US and Israel to Reconstitute Their Nuclear Stockpiles

Threatening World Order: US and Israel Quietly Announce Plans to Reconstitute Their Nuclear Stockpiles

Anthony DiMaggio

t r u t h o u t, July 10, 2010 The world looks like it's about to become a more dangerous place. A recent report from Israel's newspaper Haaretz finds that the United States is moving forward with plans to strengthen Israel's nuclear weapons stockpile. The report, exposed within the last few days, originated from Israel's Army Radio, which sent along a secret document chronicling the nuclear cooperation between US and Israeli leaders.(1) Israel has not signed the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), meaning that it is not technically violating international rules under the NPT regarding the development and reconstitution of nuclear weapons, despite longstanding efforts of the international community to establish a "nuclear weapons free zone" in the Middle East. Part of the fear of those advocating nuclear abolition in the Middle East is that the United States will agree to send nuclear materials - extracted from its own civilian nuclear power plants - to Israel, much as it did for India, another country that refuses to sign the NPT. The Obama and Netanyahu governments are seeking to obscure their contempt for nuclear abolition by calling for "nonproliferation" in the Middle East, while Israel simultaneously boycotts New-York-based discussions (at the 2010 NPT conference) of the need for a "nuclear free" Middle East.(2) "Nonproliferation," within this context, can be understood to apply only to other countries such as Iran, which has long been a target for US and Israeli military planners. The Obama and Netanyahu governments recently announced that they will oppose efforts at singling Israel out in any "nuclear weapons free" Middle East discussion. The problem with this announcement is that Israel is the only country in the Middle East to currently have nuclear weapons. In light of this fact, any attempts to shield Israel from being "singled out" will inevitably prevent progress in moving toward nuclear disarmament in the region. Much is made of Iran's alleged efforts to develop nuclear weapons by Israel and the United States. This propaganda campaign appears to be paying off in light of Iran's recent announcement of its planned opening this September of a nuclear power plant in the southern port city of Bushehr.(3) US and Israeli officials maintain that Iran is enriching uranium under the auspices of a civilian nuclear program, while secretly using its uranium stockpile to develop nuclear weapons. Those who make such claims are at a loss to explain why the International Atomic Energy Agency - in addition to the US National Intelligence Estimate - found no evidence of nuclear weapons development in Iran, despite countless inspections by international observers.(4) Those claiming that Iran is a threat are also unable to explain why inspectors are unable to uncover any evidence that Iran is producing highly-enriched uranium (of a quality suitable to develop a nuclear weapon), but instead only produces low-enriched uranium suitable for use in nuclear power plants.(5) Despite the critical evidence above, the US-Israeli propaganda campaign is succeeding in obscuring Israel's and the United States' own open contempt for nuclear disarmament. It should be remembered that the US openly violated the NPT late last year when it announced it would extract plutonium from its own nuclear reactors in order to create a new generation of nuclear weapons (for more see the original news report here). According to Fox News polling, as recently as April 2010, 65 percent of Americans support "the United States taking military action to keep Iran from getting nuclear weapons."(6) This represents a four percent increase since September 2009. As of late 2009, CNN polling found that an astounding 88 percent of Americans believed that Iran is developing nuclear weapons - a 27 percent increase since December 2007.(7) Similarly, a poll from the Center for Iranian Studies at Tel Aviv University found that 81 percent of Iranians believed Iran will develop a nuclear bomb, according to polling done in mid 2009.(8) Recent revelations that Israel is moving forward with US help in reconstituting its nuclear weapons program are ignored in the US press. At the same time, the United States' own efforts to redevelop its nuclear stockpile are completely suppressed, despite the obsession of both the United States and Israel with Iran's fictitious nuclear weapons. The Obama administration and the mass media are now promoting a false narrative depicting the US as committed to nuclear transparency and disarmament, and its enemies as opposed to such practices. Nowhere is this strategy more evident than in the Obama administration's continuous attacks on Iran's "nuclear threat," pursued alongside Obama's announcement of a new commitment to "nuclear transparency." More specifically, the Obama administration publicly disclosed the (previously classified) total number of operational US nuclear warheads in existence today - which stands at just over 5,000.(9) While this step was a move in the right direction in terms of drawing attention to the United States' massive stockpile, it was cynically pursued alongside a quiet announcement by the Department of Energy (originally made in September 2009) that the US is moving forward with developing a new generation of nuclear weapons, rather than working toward nuclear disarmament as legally required under the NPT.(10) The Obama administration makes Orwellian claims that it is moving toward disarmament - when in fact it's doing the opposite by reconstituting its aging arsenal. At the same time, Obama demonizes foreign nations such as Iran, which international inspectors and US intelligence agencies concede is not developing nuclear weapons (at least according to all available intelligence). Secretary of State Hillary Clinton announced, following the administration's report on the US nuclear stockpile, "We think it is in our national security interest to be transparent as we can be about the nuclear program of the United States ... the important part is that the US is no longer going to keep other countries in the dark."(11) Such statements are disingenuous at best when the US decides to redevelop its aging weapons, while any discussion of this is omitted in media and political discourse. Instead, readers are subject to reporting from The Associated Press that frames the Obama administration as "serious about stopping the spread of atomic weapons and reducing their numbers."(12) US attention to Iran's nonexistent nuclear weapons program is all the rage in the US media. According to a comprehensive search of the Lexis Nexis database, the words "Iran" and "nuclear weapons" appeared in nearly 1,000 stories across The New York Times, Washington Post, ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, Fox and MSNBC from January through June 2010. In contrast, the United States' own openly declared "Complex Modernization" program - in which the US allocated $55 billion to extracting plutonium pits and enriched uranium from existing nuclear power plants to place in new nuclear warheads(13) - received not a single mention in any of the above media outlets from September 2009 when the plan was first announced, through June 2010, shortly following Obama's announcement of his renewed commitment to nuclear "transparency" and "disarmament." It is disturbing that the US plan for nuclear weapons production is completely censored from public discourse. Obama promised to "seek the peace and security of a world without nuclear weapons." The Department of Energy's plans clearly violate this promise, and run counter to US obligations under the NPT to pursue US nuclear disarmament, rather than rearmament. It is no surprise that the US media establishment is ignoring this story, considering that American journalists are heavily reliant on official sources to write their stories and since journalists see US foreign policy as benevolent and humanitarian in intent. By ignoring the United States' contempt for nonproliferation, the mass media is guaranteeing that Americans will remain ignorant of the United States' brazen commitment to power politics at the expense of global security and stability. Footnotes: 1. Barak Ravid and Reuters, "Report: Secret Document Affirms US Israeli Nuclear Partnership," Haaretz, 8 July 2010. 2. Mark Weiss, "Israel to Boycott Nuclear Free Middle East Plan," Irish Times, 31 May 2010, 3. DPA, "Iran Says Bushehr Nuclear Plant to be Ready by September," Haaretz, 7 July 2010. 4. Sylvia Westall, "No Sign Iran Seeks Nuclear Arms: New IAEA Head," Reuters, 3 July 2009.; Mark Mazzetti, "US Says Iran Ended Atomic Arms Work," New York Times, 3 December 2007. 5. BBC, "Iran Claims Higher Enriched Uranium Production," BBC, 24 June 2010. 6. For the figures provided on public opinion of Iran, see the poll aggregator, Polling Report. 7. Ibid. 8. Djallal Malti, "Israel Keeps Anxious Eye on Iran Turmoil," Agence France Presse, 24 June 2009. 9. Associated Press, "US Releases Details of Nuclear Weapons Inventory," Foxnews.com, 3 May 2010. 10. Matthew Cardinale, "US Nukes Agency Pushes New Bomb Production," Truthout/Inter Press Service, 30 September 2009. 11. Associated Press, "US Releases Details of Nuclear Weapons Inventory," Foxnews.com, 3 May 2010. 12. Ibid. 13. Matthew Cardinale, "US Nukes Agency Pushes New Bomb Production," Truthout/Inter Press Service, 30 September 2009.

Global Capitalism and U.S. Militarism

The Two Sides of the Same Coin: Global Capitalism and U.S. Militarism

by Benjamin Woods

July 11, 2010

The Washington Post published a provocative article on June 4th 2010 entitled "U.S. 'secret war’ expands globally as Special Operations forces take larger role." The article shows that the Obama administration has continued the militaristic policies of the Bush administration by swelling the number of special operations troops in 75 countries compared to 60 at the beginning of last year. This illustrates that Black faces in high places (neocolonialism) doesn’t necessarily mean a change in policy. Therefore, its important to remember that the primary problem is not US militarism but imperialism and capitalism.

