road construction, telecommunications and nuclear technology.

It also has absorbed the paramilitary Basij as a full-fledged part of its command structure _ giving the militia greater funding and a stronger presence in Iran’s internal politics.

Asked if the U.S. is planning a military attack on Iran, Clinton said “no.”

The U.S. is focused on gaining international support for sanctions “that will be particularly aimed at those enterprises controlled by the Revolutionary Guard, which we believe is in effect supplanting the government of Iran,” she said.

Meanwhile, a semi-official news agency quoted the head of Iran’s nuclear program as saying the country received a new proposal last week from the United States, Russia and France, three of the countries trying to rein in Tehran’s uranium enrichment program.

Iran said that it was studying the joint proposal purportedly made after the country announced last week it had begun enriching uranium to a higher level than previously acknowledged. The ILNA news agency quoted Ali Akbar Salehi as saying various countries have also offered Iran proposals on a nuclear fuel swap, adding that Iran is reviewing all the proposals. He did not provide any more details.

The Obama administration is trying to “send a message to Iran _ a very clear message” that the U.S. is still open to engagement “but that we will not stand idly by while you pursue a nuclear program that can be used to threaten your neighbors and even beyond,” Clinton said.

Later, as she boarded her plane for the next stop on her Middle East trip, Clinton said, “The civilian leadership is either preoccupied with its internal political situation or is ceding ground to the Revolutionary Guard.”

She told reporters traveling with her that it appears the Revolutionary Guard is in charge of Iran’s controversial nuclear program and the country changing course “depends on whether the clerical and political leadership begin to reassert themselves.”

She added: “I’m not predicting what will happen but I think the trend with this greater and greater military lock on leadership decisions should be disturbing to Iranians as well as those of us on the outside.”

Clinton said the Iran that could emerge is “a far cry from the Islamic Republic that had elections and different points of view within the leadership circle. That is part of the reason that we are so concerned with what we are seeing going on there.”

In her Doha appearance, Clinton also said she foresees a possible breakthrough soon in stalled peace talks between Israel and the Palestinians.

“I’m hopeful that this year will see the commencement of serious negotiations that will cover every issue that is outstanding,” she said, adding that “everyone is anticipating” progress after more than a year of impasse between the negotiating parties.

The peace talks broke down in late 2008 with Israel’s incursion into Gaza, which had launched rocket attacks on Israeli targets.

Clinton spoke in an interview with the Al-Jazeera TV network before a live audience of mostly Arab students at the Carnegie Mellon campus.

In remarks in the Qatari capital on Sunday, Clinton said she and the president are disappointed that the administration’s efforts to restart Israeli-Palestinian peace talks had failed thus far.

Reflecting the extent of concern in the Persian Gulf region about a U.S. confrontation with Iran, another member of the audience asked Clinton about the outlook for improving relations with Tehran. Clinton reiterated the Obama’s administration view that Iran has violated its international obligation to use nuclear technology only for peaceful purposes. And she regretted that Iran has not accepted U.S. offers of nuclear negotiations.

source: McClatchy

AP – U.S. soldiers exchange fire with insurgents as Afghan soldiers run for cover during a firefight with insurgents in the Badula Qulp area, west of Lashkar Gah in Helmand province, southern Afghanistan, Sunday, Feb. 14, 2010. The soldiers are operating in support of a U.S. Marine offensive against the Taliban in Marjah area.

By Saeed Shah, McClatchy Newspapers Saeed Shah, Mcclatchy Newspapers – Sun Feb 14, 2:53 pm ET

KABUL, Afghanistan — Twelve Afghan civilians died Sunday after U.S. rockets mistakenly hit a house during the much-trumpeted offensive to clear the last Taliban stronghold in Helmand province, a loss of life that is likely to seriously undermine the operation and the renewed American-led mission to win the trust of the population.

The use of the rockets has been suspended pending a “thorough review” of the incident, the U.S.-led International Security Assistance Force said in a statement.

An Afghan soldier and a Marine were injured in the firefight that preceded the rocket attack, on the second day of an operation to take control of the town of Marjah and the surrounding district of Nad Ali.

