Showing posts with label bais. Show all posts
Showing posts with label bais. Show all posts

Sunday, 14 April 2013

SYRIAN CIVILIAN SUFFERING: WESTERN IMPERIALISM RESORTS TO MIDIEVAL BARBARITY

Posted on April 14, 2013 by Veritas



The human suffering in Syria, which has escalated from crisis to disaster over the past two years, is the nefarious work of Western governments and their regional allies. It is a simple, provable, glaringly obvious truth. Yet, the thought-control Western mainstream media manage to somehow turn reality on its head, and make a virtue out of something vile and unspeakably villainous.
Western imperialism has created a human tsunami of suffering in Syria. And rather than makin
g any effort to mitigate this suffering by delivering on much promised refugee aid, the Western powers seem to exploiting the massive misery for political advantage to further undermine the Syrian state and government. This tactic of enforced human deprivation is straight out of the Middle Ages, when invading armies would hold siege of cities by enforcing starvation on the occupants.

Two reports this week testify to the above conclusion – albeit indirectly. The first comes from various United Nations relief organizations for refugees. The UN agencies say that food, water and other basic provisions to some 1.3 million refugees that have poured out of Syria and to more than 4 million remaining within the war-torn country will soon no longer be afforded. The dire situation is because only a fraction of the $1.5 billion pledged earlier this year by international donors has actually been received.

Reuters cited Panos Moumtzis, the UN refugee agency’s regional coordinator for Syrian refugees, as saying: «The speed with which the crisis is deteriorating is much faster than the ability of the international community to finance the Syrian humanitarian needs».

The suffering in Lebanon, where most of the Syrian refugees have fled, seems particularly acute. A spokesman for the World Food Program gave this grim warning: «In one month, and with the current funding, more than 400,000 Syrian refugees in Lebanon will no longer receive food assistance».
The number of people displaced inside and outside Syria – more than 5 million – represents about 20 per cent of the total population. In the space of just two years, Syria has gone from a relatively wealthy, stable and peaceful state that was one of the most politically and culturally pluralist in the Middle East to a post-apocalyptic charnel house.

How could such a rapid descent into barbarism be possible? Could a once-stable society really implode like this without external forces bearing down? Why do Western governments seem able to readily find hundreds of millions of dollars worth of material and logistics to aid so-called rebel groups in Syria, yet remain so parsimonious when it comes to the crying needs of refugees? Is such human suffering being used as a tactical weapon by Western governments? How can Western media organizations, in particular, get away with not asking such pertinent questions?

A plethora of militant groups – many of them not even Syrian, but rather comprised of foreign mercenaries – have in the same time frame spawned from pockets of sporadic resistance towards Syrian government forces to become heavily armed battle groups that are now capable of holding down towns and provincial areas, while carrying out indiscriminate car bomb attacks on the capital, Damascus, and the country’s second city, Aleppo.

Given the nature of the indiscriminate bomb and gun attacks on civilians by these militants, and countless sources of evidence for massacres, executions and other heinous violations, as well as the lack of support from the general populace, these militants can rightly be termed «terrorist» in an objective sense. They have admitted so themselves with one of the main fighting groups – the Al Nusra Front – this week openly declaring its affiliation with Al Qaeda. The latter, we have been told over and over again for the past decade and more by Western governments and news media, is supposedly the number one terrorist threat facing the world.

In yet another whistle-stop tour of the Middle East, US Secretary of State John Kerry talked euphemistically about «galvanizing the Syrian opposition». Kerry is coming a bit late to the game – at least in public. For months now, his British and French counterparts, William Hague and Laurent Fabius, have been brazenly calling for overt arming of Syria’s «opposition» (that is, terrorists) to overthrow the government of Bashar Al Assad.


This official posturing is but a charade. These Western regimes have already been supplying weapons, funding, training and logistics to Syria’s death squads. Last month, Croatian media sources reported that the US and Britain had coordinated the supply of 3,000 tonnes of weaponry – 75 plane loads – out of Zagreb to militants in Syria. One of the recipients was the Ahrar Al Sham group, which is aligned to Al Nusra and, by extension, Al Qaeda.

The airlift of weapons dates back to at least November 2012 and was conducted in liaison with Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Jordan. That weapons conduit is just one of many that the Western powers have been running into Syria over the past two years.

The myopic Western mainstream media are so pre-occupied with advancing government spin on a day-to-day basis that they fail to see or acknowledge the big picture, even when that big picture falls on their heads with clunking conclusions.

Firstly, Syria is being ravaged by militant groups that seem to have miraculously materialised out of thin air. Even if we don’t describe these groups as terrorists, but give them the more favourable label of «rebels» as the Western media choose to do, it is still abundantly clear that these groups would not be anywhere near as armed-and-dangerous if it were not for the material support from the Western governments and their regional allies. Violence in Syria is therefore largely a Western creation. Instead of elaborating on that line of investigation, the Western corporate media evade and obfuscate.
But the added indictment is that these groups are evidently terrorist in their operations. The facts of indiscriminate multiple car bombs in Damascus and Aleppo that have killed hundreds of civilians, women and children, make this definition incontestable. So there you have it: Western governments, despite all their lofty rhetoric about international law, human rights and the war on terror, are in alliance with terrorists. These governments are using terrorism to achieve their political ends of regime change in Syria. How damningly contradictory of every supposed Western government precept and principle is that?

It seems incredible that the Western media are unaware of long-held plans – going back decades – by the US and its Western allies to topple the Syrian government. US President Dwight Eisenhower and his British counterpart Harold McMillan dallied with the scheme back in 1957. Then it was revived under the watch of President George W Bush in 2007, according to American journalist Seymour Hersch. Under the cover of the Arab Spring revolts across the region in 2011, the US, British and French planners got their opportunity to fully destabilize Syria. That agenda for regime change in Syria has gained impetus from the Western imperialist agenda to re-draw the oil-rich Middle East in its image and interests, to undermine Iran and to cut off Russia and China from vital natural resources.

This geopolitical perspective explains much more about what is happening in Syria than naïve Western media narratives about a «Syrian Arab Spring revolt for popular democracy».

The second conclusion from events in Syria that the Western media incredibly feign to ignore is that the sudden and dramatic increase in suffering of some 5 million displaced and homeless Syrians is indisputably correlated with the above dramatic increase in Western-sponsored violence in the country. If it weren’t for the flow of arms and money to Syrian terrorists from Western governments and their regional conduits, it is a safe bet that 5 million Syrians would be presently enjoying the relative comfort of their homes rather than subsisting in tents and hovels in bordering Lebanon, Jordan, Turkey and Iraq.

Thirdly, it can be concluded that the lack of funds that the UN refugee relief agencies are decrying stand in stark contrast to the hundreds of millions of dollars that Western governments and their Gulf Arab dictator allies have readily delivered to the Syrian terrorist network. The US and Britain have between them stumped up over $300 million of «non-lethal aid» to Syria’s «opposition». Those funds have been matched by the oil-rich dictatorships in Saudi Arabia, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates. And that’s just the publicly declared amounts. Who knows how many more millions of dollars are flowing in from black budgets to fuel the violence?