As the global economic situation worsens and the US is bogged down in wars, breaks in the system will occur which allow social movements to arise. To counter this trend, the United States, the military arm of transnational capital, will display more military aggression. Of course, the president is simply continuing the expansionary and imperialistic policies of the white settler regime in North America that started with the theft of First Nation (Native American) lands and enslavement of African people.

In 2008, the US navy reactivated the Fourth fleet. The Fourth fleet was established during World War II to combat the German Navy in Latin American waters. Following the end of the war, the fleet was deactivated. Although the US military contends the Fourth fleet’s reactivation is not a fundamental change in policy, governments in the region assert its purpose is to stop the rise of social movements in Latin America.

These fears are a product of the US Monroe doctrine beginning in the 1820s that stated the entire Western Hemisphere is the United States 'sphere of influence.’ In keeping with the Monroe Doctrine, the US has overthrown virtually every government in Latin America from Guatemala (1954) to Chile (1973). The more recent coup attempts were in Venezuela (2002) and Bolivia (2008). Also, the leadership of the recent coup in Honduras (2010) was trained at the infamous 'School of the Americas ’ in Fort Benning, Georgia.

Furthermore in 2008, the United States established the Africa Command (AFRICOM). While the US military declares that AFRICOM is only a restructuring of their command system due to Africa's 'renewed importance’, African governments argue AFRICOMs creation is dependent upon the fact that the US will soon receive 25% of its oil from the African continent. These fears are not unfounded. The beginning of US diplomatic relations with the African continent were the European slave trade. Later, during the Cold War, the CIA supported several assassinations and coups such as in the Democratic Republic of Congo (1960) and Ghana (1966).

Moreover, in May 2008 the US conducted a war games exercise at the US Army War College in Carlisle, PA called "Unified Quest 2008." The war games included a US response to continued "piracy" and insurgency in Somalia set in 2025 and the collapse of the Nigerian government in 2013. Although the details of the Somalia response were not disclosed, the response to the Nigerian scenario included the deployment of thousands of US troops to West Africa.

As a political commentator stated "you can’t have empire abroad and democracy at home." Increased US militarism does not bode well for domestically colonized nations in the United States such as Chicanos and Africans. For example, the state of Arizona passed SB 1070 which de facto legalizes racial profiling and forces immigrants to provide documentation on request or risk being detained.

It must remembered, that Arizona was stolen from Mexico during the Mexican-American War. A case in point, in his newspaper the North Star Fredrick Douglass stated the US government "succeeded in robbing Mexico of her territory, and are rejoicing over their success under the hypocritical pretense of a regard for peace." Similarly, in NYC residents are subjected to stop and frisk policies where upon 'reasonable suspicion’ NYPD can search any individual for concealed weapons. The American Civil Liberties Union states over 80% those stopped were African or Latino. In addition, similar to checkpoints in Palestine or Afghanistan, in 2008, the DCPD set up checkpoints in the majority African neighborhood of Trinidad in Washington DC.

The African Freedom Movement in the United States has a long history of self-defense against state repression. Two notable works and organizations that should be studied by committed African activists, intellectuals, and street organizations (gangs) are the African Blood Brotherhood (ABB) and Kwame Nkrumah’s The Handbook of Revolutionary Warfare. Founded in 1919, the ABB was a revolutionary Black Nationalist organization that operated on a clandestine basis. They were crucial in the defense of Africans during white attacks on Black communities in the Red Summer of 1919. The Handbook describes how to conduct rural guerilla warfare on the African continent. The coming period of reaction will test our movement for national liberation and self determination.

