Washington's Wars and Occupations: 
  Month in Review #15
  July 30, 2006 
  By Max Elbaum, War Times/Tiempo de Guerras

  LEBANON & GAZA: "NOTHING IS SAFE"  

  Israel's continuing military offensives in Lebanon and Gaza are producing a 
human catastrophe,
  and have immense political consequences. 

  First, the human cost, as of July 30:

  *at least 561 dead in Lebanon, the vast majority civilians - with 60 killed 
(including
  37 children) by Israeli air attacks on the village of Qana this morning. Over 
1,000
  wounded and 700,000-800,000 Lebanese made homeless. Lebanon's infrastructure
  - including power plants, bridges, roads, the Beirut airport, radio 
transmitters,
  pharmaceutical plants, and even a dairy farm - has been methodically 
destroyed. 

  *at least 150 dead and many more Palestinians wounded (mostly civilians) in 
Gaza.
  The power plant supplying the bulk of electricity to Gaza's 1.1 million 
inhabitants
  was one of the first targets destroyed by Israeli bombs and missiles.

  *at least 52 Israelis dead, 19 civilians and 33 soldiers; dozens wounded. 

  LONG-PLANNED IN TEL AVIV & WASHINGTON

  Israel's initial claims that it went into battle to rescue a soldier captured
  by Palestinians and then two captured by Hezbollah have proven false. 
Instead, as
  revealed in the San Francisco Chronicle (July 21), the invasion of Lebanon 
was long
  planned by Israel in consultation with Washington. Middle East expert Juan 
Cole summarizes:

  "More than a year ago, a senior Israeli army officer began giving PowerPoint
  presentations, on an off-the-record basis, to U.S. and other diplomats, 
journalists
  and think tanks, setting out the plan for the current operation in revealing 
detail.
  The Israelis tend to launch their wars of choice in the summer, in part 
because 
  they know that European and American universities will be the primary nodes 
of popular
  opposition, and the universities are out in the summer. This war has nothing 
to 
  do with captured Israeli soldiers. It is a long-planned war to increase 
Israel's
  ascendancy over Hizbullah and its patrons." 

  Israeli peace activist Uri Avnery agrees, and adds: "The very same thing 
happened
  two weeks earlier in the Gaza Strip. Hamas and its partners captured a 
soldier, 
  which provided the excuse for a massive operation that had been prepared for 
a long
  time and whose aim is to destroy the Palestinian government."

  WAR CRIMES, COLLECTIVE PUNISHMENT

  Targeting civilian populations and infrastructure is an integral part of 
Israel's
  war policy. Israeli Army Chief of Staff Dan Halutz announced this publicly, 
even
  if the U.S. media (alone in the world) remains in denial about the meaning of 
his
  words. "Nothing is safe," Halutz declared July 13, "as simple as 
  that." A few days later, he added for emphasis that Israel plans to "turn
  Lebanon's clock back 20 years."

  Israeli practice has matched Halutz' declaration. In Juan Cole's summary
  (July 26):  

  "They hit Tripoli's port, a Sunni area. They hit the port at Jounieh, the
  trendy Christian city near Beirut. They hit Beirut's port and its new shiny 
  airport. They hit the milk factory, the telecom towers, the roads, the 
bridges, 
  and some clinics and hospitals for good measure. They hit the fuel depots. It 
would
  be a total war on the Lebanese civilian population, setting 800,000 out of 
3.8 million
  out from their homes or the rubble of their former homes, forcing them to 
other 
  cities as homeless refugees, or abroad to Syria or Cyprus... Israel's policy
  toward Lebanon, of striking at so many civilian targets as to hold the entire 
civilian
  population hostage, is unspeakable."

  On July 30 Cole added: "Israeli war planes scored a direct hit on a building
  in Qana overnight where destitute farming folk, including old people, women 
and 
  children, had taken refuge in the basement from Israeli bombing raids.... The 
Israelis
  appear to be engaged in a concerted campaign of ethnic cleansing in the 
Shi'ite
  towns and villages of southern Lebanon, and are indiscriminately bombing all 
buildings
  in the area south of the Litani River.... the Israelis are engaged in 
collective
  punishment on a vast scale."

  Israeli generals themselves admit (New York Times July 27) using Cluster 
Bombs in
  their operations - munitions which disperse bomblets over a wide area, kill 
and 
  maim indiscriminately, and are universally condemned by human rights 
organizations.