In stark contrast, where is the aid for the UN refugee relief effort? Reuters reports that UN coordinator Panos Moumtzis is soon to visit the United States, Brussels and London with a begging bowl «to chase» promised, but as yet undelivered, donations.

Meanwhile, on the ground, aid workers say they are already in desperate straits. «It is a catastrophe. We are being asked to do more and more with less and less,» said UNHCR’s Lebanon representative Ninette Kelley in the southern coastal town of Tyre. «We simply don’t have the resources that we need in order to provide the assistance that is so desperately needed by the refugees».
So let’s draw this further damning conclusion. Syria’s humanitarian crisis of 5 million people living under tents and now facing no food or water is a direct result of Western states playing a callous game of regime change, funding terrorist groups to wreck a society and bring a sovereign government to its knees. One has to conclude that the unconscionable «mis-allocation» of funds is a deliberate calculation by the Western powers and their proxies to maximize civilian suffering and thereby intensify the political pressure on the Syrian authorities.

This use of human suffering for political ends is of course a war crime, committed by the Western governments and conveniently obfuscated by their servile media. The barbarity of using human deprivation as a weapon harks back to the starvation sieges inflicted on cities by European armies in medieval times. And yet the same tactic is today being deployed against Syria, with barely a whimper of concern or question from Western mainstream media – supposedly bastions of free speech and critical, independent thinking.

At the beginning of this piece, we mentioned a second report this week that implicates the Western governments for Syria’s suffering – albeit indirectly. That report comes from the US-based Human Rights Watch group. The 80-page document entitled ‘Death from the Skies’ is presented as a damning study of civilian atrocities allegedly as a result of Syrian army air strikes. The report is, however, more accurately a damning study of pro-Western government bias by HRW. It relies heavily on «opposition activists» for testimonies and data, and it focuses entirely on sites allegedly attacked by Syrian government forces. HRW casually admits that «opposition» groups have committed atrocities yet it focuses solely on alleged government crimes. Perversely, given the above evidence of illegal Western, Turk and Arab arms funneling into Syria, HRW reserves exclusive censure for Russia and China for their official supply of weapons to the Syrian government – supply arrangements that have long been in place under bilateral legal trade agreements.

«Russia and China’s refusal to support even mild resolutions have paralyzed the [United Nations] Security Council, preventing it from taking action that would meet its responsibility to protect the Syrian people from serious violations of international human rights and humanitarian law,» says the HRW report. But there is no condemnation of the far more urgent and extant source of violence in Syria stemming from Western governments and their criminal sponsorship of terrorist groups.

The disproportionate cause of violence in Syria from Western-backed forces is inadvertently indicated by the HRW report. It says that it recorded about 4,300 civilian deaths allegedly from Syrian army air strikes on population centres between July 2012 and the end of March 2013 – a period of nine months.

Even if we accept that figure as accurate, it still pales in significance to the total death toll. This week Reuters reported that at least 10,000 people have been killed in Syria over the past two months alone. Over a nine-month period that death rate would scale up to 45,000. That total death toll equates to 10 times what HRW attribute to victims of Syrian government air strikes. In other words, the discrepancy implies that the preponderance of violence and victims is being perpetrated by non-government forces – the very groups that the Western regimes and their allies are financing and arming.

There can be no mistake or misunderstanding. Syria is a humanitarian disaster made by the West. And, to add massive insult to the massive injury, there is not even a token of aid to the millions of Western-generated victims. Indeed, the West is too busy creating more victims and suffering to expedite its pathological imperialist agenda in Syria and the wider region.

And all the while, the Western mainstream media, with their pretentious claims of free-thinking and speech, act as the dutiful fog machine, hiding the facts, blurring reality and choking any questions that might reveal the grotesque obscenity of what the Western regimes are up to.
 
River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian  
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this Blog!

Thursday, 28 February 2013

Labrahimi, a dish washer in the Anerican kithchen


Posted on February 26, 2013 by Libya 360°

Brahimi Moves Further away from Neutrality as Broker to Solve Crisis in Syria
Feb 26, 2013

MOSCOW, (SANA)- UN Envoy to Syria, Lakhdar Brahimi, is going too far in moving away from neutrality in his position as a broker to solve the crisis in Syria as he went beyond overlooking the terrorism practiced by al-Qaeda-linked takfiri groups in Syria to even justify these terrorist acts.
 
“Some often describe as terrorism what others see as a liberation movement, and I think the situation in Syria is similar to this,” Brahimi told English-speaking Russia Today channel.
Finding himself unable to present a description of the terrorist acts committed in Syria, Brahimi chose to please the West and the US and comply with their hostile stances towards Syria, saying “It’s an exaggeration to portray this conflict as one between the government and terrorists.”
 
When pressed by the interviewer’s insistence to know whether or not he views as terrorism the destruction of infrastructure taking place in Syria, Brahimi couldn’t hide his annoyance and tried to circumvent the question.
“I don’t understand the meaning of these questions…I think our interview is going the wrong way…You want to confirm that all who is fighting against the government is a terrorist…Let’s not try to portray that all are terrorists, and it’s not so. Let’s change the subject,” said Lavrov.
 
Further pressed by the interviewer to answer a question about the nature of terrorism taking place in Syria, Brahimi said “Let’s make things clear. There are organizations that could be labeled as terrorist for objective reasons, and there are organizations which the government itself consider as terrorist…but in Syria the people want change in their country, and I think this is perfectly legitimate.”
 
Despite the fact that many of the forces conspiring against Syria have admitted to sending weapons and terrorists to Syria under the name of ‘jihadists’, Brahimi considered this as a secondary and not a central issue, making light of the number of terrorists coming across the border. “Yes, there are foreigners in Syria…no more than a few hundreds or around two thousands…so, there’s no need to say that the foreigners are standing against the Syrian government, because this is false,” said Brahimi.
 
H. Said
 
ALSO SEE:

Saturday, 12 January 2013

Syria Accuses Brahimi of ’Flagrant Bias’ ahead of Geneva Talks

Local Editor

Damascus accused the international peace envoy Lakhdar Brahimi of being biased, as the Algerian Diplomat was readying for a second round of talks in Geneva aiming at ending the Syrian crisis.Brahimi
In a statement the foreign ministry said it was very surprised by Brahimi’s comments, which showed “he is flagrantly biased for those who are conspiring against Syria and its people.”

"We had expected Brahimi to read and analyze the contents of (Assad's proposed) political initiative which is the only exit to the Syrian crisis," the ministry said.

However, it noted it was nevertheless still willing to work with him to find a political solution to the crisis.

The statement was the strongest criticism of Brahimi since he took over from veteran diplomat Kofi Annan who stepped down months ago.
In a BBC interview, Brahimi called for “real, not cosmetic change” in Syria and accused President Basahr al-Assad of “resisting the aspirations of his people.”