GUADANAMO TODAY

Obama’s Gitmo
Torturing the rule of law

By Chase Madar

July 9, 2010 President Obama may lack the nerve to stare down Liz Cheney or Bibi Netanyahu, but no one can deny that our commander in chief has the guts to take on a child soldier. Come August, a military commission in Guantánamo will try Omar Khadr, a Canadian national captured outside Kabul in 2002, when he was just 15 years old. This will be only the third Gitmo trial and the Obama administration’s first, and there won’t be anything kinder and gentler about it. But give our government credit for breaking new ground: no nation has tried a child soldier for war crimes since World War II, and the decision to prosecute Khadr has drawn protests from UNICEF, headed by a former U.S. national security adviser, as well as every major human-rights group. The audacity doesn’t stop there: charges against Khadr include "murder in violation of the rules of war," a newly minted war crime novel to the history of armed conflict. Battlefield deaths do not usually result in murder trials for prisoners of war. But according to the Department of Defense, Omar Khadr is no POW. He’s a non-uniformed, "unprivileged belligerent." In the euphemistic lingo of Gitmo, Khadr is not even a prisoner, just a "detainee" who has been awaiting trial for the past eight years. This kind of court action would have made great copy under Cheney and Bush, noisome proof of their barbarity. Now everyone except the Right’s usual panic-merchants is sick of Guantánamo and wishes it had closed, as Obama promised, by the end of 2009. But that deadline has passed, and Gitmo will surely be open next year too. Several reporters told me they had to beg their editors to be sent down to cover the Khadr story. Anyone expecting to witness eye-popping tableaux of Rumsfeldian cruelty at Gitmo will be disappointed. It’s a military base like many others, except instead of the nearby base town with obligatory pawn shop, strip club, and Korean restaurant, you find an impermeable barrier sealing base dwellers and visitors inside. Overall, it’s not a bad deployment: soldiers can at least get a beer off duty, the snorkeling’s good, and the roads are free of IEDs. Given the paucity of lurid local color, scribblers who take the military flight—a leased Delta aircraft from Andrews Air Force Base—have been reduced to soliloquizing about Guantanamo’s McDonald’s and the banality of evil amid the French fries. Gitmo’s population continues to trickle away, to a point. Over 600 prisoners have been let go, and of the 50 habeas petitions for release filed since the Boumediene decision in 2008, 36 have been granted. Were these really "the worst of the worst"? Hardly. Still, the Obama administration has announced that it will continue to hold some 45 detainees indefinitely without charges, one of George W. Bush’s most radical policies, now zealously defended by a smoother, smarter team of Democratic lawyers. This is exactly the kind of lawlessness that Harold Koh, a human-rights icon, used to condemn from his bully pulpit as dean of Yale Law. Now, as legal adviser to the Department of State, he’s tasked with justifying indefinite detention. Of the roughly 180 remaining prisoners, Omar Khadr is the youngest. The 23-year-old is now in the midst of pretrial suppression hearings to determine whether his confession of throwing a grenade that killed a Special Forces medic is admissible as evidence. Few would deny that Khadr was tortured—one interrogator testified that he first laid eyes on the youth hooded and chained to the walls of his cell, standing with his shackled arms extended at head level. The only questions are how much torture, exactly what kind, for how long, and whether it contaminates the confession that Khadr later retracted. The first round of hearings afforded a clear vantage into the legal black hole that Guantanamo very much remains. The Obama administration has striven to paper over the abyss with a layer of legality. There are new, improved rules for the military commissions, signed by the secretary of defense the night before the hearings began. Alas, they continue to fall short in core areas of juridical fairness. There is no right to a speedy trial, no pretrial investigation to weed out weak cases, and the defense’s requests for witnesses must go through the prosecution. There is no credit for pretrial detention—now nearly a decade for many prisoners—and no right of equal access to witnesses and evidence. Freshly invented war crimes like "material support for terrorism," retroactively applied, violate the fundamental juridical principle of nulla poena sine lege, no crime without a prospective law. The greatest flaw is structural: the interference of the "Convening Authority"—the politically appointed head of the commissions—into the prosecutions has been documented again and again. Brig. Gen. Thomas Hartmann, former legal adviser to the Convening Authority, was so blatant in his attempts to secure convictions that he was banned from any involvement in three separate trials for his "undue command influence." One former chief prosecutor at Guantanamo has said that Hartmann pushed hard for the Khadr case because he thought it would be "sexy, the kind of case the public’s going to get energized about." Such micromanaging did not endear Hartmann to his colleagues: former deputy prison camps commander at Guantánamo Brig. Gen. Gregory Zanetti testified in 2008 that Hartmann’s conduct was "abusive, bullying and unprofessional … pretty much across the board." One might expect that a legal system thus rigged would greatly appeal to its prosecutors. Until now, one would be wrong. Half a dozen prosecutors have quit the commissions in disgust, most with blistering criticisms on their way out. Col. Morris Davis, former chief prosecutor of the commissions until October 2007, said that constant political pressure made full, fair, and open trials impossible: "What we are doing at Guantánamo is neither military nor justice." No less scathing is Lt. Col. Darrel Vandeveld, formerly lead prosecutor in another commissions case against a child soldier—a case that collapsed midway through, with the government dropping all charges. "It would be foolish to expect anything to come out of Guantánamo except decades of failure. There will be no justice there, and Obama has proved to be an almost unmitigated disaster," he told me. After resigning from the commissions as a matter of ethical principle, Vandeveld was punished with a mandatory psychiatric evaluation and gratuitous hearings into his fitness for remaining in the Army, even though he had only four months remaining in his term of service. Vandeveld, who has deployed to Iraq, Afghanistan, and Bosnia, doubts very much that any more prosecutors will resign after his highly visible reprimand. The new head of the prosecution team, Capt. John Murphy, told me proudly that morale has never been higher on his team. Half of the four lawyers looked young enough to have started law school long after 2001, and it is hard to imagine young attorneys quitting the commissions without established careers to fall back on. This may spell the end to a golden chapter in JAG history: throughout the sordid drama of Guantanamo, the few glimmers of governmental integrity have come from the JAG corps’ dissent. They even earned that ultimate ethical accolade, the disapproval of John Yoo, who scolded the military lawyers for adhering to the rule of law in defiance of the "unitary executive authority" as embodied by torture buffs such as himself. For its part, Team Obama’s main innovation has been to ban troublesome journalists from the base, a move Bush never dared. On May 6, toward the end of this round of hearings, the Joint Task Force abruptly barred four of the most knowledgeable reporters from returning to Gitmo, accusing them of violating an order that the identity of Omar Khadr’s primary interrogator be kept secret. It doesn’t matter that "Interrogator Number One," convicted in a 2005 court martial for prisoner abuse at Bagram prison, had already been interviewed by one of these journalists two years ago and that his identity is available in the public record. One of the banned journalists, Carol Rosenberg of McClatchy, was hounded last summer by a risible and quickly dismissed sexual harassment complaint made by Navy press officer Jeffrey Gordon. Rosenberg is the acknowledged dean of Gitmo journalists. Getting rid of her would be a singularly effective way for the Department of Defense to gain some control over Gitmo’s public image. And that image remains pretty terrible, even if Camp X-Ray, the open-air cages that held orange jumpsuited detainees for four months in 2002, is now growing weeds. Camp Delta, the detention complex, is rather prosaic. Camp 5, for the least compliant prisoners, is a direct modular copy of a block from the federal prison in Terre Haute, Indiana; Camps 4 and 6, for the most compliant, of Lawanee Prison in Adrian, Michigan. Some detainees are able to take courses in Arabic, English, and art. And so what? A prison doesn’t have to be an unremitting nightmare to threaten the rule of law. As the ACLU’s Ben Wizner puts it, "At this point, Guantánamo isn’t a place anymore, it’s a principle." A normal-looking prison that just happens to hold people indefinitely without charge is a more insidious threat to the integrity of the legal system than Camp X-Ray ever was. For this reason, the ACLU does not see transporting the system to Thomson Correctional Facility in Illinois as any kind of progress. Guantanamo, wherever it is located, runs the grave risk of normalization, a process already well underway. Over a few nights during the Khadr hearings, I read in my air-conditioned tent a law-review article by Prof. Adrian Vermeule, an up-and-comer at Harvard Law School. He proposes that legal black holes—the term was coined by a British law lord expressly for Guantánamo—are not only tolerable but necessary. Any attempt to fill them in with law would be "hopelessly utopian," "quixotic" even. "Our Schmittian Administrative Law," published last year in the Harvard Law Review, draws heavily on the work of Nazi jurist Carl Schmitt, lifelong opponent of the rule of law and liberal democracy. A chronic figure of fascination among lefty academics for the cold eye he cast on liberalism’s sacred myths, Schmitt’s ideas had always been held at a prophylactic distance. No longer. Schmitt’s ready-made conceptual lexicon for political emergencies, non-state combatants, and the need for strident executive authority has proven irresistible to ambitious intellectuals in the revolving door between the federal government and the finer law schools. These tweedy immoralists urge us to relax our square-john commitment to the rule of law and embrace strong executive action. Surely the moralizing banalities of rule-of-law theorists are inadequate for the unique challenges of the post-9/11 global order, they tell us. But after the events of the past decade, one would be on safer ground drawing the opposite conclusion about the rule of law’s value. Our government responded to 9/11 with extraordinary measures contemptuous of ordinary legality, and nearly every one of them has been catastrophic. From the conquest of Iraq to waterboarding to warrantless wiretapping to the military commissions of Guantánamo, these policies have been exorbitantly costly in blood, treasure, and national prestige. Nor is setting up a shambolic court to try a child soldier who was tortured in custody likely to solve anything. Has any part of our frenzied rejection of legal restraints improved national security? Vermeule is correct to note that these black holes are likely to dilate rather than contract as an imperialist foreign policy strains our legal system, not only with the panic and fervor of war but with juridical conundrums of extraterritoriality, non-state belligerents, and geographically far-fetched definitions of self-defense. Already a new Guantánamo for indefinite detainees has opened up in Bagram, which will be much less accessible to media, nonprofit observers, and defense counsel. Meanwhile, the rule of law will continue to suffer rough treatment at the hands of our best and brightest. The concept has been debunked by many postmodern academics as so much high-minded bourgeois blather and, more dangerously, derided by the neoconservative Right as a folktale for chuckleheads. But people in countries where violent lawlessness is rife see the rule of law as something more than rhetorical window dressing. From Colombia to Egypt to Italy to Guantánamo’s neighboring Cuba, citizens who risk their lives against the depredations of organized crime or authoritarian states routinely invoke the rule of law to give meaning to their acts of resistance. Yes, the rule of law may be an ideal—but it is not only an ideal. Repairing legal black holes in America may start by shutting down Guantánamo, wherever the detention complex ultimately winds up, and radically rethinking our post-9/11 security policies. Indefinite detention in some nondescript prison with a few art classes doesn’t make for splashy headlines, but it marks the beginning of the end of the rule of law. Chase Madar is a lawyer in New York.

