Tuesday, April 30, 2024

Palestine, War Profiteers and the Youth BY RON JACOBS

 

Image by Ahmed Abu Hameeda.

Israel exists. Whether the reader likes this or not, it is a verifiable fact. That it has chosen to exist as a semi-fascist apartheid state that occupies land illegally while militarily supporting so-called settlers in the ongoing theft of more land is also a fact. So is the ongoing genocidal slaughter of Palestinians living in the area known as Gaza. All of these facts are subject to change, despite Israel’s arrogant proclamations to the contrary—the slaughter will end and Israel as we know it might, too. This is true despite its support from the world’s most successful colonial-settler state, the United States.

Here’s another fact. Palestine exists. It exists in the hearts and minds of the Palestinian people—in the Occupied Territories, in Gaza, in exile around the world and in Israel’s prisons. It also exists in the hearts and minds of millions of other humans on the planet and in the proclamations by 142 governments that recognize Palestinian statehood. This existence goes far beyond the groups that make up the current resistance and their supporters. It is also much more than the dashed hopes represented by the Palestinian Authority. Like other national liberation movements before it in Vietnam and Algeria (among others), and the struggle against apartheid in South Africa, the Palestinian struggle is a struggle that goes beyond borders and reaches across the human population.

Washington is a decrepit regime, crippled by its economic addiction to war and the preparation for war. Billions of dollars are handed over to its clients foreign and domestic, who seem all too willing to hitch their wagons to the death train pulled by the men and women in the White House, Congress and the Pentagon. It is a train fueled by the profits of death merchants and cheered by the sycophant media; a media that pretends diversity of opinion but never stops promoting the lies and programs of the rulers and their agenda. In other words, any diversity of opinion ends when it approaches a genuine challenge to the permanent war economy.

Israel seems determined to follow Washington’s path. Its regime has gone further than ever before, stripping away most pretenses of equal treatment for non-Zionists inside its borders. While Israel’s slaughter of Palestinians in Gaza and its ongoing incursion into the West Bank continues, its leaders defy the world’s common humanity and understandings, challenging virtually every rule in what Washington’s current White House calls the rules-based order. Israel suffers no punishment for its crimes. Instead, its defense minister challenges the hand of the nation holding its leash—the United States—telling it that “nobody will teach the Israeli military morality” after Washington suggested it might sanction a particularly brutal unit of the Israeli Offensive Forces. Washington backed off.

Israel and the United States are committing war crime after war crime. Indeed, the entire Israeli military, the Israeli government and the governments that fund them should be sanctioned. There is no moral claim left for Israel to make. Its crusade is nothing but homicidal madness. The fact that Washington and a few other morally bankrupt regimes continue to fund that crusade places them in the war crimes docket, as well. US imperialism has no clothes. Its bloodlust is once again revealed. The Israeli government is Washington’s mad dog in the region. Washington feeds the dog and lets it off its chain when it serves the US empire’s agenda. Of course, like any poorly trained dog, Israel doesn’t always return when its master calls.

If one seeks a sense of morality in the US, it seems it can best be found among those college and university students demanding an end to the slaughter in Gaza and divestment from the war machine that these institutions support. Liberals and conservatives call these protesters antisemitic. The media amplifies the nonsense. At this point, it could be argued that antisemitism is defined as any statement that does not indicate anything but total support for Israel’s occupation, land theft and the slaughter of Gazans. When it comes to Congress, the White House, the Pentagon and the institutions running interference for US foreign policy regarding Israel and Palestine (and the rest of the world), the statements regarding antisemitism ring exceedingly hollow upon further investigation. For example, congressman Mike Johnson’s religious beliefs demand his rabid support for Zionism. He is a Christian Zionist. Now, the only reason this branch of Christianity supports the state of Israel in its endeavor is because these believers understand the Bible’s Book of Revelations to read that certain things must happen for Christ’s second coming to occur. One of those things is the rebuilding of a certain temple in Jerusalem where the Al-Aqsa mosque currently exists. That rebuilding would likely only occur when Israel’s rebuilding of what is called Greater Israel is completed. This requires the complete and total defeat of the Palestinian struggle. Only then will these Christians’ savior come back and lead them to heaven. As far as Jewish people are concerned, if this time comes they will be slaughtered en masse unless they quickly convert to Christianity. In other words, Johnson’s version of Christianity doesn’t care about Jewish people, except as a means to hasten the ascent into heaven he and his fellow believers are convinced they are due.