"The time of reforms granted magnanimously from above is past," Brahimi said in the interview.
In a speech on Sunday, Assad drew the map of a proposed solution to the crisis in Syria that included a national reconciliation conference, a new government and constitution. However, he demanded regional and Western countries stop funding and arming terrorists first.

Meanwhile, a new round of talks to end the ongoing turmoil in Syria is to take place today in Geneva between Brahimi and envoys from US and Russia.

Russia's Middle East negotiator, Mikhail Bogdanov, announced on Wednesday that he would take art in talks with Brahimi and US Undersecretary of State William Burns.

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this Blog!

Tuesday, 27 November 2012

It rains rocket from Gaza, never bombs from Israel

by Stuart Littlewood
Tuesday, November 27th, 2012

It rains rocket from Gaza, never bombs from Israel

Israel_Gaza

Alistair Burt is the UK Foreign Office minister in charge of Middle East affairs. He is also a former officer of the Conservative Friends of Israel lobby group. He resigned from that position when he became a minister, but leopards don’t suddenly change their spots.

Judge for yourself.

I sent a question through my MP asking why Government ministers such as Burt quote exact numbers of rockets fired from Gaza without also giving the corresponding numbers of bombs, rockets, shells and other ordnance poured into Gaza by the Israeli military.

In his letter of reply Burt says
“there are no reliable statistics on the number of bombs and other ordnance fired by the Israeli Defence Force on Gaza and Israel does not make public this information”.
In that case, should he not make it clear when quoting Gaza’s rocket numbers that Israel refuses to provide numbers of their own vastly superior missiles used to bombard Gaza?

Yesterday in Parliament David Amess, another officer of the Conservative Friends of Israel, was playing the familiar game of planting Parliamentary questions designed to deflect attention from Israel’s malodorous reputation. He asked Mr Burt what recent reports the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs [William Hague] had received on the number of rockets fired from Gaza into Israel since 30 October; what recent discussions he has had with the government of Israel on such attacks; and if he would make a statement.
 

Mr Burt obligingly replied: “We have received reports that 287 rockets were fired from Gaza into Israel between 30 October and 14 November. According to Israeli Defence Forces figures, 1,443 rockets were fired during the period 14-21 November.” He added that Mr Hague spoke to Mr Lieberman on 17 and 21 November and he, Burt, spoke to him on 21 November and again on 22 November.

Such precision is of course commendable but grossly lopsided and plainly calculated to mislead Parliament and public. It is astonishing that in all its discussions with Israel’s ministers the Foreign Office hasn’t managed to extract data on Israeli bombing and rocket attacks.

Mr Burt, I venture to suggest, ought to paint a balanced picture and not simply regurgitate Israeli propaganda without caveats and facts from the other side. He should inform the Israeli authorities that British ministers will not in future quote figures for Palestinian rockets unless accompanied by corresponding numbers of Israel’s. These should then be cross-checked with Palestinian and independent sources for proper monitoring.

The same goes for any remarks about Iran’s so far non-existent nukes. There should be equal emphasis on Israel’s vast arsenal of WMDs.
 
River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this Blog!

Monday, 27 August 2012

The Unseen and Unpunished Violence Against Palestinians


Israeli soldiers and border policemen detain a Palestinian protester during a rally marking the "Nakba" in the West Bank village of Wallaje, near Bethlehem. (Photo: Reuters - Ammar Awad)
 
Published Monday, August 27, 2012
 
Over the course of the last four decades, Western media, in both its corporate and state forms, have sculpted an image of the Arab and Muslim worlds largely founded on xenophobic, indeed Orientalist, notions. As a consequence of this media campaign, few can claim to have experienced such an extensive, grueling, and ongoing period of suffering as the Palestinians.

Millions of exiled refugees continue to toil in wretched camps throughout the Arab world; farmers and herders continue to have their land stolen every day by both military forces and state-sponsored settlers in the West Bank; and the Gaza Strip has been turned into an open-air prison, subjected to regular military raids and saturation bombing campaigns that often last weeks at a time.

But in the news these people are almost unconditionally portrayed as the sole aggressors, as ragtag gangs of terrorists who prefer death to life (a bizarrely inaccurate tagline for people who have survived so much).

For years, the corporate media establishment has carefully cultivated an image of Israel as an embattled society engaged in a life or death struggle to preserve its democratic character in the face of an ever-present band of keffiyeh-wearing rock throwers, plane-hijackers, and suicide bombers. But when terrorism is directed against Palestinians, rarely is it allotted the same amount of publicity as a homemade rocket fired from the Gaza Strip.

In this way, the Israeli government has been able to successfully outsource much of its violence to individual actors, who are rarely prosecuted and do not face the same consequences as their Palestinian counterparts.

Last week, a throng of over a dozen Jewish youth attacked three Palestinian teenagers in Jerusalem’s Zion Square. As the angry rabble approached, they chanted “Death to Arabs!” and beat one of the Palestinians unconscious. Medics arrived and resuscitated the victim, who had no pulse and was not breathing. The attackers ran away and shouted back to the crowd of onlookers, “A Jew is a soul, and an Arab is a son of a bitch.”

Eight suspects have been arrested thus far. One of the young men told police officers that the victim, presently in critical condition in Ein Karen Hospital in Jerusalem, should die because “he is an Arab. I would have stabbed him if I could. A Jew can’t move around Damascus Gate without being stabbed. If I manage to grab hold of him, I’ll punch him; he cursed my mother, and he should die.”

This suspect, whose identity is being withheld because he is a minor, is being represented by Honenu legal aid organization, whose past clients have included numerous Jewish Israelis and settlers accused of right-wing terrorism against Palestinian civilians. According to the website, the organization’s mission is to assist defendants “who find themselves in legal entanglements due to defending themselves against Arab aggression.”

The defendant’s lawyer claimed that the attack was simply an act of “bullying.” Many media outlets have followed suit, if not outright denying the xenophobic motivations behind the lynching, absurdly portraying it as an entirely isolated act of violence and drawing no connections to the serious uptick in vigilante violence that is sweeping across Israel.

This emerging trend is not without historical parallel. In 1994, one of the most notorious acts of right-wing terrorism took place in Hebron, when Baruch Goldstein, a New York-born Israeli from the neighboring Kiryat Arba settlement, robed himself in military insignia and entered the al-Ibrahimi Mosque. The mosque is home to the Tomb of the Patriarchs, an ancient relic holy to Christians, Muslims and Jews. During the middle of Friday prayers, Goldstein opened fire on the worshipers, killing 29 and injuring 125. He fired until he ran out of ammunition, then was beaten to death by the surviving worshipers.

Since 1994, an estimated 10,000 militant right-wing Israelis have made “pilgrimages” to Goldstein’s gravesite to celebrate the anniversary of the massacre.