Operation Moshtarak, which means “together,” is the biggest assault on the Taliban since the fall of the Islamic extremists’ government in 2001 and the first major test of the new U.S. strategy for quelling the insurgency and stabilizing Afghanistan . A centerpiece to the offensive has been to minimize civilian casualties and the use of force.

A combined force of U.S., Afghan and British soldiers continued to come under sporadic fire Sunday, while facing constant danger from Taliban -laid mines, roadside bombs and booby-traps.

The large number of civilian deaths in a single incident calls into question the approach to the operation, and provides easy propaganda points to the Taliban enemy. Most of the 80,000 residents of Marjah stayed in their homes, despite weeks of public build-up to the assault.

After managing to avoid civilian casualties on the first day of the operation, which was declared a success, Sunday — Day Two — brought disaster.

A Marine unit embedded with Afghan soldiers, which came under sustained fire from two directions, called in a strike from heavy-duty munitions known as a Himars, which is a rocket system fired from a truck. Two rockets landed some 300 yards off target, killing the 12 civilians and wounding one.

“We deeply regret this tragic loss of life,” said Stanley McChrystal , the U.S. general who leads international forces in Afghanistan . “The current operation in Central Helmand is aimed at restoring security and stability to this vital area of Afghanistan . It’s regrettable that in the course of our joint efforts, innocent lives were lost.”

McChrystal telephoned Afghan President Hamid Karzai to apologize for what he called the “unfortunate incident.” The Afghan leader had cautioned the forces, as the operation began, to “exercise absolute caution to avoid harming civilians.” The death of innocent Afghans in the war, often caused by misdirected air strikes, has inflamed public opinion in Afghanistan .

At issue is whether the use of the rockets was proportionate to the threat and why the weapon went so far wide of its intended target. The wrong co-ordinates could have been fed into the rocket launcher, or it suffered some technical failure, military officials believe.

An ISAF official, who could not be named because of the sensitivity of the issue, said that the rockets were used after enemy fire made it impossible for helicopters to come in to evacuate the two injured soldiers. As evening fell in Afghanistan on Sunday, the Marine and Afghan unit were still under fire, more than 10 hours after the engagement began, he said.

“This (Himars) is a heavy thing to use under these circumstances but they used something that is usually very precise,” the NATO official said. “They probably felt this was better than calling in an air attack.”

The scale of operation, involving 15,000 soldiers, a large civilian presence, together with hundreds of Taliban fighting desperately against hopeless odds, and a town rigged with booby-traps, make civilian losses inevitable, analysts believe.

McChrystal, the pioneer of a new counter-insurgency strategy in Afghanistan , is faced with a delicate balance: the need to safeguard his own forces and the imperative of preventing civilian casualties. He has issued a series of directives to rein in the use of force, in an effort to win over an Afghan population often alienated and terrified by the use of air strikes and raids on homes. But that has brought criticism from within the military and in the U.S. that he was hamstringing soldiers in the field and putting their lives at risk.

“Civilian casualties have been one of the big issues that have been troubling the relationship between President Karzai, the Afghan people and international forces,” said John Dempsey , head of the Afghanistan office of the U.S. Institute of Peace , an independent research organization.

So far in the operation, the Taliban resistance has been generally weak.

According to Dawood Ahmedi , a spokesman for the provincial governor of Helmand, 27 insurgents were killed so far, with five wounded and 11 arrested. The advancing force has uncovered 5,500 lbs of explosives.

“We are achieving our aims,” Ahmedi said, speaking before the news of the civilian deaths. “The problem we are facing is the enemy has buried many mines, so the forces have to fight with both the enemy and the mines.”

(Shah is McClatchy’s Special Correspondent.)

Please see, “Gaza In Plain Language” for the accompanying article @

nomorecensorship.com/middle-east/gaza-in-plain-language/

In articles acknowledging the one year anniversary of the assault on Gaza, blunt and unsparing language about what really happened is often avoided. Despite sympathy for and support of the Palestinian people in their struggle against dispossession and oppression, the description of what took place in January 2009 is sometimes buffered by a misguided sense of political correctness. Yes, it’s terrible. Yes, it is unjust. But we don’t want to be inflammatory or risk offending the sensitivities of those who through their own willful ignorance cling to the notion that Israel is a victim state, fighting for its very survival. The argument is that we should reach out to them and attempt to educate them and win them over.

source: Foreign Policy Journal

by Ramzy Baroud

The Israeli military may be much less effective in winning wars than it was in the past, thanks to the stiffness of Arab resistance. But its military strategists are as shrewd and unpredictable as ever. The recent rhetoric that has escalated from Israel suggests that a future war in Lebanon will most likely target Syria as well. While this doesn’t necessarily mean that Israel actually intends on targeting either of these countries in the near future, it is certainly the type or language that often precedes Israeli military maneuvers.