  Regarding Israel's assault on Gaza, the U.N. High Commissioner for Human 
Rights
  declared that "the use of force by Israel during its military operations has
  resulted in an increasing number of deaths and other casualties amongst the 
Palestinian
  civilian population, and significant damage to civilian property and 
infrastructure."
  Another U.N. agency "believes that Gaza is on the brink of a public health 
  disaster." Israeli Jewish peace activist Gideon Levy wrote in Israel's 
  largest newspaper: "A state that takes such steps is no longer distinguishable
  from a terror organization.... Everything must be done to win the captured 
soldier's
  release. What we are doing now in Gaza has nothing to do with freeing him. It 
is
  a wide scale act of vengeance."

  For its part, Hezbollah has also violated international law by firing 
missiles indiscriminately
  at civilian areas of Israel. Hezbollah's attacks came after the first Israeli
  missiles killed civilians in Lebanon.

  Throughout, Washington has backed Israel 100%. Within days of Israel's assault
  the U.S. rushed Tel Aviv precision bombs and jet fuel in direct violation of 
this
  country's own Arms Export Control Act and Foreign Assistance Act. And while 
  Lebanon's Prime Minister (hailed by Washington when he first took office) 
leads
  most of the world in calling for an immediate cease-fire, Washington stands 
alone
  blocking international action to stop the bloodletting. 

  ISRAEL'S GOALS, U.S. GOALS 

  Avnery says "the real aim" of Israel's invasion "is to change
  the regime in Lebanon and to install a puppet government. That was the aim of 
Ariel
  Sharon's invasion of Lebanon in 1982. It failed. But Sharon and his pupils in
  the military and political leadership have never really given up on it."  

  Juan Cole says that Israel is acting on a number of considerations: 

  "The Right in Israel is determined to permanently subjugate the Palestinians
  and forestall the emergence of a Palestinian state. This course of action 
requires
  the constant exercise of main force against the Palestinians, who resist it, 
as 
  well as threats against Arab or Muslim neighbors who might be tempted to help 
the
  Palestinians.... Likewise, the Israeli Right has never given up an 
expansionist 
  ideology. For instance, the Israelis have a big interest in the Litani River 
in 
  south Lebanon. If and when the Israeli military and political elite felt they 
needed
  to add territory by taking it from neighbors, they wished to retain that 
capability."

  In Gaza, Avnery's argument that Israel's goal is to destroy the elected 
  Palestinian government is widely accepted. Many analysts have argued that it 
was
  the prospect of Hamas agreeing to the "prisoner's manifesto" and by
  doing so implicitly recognizing Israel (depriving Tel Aviv of the argument 
that 
  it had "no one to talk to") that was the immediate trigger for Israel's
  all-out assault on Gaza.

  There is speculation that Israel's actions are the first step in a larger plan
  for military action/"regime change" against Syria and a strike against
  Iran's nuclear program. Though it does not seem at this writing that Israel 
  is about to take such steps, the danger is present especially in light of the 
U.S.
  regional agenda. Washington has been up front that it aims to create a "New
  Middle East" where all states and movements that resist U.S. domination are
  weakened, brought into line, or destroyed. Washington's "frame" is
  that "freedom and democracy" are battling against an evil 
Iran/Syria/Hezbollah/Hamas
  axis. The Bush administration is therefore quite enthusiastic about using Tel 
Aviv
  to "send a message" to this alleged axis and to assault all who resist with 
hi-tech weaponry. 

  Other calculations figure in for Washington as well. The debacle in Iraq has 
been
  eroding support for the Neoconservative project of employing force everywhere 
to
  dominate the world. The far right hopes that massive use of force which can 
be trumpeted
  as "defense of Israel and Western civilization" may revive Neocon prospects.
  Domestic electoral considerations also play a role, as Republicans and 
Democrats
  strive to out-do one another in showing how committed they are to Israel. 

  Last, in both Israel and the U.S., deep currents of anti-Arab racism play an 
unmistakable
  role. Glib talk about "remaking the Middle East" and the capacity to accept
  the loss of Arab lives as one accepts the daily weather - "Are we children of 
a lesser God?,"
  cried Lebanon's Prime Minister - is of a piece with the worst
 "white man's burden" chauvinism of the 19th century.  

  WILL THEY SUCCEED?    

  For all the death destruction they are causing, it is not at all clear that 
Israel
  or the U.S. will be able to achieve their political goals. 