In March, some 300 notoriously racist soccer fans, supporters of Beitar Jerusalem, rushed the Malha Mall and attacked the Arab cleaning staff. According to shopkeepers, the attackers begged for sticks and knives to use against the defenseless women.

When the police were asked why no one was arrested, the response was simple: no formal complaints had been filed.
Only after immense media pressure was an investigation launched.

When Palestinians violate martial law in the West Bank, their punishment can range anywhere from administrative detention to exile. Despite the sharp rise in settler violence, this colonial establishment is generally treated with legal immunity.

In one instance in May, a security guard from a West Bank settlement shot a Palestinian citizen without cause. A week later, settlers attacked Urif, a small Palestinian village, and set fire to olive groves, one of the sole sources of the village’s income. When several Palestinian men came to protect their land, the settlers opened fire on them. One man was shot, tied up, and beaten severely by the band of ideology-intoxicated settlers. In neither case was a single arrest made.

And mere hours after last week’s lynching in Jerusalem, a taxicab carrying a family of Palestinians from the al-Aruba refugee camp was struck by a firebomb tossed by a settler from the Bet Ayin settlement.

Two children received first degree burns, and their parents received second and third degree burns. Israeli Prime Minister Benyamin Netanyahu promised that the perpetrator would be brought to justice. Most Palestinians are understandably doubtful.

By no means does this exhaust the list of gross violations against Palestinian rights. Every day, new reports emerge of settlers, living completely outside the borders of the legal system, trying to run over Palestinian children with their cars. Rabbles of messianic yeshiva students used to – perhaps still do – prowl the streets of East Jerusalem to prevent romantic encounters between Jewish women and Arab men. And the villagers of Susiya, a small village nestled in the rugged terrain of the South Hebron Hills, have on a regular basis seen their water wells poisoned, their sheep slaughtered, and their homes destroyed.

Of course, on both sides of this conflict there are those who, despite their shallow attempts to paint themselves as patriots, employ the outlaw tactics of brute thugs. Yet, the lynching that took place last week in Jerusalem was by no means an isolated event: it is the natural component of a pattern of vigilante violence that the media has chosen to neglect.



“Today my body was a TV’d massacre, made to fit into sound bites and word limits,” poet Rafeef Ziadah said of journalistic bias against Palestinians. Whether by design or not, by presenting an asymmetrical understanding of violence in Israel and Palestine, corporate media outlets submissively place themselves at the service of both the Israeli government and the most chauvinistic elements of right-wing Israeli society.

Patrick O. Strickland is a freelance journalist and a weekly Israel-Palestine correspondent for BikyaMasr. His work has been published by Palestine Chronicle, Counterpunch, Socialistworker.org, and the Alternative Information Center.

The views expressed by the author do not necessarily reflect Al-Akhbar's editorial policy.

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian  
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this Blog!

Thursday, 31 May 2012

"UN report on Houla massacre? But they only talk to Syrian opposition – by phone’

Via FLC

"The Houla massacre is to be brought to a rare gathering of the UN Human Rights Council. But what kind of findings will the council be presented? Anti-war campaigner Marinella Corregia is concerned UN observers only question opposition activists.
The meeting, set for Friday, has been called by 21 of the 47 council members. The request was officially submitted by Qatar, Turkey, the US, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Denmark and the EU.
The UN top human rights body says most of the 108 victims of the massacre in the Syrian town of Houla were summarily executed – while less than 20 killings “can be attributed to artillery and tank fire.”
It also appears that entire families were shot in their homes. Local residents have blamed the executions on Shabbiya, a paramilitary group that "essentially supports the government forces," says Rupert Colville, spokesman for the UN Human Rights Council.
UN Human Rights Council ‘own’ sources?What worries Marinella Corregia, an activist from the "No War Network," is the sources the UN Human Rights Council uses to draw their reports, as their opinions do not seem in accord with UN monitors’ prudence. General Robert Mood, who heads the observing mission, has not yet pointed to anyone for the killings. (CONTRARY to what western media' claims!)
'... Circumstances are still unclear!... '
Marinella Corregia called the Council spokesman, Rupert Colville, to get some answers. This is the conversation they had as reported by the peace activist:
Marinella Corregia: Who spoke with the local people you quote? The UN observers?
Rupert Colville: The UN observers are another body.
MC: So which witness sources do you have and how did you speak with them?
RC: Our local network, whom we spoke on the phone. I cannot say more; I have to protect them.
MC: How could they recognize that the killers were Shabbiya? Weren’t their faces covered?
RC: Our local contacts in Syria say they were Shabbiya. Try to be less cynical.
MC: But no doubt from your side? It seems that many of the children were from Alawite pro-government families
RC: We are asking for an investigation. I don’t say we are certain. We have also been asking for international investigations for the past months in Syria; but it has never been done and that is why we rely on our sources.
MC: So it is not the UN that says that pro-government groups killed the children, it is your sources saying that.
RC: Yes, many people, our sources point the finger at the Shabbiya [militia group].
More questions than answers as Houla investigation continuesBut who are these contacts? Corregia says that so far the UN Council on Human Rights used reports made up by their own commission of three envoys, working independently from UN monitors. The commission has never set foot on Syrian soil; their sources, as listed by the anti-war campaigner, appear to be: “the opposition groups [the UN Human Rights Council] spoke to on the phone; the opposition they met in Turkey; and other ‘activists’ they met in Geneva.”
So the bottom line: no actual witnesses!” points out Marinella Corregia, who is sure the body treats the Houla incident “just the same way.”
Houla reports filed so far stand no criticism, continues the activist, – instead of giving answers, they just raise more questions:
Who talked to the residents, since the UN Human Rights Council is in Geneva? Are they true residents or the ones like the face-covered lady interviewed by Al Jazeera? The ‘survivor’ in question says she was hiding as her children were being slaughtered – how is it possible that a mother hides at a moment like this?
How was it possible that immediately after “Shabbiya” and the “army’s artillery” accomplished the massacre people were not afraid to collect bodies, film them and then send the video to international media?”..."
River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian  
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this Blog!

Wednesday, 4 April 2012

ICC sides with Israel, rejects Gaza war crimes probe

Published Tuesday, April 3, 2012

Amnesty International accused the International Criminal Court (ICC) of "political bias" after it refused to investigate crimes carried out by Israelis during the 2008-9 Gaza War.

The court's chief prosecutor on Tuesday rejected a bid by the Palestinian Authority to clear the way for the permanent war crimes tribunal to investigate the attacks, which left at least 1,300 Palestinians dead.

The UK-based rights group criticized the ruling, saying the ICC had risked its independence.

"This dangerous decision opens the ICC to accusations of political bias and is inconsistent with the independence of the ICC. It also breaches the Rome Statute which clearly states that such matters should be considered by the institution’s judges,” said Marek Marczyński, head of Amnesty International’s International Justice campaign.

The ICC based its decision on Palestine not being determined as a state by UN bodies and ICC states, but Amnesty insists the court has ruled in error.