Fallujah: Anatomy of an Atrocity

Fallujah: Anatomy of an Atrocity

By David Rothscum

Anas Hamed (R) and his sister Inas who suffer from birth defects are pictured on November 12, 2009 in the city of Fallujah DavidRothscum.blogspot.com, July 10, 2010 Today July 6th of 2010 is the day that Chris Busby, Malak Hamdan Entesar Ariabi released their epidemiological study on the health problems the people of Fallujah are suffering from. The full study can be downloaded here, free of charge. You may not have heard of these men yet, but I am quite sure their names will be found in the history books. The reason for this is that they have gathered scientific evidence of the genocide the people of Fallujah are suffering from at the hands of the imperialists that invaded Iraq. Unfortunately, they have not yet raised much attention to their discoveries, and thus I feel compelled to help with this myself. A few days ago, on 2 July, they released a press release on Uruknet that showed some of their findings. It was entitled "Genetic damage and health in Fallujah Iraq worse than Hiroshima". In April, they announced preliminary findings on Global Research, a site I suspect most of you are familiar with. Please realize that when people discover horrendous atrocities, that the mainstream media refuses to touch, they come to you, the Truth movement, and it is you that are responsible for this information becoming public. Before 2003, before the invasion of Iraq war, the slaughter of Fallujah, and so much more, you were trying to raise awareness of Gulf War Syndrome, the epidemics of cancer and birth defects in Southern Iraq due to Depleted Uranium, and were generally met with ridicule and disbelief. Now that the horrors you warned of are slowly being revealed to the world, all of you have reason to be proud of your hard work. Not just the main activists (Leuren Moret, Doug Rokke, and many others) but all of you who contributed in their own way by reposting their stories to blogs, forums, writing to politicians, and everything else you did to raise awareness to this atrocity. If people listened to you much of it could have been prevented. I find it important you realize you should be proud of yourselves for the effort you took while most people around you did nothing. I also have a lot of respect for the team of 11 people that went house to house in Fallujah to gather the data. People in Fallujah are suspicious of authorities (they have every reason to), and they were suspected of being part of a secret-service operation. In one case they were unfortunately met with physical violence. The team nonetheless completed the survey, despite the risk they faced from both the threat of physical violence, and of course by simply being in such an unhealthy environment. With that said, let me move on to the study itself. As shocking as the information announced in the press release and the preliminary findings was, the complete results they showed in their study are worse. The press release mentioned that: "infant mortality was found to be 80 per 1000 births which compares with a value of 19 in Egypt, 17 in Jordan and 9.7 in Kuwait". What the press release did not mention was that this is the period of 2006 until 2010. Unfortunately, from 2006 to 2010, the infant mortality continued to rise. As the full study mentions, when we only look at 2009, and the first two months of 2010, we find that the infant mortality rate now is not at a level of 80 children out of 1000 that die within a year, but at a horrific rate of 136 per 1,000 births. When we look at the table in the study, we find that in 2008, 6 infants (age 0-1) died, compared to 0 in 2005, and only 1 in 2004. In 2009, 10 infants died. However, in the first two months of 2010 that the scientists studied, they found that 6 infants had died. Thus, in only the first two months of 2010, as many infants died as in the entirety of 2008. If the rate for 2010 were to continue (and this is not guaranteed, it could be lower, but due to the rising trend it is more likely to increase further), in 2010, 36 infants will die, compared to only 1 in 2004. Although I should have known better, I had hoped that the situation was easing in Fallujah, or at least not getting worse, because I had not heard much news recently, but instead, the situation is only getting worse as we speak. A further finding the scientists made was that in the category of children aged 0-4, there are only 860 boys per 1000 girls. A normal ratio is 1050 boys per 1000 girls. This is evidence of genetic mutations. The reason for this is that girls have two X-chromosomes, while boys only have a single X-chromosome. Thus, if one of a girl's X-chromosomes suffers from a genetic mutation, the girl still has another functional copy. However, if a boy's X-chromosome suffers from the same genetic mutation, he has no functional copy of the same gene left, and this can cause the boy's death. However, the skewed birth ratio can also be (partly) caused by another effect the scientists didn't mention in their study: The endocrine disrupting effect of Uranium. At levels below the EPA standard, Uranium is a potent endocrine disruptor. Endocrine disruptors are chemicals that have a hormonal effect on humans, and Uranium works as an estrogen (female hormone) in the human body. This causes a lower number of male children to be born. Thus, the skewed birth ratio could be the result of the hormonal effect of Depleted Uranium as well, besides being caused by an increase in genetic mutations. Another fact the researchers have discovered needs to be mentioned as well. Their study has found there has been a sharp decline in the birth rate. As they mention: "It is clear that the 0–4 population, born in 2004–2008, after the fighting, is significantly 30% smaller than the 5–9, 10–14 and 15–19 populations." This is what I call depopulation in action. Unfortunately there is an epidemic of cancer in Fallujah as well. This is to be expected, but it has not received a lot of attention so far. There are 4.2 times more cases of cancer than you would expect for the region. For childhood cancer, there is a 12.6 relative risk. Brain cancer, breast cancer and lymphoma are all particularly higher than you would expect, but worst of all is the epidemic of Leukemia, at a 22.2 times relative risk, and 38.5 in the age category 0–35. These are the exact types of cancers we would expect if the cause was radiation exposure. Veterans exposed to Depleted Uranium also suffer from epidemics of Leukemia for example. Children are most sensitive to the effects of radiation due to their rapidly dividing cells. All evidence shows the disaster is caused by Depleted Uranium. It's not stopping, but only getting worse, and will continue to get worse. We are now in 2010, and the intense fighting happened in 2004. In Basra, the intense fighting happened in 1991. In 1998, the increase in birth defects began to get seriously noticeable, and in 2001, ten years later, it had gone through the roof. In 2005, the cancer rate was still rising in Basra. Thus there is little reason to believe the situation is going to get better anytime soon unfortunately. I would not wish what is happening to my worst enemy. Then surely I would not wish it upon the great people of Iraq, who managed to build a first world country in the desert, where people of different faiths intermarried, and Muslims and Christians ran the secular government together. Women were in university, and did not have to hide their beauty. Now they will cover their bodies, to hide the scars of cancer and birth defects that will plague the great people of Iraq for decades to come. Those left 50 years from now will still ask themselves when they get cancer if the Depleted Uranium could be responsible. They suffer every bit as much as you and I would if this were to happen to us. Therefore I do not see the survivors of this genocide forgiving us anyday soon. I do not think we would forgive and want to be friends with people that send their soldiers to invade our countries, destroyed our DNA with their radioactive weapons, and do not show an ounce of regret or guilt either. When we saw what they had done to our children, born deformed and suffering from cancer, we would fight the invaders until they were all dead, or had all left our country. Do not interpret this as a call for violence, I am merely stating the obvious: If you harm someone's children, they will fight you until death, without a moment of doubt in their mind. When you mourn the 4.400 dead American veterans, or the hundreds from other countries, think about that. They can not point at their commanders, they have an own responsibility to do no harm to others, and they failed to live up to it. At all times, tell anyone you know in the military to desert when they get the chance. It's never too late to return from evil. And this evil unfortunately seems to be quite out in the open. When Israel bombed Gaza, they called it "Operation Cast Lead", a poetic description of Depleted Uranium (Uranium generally being described as being denser than lead, which is supposedly why it's used). When Americans took over Fallujah, they called their slaughter, Operation Phantom Fury. I would again call this a poetic description of what they did to the people of Fallujah. The American military establishment was furious about the death of 4 of its elite warriors, the Blackwater contractors whose bodies were hung from a bridge. Thus, they unleashed their "phantom fury". The invisible radiation that human senses can not detect, that destroys every living thing it touches. If poisoning an entire city with radiation is not a form of "Phantum Fury", I don't know what is. Any possibility for reconciliation is not helped by the reaction I see from people on the Internet to these stories. "Wow, all this for hanging the bodies of burned dead American contractors from the bridges and desecrating them. I do not feel very sorry for them." Is what one individual responded. When news of an epidemic of blood cancer in the Gaza Strip due to Operation Cast Lead was revealed, someone responded with: "With any luck maybe they will stop breeding on the strip." Dr. Daud Miraki posted a number of images of the children born in Afghanistan and wrote in an e-mail to Jeff Rense about the response he got: "For the past few days, I have been going through hell receiving rotten and hate-filled email from some of the sick and stupid people in America. They make fun of the babies...and they curse Islam and I and my family." I do not know what kind of sick individuals it takes to say such things. It seems to be predominantly those in the middle of the political spectrum, the people who believe that the Democrats and Republicans give them a choice, and who believe what they see on TV. Communists, Anarchists, White Nationalists, Black Nationalists, Islamists, they are all appalled by the use of Depleted Uranium and oppose it. These are the people who the media calls extremists, because they don't fit into the controlled opposition, and who we are taught to fear. Instead, the people I find who ignore, or worse encourage this genocide are those from the political mainstream. If there is anyone I fear, it is those in the political mainstream, composed of people too scared to think for themselves and who think nothing will happen to them if they cheer for those in power. They are the people who make this genocide possible.

General George Casey: US Could Be At War For Another Decade

General George Casey: US Could Be At War For Another Decade

Christine Delargy

July 10, 2010

Updated July 10 at 2:52 p.m. ET

General George Casey, the Chief of Staff of the Army, said today the United States could face another "decade or so" of persistent conflict in Iraq and Afghanistan.

In two months, the U.S. will have been at war in Afghanistan for nine years.

The four-star general said the U.S. military moved beyond conventional warfare in Iraq and Afghanistan "long ago," and that the focus is now on the people. Casey highlighted job, education and economic growth as essential to success in Iraq and Afghanistan.

When asked if enemies of the U.S. have to be a part of the reconciliation process for it to be considered a success, Casey said that is a "matter of debate," but that enemies have to be convinced they will lose.

In a follow-up statement to CBS News, a spokesperson for Gen. Casey, Lt. Col. Rich Spjegel, said that "General Casey was speaking of the types of conflict we will be fighting for a decade or so. He did not, nor did he intend to, imply that we would be fighting in Iraq or Afghanistan for 10 more years."
The general's comments were made at a session moderated by the New York Times' David Sanger at the Aspen Institute's Ideas Festival. Former Secretary of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff was in the audience and his wife Meryl Chertoff, the Institute's Co-Director of Justice and Society Programs, introduced Casey.
To view a video of the Aspen Institute's discussion on "Our 21st-Century Army" click here.

