The Economist’s reporting on the Middle East has been declining for the past year, but since when is the newspaper in the practice of apologizing for Israel? This came as quite a shock after years of what I considered to be fairly well-balanced and objective coverage — certainly the best coverage out of the Western mainstream media.

Israel has argued that Hamas fighters endangered civilians by basing themselves around schools, mosques and hospitals. The mission had Hamas’s co-operation, but its fact-finders could detect little or no evidence for this—despite plenty of reports in the public domain to support it. The report does criticise Hamas for firing rockets indiscriminately into Israel and for using the conflict as cover to settle scores with its Palestinian rivals. But its seemingly willful blindness to other evidence makes that look like a dash for political cover. (full article…)

Here the author (who I can only suspect has been hired within the past year) criticizes the Goldstone report for overlooking “plenty of reports in the public domain” which attest to Hamas’ alleged practice of hiding in civilian areas. Which reports? The author doesn’t say. I certainly haven’t come across any such reports. In fact, I have read multiple reports stating precisely the opposite — that there is no evidence Hamas deliberately used civilian areas — which the Goldstone report simply confirms. Also, the author accuses the investigators of “willful blindness to other evidence”—evidence the author then conveniently fails to specify.

The author then attempts to minimize Israeli atrocities by suggesting that we should be grateful they didn’t kill more civilians!

As many as 1,400 people died in the fighting. It is a grisly thought, but if Israel really had wanted to make Palestinian civilians suffer, the toll could have been vastly higher. (full article…)

So because Israel decided against dropping a nuclear bomb, The Economist takes this as evidence that Israel did not intentionally target civilians. Did they read the Goldstone report? In fact, did they read their own reporting at the time?

The, just before concluding with some banal remarks about the future of peace talks, the same article contains this gem:

Israel is pursuing 23 criminal investigations so far into the Gaza operations. It must finish the job. Unlike Syria, say, Israel is a democracy that claims to live by the rule of law. It needs to make its case by moral force as well as by force of arms. (full article…)

What? First of all, The Economist knows very well how Israeli investigations are typically conducted. In the rare case that soldiers (and never the commanders) are found guilty of excessive force or downright sadism, they usually receive ridiculously light sentences which are (more often than not) commuted after only a few months.

Secondly, on the issue of Israeli democracy, The Economist must maintain at least the guise of neutrality. So what if Israel calls itself a democracy? Do we accept this at face value now? Many countries use this term without a scrap of justification in their actions. And I’m positive the Syrian government would certainly claim that it lives “by the rule of law” as the author puts it…

This article is far below the standards I have grown accustomed to in The Economist. I must say, this is a disappointing development.

The United Nations’ investigation into Israel’s recent massacre in Gaza has now concluded. In general I think the release of their 500+ page report is an important step forward in the process of holding Israel accountable for its horrendous actions earlier this year. Judge Richard Goldstone (whom I met at a talk in San Diego years ago) is a principled man; his South African background makes him acutely aware of racial oppression and his prosecution of war crimes in Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia must have prepared him for his work in the Middle East. Despite Israeli obstruction and opposition every step of the way, Goldstone pushed ahead and attempted to conduct a professionally thorough investigation.

The report concludes in rather strong terms:

From the facts gathered, the Mission found that the following grave breaches of the Fourth Geneva Convention were committed by Israeli forces in Gaza: wilful killing, torture or inhuman treatment, wilfully causing great suffering or serious injury to body or health, and extensive destruction of property, not justified by military necessity and carried out unlawfully and wantonly. As grave breaches these acts give rise to individual criminal responsibility. The Mission notes that the use of human shields also constitutes a war crime under the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. (par. 1732)

They go on to make some minor criticism of the treatment of Palestinian detainees by the Israeli military as well as the suppression of critical media outlets within Israel.

More importantly, the team rejects Israeli accusations that Hamas members were “hiding” in civilian areas.

The Mission found no evidence to suggest that Palestinian armed groups either directed civilians to areas where attacks were being launched or that they forced civilians to remain within the vicinity of the attacks. The Mission also found no evidence that members of Palestinian armed groups engaged in combat in civilian dress. Although in the one incident of an Israeli attack on a mosque it investigated the Mission found that there was no indication that that mosque was used for military purposes or to shield military activities, the Mission cannot exclude that this might have occurred in other cases. (par. 1750)

Although Judge Goldstone has predicted that no prosecutions will take place for Israeli crimes, one hopes that if Israel refuses to investigate the allegations this report makes, that the International Criminal Court (ICC) will press ahead with their own investigation. There is a possibility this may happen… which would be a sign of great progress for that body. Although Israel is not a member of the ICC, I think it would be an important step towards greater jurisdiction for the court. Rather than punishing only the petty dictators or génocidaires of various 3rd world countries, the ICC could demonstrate that the leaders of the rich world are not entirely immune from the repercussions of their murderous romps. And Zionists are afraid of this:

Attorney Michael Sefarad, who specializes in human rights international law, was more cautious: “The Goldstone report is highly unusual, since it states Israel’s inquests into the operation were unworthy. The bottom line is that this report brings us one step closer to seeing foreign courts hear war crimes cases involving Israeli officials.” (more…)