Deciphering the available clues regarding the nature of Israel’s immediate military objectives is not always easy, but it is possible. One indicator that could serve as a foundation for any serious prediction of Israel’s actions is Israel’s historical tendency to seek a perpetual state of war. Peace, real peace, has never been a long-term policy.

“Unlike many others, I consider that peace is not a goal in itself but only a means to guarantee our existence,” claimed Yossi Peled, a former army general and current Cabinet Minister in Benjamin Netanyahu’s right-wing government.

Israeli official policy – military or otherwise – is governed by the same Zionist diktats that long preceded the establishment of the state of Israel. If anything has changed since early Zionists outlined their vision, it was the interpretation of those directives. The substance has remained intact.

For example, Zionist visionary, Vladimir Jabotinsky stated in 1923 that Zionist “colonization can…continue and develop only under the protection of a force independent of the local population – an iron wall which the native population cannot break through.” He was not then referring to an actual wall. While his vision took on various manifestations throughout the years, in 2002 it was translated into a real wall aimed at prejudicing any just solution with the Palestinians. Now, most unfortunately, Egypt has also started building its own steel wall along its border with the war-devastated and impoverished Gaza Strip.

One thing we all know by now is that Israel is a highly militarized country. Its definition of ‘existence’ can only be ensured by its uncontested military dominance at all fronts, thus the devastating link between Palestine and Lebanon. This link makes any analysis of Israel’s military intents in Gaza, that excludes Lebanon – and in fact, Syria – seriously lacking.

Consider, for example, the unprecedented Israeli crackdown on the Second Palestinian Uprising which started in September 2000. How is that linked to Lebanon? Israel had been freshly defeated by the Lebanese resistance, led by Hizbullah, and was forced to end its occupation of most of South Lebanon in May 2000. Israel wanted to send an unmistakable message to Palestinians that this defeat was in fact not a defeat at all, and that any attempt at duplicating the Lebanese resistance model in Palestine would be ruthlessly suppressed. Israel’s exaggeration in the use of its highly sophisticated military to stifle a largely popular revolution was extremely costly to Palestinians in terms of human toll.

Israel’s 34-day war on Lebanon in July 2006 was an Israeli attempt at destroying Arab resistance, and restoring its metaphorical iron wall. It backfired, resulting in a real – not figurative – Israeli defeat. Israel, then, did what it does best. It used its superior air force, destroyed much of Lebanon’s civilian infrastructure and killed more than 1,200 people, mostly civilians. The resistance, with humble means, killed more than 160 Israelis, mostly soldiers during combat.

Not only did Hizbullah had penetrated the Israeli iron wall, it had also filled it with holes. It challenged, like never before, the Israeli army’s notion of invincibility and illusion of security. Something went horribly wrong in Lebanon.

Since then, the Israeli army, intelligence, propagandists and politicians have been in constant preparation for another showdown. But before such pending battle, the nation needed to renew its faith in its army and government intelligence; thus the war in Gaza late December 2008.

As appalling as it was for Israeli families to gather en masse near the Israeli Gaza border, and watch giddily as Gaza and Gazans were blown to smithereens, the act was most rational. The victims of the war may have been Palestinians in Gaza, but the target audience was Israelis. The brutal and largely one-sided war united Israelis, including their self-proclaimed leftist parties in one rare moment of solidarity. Here was proof that the IDF still had enough strength to report military achievements.

Of course, Israel’s military strategists knew well that their war crimes in Gaza were a clumsy attempt at regaining national confidence. The tightly lipped politicians and army generals wanted to give the impression that all was working according to plan. But the total media blackout, and the orchestrated footage of Israeli soldiers flashing military signs and waving flags on their way back to Israel were clear indications of an attempt to improve a problematic image.