"For the past three years, the prosecutor has been considering the question of whether the Palestinian Authority is a "state" that comes under the jurisdiction of the ICC and whether the ICC can investigate crimes committed during the 2008-9 conflict in Gaza and southern Israel."

"Now, despite Amnesty International’s calls and a very clear requirement in the ICC’s statute that the judges should decide on such matters, the Prosecutor has erroneously dodged the question, passing it to other political bodies."

The long-awaited written ruling by Luis Moreno-Ocampo is also a setback to the Palestinian campaign for international recognition as an independent state.

Israel launched a deadly war on the Gaza Strip at the end of 2008, carrying out a series of indiscriminate bombing raids and ground invasions on heavily populated civilian areas.
Israel also bombed UN compounds in Gaza during the war.

Palestinians have attempted to seek justice through the international criminal system, with attempted prosecutions of Israeli war criminals.

In December 2009, a British court issued an arrest warrant of former Israeli Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni for her role in the killings, but the ruling was later overturned.
(Al-Akhbar)

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian  
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this Blog!

Saturday, 21 January 2012

Anti-Syrian Pack Journalism

by Stephen Lendman

My PhotoWhen America wages war or plans it, major media scoundrels cheerlead in lockstep. Incendiary managed news follows. Truth and full disclosure lose out.

As a result, readers and viewers are uninformed. Imperial Washington gets free reign to keep ravaging the world one country at a time, threatening humanity in the process.
Arguably, three major broadsheets are America's most influential - The New York Times, Washington Post and Wall Street Journal. Each has large followings, especially among opinion makers.

They also contradict London Guardian commentator Jonathan Steele's January 17 article titled, "Most Syrians back President Assad, but you you'd never know from western media," saying:
"When coverage of an unfolding drama ceases to be fair and turns into a propaganda weapon, inconvenient facts get suppressed."
No wonder a recent YouGov Siraj Syria poll was ignored. Funded by the Qatar Foundation, it was commissioned by The Doha Debates. Notably, Qatar's monarchy one-sidedly opposes Assad. Its emir wants foreign intervention. Yet it published "inconvenient" poll results on its web sit.

It found most Arabs outside Syria want Assad to go, but not Syrians. A majority 55% support him, "motivated by fear of civil war" or greater violence and instability than now.

At the same time, half his supporters want near-term free elections. Assad promised them. "But it is vital that he publishes (new) election law as soon as possible, permits political parties and makes a commitment to allow independent" observers to monitor results.

In late December, Guardian writer Simon Jenkins railed against Britain's "ruinous decade of wars." He called UK interventionism "not so much the white man's burden as his morbid thrill."

Rarely do Steele/Jenkins equivalents get major media op-ed space in America. Nearly all commentators are hawkish, and television coverage screams.

On January 19, a New York Times editorial headlined, "Syria's Rising Toll," saying:
UN and other reports say deaths now exceed 5,400. "Yet the international community still has not mustered the tough pressure that might force Mr. Assad to stop the killing, or Syria's Army and business elite to toss him out."

Fact check

Alleged death toll numbers come from anti-Assad elements. They entirely lack credibility. Unmentioned were 2,000 or more Syrian security force killings by Western-backed externally generated insurgents. Inconvenient facts are ignored. They include Washington's longstanding regime change in both Syria and Iran.

The Times accused Russia of "blocking the (Security Council) from imposing any serious punishment," selling Assad arms, and "thwarting democratic forces and their Western backers."

"On Monday, Russia proposed a shamefully weak resolution that put equal blame" on both sides. "That means it is up to Arab League ministers" to get tough and act. "Assad has made clear" his unwillingness to "compromise....and he has made clear his contempt for (League) efforts to broker peace."

Fact check

Russia, China, BRIC allies, and other countries oppose outside intervention. At issue is not replicating Libya. Washington and Western allies want regime change, control, and delinking Syria from Iran. They don't tolerate democracy abroad or at home.

Russia's proposal was even-handed, despite insurgent responsibility for violence, not Assad who's responding as would any leader. He's expressed willingness to meet popular demands several times. His comments are ignored or discounted.

The Times want Arab League ministers to end their "failed monitoring mission" and impose tougher measures on their own. At issue is concern that mission head General Mohammed Ahmed Mustafa al-Dabi debunked Western propaganda and confirmed evidence of an externally generated insurgency
As a result, he's called unreliable. Efforts are made to discredit him. Media scoundrels regurgitate official lies. Arab League monitors and foreign ministers are meeting in Cairo this weekend.

A report on Syrian violence will follow. Perhaps al-Dabi will be entirely shut out. Earlier he reported regime cooperation and lashed out at monitor Anwar Malek's comments for quitting the team. He called the mission a "farce," saying:
"What I saw was a humanitarian disaster. The regime is not just committing one war crime, but a series of crimes against its people. The snipers are everywhere shooting at civilians. People are being kidnapped. Prisoners are being tortured and none were released."
In response, al-Dabi said "Malek did not leave the hotel for six days and did not go out with the rest of the team into the field giving the excuse that he was sick."

The Times sees "no easy solution," but wants more international community pressure "to make clear to (Assad) and his cronies that their time has run out."

Fact check

Washington-backed insurgents cause violence and killings. Moreover, international law prohibits interfering internally in other countries' affairs. Washington and rogue NATO partners do it as official policy. They and Times editorial writers spurn what real democracies support and enforce.

A January 17 Washington Post editorial headlined, "Syria's carnage puts Arab leaders on horns of a dilemma," saying:
Arab League interventionist calls show "a sense of desperation." In fact, they indicate Western policy reflected through proxy comments.

"Assad predictably (continues) killing people at a shocking pace." Arab League observers "fail(ed), and one of its own members called (its mission) a farce."

So AL members have a choice "between humiliation and stronger action....One way or another, the (League's) predicament will be shared by NATO members," including Washington....Standing by while the bloodshed goes on should not be one of the options."

Indeed not, but pointing fingers the wrong way won't end it.

Wall Street Journal contributor Fouad Ajami is a longtime Western flack. Long ago he sold his credibility for a buck. He showed it in a January 6 op-ed titled, "America and the Solitude of the Syrians," calling the Assad government a "veritable North Korea on the Mediterranean...."

Predictably, he accused Assad of "hunt(ing) down (his people) and slaughter(ing) them like rats," adding there's "ice in this ruler's veins. (He) mix(es) cunning and bluster. (The world's) two big autocracies - Russia and China - have given this regime cover and sustenance at the United Nations."

Fact check

Earlier comments debunked Ajami's. They lay blame where it belongs. Moreover, Russia, China and other nations want conflict resolution, not war.

Media scoundrels like Ajami have other ideas, implied or explicitly stated. Like other like-minded scoundrels, his credibility long ago was lost. He regurgitates official policies, not truth and full disclosure.

As a result, readers are left uninformed and misdirected. They deserve better, especially on issues of war and peace.

However, major media writers, op-ed contributors, editorial writers, TV reporters and pundits won't provide it.