On a final note, it should be said that while the report does criticize Palestinian rocket attacks targeting civilian areas, this issue takes a very minor role in the report. Not in this case, but I think too often the United Nations (and the Western media) attempts to apply flimsy standards of parity between Israeli and Palestinian actions. Sure, rocket attacks are war crimes… but there can be no serious comparison between the crimes of the occupant and the crimes of the occupied [Norman Finkelstein discussed the matter with Amy Goodman the other day]. Besides the clear disparity in economic and infrastructural terms, the occupation is the single greatest source of violence relevant to the conflict. Israel’s ongoing economic/military siege and the near-daily invasion of Palestinian land does not excuse rocket attacks, but neither does it put them on equal footing. I understand the need for this universality under international law, but realistically we would never dream of arguing that the participants in the Warsaw ghetto uprising were equally culpable for war crimes as were the Nazis during WWII.

Download the full report here.

This speech was nothing new or interesting on Netanyahu’s behalf. The man is a racist and his speech reflected this very clearly. It was aimed simply at reassuring his fellow extremists in Israel (and in the settlements) that he is not about to “sell-out” to Washington. I won’t go into his ridiculous distortions of history because the are easily refuted by anyone with the most basic appreciation for the facts.

The thrust of his speech had to do with the Palestinians recognizing Israel—not merely as a state with an inherent right to exist (as Israel had previously demanded), but as a specifically Jewish state with a right to exist. The second point of his speech had to do with his vision for a Palestinian state, namely a demilitarized enclave subordinate to Israeli security needs.

To the first point, this is fluff. Israel is unprepared to recognized the West Bank as a specifically Muslim or Palestinian entity (and it shouldn’t in any case). But Israel cannot bring itself to recognize the basic right to Palestinian existence even without silly ethnic or religious predicates. So demanding the Palestinian leadership to recognize Israel as a specifically Jewish state is intended simply to undermine peace negotiations by precluding discussion over the right to return for the 1948 refugees. After all, why should Israel negotiate over refugees if the Palestinians have themselves granted legitimacy to Jewish apartheid? So on the issue of recognition, Netanyahu has only further radicalized Israel’s position. (more…)

This week, we have seen once again how Israel employs the “unlimited use of limited force” to provoke a response from Gaza and to thereby undermine the fragile tahdiya—the Egyptian-brokered ceasefire in place since last June.

Last Tuesday, while the world’s attention was focused on the United States’ presidential election, Israel invaded the Gaza Strip… Ostensibly there to destroy several smuggling tunnels, they encountered resistance (naturally) and killed six Palestinian militants. In response, dozens of Palestinian rockets were subsequently fired into Israel. And in response, Israel made a statement “regretting” Hamas’s hostility and eagerly shut Gaza’s borders, exacerbating the already disastrous humanitarian conditions. Soon after, Israel also forced Gaza’s main power plant to close by cutting fuel supplies, a move which plunged hundreds of thousands into darkness (yet again). Ehud Olmert threateningly declared that a “full-scale” Israeli operation in Gaza is not a question of “if” but “when”, even as he blamed Gaza for breaking the truce! And in response, rockets continue to fly over the border from Gaza into Israel.

And in response… and in response…
(more…)

It has come as a surprise to many of my friends to hear that I have decided not to vote. Some people have sent me messages begging me to cast a vote, some of them aggressive and condescending, others desperate… so I will try to clarify my views to those among you who consider voting to be an important aspect of democratic participation.

Above all, I am convinced that no political action is worth undertaking without the possibility of the action bringing about a desired change—or even the possibility of placing us on a path towards this change. So while I believe that voting is indeed an important aspect of civic awareness, I believe it is a useful practice only once certain democratic institutions are in place to make it worth our while. In this particular case at this particular time, I don’t believe voting is my best option for a number of reasons—so why should I participate just because I am eligible?

I would not go to a political demonstration if I believed the particular manifestation of protest would be ineffective, just as I would not express my political views to a dog. There is simply no point in these acts.

Likewise, when the choice lies between parties that have monopolized the “debates” by excluding third-party candidates, that have transformed a theoretically multiparty political system into de facto two-party farce, that have pushed candidates who both essentially agree that military aggression is a cornerstone of U.S. foreign policy, that profess their immutable support for Israel’s right to kill Palestinian civilians, that quibble over the deaths of American soldiers while basically agreeing that the carnal nightmare in Iraq should continue, that actually threaten to widen American offensives, and agree on much else… the word “choice” defies its very meaning. Until it reclaims its meaning, voting is at best a waste of my time and at worst a capitulation to the corrupt and decidedly undemocratic state of the American political structure. (more…)

Yesterday’s nomination of Tzipi Livni as Kadima’s candidate for Israel’s upcoming national election (and especially the pleasant reception of the news by Ramallah) confirms two immutable facts about Israel/Palestinian relations: 1) Israel’s tradition of electing killers to the highest office is alive and well… Likewise, 2) the Palestinian puppet leadership always lick it all up.