Anyhow, thinking about morality. Not to preach, but certain realities need to be acknowledged. To set the stage, I grew up as the oldest son of twelve children. I raised two children of my own. I worked with young people in public libraries for years and still volunteer. I coached and refereed youth sports and I worked in undergraduate libraries on college campuses for decades. In other words, I’ve been around young folks my entire life. However, even people who have not been around children since they were children themselves must be asking themselves this question: how can anyone justify on any grounds the slaughter of over 15,000 children in Gaza since October 7, 2023? If you were appalled at the murder of children and young people during the attack by Hamas on that date, how can you be not at least equally appalled at Israel’s ongoing massacre?

That is a moral question, not a political one.

Ron Jacobs is the author of Daydream Sunset: Sixties Counterculture in the Seventies published by CounterPunch Books. He has a new book, titled Nowhere Land: Journeys Through a Broken Nation coming out in Spring 2024.   He lives in Vermont. He can be reached at: ronj1955@gmail.com

Israel’s Anti-UNRWA Campaign Falls Flat BY BINOY KAMPMARK

 The Israeli authorities, in their campaign of remorseless killing, doctoring and adjusting the numbers of the Palestinian populace for whatever future awaits, have been found wanting on accusations that Hamas terrorists packed, stacked and filled UNRWA (the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East).

Not that this, in of itself, negates the need to feed, clothe and provide medical assistance to Palestinians being pummelled into oblivion.  Or avoid committing war crimes against them.  Or avoid starving, humiliating, and degrading them through administrative fiat and bureaucratic oppression.  By any estimation, bad apples do not destroy the entire crop, and still need harvesting.

From the outset, Israel asserted that 12 such individuals in UNRWA had participated in the October 7 attacks by Hamas, sharing the sparse details on January 29 with media outlets.  The grateful recipients of the alleged scandal proceeded to gorge on the thin morsel comprising a few pages.  The Financial Times, for instance, wrote of Israel’s ministry of foreign affairs having “something explosive on their agenda”, even if 12 suspects from a Gaza complement of 13,000 would have barely caused a ripple in any other circumstance.

Fifteen donor governments, in a fit of stretched moral outrage, froze promised funding, insisting that investigations by the organisation be undertaken.  The UN’s Office of International Oversight Services immediately commenced an investigation while US$444 million was withheld from an aid agency that has assisted dispossessed Palestinians for three-quarters of a century.

On February 5, the UN Secretary General António Guterres announced that an independent panel would assess “whether the agency is doing everything within its power to ensure neutrality and to respond to allegations of serious breaches when they are made.”  The panel, chaired by former French Foreign Minister Catherine Colonna, and also comprising the work of the Raoul Wallenberg Institute in Sweden, the Chr. Michelsen Institute in Norway, and the Danish Institute for Human Rights, released its findings on April 22.

The full report, titled “Independent review of mechanisms and procedures to ensure adherence by UNRWA to the humanitarian principle of neutrality”, was marked by a total absence of cooperation from Israeli authorities.  Two requests from the Colonna-led inquiry in March and April requesting names and details to support Israel’s allegations died in silence.

In its findings, UNRWA was found to have, in place, “a significant number of mechanisms and procedures to ensure compliance with the humanitarian principles, with the emphasis on the principle of neutrality, and that it possesses a more developed approach to neutrality than other similar UN or NGO entities.”

It also noted that staff lists, comprising names and functions, are shared on an annual basis with Lebanon, Jordan, Syria, Israel and the US for East Jerusalem, Gaza and the West Bank.  It falls on the states in question “to alert UNRWA of any information that may deem a staff member unworthy of diplomatic immunity.”  The report further notes that “the Israeli Government has not informed UNRWA of any concerns relating to any UNRWA staff based on these staff lists since 2011.”  Regarding the March 2024 list, Israel made public allegations “that a significant number of UNRWA employees are members of terrorist organizations.  However, Israel has yet to provide supporting evidence of this.”