The UN- A neocolonial partnership

The UN- A neocolonial partnership

By Shenali Waduge

July 10, 2010 What Western media avoids to do is reveal the role of multinational mining corporations from North America and Europe fueling conflicts. Many are not aware that global leaders have personal stakes in these global conglomerates – George Bush is a Board director of Barrick Gold Corporation When the US bombed Yugoslavia including the Chinese embassy and other embassies what did the UN do? Does the UN not know that the UN Security Council members possess the largest arsenal of weapons? Did the UN not accept the WMD version of the US and has the UN even apologised for the damage they have done to Iraq and its people since the 1990s If we are to assume that very little help in terms of "honest" decision making, non-permanent members of the council need to start building unity amongst themselves or a break in the US and EU relations forcing France, Russia and China to resist the US and British pressures Replacing colonialism today is neo-colonialism and its offspring economic liberalism. Facilitating modern forms of "interventions" upon sovereign nations is the United Nations (UN) whose laws, protocols, conventions etc have been designed to legalise and necessitate these actions. To execute these programmes are terminologies like "responsibility to protect" 'human rights", "press freedom" and even "terrorism" which all eventually leads to approval for foreign presence and eventually enable these states to have their country "looted" of its natural resources. Further strangulating these nations are internationally "approved" institutes like the World Bank, IMF with their "structural adjustment programmes" wherein countries are made to compromise and open up their markets wherein western nations suck out countries of its riches. Ideally, suited are puppet governments to advance western interests but in countries where leaders have shown astuteness or signs of bravado to stand against western dictates, their weak areas are targeted and this is where Sri Lankan citizenry must be alert to ensure that the country’s leaders do not stray nor allow the country to be compromised. All facets of neo-colonial activity is what prevails in modern trade, international laws and diplomacies. How do we distinguish neo-colonialism from colonialism? Today, imperialist nations do not desire to militarily occupy the nations they invade outright. They prefer instead to temporarily create a destabilising presence and attempt if possible to install a puppet government (Afghanistan is a good example) which will legitimise the imperial actions being taken and allow open market economy and subject that country to the monopoly of capitalists. Additionally, they camouflage their actions through the presence of "agents" in the form of the UN, associated institutes and the NGO/ the INGO presence. None of these entities plan or desire to "solve" problems except ensure that these "problems" exist long enough for them to drain the nations of their wealth. Iraq’s oil is today owned by the US and British companies. Would the UN agencies ever desire "peace" when it will entail their loss of job? Does the US really plan to defeat Al-Qaeda and the Taliban? Not really, and would explain why the US has not been able to defeat any terrorist group of any country that the US or NATO has invaded? Given this fact it is easier to determine what the actual game plan of military invasions are and why we need to be more alert to neo-colonial tendencies. Economic "aid" has become the power tool to entice Third World nations and has been a proven neo-colonial strategy. The path towards this starts off with breaking progress in these countries, isolating them from world socialist communities and structuring their national growth towards "capitalist" policies. What the "aid" for these capital investments results in are countries paying for their imports. Added to this is the element of "human rights" as the basis for international assistance by western donor-agencies. Officials make it a point to stress human rights criterion, press freedom, implementation of certain shelved constitutional amendments as basis to award these aid or concessions. This is perhaps the best time to actually remind these western sycophants that the majority of the world’s people have ended up in poverty as a result of western colonialism. Let these western governments and UN tell us how many countries they have helped bring back "democracy", "good governance" and "economic development"? If electronic and print media are silent, it is largely due to the world’s media agencies being capitalist or those having Evangelical interests. How many of us have the ability to question what we are shown via media and actually question the authenticity of these stories. Then we have the International Organisations now infamously known as the NGOs/International NGOs and many of these often have "Save the…" tagged to their fund raising campaigns. Many of these foreign NGOs often have local personages with no love for their country or its people except to work towards the handsome remunerations that come their way. So, is it then a surprise when these locals/groups encourage sanctions, foreign intervention and promote appeasement? Being part of the greater neo-colonial plan it is natural for them to carve out their reports, statistics and documentaries to endorse the objectives of these western liberal movements. The UN archetype ensures their versions are automatically endorsed and the media handsomely carries forward the "propaganda campaigns" that provides some "drama" by making ordinary stories extraordinary and the finale arises with diplomatic drives which are nothing but telling smaller countries to tow the line with a diplomatic smile and shake of hands. Adding to this is another facet which was initiated by Kofi Annan for a Business-Humanitarian Forum (without General Assembly approval), the Global Sustainable Development Facility under the UNDP and the Global Compact with transnational companies all parroting principles of human rights, labour, discrimination etc where companies must include these statements into their mission statements none of which are binding with no mechanisms to monitor or take actions against companies that do not follow these norms. What it leads to is companies making payment to the UN for their partnerships, whitewashing themselves and then doing as they like in practice! Similarly, the Earth Charter is another ruse and finally begs to ask whether corporate involvement in the UN is a neocolonial strategy on the guise of providing relief and stability which essentially boils down to promoting western products and a western world trade system. Given that western nations are facing volatile financial situations on home turf it necessitates these powers to fast pace their actions vis a vis developing and upcoming nations and if certain countries are being targeted there are reasons for this. What is noteworthy and needs to be continuously reiterated is that it is the very countries that are oppressed and divided through colonialism that are now using military force and being supported by the United Nations. So, do not be alarmed by statements of "genocide" "human rights violations" "freedom" for these are the terminologies being used as arguments for their actions and they have international laws to quote from for these clauses were also coined and worded by them! So, should we be surprised at how Africa has been carved, what they are doing and the Muslims of the world, how Asia is being torpedoed with separatist movements, ethnic based separatisms etc? The UN is quick to excuse their lack of action to lack of evidence. However, in many cases despite enough proof they have remained passive onlookers demeaning their role and demanding us to question their right to continue to call themselves "peace keepers." In Africa, the last of the "humanitarian missions" carried out by western powers was in 1993 under President Bill Clinton with the invasion of Somalia, followed by the 1998 bombings of Afghanistan and Sudan for "harbouring terrorists". The US continues to pound Afghanistan and now Pakistan and the Iraq situation indeed should call for all the UN officials to step down. The UN