  Regarding Lebanon, Israeli newspapers are now full of reports that Hezbollah 
has
  offered more effective resistance than expected. Non-Shi'a constituencies in
  Lebanon that Israel hoped to terrorize into turning against Hezbollah have 
instead
  closed ranks against Israel: the latest polls show Lebanese support for 
Hezbollah's
  resistance shooting up to 85% or more. Lebanese political leaders who were 
targeted
  as potential anti-Hezbollah rallying points have aimed their main fire at 
Israeli
  brutality. In the wake of this morning's massacre at Qana fury at Israel and
  the U.S. has intensified further. 

  The initial harsh criticism of Hezbollah for being irresponsible or worse 
that came
  from Arab regimes such as Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Egypt (pro-U.S. Sunni 
governments
  increasingly worried about growing Iranian and Shi'a strength) have been 
replaced
  by even harsher criticism of Israel. This is largely a response to public 
opinion
  throughout the Arab world, where pro-Hezbollah sentiment is exploding. Many 
commentators
  say Hezbollah leader Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah is now the most popular figure 
in the
  entire Muslim world, among Sunni and Shi'a alike. European governments have 
  begun to move - cautiously - to criticize Israel's "disproportionate"
  actions and to press for a cease-fire. Antiwar sentiment (and demonstrations) 
while
  still small, is growing within Israel itself. 

  The Israeli government's own statements seem to indicate a scaling back of 
expectations.
  Initially Tel Aviv talked about totally destroying Hezbollah. Now they speak 
only
  of achieving a narrow "security zone" in Lebanon much smaller than the
  area they occupied from 1982 to 2000. 

  Palestinians in Gaza, meanwhile, are experiencing levels of misery 
unprecedented
  even compared to the horrors they have suffered in the past. The world has 
paid 
  much less attention to this front of Israel's two-front war. It is not clear
  what assistance to Gaza will be forthcoming - or what Israel will allow - 
once this
  phase of Israel's offensive is over. It is also not clear how the complicated
  political relationship between Hamas and Fatah will be transformed by current 
events.
  Yet Palestinians capacity to endure appears undiminished. 

  Altogether, with matters still fluid on the ground, in public opinion, and in 
the
  world of international diplomacy, it is too soon to draw up any kind of firm 
balance
  sheet. Any illusions Israel and the U.S. had, however, of winning a victory 
in the
  world court of public opinion are dashed. To the contrary, the idea that 
Israel 
  is a rogue state and a militaristic bully has wider and deeper reach than 
ever before.
  So does the knowledge that Washington facilitates Israel's war crimes.  

  U.S. MEDIA & OPINION OUT OF STEP 

  Only in the U.S., and Israel, are the mainstream media and public opinion 
widely
  out of step with this global sentiment. 

  Regarding the media, the range of debate on Israeli op-ed pages is 
significantly
  wider than in the U.S. Most Israeli media - especially TV - dutifully echo 
the government's
  justifications for its war. But the basic fact that Israel is explicitly 
punishing
  civilian populations is rarely denied in the way such denial pervades U.S. 
newspaper
  columns and TV. 

  Regarding public opinion, backing for Israel's war is overwhelming among 
Israeli
  Jews (though near non-existent among Palestinians who hold Israeli 
citizenship, 
  one-fifth of the country's population). In the U.S., the latest Zogby poll 
shows
  that 51% of the populace sympathizes with Israel in the current fighting in 
Lebanon,
  while 13% said they sympathize with Lebanon. Asked who is more to blame for 
the 
  fighting, 61% blame Hezbollah, 12% blame Israel, and 20% were not sure. 
Regarding
  the conflict in Gaza, 50% said they sympathize with Israel, compared to 15% 
who 
  take the side of the Palestinians.  

  Among figures in mainstream, two-party politics, the situation is even more 
one-sided.
  Besides Republicans overwhelmingly lining up behind Bush's policy, most 
Democrats
  - including many who oppose continuing the U.S. occupation of Iraq - express 
unqualified
  support for Israel. Many used the occasion of the Iraqi Prime Minister's 
refusal
  to criticize Hezbollah during his recent visit to Washington to position 
themselves
  as even more strongly pro-Israel than Bush.   

  Among progressive and grassroots organizations and individuals, opposition to 
Israel's
  attacks is narrower than protest against the U.S. war on Iraq. In some cases 
this
  is due to self-conscious sentiment in favor of Israel's policies; in more it
  is due to relative lack of information about the history of this conflict or 
confusion;
  in others it stems from fear of attack - political, financial or even 
physical -
  from powerful forces who consider any criticism of Israeli policy to be 
outside 
  the boundaries of "respectable" politics and/or anti-Semitic. 