The report does not ignore the challenges facing the agency in the Gaza Strip, one made more complex since Hamas took over the reins of the territory in 2007.  It found, generally, that the agency had been admirable in maintaining its neutrality in such trying circumstances, though identified eight “critical areas” for improvement, among them addressing the neutrality of education, the political position of staff unions, staff and behaviour, and management and internal oversight mechanisms. UNRWA schools, for instance, were not found to be breeding grounds of antisemitism, though some “host-country textbooks with problematic content” were being used in them.  Other areas needing rectification are unlikely to be taken, given the need for Israeli cooperation.

As the report’s executive summary notes, “In the absence of a political solution between Israel and the Palestinians, UNRWA remains pivotal in providing life-saving humanitarian aid and essential social services, particularly in health and education, to Palestinian refugees in Gaza, Jordan, Lebanon, Syria and the West Bank.”

Despite refusing to furnish any solid evidence, Israel was already preparing the ground for refusal and refutation ahead of the release.  Any findings would be ignored with a fanatic’s adamance.  While the country jumps at every opportunity to conduct investigations into its own military misconduct at the drop of hat, with the inevitable exonerations, no external review would convince them.  Nothing short of the destruction of the agency would satisfy the objectives of the Israeli state.

In March, The Guardian quoted one Israeli diplomatic source (nameless, naturally) as claiming that a “double game” was being played by Hamas and the agency, “so much so that UNRWA is a Hamas strategic asset.”  Another nameless diplomatic source was of the view that the aid agency was “so penetrated in Gaza, it cannot be repaired.  This is the policy of the state of Israel.  We want to see an end to UNRWA activity in Gaza.  This is not a case of a few bad apples. It is systemic, consistent and cannot be ignored.”  Out, it would seem, with the entire orchard.

Presumption can therefore take the position of hard fact, a point made crystal clear in another round of allegations (no evidence supplied about that either) that 2,135 UNRWA staff were supposedly members of Hamas, of whom 400 were alleged to be active fighters.

From the perspective of lusty warmongers, UNRWA remains an obstacle, a nuisance, a nightmare of reminder to those wishing to be done with the Palestinian issue once and for all.  May it continue to thrive, and, more ever, may its funders finally wise up to the fact that in the viciousness of conflict, civilians should never have to pay the price for military actions undertaken by others.  Unfortunately, three months after, and a human-confected famine ravaging Gaza even as the killings continue, various donor countries such as the United States, Germany and the UK are still minding their wallets.

Ex-warlord Hekmatyar rankles Taliban rulers

 Gulbuddin Hekmatyar (C) addressing supporters during a campaign rally in Herat in 2019

Gulbuddin Hekmatyar (C) addressing supporters during a campaign rally in Herat in 2019

In Afghanistan, where dissent is muzzled, one figure has emerged as an unlikely critic of the Taliban authorities: Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, a sidelined ex-warlord who is increasingly drawing official ire.

The onetime anti-Soviet commander, and prime minister in 1996 and 1997, has made public calls for elections and girls' education -- taboo demands under the current administration.

Hekmatyar, 76, left Afghanistan when the Taliban rose to power the first time but returned to Kabul in 2017 and remained even as legions of prominent figures fled the 2021 Taliban takeover. 


As chief of his Hezb-e-Islami radical party, he commands crowds, but analysts doubt the sincerity of his speeches and say there is little chance he can rally nationwide popular resistance.

Nonetheless, his criticism has triggered a crackdown by the Taliban authorities, who have banned him from speaking at his mosque on Fridays, evicted him from his home, and pulled his party TV channel from the airwaves.

"You stayed after the victory," Taliban government Justice Minister Abdul Hakim Sharai told him at a public event in early April.

"If you didn't like it, you should have left.

"Parties have no place in this system. According to law, taking the name of any party is a crime."

Hekmatyar's willingness to flout authorities makes him a unique figure in today's Afghanistan, one of the only politicians still speaking out against Taliban officials when nearly all opposition has been muted.

- Broadcasting dissent -

With his long white beard, black turban and thin glasses, Hekmatyar broadcast a daring speech on his party channel Barya TV in March.

"In every political decision, people's presence is necessary, either directly or through their elected and trusted representatives," he said.

"Unfortunately, women are deprived of most of the rights that Islam has given them," he added in a reference to Taliban government edicts barring women and girls from education.