Shut them out. Go online. Choose reliable sources to explain what media scoundrels suppress and distort. Make them a regular habit to learn what everyone needs to know - the truth.

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.
http://www.progressiveradionetwork.com/the-progressive-news-hour/.

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian   The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this Blog!

Thursday, 19 January 2012

Most Syrians back President Assad, but you'd never know from western media

Jonathan SteeleAssad's popularity, Arab League observers, US military involvement: all distorted in the west's propaganda war

Jonathan Steele
Pro-Assad demonstration
A demonstration in support of Bashar al-Assad, the Syrian president, in Damascus.
'Some 55% of Syrians want Assad to stay, motivated by fear of civil war.'
Photograph: Hussein Malla/AP
Suppose a respectable opinion poll found that most Syrians are in favour of Bashar al-Assad remaining as president, would that not be major news? Especially as the finding would go against the dominant narrative about the Syrian crisis, and the media considers the unexpected more newsworthy than the obvious.

Alas, not in every case. When coverage of an unfolding drama ceases to be fair and turns into a propaganda weapon, inconvenient facts get suppressed. So it is with the results of a recent YouGov Siraj poll on Syria commissioned by The Doha Debates, funded by the Qatar Foundation. Qatar's royal family has taken one of the most hawkish lines against Assad – the emir has just called for Arab troops to intervene – so it was good that The Doha Debates published the poll on its website. The pity is that it was ignored by almost all media outlets in every western country whose government has called for Assad to go.

The key finding was that while most Arabs outside Syria feel the president should resign, attitudes in the country are different. Some 55% of Syrians want Assad to stay, motivated by fear of civil war – a spectre that is not theoretical as it is for those who live outside Syria's borders. What is less good news for the Assad regime is that the poll also found that half the Syrians who accept him staying in power believe he must usher in free elections in the near future. Assad claims he is about to do that, a point he has repeated in his latest speeches. But it is vital that he publishes the election law as soon as possible, permits political parties and makes a commitment to allow independent monitors to watch the poll.

Biased media coverage also continues to distort the Arab League's observer mission in Syria. When the league endorsed a no-fly zone in Libya last spring, there was high praise in the west for its action. Its decision to mediate in Syria was less welcome to western governments, and to high-profile Syrian opposition groups, who increasingly support a military rather than a political solution. So the league's move was promptly called into doubt by western leaders, and most western media echoed the line.

Attacks were launched on the credentials of the mission's Sudanese chairman. Criticisms of the mission's performance by one of its 165 members were headlined. Demands were made that the mission pull out in favour of UN intervention.

The critics presumably feared that the Arab observers would report that armed violence is no longer confined to the regime's forces, and the image of peaceful protests brutally suppressed by army and police is false. Homs and a few other Syrian cities are becoming like Beirut in the 1980s or Sarajevo in the 1990s, with battles between militias raging across sectarian and ethnic fault lines.
'Free Syrian Army'
As for foreign military intervention, it has already started. It is not following the Libyan pattern since Russia and China are furious at the west's deception in the security council last year. They will not accept a new United Nations resolution that allows any use of force. The model is an older one, going back to the era of the cold war, before "humanitarian intervention" and the "responsibility to protect" were developed and often misused. Remember Ronald Reagan's support for the Contras, whom he armed and trained to try to topple Nicaragua's Sandinistas from bases in Honduras? For Honduras read Turkey, the safe haven where the so-called Free Syrian Army has set up.

Here too western media silence is dramatic. No reporters have followed up on a significant recent article by Philip Giraldi, a former CIA officer who now writes for the American Conservative – a magazine that criticises the American military-industrial complex from a non-neocon position on the lines of Ron Paul, who came second in last week's New Hampshire Republican primary.

Giraldi states that Turkey, a Nato member, has become Washington's proxy and that unmarked Nato warplanes have been arriving at Iskenderum, near the Syrian border, delivering Libyan volunteers and weapons seized from the late Muammar Gaddafi's arsenal. "French and British special forces trainers are on the ground," he writes, "assisting the Syrian rebels, while the CIA and US Spec Ops are providing communications equipment and intelligence to assist the rebel cause, enabling the fighters to avoid concentrations of Syrian soldiers …"

As the danger of full-scale war increases, Arab League foreign ministers are preparing to meet in Cairo this weekend to discuss the future of their Syrian mission. No doubt there will be western media reports highlighting remarks by those ministers who feel the mission has "lost credibility", "been duped by the regime" or "failed to stop the violence". Counter-arguments will be played down or suppressed.

In spite of the provocations from all sides the league should stand its ground. Its mission in Syria has seen peaceful demonstrations both for and against the regime. It has witnessed, and in some cases suffered from, violence by opposing forces. But it has not yet had enough time or a large enough team to talk to a comprehensive range of Syrian actors and then come up with a clear set of recommendations. Above all, it has not even started to fulfil that part of its mandate requiring it to help produce a dialogue between the regime and its critics. The mission needs to stay in Syria and not be bullied out.

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian  
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this Blog!

Wednesday, 28 September 2011

Media Ignore Heart-Wrenching Death of Palestinian Boy

Posted by Richard Edmondson



Over and over, throughout its coverage of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, the Zionist media have proven time and time again that as far as they are concerned the lives of Jewish children are the only ones that matter. Here, in the death of 12-year-old Ibrahim Zaza, we see another painful example of this.

A Gaza Boy Newspapers Omitted



“Both of Ibrahim's arms were cut off. He had a hole in his lung. Parts of his legs were missing. His kidney was in a bad condition…we need people to stand with us.” These were the words of an exhausted man as he described the condition of his dying son in an interview with The Real News, an alternative news source.

Ibrahim Zaza was merely a 12-year-old boy. He and his cousin Mohammed, 14, were hit by an Israeli missile in Gaza, fired from an unmanned drone as they played in front of their house.

The story started on August 18. The next day, the British Telegraph reported: “Israel launches fightback after militant attack on Egypt border.” The whitewashing of the recent Israeli strikes at besieged Gaza leaves one wondering if all reporters used Israeli army talking points as they conveyed the story. Palestinians were punished for an attack at Israelis that reportedly accrued near the Israeli border with Egypt. There is no evidence linking Gaza to the attack, and Egyptian authorities are now disputing the Israeli account altogether.

“At least six Palestinians were killed in the first wave of bombing. Israel said they were members, including the leader, of the militant group known as the Popular Resistance Committees it accused of responsibility for the attacks,” wrote Phoebe Greenwood and Richard Spencer (The Telegraph, August 19).

The Popular Resistance Committees had dissociated themselves from the attack, as had Hamas and all Palestinian factions. But that was hardly enough to spare the lives of innocent men and women in Gaza, already reeling under untold hardship. Among the dead in the first wave of attacks that targeted 'militants' were two children, one aged three and the other 13.