  It is a challenging and complex task for the anti-empire, anti-racist wing of 
the
  antiwar movement to tackle and overcome this problem. Skillful work on many 
levels
  is required: building the broadest possible unity of those who can be won to 
support
  an immediate and unconditional cease-fire and to press Washington to stop 
supporting
  Israeli aggression; educating within and outside this alignment on the roots 
of 
  these conflicts and the centrality of Israel's dispossession of the 
Palestinian
  people to all politics in the Middle East; and at the same time working to 
sustain
  and develop the broad anti-Iraq war front, which is crucial for ending that 
bloody
  occupation and which remains the most vulnerable point of the right-wing's 
militarist
  foreign policy agenda. Stepping up to the urgency of the moment while 
strategically
  building capacity for the long haul is no easy feat. But it is our collective 
responsibility
  at this extremely dangerous time.   

  IRAQ: ALL OVER BUT THE BLOODSHED?

  Meanwhile, the Fiasco in Iraq (the title of a new book likely to be a 
best-seller)
  unfolds in all its bloody horror. Reuters reports (July 21) that "Iraqi 
leaders
  have all but given up on holding the country together and, just two months 
after
  forming a national unity government, and talk in private of 'black days'
  of civil war ahead. Signaling a dramatic abandonment of the U.S.-backed 
project 
  for Iraq, there is even talk among them of pre-empting the worst bloodshed by 
agreeing
  to an east-west division of Baghdad into Shi'ite and Sunni Muslim zones."

  No wonder Republican congressional candidates are joining even one-time 
Neocon intellectuals
  in "distancing" themselves from Bush's Iraq policy. The crisis in 
  Iraq - and the crisis it poses for Washington's entire "war on terror"
  agenda - is far from over. Rather, its most explosive phase is likely yet to 
come.

  BUSH DEFIES SUPREME COURT 

  This last month also saw major developments in the fierce battle over the 
rule of
  law, civil liberties and democratic rights within the U.S. A blockbuster 
Supreme
  Court ruling June 29 held that the military commissions the Bush 
administration 
  had planned to try terror suspect were unauthorized by federal statute and 
violated
  U.S. and international law. Going even further, the Court ruled that Article 
3 of
  the Geneva Conventions, to which the U.S. is a signatory, applies to all 
terror 
  suspects and that the Conventions have the force of U.S. law.

  The decision was hailed by civil liberties advocates as meeting their maximum 
hopes.
  But following in the footsteps of President Andrew Jackson when one part of 
his 
  extermination campaign against Native Americans was ruled unconstitutional - 
"The
  Justices have made their decision, now let them enforce it" - Bush immediately
  set out to defy the nation's highest Court. The White House's draft 
legislation
  for tribunals that supposedly follow the Court's ruling has provisions which
  nakedly defy the Geneva Conventions, including allowing evidence obtained 
through
  "coercive interrogation techniques." And as legal analyst Marty Lederman
  points out, this legislation "does not appear to be limited to aliens, nor 
  even to Al Qaeda and other groups and individuals covered by the September 
18, 2001
  AUMF -- it covers any and all "enemy combatants" against the U.S. and 
  its allies in any conflict, anywhere and at any time." 

  Conservative Andrew Sullivan summarizes: "Consider yourself warned. This kind
  of legislation enables the government to seize, imprison, and torture anyone, 
including
  U.S. citizens, without the legal protections accorded for centuries by 
Anglo-American
  principles of justice..."

  On fronts from Lebanon, Palestine and Iraq to Guantanamo Bay and every 
courtroom
  and community in the U.S., forces of reaction are attempting to impose their 
"might
  makes right" agenda. Whether they will make further headway or be stopped and
  then thrown back is not yet decided.  

  We invite you to sign on to the War Times/Tiempo de Guerras announcement list 
(3-4
  messages per month) to receive regular reports, interviews, flyers and news 
recaps.
  Go to the War Times website at http://www.war-times.org War Times/Tiempo de 
Guerras
  is a fiscally sponsored project of the Center for Third World Organizing. 
Donations
  to War Times are tax-deductible; you can donate on-line at 
http://www.war-times.org
  or send a check to War Times/Tiempo de Guerras, c/o P.O. Box 99096, 
Emeryville, 
  CA 94662.


_______________________________________________
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org

Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/

Reply via email to