But there is a gulf between what Hekmatyar says now and what he has done in the past.

From the 1990s to the 2010s, his insurgents committed civilian massacres, assassinations of intellectuals and acid attacks on women, according to human rights monitors.

Gulbuddin Hekmatyar delivering a speech during a presidential debate at Tolo News TV station in Kabul in 2019

Gulbuddin Hekmatyar delivering a speech during a presidential debate at Tolo News TV station in Kabul in 2019

His bombing of Kabul during the civil war from 1992 to 1996 caused thousands of deaths and earned him the nickname the "Butcher of Kabul".

His recent comeuppance has not been linked to alleged war crimes, but to his challenges to Kabul's new rulers.

In December 2022, a university linked to his party was closed and he was banned from making Friday speeches at a mosque he built on government grounds.

At the end of March, he was forced out of his residence, which had been provided by the former foreign-backed government after he returned from 20 years of exile and was guaranteed immunity.

And this month, Barya TV was blocked on grounds of "violating Islamic values".

"These are not positive signs for him," said a former Western diplomat familiar with Afghanistan.

But authorities "are a little stuck with him, because he benefits from a network of support and protection within the Taliban -- some of his former commanders".

- Kabul and Kandahar -

A senior member of Hekmatyar's Hezb-e-Islami party insisted he "is not going to be silent" but his remarks are not designed to "provoke", rather to outline the party's vision.

"We believe Islam is not a dictatorship. The head of the Taliban is allergic" to this belief, he said.

Analysts say there is a measure of division within the Taliban -- between the ostensible government in Kabul and powerbrokers in southern Kandahar, from where supreme leader Hibatullah Akhundzada issues directives.

"There's a split between the views of the Kabulis and Kandaharis" on how to manage Hekmatyar, his party official said.

"The Kabulis are opposed to the Taliban chief's view that he should be kept quiet."

It's not Hekmatyar's "intention to overthrow the regime", the official added. But he would like the Taliban "from Kabul to rise" and "for there to be a start from within this regime".

Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, leader of Hezb-e-Islami group in Afghanistan, speaking at an event at the Institute of Policy Studies (IPS) in Islamabad in October 2020

Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, leader of Hezb-e-Islami group in Afghanistan, speaking at an event at the Institute of Policy Studies (IPS) in Islamabad in October 2020

A spokesman for the Taliban government did not respond to a request for comment.

The Taliban government is not yet recognised by any foreign powers, some of which have been lobbying Afghan authorities to agree to a more inclusive rule.

But an official from the Revolutionary Association of the Women of Afghanistan, a rights organisation, said Hekmatyar "just wants to attract the attention of the West."

"His ideology is the same as the Taliban," the official said on condition of anonymity. "He is against democracy and women's rights".

"He is positioning himself," said the ex-diplomat.

"He believes he has a role to play... in case the government evolves.

"He's also sending a message to the international community that he's still a force to be reckoned with."

How Israel violates International Law in Gaza: expert report

 Just days after the Biden administration showered the Israeli military with billions of dollars more in lethal aid, still with no apparent effort to restrict its use on non-military populations and structures, Palestinian solidarity activists were gifted with powerful ammunition to challenge Israel’s genocidal disregard for the International and U.S. laws and norms that protect civilians in war situations.

In a sober but scathing 76-page report, publicly released on April 24, the Independent Task Force on the Application of National Security Memorandum-20 (NSM-20), details “multiple credible incidents constituting violations of international humanitarian law, military best practices, and [improper] restrictions on humanitarian assistance.” 

The volunteer and unaffiliated task force of prominent experts — including two recently departed senior State Department officials, legal scholar Noura Erekat, and a former senior “joint terminal attack controller,” Wes Bryant — was rapidly formed after President Biden signed NSM-20 on February 8, 2024. The memorandum tasked the Departments of State and Defense to report to Congress by May 8 on the compliance of Israel (and, nominally, other U.S. allies) with International Humanitarian Law and military best practices, as well as on whether it has impeded humanitarian assistance to Gaza.