Let me elaborate…

To begin, yesterday’s contest between Tzipi Livni and Shaul Mofaz was an old-fashioned battle between two evils. Despite Kadima’s reputation for being “moderate” and offering Israel’s best hope for brokering peace with the Palestinians, both candidates were (in Livni’s case, still is) entirely unfit to rule.

On the one hand, yesterday’s nomination offered Shaul Mofaz – a man notorious for recent revelations that, during his tenure as commander of the IDF in the West Bank and Gaza, he called for 70 slain Palestinians per day. This, as well as his role in demolishing hundreds of Palestinian homes during the same period, has led to accusations of war crimes. David Kretzmer, emeritus professor of international law at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, says that recent evidence suggest that Mofaz “committed serious offenses, some of which at least, fall into the category of war crimes.” (more…)

A letter recently appeared in the Washington Post that got me thinking about John Walker Lindh again. You remember him… The so-called “American Taliban” sentenced to 20 years in prison for “aiding the Taliban”. In reality, Lindh was more likely likely an unwitting victim of an emotionally fragile post-9/11 United States as well as a guinea pig for U.S. torture policy elsewhere.

As it turns out, the FBI allowed Lindh to be abused in various ways, perhaps insignificant compared to incidents in Iraq and Guantánamo, but abuses nonetheless. In retrospect, the revelation that Lindh was subject to abuse should not be a surprise. In the foamy-mouthed ideological environment of Bush’s “War on Terror”, Lindh was just another tool to forward the administration’s propaganda machine. (more…)

It seems the U.S. State Department has reversed the decision to deny the seven Gaza students Fulbright Grants. And while this is good news in principle, it should not be praised out of context—or too early.

The spokesman for the Israeli Defense Ministry’s department of civilian affairs, Major Peter Lerner (whom I dealt with regularly when arranging coordination in and out of Gaza), says that each of the the Palestinian students will face security check before being allowed to leave Gaza.

Fine. This sounds very reasonable… but I am skeptical that these students will actually be granted permission to leave. Since June 2007, approximately 670 students have been unable to pursue higher education abroad due to the total closure of the territory by the Israeli military. (more…)

In the chronology of the Bush administration’s record of manipulation and willful distortion of evidence, the apparent revelation – revealed in a recently declassified National Intelligence Estimate – that Iran ceased its nuclear program in 2003 promises to usher in a renewed phase of White House propaganda. While the cautious pundits and news anchors of the television media may predict this new information to initiate a sea-change in Washington’s antagonistic posturing, I am more skeptical. This administration will somehow find a way to interpret the development as “proof” of their wolf-crying.

Leaving aside the obvious outrage we should express at the government’s failure to rely on solid evidence and the colossally ignorant manner in which Bush threatened to launch WWIII based on shoddy intelligence, it would be prudent to review the case Washington has made against Iran thus far… (more…)

To Greeks, the island of Crete is thought to be a scenic holiday location – albeit isolated by a particularly wide expanse of the Mediterranean sea. It is an island with a great history and a unique polymorphic landscape. As a girl, I remember hearing stories of the oddity of Crete’s inhabitants and of the amazing and unusual things that occurred there.

One summer, I visited the sleepy town of Ierapetra with my family. As I can recall, the Cretans were a kind and hospitable people with a talent for cooking – even by Greek standards. It’s common knowledge in Greece that Cretans are old-fashioned charming folks, keeping traditions as they go. Being very young (I believe I was only 5 when I visited Crete), I had wondered with some interest why so many of the Cretans dressed entirely in black. It was as if the entire island was perpetually trapped in the throes of some unspeakable tragedy. A childish thought to be sure, but I came to realize that Crete was indeed more tragic than one might have imagined. (more…)

I received this message from Professor Noam Chomsky this summer in response to my article Security or Demography: The West Bank Barrier as a Demographic Tool.

From: chomsky[at]MIT.EDU
Subject: Re: West Bank Barrier
Date: June 16, 2007 19:27:29  IDT
To: kris[at]harmonicminor.com

Interesting, and well done, but I’m quite skeptical about the value of such inquiries, for a number of reasons.  Here’s a few.
 
You say it is a “highly contentious point” whether a barrier on the Israeli side of the Green Line would have achieved whatever security effects the Separation Wall does.  I don’t agree with that at all.  It’s an obvious point.  In fact it could have achieved far better results, since it could be impregnable, patrolled heavily on both sides of the fence, etc. Furthermore, even accepting (for argument’s sake)  the idea that for security Israel somehow needs intrusion into the West Bank, then why not just build a wall a fixed distance from the Green line, say 5 km (or whatever number one wants), thereby excluding the Maaleh Adumim salient and the Ariel salient, and the many other illegal communities?  Plainly, that would be at least as effective for self-defense.  The whole discussion seems absurd.  I’ve followed the arguments, and they don’t stand up to a moment’s inspection.  About as clear an evasion of the obvious as can be imagined.  We should also be more than a little disturbed, I think, by the universal acceptance in the West that the question of “security” reduces to the security of Israelis, that is, to the rich and powerful state closely linked to the US and EU, while there is no security problem for those under the jackboot.  The racism is stunning, even given the ineradicable imperial mentality. (more…)