Why don't North American papers publish stuff like this?

From Haaretz columnist Meron Benvenisti:

An odious scent of imperialistic mildew wafts from the Gazan operation as well as similar operations that have been launched in the past. European statesmen, who recently paid a visit here, could have swapped memories with Ehud Olmert about acts of cruelty committed by their countries... Everyone is ashamed of their past, save for the Israeli, who is actually proud of his deeds.

Ignoring the fundamental shift in international norms since the colonial era apparently has no bearing on the efficiency of the brutal Israeli operation. It created the desired results in favor of the stronger party, thus Israelis can boast of their victory when they are desensitized to the humanitarian repercussions. As such, they remove themselves from the group of civilized nations of which they claim to be part. [source]

Amazing that stuff like this is routinely published in a mainstream Israeli newspaper like Haaretz, but never in mainstream North American newspapers. Theres something not right about that.

Israeli Refuseniks

This is a really inspiring video of some very courageous Israelis who have refused to serve in the occupied territories. It deserves to be seen, widely.

Naomi Klein: It's time to boycott Israel

Naomi Klein's recent article, published recently in numerous places, makes some very good points:

The world has tried what used to be called "constructive engagement". It has failed utterly. Since 2006 Israel has been steadily escalating its criminality: expanding settlements, launching an outrageous war against Lebanon, and imposing collective punishment on Gaza through the brutal blockade. Despite this escalation, Israel has not faced punitive measures - quite the opposite. The weapons and $3bn in annual aid the US sends Israel are only the beginning. Throughout this key period, Israel has enjoyed a dramatic improvement in its diplomatic, cultural and trade relations with a variety of other allies. For instance, in 2007 Israel became the first country outside Latin America to sign a free-trade deal with the Mercosur bloc. In the first nine months of 2008, Israeli exports to Canada went up 45%. A new deal with the EU is set to double Israel's exports of processed food. And in December European ministers "upgraded" the EU-Israel association agreement, a reward long sought by Jerusalem.

It is in this context that Israeli leaders started their latest war: confident they would face no meaningful costs.

It seems to me that more and more people are beginning to look at Israel a little more critically. It may be hoping too much, but maybe we are seeing the beginning of something that might finally convince Israel to end the murderous occupation of Palestine.

Here are a few places you can read the whole article:

naomiklein.org

The Guardian

The Nation

ZNet

More insight from Chomsky

On February 12, the statements of Osama bin Laden were reviewed in the New York Times by NYU law professor Noah Feldman. He described bin Laden's descent into utter barbarism, reaching the depths when he advanced "the perverse claim that since the United States is a democracy, all citizens bear responsibility for its government's actions, and civilians are therefore fair targets." Utter depravity, no doubt. Two days later, the lead story in the Times casually reported that the United States and Israel are joining bin Laden in the lower depths of depravity. Palestinians offended the masters by voting the wrong way in a free election. The population must therefore be punished for this crime. The "intention," the correspondent observed, "is to starve the Palestinian Authority of money and international connections" so that President Mahmoud Abbas will be "compelled to call a new election. The hope is that Palestinians will be so unhappy with life under Hamas that they will return to office a reformed and chastened Fatah movement." Mechanisms of punishment of the population are outlined. The article also reports that Condoleezza Rice will visit the oil producers to ensure that they do not relieve the torture of the Palestinians. In short, bin Laden's "perverse claim"; but when the United States advances the claim, it is not ultimate evil but rather righteous dedication to "democracy promotion."¹

Notes: 1. Noah Feldman, "Becoming bin Laden" (review of Messages to the World: The Statements of Osama bin Laden), New York Times Book Review, February 12, 2006, p. 12; Steven Erlanger, "U.S. and Israelis Are Said to Talk of Hamas Ouster," New York Times, February 14, 2006, p. A1.

This is from Noam Chomsky, an excerpt by from a new book called Perilous Power: The Middle East and U.S. Foreign Policy, by Chomsky and Gilbert Achcar, which is coming out in a couple of weeks. This was taken from a larger excerpt found here. I recommend checking it out, of course.

More on the Middle East

In his latest speech, which infuriated so many people, Syrian President Bashar al-Assad uttered a sentence that deserves attention: "Every new Arab generation hates Israel more than the previous one."

Of all that has been said about the Second Lebanon War, these are perhaps the most important words.

This is from a terrific article by the Israeli writer/peace activist Uri Avnery.

People who criticise the state of Israel are often accused of anti-Semitism (or "self-hate," if they happen to be Jewish). But when a state is intent on doing everything it can to ensure it's own destruction, criticism is the only loving thing to do. Avnery articulates that point very nicely.