Advertisement


Co-chair Noura Erekat said at a briefing that the task force report has two main goals: first, to “inform” State and Defense officials’ review with a selection of well-documented and assessed incidents of misuse of aid, and second, to put pressure on the agencies and the White House to act vigorously to curb the abuses. The pressure will depend on the report’s ability to focus the understanding of the media, the relevant experts, and activists on specific illustrative cases and to clearly explain the legal framework and standards that are supposed to apply.

The panel reported that its 

“aggregate analysis of credible reports involving U.S-provided weapons by Israeli forces indicates a context of systematic disregard for fundamental principles of international law, including recurrent attacks launched despite foreseeably disproportionate harm to civilians and civilian objects, wide area attacks without prior warnings in some of the most densely populated residential neighborhoods in the world, direct attacks on civilians…and attacks against civilian objects, including those indispensable for the survival of the civilian population.”

The experts further reported:

“Israeli intelligence sources cited by credible media reports indicate that these patterns of unlawful attacks reflect reliance on an unyielding and unconditioned supply of U.S. weapons, relaxed rules of engagement, application of collective punishment, and the use of artificial intelligence technology to generate thousands of targets (including civilian police and civil defense personnel), at maximum speed and with minimal human oversight.” 

The findings are illustrated by 17 specific, horrific “incidents” and 18 pages of additional incidents. This review of incidents is said to be “supported by both credible media and civil society reporting and statements by Government of Israel officials and IDF uniformed officers.” But the incidents identified are “just the most easily identifiable among a clear pattern of violations of international law, failures to apply civilian harm mitigation best practices, and restrictions on humanitarian assistance,” by Israel and the IDF, often using U.S.-provided arms.

Just as important for non-experts is the report’s outline of exactly how the U.S. and international legal systems are supposed to protect civilians from harm — and how they are flouted. Thus, the experts point to three “fundamental rules [that] govern targeting decisions in armed conflict”: 

  1. Distinguish between civilians and combatants, and between civilian objects and military objectives, with a presumption that persons or objects are protected from attack unless the information available at the time indicates that they are military objectives.
  2. Take all feasible “precautions” in planning and conducting attacks to avoid or at least minimize incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians, and damage to civilian objects. 
  3. Respect “proportionality,” i.e., conduct no attacks that are excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated. The greater the foreseeable harm to civilians and civilian objects, the greater the foreseeable military advantage necessary to justify a particular attack. International humanitarian law (IHL) gives special protection to hospitals, clinics, and ambulances, as well as to humanitarian relief operations, and UN premises.

The report outlines the basics of “civilian harm mitigation practices,” including U.S. Defense Department practices. A key concept is “no-strike entities” (NSEs), which DOD says “may include, but are not limited to, medical, educational, diplomatic, cultural, religious, and historical sites, or other objects that do not, by their nature, location, purpose, or use, effectively contribute to the enemy’s war-fighting or war-sustaining capability.” The task force charges that Israel has “routinely and repeatedly” targeted six fundamental categories of NSEs, plus a broad array of slightly less protected entities.

Proportionality ‘rendered meaningless’

A common excuse the Israelis advance for the death and wounding of civilians is that they are being used by Hamas as “human shields.” The report notes that “taking advantage of the presence of civilians or other protected persons with intent to shield a military objective from attack constitutes a war crime.” However, U.S. military rules “affirm that an attacker shares responsibility for civilian harm with its enemies if it fails to take feasible precautions” to avoid killing shields.

NSM-20 itself spells out that its allies must “facilitate and not arbitrarily deny, restrict, or otherwise impede . . . the transport or delivery of [U.S.] humanitarian assistance and U.S. Government-supported international…humanitarian assistance.”

Outlining the “context” of Israel’s “systematic disregard for IHL,” the report cites “recurrent attacks launched despite foreseeably disproportionate harm to civilians and civilian objects, wide-area attacks without prior warnings in some of the most densely populated residential neighborhoods in the world, direct attacks on civilians or otherwise protected persons…and attacks against civilians objects, including those indispensable for the survival of the civilian population.” A high-ranking former IDF officer is quoted as condemning Israel’s “reckless conduct,” which he says “reflects an absolute assumption that the U.S. will continue to arm and finance it.”  

“Extremely relaxed rules of engagement” inconsistent with IHL also explain much of the harm done to civilians. Thus, Chief of Staff of the Israeli Air Force, Omar Tishler, has stated that neighborhoods have been attacked “on a large scale and not in a surgical manner.” 