did nothing for the loss of innocent civilian life in all of these the US, the NATO led bombings nor the complete destruction of the only pharmaceutical factory in Sudan, the destruction of ancient sites in Iraq unless that was actually the target! The irony is that conflicts in Africa become necessary to prevent puppet African governments from allowing these African states to be fleeced by western powers. Rwanda saw a systematic slaughter of 800,000 people within 4 months. What actually happened in Rwanda was a change in power structures in East/Central Africa where "regime change" policy of Anglo-American establishments meant advocating genocide and it turned out to be a showdown between the US-UK against France over supremacy. The Tutsi’s were backed by Paul Kagame, the US and UK alliance while the Hutu’s were supported by the French and Rwanda was turned into cinders as a result of the World Bank through its "structural adjustment programmes’. Similarly, regime changes took place in Kigali (Rwanda), Kampala (Uganda), Kinshasa (Congo), Bujumbura (Burundi) all because these nations were rich in gold, strategic materials such as coltan, diamonds and timber. Wherever the western nations have intervened and the UN has backed these "interventions" these countries and people are facing squalor and worse forms of violence. If military intervention is the latest norm why did the US, the UK, France and Beligum not do anything despite being aware of the likely outcome. What are the lessons the UN learnt from this 1994 failure. Two dictators – Yoweri Museveni and Paul Kagame carry part of the responsibility though largely the Rwanda disaster was a result of Ango-American neocolonial policy where looting of raw materials by Anglo-American companies partnered by French companies took place. The interest in Sudan (once a former British colony) is its oil, possession of uranium, valuable minerals, Arabic gum as well as being the largest country in Africa and possibly the main hub for other invasions. The UN National Security Archive and testimonies given by Canada’s Lt Gen. Romeo Dallaire, the UN Commander in Kigali in 1994 revealed that US and UK Governments were aware of the violence building up in Rwanda and his calls for help were rejected and what could a 270 UN force do in Rwanda though it doubled its UN presence eventually in Bosnia. The US-UK had made a policy decision to bring about a regime change in Kigali, yet how could the UN collaborate with this policy and watch 800,000 innocent people become compromised for this requirement? More than 5 million people have died in these wars in the Congo, which was part of the western strategy for power. The guilt of the West lies in designing the situation to bring about the slaughters that took place and replaced leaders that would adopt radical free-market economics. All willing executioners of Anglo-American neocolonial policy for Africa. Rwanda was ruined by 1993 which resulted from the World Bank’s structural adjustment programme of 1984 despite a drought ("rigour and austerity"). Rwanda’s main crop coffee collapsed, Rwandan franc was devalued, civil service was retrenched and IMF still demands Rwanda pay up its debts. Therefore, what international laws exist where countries carrying out covert/overt operations can be charged and how far will the UN even consider to investigate these allegations? The western powers stand guilty of rape, plunder and war crimes, crimes against humanity all around the world and in Africa in particular. From 1998 to 2004, 3.8mn people have died in the mineral-rich Congo and Africa has become almost a war zone with "wars within wars". We are all led to believe the problems are due to "ethnic conflicts" "feuding tribal" issues. Then there are voices for the UN intervention when the UN is already present but does nothing. What Western media avoids to do is reveal the role of multinational mining corporations from North America and Europe fueling these conflicts. Many are not aware that global leaders have personal stakes in these global conglomerates – George Bush is a Board director of Barrick Gold Corporation. In the case of Africa, its people must be asking why its continent had to be "rich" for others to profit! Africa is being robbed of its riches – minerals such as copper and gold, diamonds and uranium, coltan (used by Sony, Motorola, Ericsson and Nokia for their cell phones) Half of the world’s coltan supply is from Eastern Congo. Congo cannot consume gold, diamonds, copper or coltan, they do not manufacture weapons yet guns and ammunition are in plenty, bns of dollars are pilfered from the country while killings continue unabated. So, we are faced with a situation where we ask if there is anything that can be done about neo-colonialism and the question of whether the left can actually help to ease off the damage being done. The 20th century introduced the concept of the sovereignty of nation states. This concept has conflicted with issues resulting from territorial boundaries, liberation movements etc. That a body called the UN exists has proved basically futile in providing "equal" sentence to the violations of its charter/protocols or conventions. No sooner the earthquake in Haiti took place, the US mobilised thousands of troops, technocrats and aid organisations to reconfigure Haitian Government and its economic institutions. UN did nothing. There is little to prevent a powerful country from using the cover of a humanitarian "responsibility to protect" which translates in reality to pursuing political and economic interests only and has nothing to do with any concerns for the people of that country. Today neo-colonial powers pursue their actions using two agencies of the UN – the World Bank and the IMF and other forms such as "multilateral aid" through international organisations. It is a habit of these agencies to force would-be borrowers to agree to various conditions (supplying of information about their economies, policies, demanding right to meddle in internal finances, determine how funds should be used etc) and agreeing to have these agencies supervise their loans. Like colonialism, neocolonialism is surviving because of the success of "divide and rule" and the only way this can be countered or defeated is by unifying the exploited. What can the UN Security Council actually boast of achieving? It has seldom intervened to ensure peace, it has allowed imperial powers like the US and UK to wage war against weak nations, it has agreed to the US-imposed sanctions in Iraq, the US a country that holds the largest arsenal of nuclear weapons accusing Iraq of "weapons of mass destruction" none of which were ever found. The hypocrisy lies in the US actually using their nuclear arsenal twice against Japan and as well as using WMD in Korea, Vietnam, Nicaragua, Grenada, Panama, Somalia, Sudan and Yugoslavia. When the US violates the Geneva Conventions by targeting civilian areas, civilian infrastructure (hospitals, bridges, power plants, sewage facilities), what has the UN done. When US bombed Yugoslavia including the Chinese embassy and other embassies what did the UN do? Does the UN not know that the UN Security Council members possess the largest arsenal of weapons? Did the UN not accept the Weapon of Mass Destruction (WMD) version of the US and has the UN even apologised for the damage they have done to Iraq and its people since the 1990s. What we can determine is that the Left members of the UN Security Council namely Russia and China have done very little to undermine the actions of the US, the UK or France. In reality, Russia remains indebted to IMF while China’s economic success is largely linked to exports to the US, the EU and Japan. If we are to assume that very little help in terms of "honest" decision making, non-permanent members of the council need to start building unity amongst themselves or a break in the US and EU relations forcing France, Russia and China to resist the US and British pressures. Yet the reality remains that small and helpless nations are becoming targets of a "new war" with the US dictating terms in the world arena and the UN merely a mouthpiece for imperialist motives. The best solution is to get rid of the UN Security Council entirely and ensure that super-power arm-twisting and manipulation stops.