Some clarity from Chomsky

I don't know how I missed this before, but Noam Chomsky gave an interview to ZNet a couple of weeks ago that laid bare much of the hypocrisy in the West regarding the situation in the Middle East. Here's a small taste:

[T]o the outside world, it sounds a bit odd, to put it mildly, for the US and Israel to be warning of the "Iranian threat" when they and they alone are issuing threats to launch an attack, threats that are immediate and credible, and in serious violation of international law, and are preparing very openly for such an attack. Whatever one thinks of Iran, no such charge can be made in their case. It is also apparent to the world, if not to the US and Israel, that Iran has not invaded any other countries, something that the US and Israel do regularly.

Of course, I recommend reading the entire interview.

Nuclear Hypocrisy

In the April 16 issue of The New Yorker, Seymour Hersh reported that "some in the [Bush] Administration were looking seriously" at the possibility of using nuclear weapons against Iran (32).

Scary as that sounds, there are some interesting twists to the story that I only read about recently in the current issue of Tikkun.

Tad Daley writes,

Perhaps because the Bush administration has displayed such unconcealed disdain for international law, hardly anyone since the Hersh story first broke has mentioned that a U.S. nuclear strike on Iran would explicitly violate the 1970 Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NTP). ("Nuclear Irony," 26-27)

Daley explains that, in that treaty, the non-nuclear weapons states "agreed never to produce or acquire nuclear weapons, in exchange for a promise from the five nuclear signatories to eventually get rid of theirs" (27).

Daley further explains that "the NPT also contains a number of other, smaller mutual pledges. One of these was that the non-nuclear states insisted, in return for promising to remain non-nuclear, that the nuclear states promise never to launch a nuclear attack upon them" (27).

This is not quite accurate. That pledge is not contained in the text of the NPT itself, but rather in UN Security Council resolution 984.

Still, the irony remains: "in order to show the illegitimacy of nuclear weapons, and to demonstrate our categorical intolerance for nuclear weapons, the United States was going to keep another state from obtaining nuclear weapons.... by using nuclear weapons" (26).

Is that irony or hypocrisy? Sometimes I can't tell the difference.

Interesting sidebar: in that April 16 New Yorker article, Hersh says that he asked government consultant about the possibility of Hezbollah getting involved in the conflict. The consultant said that, "if Hezbollah fired rockets into northern Israel, 'Israel and the new Lebanese government will finish them off'" (37).

Oh, is that right?


Works Cited

Daley, Tad. "Nuclear Irony." Tikkun. July/August 2006: 26-28.

Hersh, Seymour M. "The Iran Plans." The New Yorker. April 17, 2006: 30-37.

Those aren't accidents...

"If Lebanon were Bosnia, the destruction of neighborhoods and the killing of civilians would have been labeled ethnic cleansing. In the case of Lebanon, we are told, the bombardment is simply creating a buffer zone to protect northern Israel from attack. But depopulating south Lebanon is not a legitimate tool for protecting the population of Galilee."

-- Editorial in America

I think this might be the first time I've read something in the American media that actually recognises that the civilian deaths in Lebanon, far from being "collateral damage," are an integral part of the plan.

Bravo to America for publishing this, especially in a country where honesty regarding Israeli military actions is always in short supply.

Michael Lerner on the victory of Hamas

Amidst all of the alarmed reactions to the recent victory of Hamas in the Palestinian parliamentary election, Rabbi Michael Lerner's response struck me as particularly insightful.

Lerner suggests that the recent election "may ultimately make it more likey that a peace agreement entered into by a Hamas dominated government would actually amount to something lasting and substantial."

Lerner acknowledges (and condemns) the terrorist violence perpetrated by Hamas, but points out that "this does not distinguish them, for example, from Ariel Sharon's government or George Bush's government, which have both been responsible for the deaths of more innocent civilians than Hamas (though always excusing themselves because these deaths were 'only collateral damage')." He recognises that the Hamas victory could be very bad, while also recognising the possibility that some good might come of it.

The blame for the election of Hamas falls largely on the shoulders of Ariel Sharon. By marginalising the Fatah party, refusing to negotiate with the Palestinian president, Mahmoud Abbas, and undermining the authority of the Fatah party by unilaterally withdrawing from Gaza ("as opposed to withdrawing in coordination with the Fatah's Palestinian Authority government"), Sharon gave the Palestinians no incentive to vote for Fatah, and the peace-oriented president Abbas. As Lerner points out, if Fatah is too radical for Israel to negotatiate with, what incentive did they have to elect Fatah over Hamas? Fatah hasn't delivered results (thanks largely to Sharon), so why not try something else?

If Hamas continues its violence towards Israel, pressure from the international community for Israel to end its illegal occupation of Palestine will surely be lessened. It might seem cynical to suggest that Sharon was intending to put Israelis at greater risk to avoid making territorial concessions, but how else do explain much of his behaviour as prime minister?

I don't want to misrepresent Lerner's position: he is not suggesting that a Hamas victory was a positive development. At the same time, it is not necessarily the case that this was the worst possible outcome. You won't read that in the mainstream press.