Such attacks are facilitated by an expansion of the concept of “military advantage” in its proportionality assessments to weigh civilian harms against the advantages of “an operation as a whole,” rather than against each individual attack. That move “renders the proportionality rule meaningless,” the report says, as it’s impossible to compare the harms of a single specific attack with all the military advantages allegedly achieved or sought by the whole Gaza operation, which has lasted more than six months. 

Similarly, former U.S. Air Force drone controller Bryant noted how Israel blurs the requirement of taking precautions to protect civilians “by employing precautions it knows are ineffective,” such as texting populations whose phones are not functional.

Also “relaxed” is Israel’s use of the term terrorist. Thus, a reserve officer told Ha’aretz, “In practice, a terrorist is anyone the IDF has killed in the areas in which its forces operate.” The extensive, open-ended imposition of “kill zones” is another way to disguise genocide, an Israeli intelligence officer has explained. With a “kill zone” lasting a month or two, “you could stick with an order that anyone approaching should be shot…But we’ve been there for six months, and people have to start coming out; they are trying to survive, and that leads to very serious incidents.” 

 Lastly, Israel asserts it can block humanitarian aid, if it has “serious reasons for fearing” that relief consignments “will be diverted from their civilian destination or otherwise provide a definite advantage to the enemy’s military efforts” — a position the task force says relies on a “defective rule” from 1949 that was modified in 1977 and superseded by a rule of customary international law. Recent UN Security Council and General Assembly resolutions confirm that Israel “must allow and facilitate rapid and unimpeded humanitarian relief and may not deny such relief based on fears that a small portion of aid may be seized by armed groups.”

In conclusion, the report warns that “the Task Force’s findings raise grave concerns regarding the Administration’s compliance with both U.S. and international law, particularly with respect to security assistance and arms transfers.” It then identifies the laws in question, as well as citing “obligations under customary international law to ensure respect for international humanitarian law and to cooperate to bring serious violations of peremptory norms of general international law to an end through lawful means.”

Gaza Aid Flotilla Halted After Vessels Flag Removed, Activists Say


The flotilla was to sail on Friday from ports in Turkey with more than 5,000 tonnes of aid on board. Activists described the inspection and request by Guinea Bissau authorities as unusual and political
Send in e-mailSend in e-mail
The Akdeniz RoRo, part of the Freedom Flotilla Coalition, waits to depart from the Tuzla seaport, near Istanbul, last week.
The Akdeniz RoRo, part of the Freedom Flotilla Coalition, waits to depart from the Tuzla seaport, near Istanbul, last week.Credit: AFP
A humanitarian aid flotilla destined for Gaza was halted after Guinea Bissau decided to remove its flag from two vessels, activist group Freedom Flotilla Coalition said on Saturday.
"The Guinea-Bissau International Ships Registry (GBISR), in a blatantly political move, informed the Freedom Flotilla Coalition that it had withdrawn the Guinea Bissau flag from two of the Freedom Flotilla's ships, one of which is our cargo ship," the activists said.
The three-strong flotilla had been due to sail on Friday from ports in Turkey with more than 5,000 tonnes of aid on board, the activists said, and described the inspection and request by Guinea Bissau authorities as unusual and political.
Activists hold a press conference inside a ship belonging ti the Freedom Flotilla Coalition while it anchors in the Tuzla seaport, near Istanbul, last week.
Activists hold a press conference inside a ship belonging ti the Freedom Flotilla Coalition while it anchors in the Tuzla seaport, near Istanbul, last week.Credit: AFP
GBISR was not immediately available for comment.
The Turkish Humanitarian Relief Foundation (IHH) is the primary organizer of the civilian Freedom Flotilla Coalition, which is comprised of human rights activists, including lawyers, doctors, and nurses who came together to deliver aid directly to Gaza.
On Friday, United Nations experts demanded the safe passage of the flotilla and called on Israel to adhere to international law and orders of the International Court of Justice to allow unimpeded access for humanitarian aid.

A Free Press, Until the Coverage Gets Uncomfortable?

  A Free Press, Until the Coverage Gets Uncomfortable? On September 18, President Trump barred CNN, MS NOW and Politico reporters from the ...