Thus Yossi Peled’s calculated comments on January 23: “In my estimation, understanding and knowledge it is almost clear to me that it is a matter of time before there is a military clash in the north.” Further, he claimed that “We are heading toward a new confrontation, but I don’t know when it will happen, just as we did not know when the second Lebanon war would erupt.”

Peled is of course right. There will be a new confrontation. New strategies will be employed. Israel will raise the stakes, and will try to draw Syria in, and push for a regional war. A Lebanon that defines itself based on the terms of resistance – following the failure to politically co-opt Hizbullah – is utterly unacceptable from the Israeli viewpoint. That said, Peled might be creating a measured distraction from efforts aimed at igniting yet another war – against the besieged resistance in Gaza, or something entirely different. (Hamas’ recent announcement that its senior military leader Mahmoud al- Mabhouh was killed late January in Dubai at the hands of Israeli intelligence is also an indication of the involved efforts of Israel that goes much further than specific boundaries.)

Will it be Gaza or Lebanon first? Israel is sending mixed messages, and deliberately so. Hamas, Hizbullah and their supporters understand well the Israeli tactic and must be preparing for the various possibilities. They know Israel cannot live without its iron walls, and are determined to prevent any more from being built at their expense.

Also see: Three Stories Everyone Must Read

Ramzy Baroud is an internationally-syndicated columnist and the editor of PalestineChronicle.com. His latest book is “My Father Was a Freedom Fighter: Gaza’s Untold Story” (Pluto Press, London), now available on Amazon.com.
http://www.ramzybaroud.net

I have accompanied this article with a video I created and posted to YouTube. YouTube pulled the video shortly after for “inappropriate content” violation.
by Joe Mowrey / January 19th, 2010

In articles acknowledging the one year anniversary of the assault on Gaza, blunt and unsparing language about what really happened is often avoided. Despite sympathy for and support of the Palestinian people in their struggle against dispossession and oppression, the description of what took place in January 2009 is sometimes buffered by a misguided sense of political correctness. Yes, it’s terrible. Yes, it is unjust. But we don’t want to be inflammatory or risk offending the sensitivities of those who through their own willful ignorance cling to the notion that Israel is a victim state, fighting for its very survival. The argument is that we should reach out to them and attempt to educate them and win them over.

I’ll be more forthright in this commentary.

The sociopathic Zionist administration of Israel, as part of its continuing brutal colonization of Palestine, set out to deliberately devastate the already nearly-incapacitated infrastructure which supports the existence of one and a half million human refugees. The people of Gaza, second-, third-, and fourth-generation dispossessed Palestinians, are living in forced exile from land their families inhabited and cultivated for generations. Half of them are children under the age of fifteen. Their culture and their economy has been systematically ravaged by Israel for decades and since 2006 a criminal siege supported by the United States, as well as much of the international community, has deprived them of all but the most minimal resources for subsistence. This oppressed and brutalized population was then bombed, bulldozed and terrorized mercilessly for twenty-three days.

Below is a small sampling of facts concerning what the fourth largest military in the world did to a captive and defenseless population. The source materials used to substantiate these statistics are available on request. If the reality presented here goes beyond the stretch of your imagination, you can verify the data yourself. Though you’d better hurry. Much of this information appears to be disappearing down Google’s memory hole, just as is the fate of the people of Gaza. A source referencing the percentage of agricultural land destroyed in the onslaught which was used for a shorter version of this article just a few weeks ago is no longer archived in Google’s cache. Surprise, surprise.

You will also find that exact figures vary somewhat depending on the source. But whether it was 21,000 structures or 22,000 structures destroyed, whether 280 schools were destroyed or badly damaged verses 230, the overwhelming truth of the physical devastation which took place in Gaza and the fact that this destruction was deliberate and premeditated is irrefutable. Even the Goldstone Report, itself a document with severe pro-Zionist overtones issued by a declared Zionist and a supporter of Israel, states unequivocally, “…[the] deliberate actions of the Israeli forces and the declared policies of the Government of Israel … cumulatively indicate the intention to inflict collective punishment on the people of the Gaza Strip in violation of international humanitarian law.”