Link: www.nation.lk/2010/07/11/newsfe5.htm

Obama and Netanyahu Plan Conflict, not Resolution

Obama and Netanyahu Plan Conflict, not Resolution

by Stephen Lendman

July 10, 2010 On July 6, Bibi and Obama met privately for 79 minutes, Atlanta Journal Constitution writer Jay Bookman calling it "empty theatre, actors going through the motions of pretending to pretend, (when, in fact, there's) no willingness or political ability within Israel to withdraw from settlements (or) create a viable Palestinian state, (nor is there) stomach in Washington" to endorse an equitable agreement. "I can't recall a time when I have been more cynical about peace prospects there, and the prettily staged theatrics in Washington" only harden that view. Not for New York Times writers Sheryl Gay Stolberg and Mark Lander headlining, "US and Israel Shift Attention to Peace Process," saying: They "articulated a timetable for peace negotiations (reflecting) a palpable shift in the administration's approach to a relationship that has been rife with tension" since Obama took office. In fact, for decades, Israeli-Washington relations have been rock-solid, including under Obama and the current Congress, the powerful Israeli Lobby assuring it stays that way. Haaretz writers Barak Ravid and Natasha Mozgovaya were also upbeat, headlining "Obama-Netanyahu summit focuses on warm relations, avoids settlements," saying: They "radiate(d) a sense of friendship and the absence of any crisis in relations between the two leaders," Obama calling "the bond between (the two nations) unbreakable," Bibi "emerg(ing) from the White House meeting in high spirits." His sources said no pressure was exerted on settlement issues, both sides avoiding the topic, focusing instead on handshakes, photo-ops, and post-meeting comments - customary disingenuous boilerplate, Obama calling Netanyahu a "man of peace," Bibi saying the president is "a great leader (and) a great friend of Israel...." In contrast, hundreds of protestors demonstrated outside the White House, including members of CodePink, Neturei Kartam - NK (anti-Zionist orthodox Jews), Sabeel (a Jerusalem-based "ecumenical grassroots liberation theology movement among Palestinian Christians"), Atra Kadisha (an organization for safeguarding Jewish graves), and the Central Rabbinical Congress of the US and Canada (CRC), a consortium of anti-Zionist groups founded by the Satmar Hassidic ultra-orthodox community, including holocaust survivors and their descendants. They displayed a banner for Obama to stop Israeli aid and end the Gaza siege, NK Rabbi Yisroel Dovis Weiss calling Netanyahu "a thief and criminal (who) doesn't represent the Jews. We pray for peace and the end of the Zionist State. Our message today is not for Netanyahu. It's for (Obama) not (to) meet with a thief who stole the Jewish star and (committed) crimes (in) the name of the Jews." Others called Israel an "infidel regime," shouting "No more nickels, no more dimes, no more funding Israel's crimes" - end the Gaza siege and expel Israel's ambassador. More demonstrations were held outside the Israeli Embassy, waving Palestinians flags and chanting "End the siege in Gaza now....Stop Israeli piracy," traditionally dressed orthodox Jews carrying signs reading "Judaism condemns Zionist atrocities in Gaza." After the Obama meeting, Bibi went to New York for a curtain call, AFP headlining "Fueled by White House success, Netanyahu heads to UN (for discussions with) UN chief Ban Ki-moon, saying he could perform miracles to hammer out a peace deal if all sides come together." "We want President Abbas to grasp my hand, get into a room, shake it, sit down and negotiate a final settlement of peace between Israel and the Palestinians," he told ABC News, omitting what he demands, a one-sided deal like all others - namely, capitulation, not compromise; occupation and belligerence, not conciliation, and conflict, not resolution - why Adalah-NY announced the following: "Hey Hey New York: Netanyahu's Coming to Town. We Say No! Let's tell War Criminal and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu: You are NOT welcome in our city!" "Netanyahu is coming to New York to justify continued colonization and slaughter. The media will be there to relay his 'facts' to the world. Let's make sure they hear the real story." Hundreds turned out, saying: "No to the Israeli Occupation! No to the blockade and siege of Gaza! No to US tax dollars funding Israeli war crimes! Yes to Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions! YES TO JUSTICE FOR THE PALESTINIAN PEOPLE! We are on a roll, people. The world is confronting Israeli war criminals. Let's not permit this one to visit NYC with no resistance!" Endorsed by Adalah-NY: The New York Campaign for the Boycott of Israel, American Jews for a Just Peace, Jews Say No, and the WESTPAC Foundation, a Westchester County peace and justice group. Glorifying a War Criminal Throughout his visit, Netanyahu was feted like a visionary, not a war criminal head of state, perhaps why Haaretz writer Zeev Sternhell called Israel "A Society falling apart" in his July 9 article, saying: "Among the regimes in the Western world, Israel stands out with certain characteristics that generally do not indicate a strong democratic system," citing a "nonexistent" opposition, "contempt for the law....unrest caused by the ultra-Orthodox (and) settlers," and the "respectable right (choosing) leaders of the most dangerous kind....Against this backdrop, Israel's moral crisis is getting deeper all the time," especially under Netanyahu, a man contemptuous of moral values, ethical standards, democratic freedoms, and human rights, notably for non-Jews. A man also responsible for the cold-blooded murder of humanitarian activists bringing aid to besieged Gazans, and for daily institutionalized violence, a snapshot below from the Palestinian Centre for Human Rights July 1 - 6 report, citing: -- Israeli forces attacking peaceful West Bank and Gazan protestors, injuring seven civilians (including two children and a journalist), and arresting two others; -- firing at Palestinian farmers and workers in Gaza's border areas and fishermen at sea, injuring two children; -- conducting 21 West Bank incursions, arresting 23 Palestinian civilians, including seven children; -- continuing the ethnic cleansing of East Jerusalem, forcing a Palestinian family to demolish its home and leave; -- destroying 13 North Valley tents and an inhabited hut to remove Palestinians; -- continuing settlement construction, and letting settlers attack Palestinians with impunity; and -- enforcing Gaza's siege, so-called easing bogus on its face. On July 8, the International Middle East Media Center headlined, "Israeli Army Conducts Limited Invasion In Southern Gaza," saying: At dawn, near the Kerem Shalom (Karem Abu Salem) Crossing (east of Rafah), a "number of Israeli armored military vehicles" invaded Gaza, opening fire at civilian homes, causing damage but no injuries. "Local sources reported that three military vehicles and two armored bulldozers advanced 200 meters into Palestinian farmlands close to the border." They "uprooted farmlands and leveled some structures, while the army opened fire in different directions." Almost daily, "Israel (conducts) invasions and attacks into northern and eastern areas of the Gaza Strip, and prevents the farmers from reaching their lands close to the border." In late June, Israel's Deputy Prime Minister/Foreign Affairs Minister, Avigdor Lieberman, called for stripping Israeli Arabs of their citizenship and expelling them - his blueprint for peace, saying they're a fifth column, "actively assist(ing) those who want to destroy the Jewish state." During the 2009 elections, his extremist Yisrael Beiteinu (Israel is Our Home) party endorsed the notion of "No loyalty, no citizenship," proposing various loyalty laws, and saying peace depends on "an exchange of populated territories to create two largely homogeneous (ethnically pure) states, one Jewish Israeli and the other Arab Palestinian," accomplished by ethnic cleansing, what ideologues like Lieberman and his followers love, no matter how in violation of international law. They also endorse confrontations like in Beit Jala (near Bethlehem) on June 20, when Israeli forces burned fields, and attacked peaceful demonstrators, bystanders and six journalists - Yousef Shahin (Palmedia), Abdel Hafith Hashlamon (European News Agency), Nasser Al Shayukhi (AP), Musa Al Shaer (AFP), and Najeh Hashlamon (ABA). Two Palestinian youths, Mohammed Masalma and Thaer Mahmoud, were severely beaten. Gas canisters set fire to dry fields, engulfing an olive grove. Homes were indiscriminately shot at. No injuries were reported. Incursions like this happen regularly, with no provocation, including against peaceful demonstrators and bystanders. So do air attacks, targeted assassinations, home demolitions, land seizures, mass arrests and torture, including against children - official Israeli policy, hard line under Netanyahu, his government perhaps Israel's most extremist ever, his peace notion based on capitulation, ethnic cleansing, military occupation, permanent conflict, and slow-motion genocide for Gazans - what Palestinians won't ever accept nor should people anywhere tolerate. A Final Comment In America, credible reporting on Israel/Palestine is verboten, a cause for dismissal, censure, and blacklisting - a testimony to the power of the Israeli Lobby and neocon right, as virulent now as under Bush. Iconic Helen Thomas a recent casualty: age 89, author of five books, a copy girl after college, UPI in 1943 writing radio news, a correspondent for 60 years, the National Press Club's first female officer, the media Gridiron Club's first female member, recipient of numerous awards and honorary degrees, the long-time White House press corps doyenne, covering every US president since Dwight Eisenhower - ostracized by friends and colleagues, pilloried by the pro-Israeli chorus, and fired for saying Jews should "get the hell out of Palestine (and) go home," expressing frustration and anger about 62 years of persecution, 43 under military occupation, horrific enough to enrage anyone for justice. CNN's senior Middle East affairs editor, Octavia Nasr, is the latest target, for twittering the following comment: "Sad to hear of the passing of (Lebanon's Grand Ayatollah) Sayyed Mohammad Hussein Fadlallah...One of Hezbollah's giants I respect a lot." So did his followers, Reuters reporting hundreds thousands ("a sea of men and women from across Lebanon") turned out to mourn his death, a man "who became one of Shi'ite Islam's highest authorities." Buried on July 6, he died Sunday, July 4 at age 74. After her firing, Nasr elaborated, saying she used the words "respect (and) sad because to me as a Middle Eastern woman, Fadlallah took a contrarian and pioneering stand among Shia clerics on women's rights. He called for the abolition of the tribal system of 'honor killing.' He called the practice primitive and non-productive. He warned Muslim men that abuse of women was against Islam." He also wrote many books, founded Islamic religious schools, including the Al Mabarrat Association (providing academic and vocational education for orphans, the deaf and blind), lectured often, was a respected scholar, established a public library, a women's cultural center, and a medical clinic. Yet he was vilified as a terrorist for being Hezbollah's "spiritual mentor," Nasr fired for showing respect - a shameless act by a network known for suppressing truths, endorsing imperial wars, and backing corporate interests, right wing extremism, sham elections, the worst of Israeli crimes, and intolerance of opposing views, as true throughout the major media - corrupted, reprehensible, unscrupulous, worthless, and devoid of real journalism, those daring any fired for doing their job, why Project Censored warns of a "truth emergency inside the military industrial media empire," a graver threat today than ever. Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago and can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net. Also visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com and listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network Thursdays at 10AM US Central time and Saturdays and Sundays at noon. All programs are archived for easy listening.

The plight of Christians in Israel

The plight of Christians in Israel

Jerusalem's Disgrace (Ha'aretz)

The police interrogation of Armenian Archbishop Nourhan Manougian, who allegedly slapped yeshiva student Zvi Rosenthal after Rosenthal spat at Manougian and at a crucifix during the Exaltation of the Holy Cross procession in the Old City this week, reveals a little bit of the increasingly wild Jewish-nationalist-religious atmosphere in Jerusalem.

It is the bad luck of the Armenians, a peaceful and modest community in the city, that its churches and other institutions, including their ancient cemetery, is on the way to the Jewish Quarter in the Old City. As a result, the priests of the community suffer from the unrestrained behavior of yeshiva students who pass through the Armenian Quarter, sometimes deliberately, to do harm and cause strife.

Poraz 'repulsed' by cases of Jews spitting on Christians

Interior Minister Avraham Poraz issued a strongly worded statement Tuesday against incidents of Jews spitting at Christian clergy in Jerusalem, saying he was "repulsed" by the repeated attacks."

Christians in Jerusalem want Jews to stop spitting on them (Ha'aretz)
A few weeks ago, a senior Greek Orthodox clergyman in Israel attended a meeting at a government office in Jerusalem's Givat Shaul quarter. When he returned to his car, an elderly man wearing a skullcap came and knocked on the window. When the clergyman let the window down, the passerby spat in his face.

The clergyman prefered not to lodge a complaint with the police and told an acquaintance that he was used to being spat at by Jews. Many Jerusalem clergy have been subjected to abuse of this kind. For the most part, they ignore it but sometimes they cannot.

On Sunday, a fracas developed when a yeshiva student spat at the cross being carried by the Armenian Archbishop during a procession near the Holy Sepulchre in the Old City. The archbishop's 17th-century cross was broken during the brawl and he slapped the yeshiva student.