In the media, Palestinian casualties only matter when they amount to a sizable number. Even then, they are placed within a context that deprives the victims of any sympathy, or worse, blames Palestinian militants for indirect responsibility (pushing Israel to resort to violence to defend its security). In fact, the term 'Palestinian security' is almost nonexistent, although thousands of Gazans have been killed in the last three years alone.

Even the news of Palestinian children killed in the August strikes was reported with a sense of vagueness and doubt. News networks downplayed the fact that the majority of Palestinian victims were civilians. The Telegraph reported that: “Hamas, which runs Gaza, said that two children were also killed in the air raids…” Quoting Hamas, not human rights groups or hospital sources, is hardly shocking when the reporter is based in Tel Aviv or Jerusalem.

Neither was it shocking when the boy, Ibrahim Zaza, died. His heart was the only organ that had continued to function for nearly thirty days after the drone attack. The father, who was allowed to accompany Ibrahim and Mohammed to an Israeli hospital, was then prevented from leaving the hospital for he constituted a security threat. He kept circulating around his son's frail body, hoping and praying. He appealed to people to stand by his family, stressing his lack of means to buy a wheelchair, which he thought Ibrahim would need once he woke up again.

There is no need for a wheelchair now. And Mohammed's unyielding pain continues. His legs are bare with no skin. His belly area is completely exposed. His screams are haunting.

Ibrahim's death seemed to compel little, if any, media coverage. There were no New York Times features, no Time magazine pictorials of the weeping mother and the devastated community. Ibrahim's existence in this world was short. His death was mostly uneventful outside the small circle of those who dearly loved him.

There will be no debates on Israel's use of airstrikes that kill civilians, and no urgent UN meetings over the incessant killings caused by Israeli drones, which in themselves constitute a highly profitable industry. Clients who have doubts about the effectiveness of the Elbit Systems Hermes 900 UAV, for example, need only view Israeli Air Force videos of the drone gently gliding over Gaza. According to sUAS News, it “can reach a higher altitude of 30,000 feet…(and) can be quickly and easily converted for the operator's needs, without the need to adjust the operating infrastructure for every mission” (June 6, 2011).

Israel has been testing its drones on Palestinians for years. In Gaza, these vultures can be observed with the naked eye. Whenever the glider draws near, people scramble for cover. But it took a WikiLeaks report to verify Israel's use of drones for the purpose of killing. According to a recently leaked document, Israeli army Advocate-General Maj. Gen. Avichai Mandelblit had, in February 2010, informed previous US Ambassador to Israel, James Cunningham, of Israel's use of weaponized unmanned aircraft to kill suspected militants.

In The Real News video report, Lia Tarachansky spoke to Lt. Col. Avital Leibowitz, a spokesperson for the IDF, to try and understand why Ibrahim and his cousin were targeted.

Lia Tarachansky: “There was only one missile shot, according to witnesses, and it was at two children, one 12 and one 14, sitting outside of their house.”

Avital Leibowitz: “The logic is that when someone is trying to launch a rocket at you, then the logic is - we better target that person before he targets us.”

The one photo I could retrieve of Ibrahim Zaza showed him posing shyly for the camera, his hair brushed forward. My heart breaks now as I think of him, and all the other victims of Israel's “logic”.

- Ramzy Baroud (www.ramzybaroud.net) is an internationally-syndicated columnist and the editor of PalestineChronicle.com. His latest book is My Father Was a Freedom Fighter: Gaza's Untold Story (Pluto Press, London), available on Amazon.com.



***


Here is the video from The Real News discussed in the above article:




***


The following article was published at Aljazeera back in May of this year, but in his recent speech at the UN Obama again committed the same transgression the author talks about. Here is a quote from that speech:
Let’s be honest: Israel is surrounded by neighbors that have waged repeated wars against it. Israel’s citizens have been killed by rockets fired at their houses and suicide bombs on their buses. Israel’s children come of age knowing that throughout the region, other children are taught to hate them. Israel, a small country of less than eight million people, looks out at a world where leaders of much larger nations threaten to wipe it off of the map. The Jewish people carry the burden of centuries of exile, persecution, and the fresh memory of knowing that six million people were killed simply because of who they were.

Why is it Obama can only find sympathy when the victims are Jews? And why does he ignore Israeli racism against Palestinians? What he says about hatred being taught to children is at least as applicable to Israeli children if not more so. Does he not know that nearly half of all Israeli high school students oppose equal rights for Palestinians? Probably not. Stories like that don't get reported in the U.S. media.


Are Palestinain Children Less Worthy?

As Palestinian children endure lives of suffering, Obama's love for their Israeli counterparts knows no limit.


What is it about Jewish and Arab children that privileges the first and spurns the second in the speeches of President Barack Obama, let alone in the Western media more generally? Are Jewish children smarter, prettier, whiter? Are they deserving of sympathy and solidarity, denied to Arab children, because they are innocent and unsullied by the guilt of their parents, themselves often referred to as "the children of Israel"? Or, is it that Arab children are dangerous, threatening, guilty, even dark and ugly, a situation that can only lead to Arabopaedophobia - the Western fear of Arab children? Innocence and childhood are common themes in Western political discourse, official and unofficial. While it is a truism to state that since the end of European colonialism the US and Europe have been, at the official and unofficial levels, friendly to and supportive of the Zionist colonial project and hostile to Palestinians and Arabs in their resistance to Zionism, the expectation would be that a West that insists rhetorically on the "universalism" of its values would show at least a rhetorical commitment to the equality of Arab and Jewish children as victims of the violence visited on the region by Zionist colonialism and the resistance to it. Yet, the only Western sympathy manifest is to Jewish children as symbols of Zionist and Israeli innocence. This Western sympathy is deployed primarily to denounce Arab guilt, including the guilt of Arab children.

Indeed, the only time Arab children received any sympathy at all in the West was a few years ago when Israeli and US propaganda outlets, official and unofficial alike, mounted a major propaganda campaign to save these children from their barbaric Arab and Palestinian parents, who allegedly trained them to commit violent acts, or who unlovingly placed them in the middle of danger, sacrificing them for their violent political goals. It was not Israel who was to blame for killing Palestinian children, but the children's own uncaring and cruel parents who placed them in the path of Israeli Jewish bullets, which left Israeli Jews no choice but to kill them. This of course is an old Israeli casuistry used to justify Israel's carnage of Palestinians. Golda Meir had famously articulated the workings of Israel's Jewish conscience thus: "We can forgive you for killing our sons. But we will never forgive you for making us kill yours."

In the official discourse of post-World War II US power, Jewish children have been often invoked to illustrate the innocence of Israel, a tradition carried faithfully by Barack Obama's rhetoric. Refusing to even acknowledge Arab children as victims of Israel, on June 4, 2009, Obama told Arabs in his Cairo speech: "It is a sign of neither courage nor power to shoot rockets at sleeping children, or to blow up old women on a bus. That is not how moral authority is claimed; that is how it is surrendered." He reiterated this in his May 19, 2011 "winds of change" speech, declaring: "For decades, the conflict between Israelis and Arabs has cast a shadow over the region. For Israelis, it has meant living with the fear that their children could get blown up on a bus or by rockets fired at their homes, as well as the pain of knowing that other children in the region are taught to hate them."