We’ve heard time and again that more than 1400 Palestinians were killed, over 80% of them civilians, including 342 children. It has become a familiar talking point in discussions of last year’s assault, so much so that it may have lost its impact on our consciousness. But what we often aren’t reminded of is the horrific level of carefully-planned destruction of civilian infrastructure in Gaza orchestrated by Israel during Operation Cast Lead.

Financed and armed by the United States, the Israeli military destroyed fifteen percent of the structures in Gaza, approximately 22,000 buildings, including 5300 housing units destroyed or subject to major damage. Another 52,000 homes received some form of structural damage. Over 200 factories and 700 stores and businesses were destroyed or badly damaged. Of the residences, factories and businesses completely destroyed, 1300 of the homes and approximately 25% of the commercial property was deliberately and painstakingly bulldozed or exploded by Israeli ground forces. Eight hospitals and 26 primary health care clinics were damaged or destroyed. More than 280 schools were damaged or destroyed.

Water and sewage treatment facilities as well as electricity infrastructure were deliberately targeted leaving vast segments of the population with little or no power or clean water for the duration of the assault and for weeks and months to follow. Massive amounts of agricultural lands were systematically bombed or bulldozed. Some estimates suggest that as much as 80% of the arable land in Gaza has been ruined or declared off-limits to the people of Gaza over the last decade. Two million litres of wastewater at Gaza City’s sewage treatment plant, bombed during the assault, leaked into surrounding agricultural land making it unusable.

An Israeli television station boasted that Israeli war planes alone, without accounting for tank, ground troop and warship ammunition, dropped approximately one thousand tons of bombs on Gaza during Operation Cast Lead. The effort involved months, if not years, of carefully-considered target selection, giving lie to any claim that the devastation was incidental. It requires a stunning level of denial and self-delusion to pretend the destruction which was achieved in Gaza had anything to do with Israel’s “security” or the targeting of Hamas militants. This was savage and barbaric collective punishment unleashed on a civilian population, nothing more. Any suggestion to the contrary must be sharply and immediately ridiculed as absurd.

This was arguably the first aerial bombing campaign ever conducted on a defenseless civilian population held captive within a fenced enclosure and not allowed to escape the assault. It is a measure of the cynical mindset of the Israeli military that leaflets were sometimes dropped in neighborhoods about to be bombed suggesting the residents flee. We are about to destroy your home; you had better get out. Flee to where? Gazans are not allowed to leave their open-air prison, not even when under attack. This tactic on the part of Israel also gives lie to the claim that homes and buildings were targeted because there were Hamas militants “hiding” inside. Why then warn them to leave before destroying the structures?

Given this litany of horror and the coldly premeditated nature of its execution, we need to ask what kind of society condones this level of savagery on the part of their government? What precedent is there for such monstrous disregard for even the most basic tenets of human decency? We need look no further than the behavior of our very own United States, of course. In Iraq, the toll of our psychotic militarism is well over a million human beings (not counting the years of punishing economic sanctions) and a large part of the infrastructure of an entire nation of more than 26 million people has been obliterated. Let’s not even begin to tally up the deaths resulting from U.S. imperialism around the globe in the last sixty years alone. It would put the Zionists to shame–mere pikers in the annals of human slaughter.

And what of Gaza today, one year later? Israel’s continued illegal siege, enabled by the U.S., Egypt (a U.S. client state) and the international community has prevented any substantial amount of building materials from entering Gaza. Essentially, no reconstruction has been possible. The people of Gaza live amongst the rubble left to them by Israeli hatred and aggression. They are attempting to rebuild their society using mud bricks and materials salvaged from the wreckage.

The next time someone attempts to argue, “Israel has a right to defend itself,” or uses what I call the abusive spouse defense, ”Look what you made me do,” tell them, “No.” Tell them there is no and can never be any acceptable justification for the deliberate devastation of entire societies, no matter what political, ideological or “security” issues, real or imagined, may be at stake. It is unconscionable. It is wrong. Plainly put, there is no sane argument in favor of such behavior. Those who believe there is must be contradicted and opposed at every available opportunity.

Joe Mowrey is an anti-war activist and an advocate for Palestinian rights who lives in Santa Fe, New Mexico. He can be reached at jmowrey@ix.netcom.com.