Both were questioned by police and the yeshiva student will be brought to trial. The Jerusalem District Court has meanwhile banned the student from approaching the Old City for 75 days.

But the Armenians are far from satisfied by the police action and say this sort of thing has been going on for years. Archbishop Nourhan Manougian says he expects the education minister to say something.

"When there is an attack against Jews anywhere in the world, the Israeli government is incensed, so why when our religion and pride are hurt, don't they take harsher measures?" he asks.

According to Daniel Rossing, former adviser to the Religious Affairs Ministry on Christian affairs and director of a Jerusalem center for Christian-Jewish dialogue, there has been an increase in the number of such incidents recently, "as part of a general atmosphere of lack of tolerance in the country."

Rossing says there are certain common characeristics from the point of view of time and location to the incidents. He points to the fact that there are more incidents in areas where Jews and Christians mingle, such as the Jewish and Armenian quarters of the Old City and the Jaffa Gate.

There are an increased number at certain times of year, such as during the Purim holiday."I know Christians who lock themselves indoors during the entire Purim holiday," he says.

Former adviser to the mayor on Christian affairs, Shmuel Evyatar, describes the situation as "a huge disgrace." He says most of the instigators are yeshiva students studying in the Old City who view the Christian religion with disdain.

"I'm sure the phenomenon would end as soon as rabbis and well-known educators denounce it. In practice, rabbis of yeshivas ignore or even encourage it," he says.

Evyatar says he himself was spat at while walking with a Serbian bishop in the Jewish quarter, near his home. "A group of yeshiva students spat at us and their teacher just stood by and watched."

Jerusalem municipal officials said they are aware of the problem but it has to be dealt with by the police. Shmuel Ben-Ruby, the police spokesman, said they had only two complaints from Christians in the past two years. He said that, in both cases, the culprits were caught and punished.

He said the police deploy an inordinately high number of patrols and special technology in the Old City and its surroundings in an attempt to keep order.

Looters target Iraq antiquities

Video: Looters target Iraq antiquities

AlJazeera.net

July 6, 2010 Iraq's antiquities are facing an old enemy. A new wave of looting has hit museums and archaeological sites across southern Iraq. Officials say the treasures have been left completely unprotected and exposed to increasingly organised gangs. That's despite a national and international clamour to protect Iraq's history. From Baghdad Al Jazeera's Omar Al Saleh reports.

Behind the phosphorus clouds

Behind the phosphorus clouds are war crimes within war crimes 

We now know the US also used thermobaric weapons in its assault on Falluja, where up to 50,000 civilians remained 

George Monbiot Tuesday November 22, 2005 The Guardian  

The media couldn't have made a bigger pig's ear of the white phosphorus story. So, before moving on to the new revelations from Falluja, I would like to try to clear up the old ones. There is no hard evidence that white phosphorus was used against civilians. The claim was made in a documentary broadcast on the Italian network RAI, called Falluja: the Hidden Massacre. It claimed that the corpses in the pictures it ran "showed strange injuries, some burnt to the bone, others with skin hanging from their flesh ... The faces have literally melted away, just like other parts of the body.[......]

 It is not a chemical weapon. They are not outlawed or illegal 

  There is hard evidence that white phosphorus was deployed as a weapon against combatants in Falluja. As this column revealed last Tuesday, US infantry officers confessed that they had used it to flush out insurgents. A Pentagon spokesman told the BBC that white phosphorus "was used as an incendiary weapon against enemy combatants". He claimed "it is not a chemical weapon. They are not outlawed or illegal." This denial has been accepted by most of the mainstream media. UN conventions, the Times said, "ban its use on civilian but not military targets". But the word "civilian" does not occur in the chemical weapons convention. The use of the toxic properties of a chemical as a weapon is illegal, whoever the target is.
The Pentagon argues that white phosphorus burns people, rather than poisoning them, and is covered only by the protocol on incendiary weapons, which the US has not signed. But white phosphorus is both incendiary and toxic. The gas it produces attacks the mucous membranes, the eyes and the lungs. As Peter Kaiser of the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons told the BBC last week:
"If ... the toxic properties of white phosphorus, the caustic properties, are specifically intended to be used as a weapon, that of course is prohibited, because ... any chemicals used against humans or animals that cause harm or death through the toxic properties of the chemical are considered chemical weapons."
US knows its use is illegal The US army knows that its use as a weapon is illegal. In the Battle Book, published by the US Command and General Staff College at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, my correspondent David Traynier found the following sentence:
"It is against the law of land warfare to employ WP against personnel targets."
Pentagon is no doubt white phosphorus is illegal chemical weapon Last night the blogger Gabriele Zamparini found a declassified document from the US department of defence, dated April 1991, and titled "Possible use of phosphorus chemical". "During the brutal crackdown that followed the Kurdish uprising," it alleges:
"Iraqi forces loyal to President Saddam may have possibly used white phosphorus (WP) chemical weapons against Kurdish rebels and the populace in Erbil ... and Dohuk provinces, Iraq. The WP chemical was delivered by artillery rounds and helicopter gunships ... These reports of possible WP chemical weapon attacks spread quickly ... hundreds of thousands of Kurds fled from these two areas."
The Pentagon is in no doubt, in other words, that white phosphorus is an illegal chemical weapon.

The insurgents [Resistance forces], of course, would be just as dead today if they were killed by other means. So does it matter if chemical weapons were mixed with other munitions? It does. Anyone who has seen those photos of the lines of blind veterans at the remembrance services for the first world war will surely understand the point of international law, and the dangers of undermining it. War crime within a war crime within a war crime But we shouldn't forget that the use of chemical weapons was a war crime within a war crime within a war crime. Both the invasion of Iraq and the assault on Falluja were illegal acts of aggression. Before attacking the city, the marines stopped men "of fighting age" from leaving. Many women and children stayed: the Guardian's correspondent estimated that between 30,000 and 50,000 civilians were left. The marines treated Falluja as if its only inhabitants were fighters. They levelled thousands of buildings, illegally denied access to the Iraqi Red Crescent and, according to the UN's special rapporteur, used "hunger and deprivation of water as a weapon of war against the civilian population". The heroics [of marines] will be subject of many articles and books... I have been reading accounts of the assault published in the Marine Corps Gazette. The soldiers appear to have believed everything the US government told them. One article claims that "the absence of civilians meant the marines could employ blast weapons prior to entering houses that had become pillboxes, not homes". Another said that "there were less than 500 civilians remaining in the city". It continued:
"The heroics [of the marines] will be the subject of many articles and books ... The real key to this tactical victory rested in the spirit of the warriors who courageously fought the battle. They deserve all of the credit for liberating Falluja."

Buried in this hogwash 

But buried in this hogwash is a grave revelation. An assault weapon the marines were using had been armed with warheads containing "about 35% thermobaric novel explosive (NE) and 65% standard high explosive". They deployed it "to cause the roof to collapse and crush the insurgents fortified inside interior rooms". It was used repeatedly: "The expenditure of explosives clearing houses was enormous." The marines can scarcely deny that they know what these weapons do. An article published in the Gazette in 2000 details the effects of their use by the Russians in Grozny. 

 

Thermobaric, or "fuel-air" weapons!

Thermobaric, or "fuel-air" weapons, it says, form a cloud of volatile gases or finely powdered explosives.
"This cloud is then ignited and the subsequent fireball sears the surrounding area while consuming the oxygen in this area. The lack of oxygen creates an enormous overpressure ... Personnel under the cloud are literally crushed to death. Outside the cloud area, the blast wave travels at some 3,000 metres per second ... As a result, a fuel-air explosive can have the effect of a tactical nuclear weapon without residual radiation ... 

Those personnel caught directly under the aerosol cloud will die from the flame or overpressure. Create air embolism within blood vessels, concussions, multiple internal haemorrhages in the liver and spleen, collapsed lungs, rupture of the eardrums and displacement of the eyes from their sockets For those on the periphery of the strike, the injuries can be severe. Burns, broken bones, contusions from flying debris and blindness may result. Further, the crushing injuries from the overpressure can create air embolism within blood vessels, concussions, multiple internal haemorrhages in the liver and spleen, collapsed lungs, rupture of the eardrums and displacement of the eyes from their sockets."

It is hard to see how you could use these weapons in Falluja without killing civilians. This looks to me like a convincing explanation of the damage done to Falluja, a city in which between 30,000 and 50,000 civilians might have been taking refuge. It could also explain the civilian casualties shown in the film. So the question has now widened: Is there any crime the coalition forces have not committed in Iraq?