Later that week, in his speech to the American-Israeli Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) on May 22, Obama expressed sympathy with the hardship colonising Jews experience while appropriating the lands of the Palestinians: "I saw the daily struggle to survive in the eyes of an eight-year old [Jewish] boy who lost his leg to a Hamas rocket." He averred that the US and Israel, presumably unlike Palestinians or Arabs more generally, "both seek a region where families and their children can live free from the threat of violence".
Endorsing Israel's illegal occupation of East Jerusalem, he asserted: "We also know how difficult that search for security can be, especially for a small nation like Israel in a tough neighbourhood. I've seen it firsthand. When I touched my hand against the Western Wall and placed my prayer between its ancient stones, I thought of all the centuries that the children of Israel had longed to return to their ancient homeland." Aside from borrowing anti-Black American white racism with the use of terms like "tough neighbourhood" - a term first borrowed by Binyamin Netanyahu to refer to the Middle East over a decade ago - wherein Arabs are the "violent blacks" of the Middle East and Jews are the "peaceful white folks", Obama's endorsement of the Israeli claim that East Jerusalem is part of the Jewish homeland is the first such official US endorsement of Israel's illegal occupation of the city.

Defusing the Palestinian "demographic bomb"  
Nonetheless, Obama's attention lay elsewhere, in the fear he expresses of Arab children. He first articulated this fear in his May 19 speech: "The fact is, a growing number of Palestinians live west of the Jordan River." In his speech to AIPAC three days later, Obama reiterated his fear once more, as the first "fact" and threat that Israel, Jews, and the US must face: "Here are the facts we all must confront. First, the number of Palestinians living west of the Jordan River is growing rapidly and fundamentally reshaping the demographic realities of both Israel and the Palestinian territories." This is hardly a new fear, as Israelis have annual conferences, and have developed all kinds of political and military strategies, to deal with their fear of Palestinian children, whom Israel's President Shimon Peres calls a "demographic bomb" that he wants to defuse. Golda Meir herself once revealed in the early seventies that she could not sleep worrying about the number of Palestinian children being conceived every night. If children are the future - except that Arab children are a negation of it - then the crux of the argument is simple: Israel can only have a future with more Jewish children and fewer Arab children.


Murdering Arab children

The story of Arab children, and especially Palestinian ones, is not only tragic in the context of Israeli violence, but one that also remains ignored, deliberately marginalised, and purposely suppressed in the US and Western media - and in Western political discourse. When Zionist terrorists began to attack Palestinian civilians in the 1930s and 1940s, Palestinian children fell victims. The most famous of these attacks include the Zionist blowing up of Palestinian cafes with grenades (such as occurred in Jerusalem on March 17, 1937) and placing electrically timed mines in crowded market places (first used against Palestinians in Haifa on July 6, 1938).

While the violence of the 1930s was the first introduction to the Middle East of such horrific terrorist violence, it is in the 1947-48 Zionist invasion of Palestinian villages and towns that Palestinian children were deliberately not spared. In December 1947, one of the first attacks by the Haganah (the pre-Israel Zionist paramilitary army) first attacks - which would become typical in this period - targeted the Palestinian village of Khisas in the Galilee and killed four Palestinian children. This proved to be a small number compared with the subsequent mass murders awaiting the Palestinians. In the village of Al-Dawayimah, where the Haganah committed a massacre in October 1948, an Israeli army soldier, quoted by Israeli historian Benny Morris, described the scene as such:

The first [wave] of conquerors killed about 80 to 100 [male] Arabs, women, and children. The children they killed by breaking their heads with sticks. There was not a house without dead... One commander ordered a sapper to put two old women in a certain house... and to blow up the house with them. The sapper refused... The commander then ordered his men to put in the old women and the evil deed was done. One soldier boasted that he had raped a woman and then shot her. One woman, with a newborn baby in her arms, was employed to clean the courtyard where the soldiers ate. She worked a day or two. In the end they shot her and her baby.
Palestinian children were murdered along with adults in April 1948 in the Deir Yassin massacre, to name the most well known slaughter of 1948. This would continue not only during Israel's wars against Arabs in 1956, 1967, 1973, 1978, 1982, 1996, 2006, and 2008, when thousands of children fell victim to indiscriminate Israeli bombardment, but also in more outright massacres: in Qibya in 1953 where even the school was not spared Israel's destruction; in Kafr Kassem in 1956 where the Israeli army massacred 46 unarmed Palestinian citizens of Israel, 23 of whom were children. This trend would continue. In April 1970, during the War of Attrition with Egypt, Israel bombed an Egyptian elementary school in Bahr al-Baqar. Of the 130 school children in attendance, 46 were killed, and over 50 wounded, many of them maimed for life. The school was completely demolished. The first Israeli massacre at Qana in Lebanon in 1996 spared no child or adult, and the second massacre in the same village in 2006 did the same - adults aside, 16 children were killed that year.

The number of Palestinian children killed by Israeli soldiers in the first intifada (1987-1993) was 213, not counting the hundreds of induced miscarriages from tear gas grenades thrown inside closed areas targeting pregnant women, and aside from the number of the injured. The Swedish branch of Save the Children estimated that "23,600 to 29,900 children required medical treatment for their beating injuries in the first two years of the intifada", one third of whom were children under the age of ten years old. In the same period, Palestinian attacks resulted in the death of five Israeli children. In the second intifada (2000-2004), Israeli soldiers killed more than 500 children with at least 10,000 injured, and 2,200 children arrested. The televised murder of the Palestinian child Muhammad al-Durra shook the world - but not Israeli Jews, whose government concocted the most outrageous and criminal of stories to exonerate Israel. In the Israeli attack on Gaza in December 2008, 1,400 Palestinians were killed, of whom 313 were children.
This exhibition of atrocity is not simply about regurgitating the history and present of Israel's murder of Arab children for the past six decades and beyond - a history well-known across the Arab world - but to demonstrate how obscene Obama's references to Jewish children are when he insists to Arabs that they must show sympathy with Jewish children, without ever enjoining Jews to show sympathy with the far larger number of Arab children killed by Jews. But Obama himself shows no sympathy with Arab children. Had he attempted to mourn the Arab children who fell and fall victim to Israeli violence at the rate of hundreds, if not thousands, of Arab children to one Jewish child, Arabs might have forgiven him this indiscretion.

Alas, Obama has no place in his heart for Arab children, only for Jewish ones. He even manages to infantilise Israeli Jewish soldiers who kill Palestinians, as nothing short of innocent children whose families miss them. In his AIPAC speech, Obama calls on Hamas "to release Gilad Shalit, who has been kept from his family for five long years", but not on Israel to release the 6,000 Palestinian political prisoners, who include 300 Palestinian children, languishing in Israel's dungeons for many more years. Perhaps Obama could have at least mentioned the reports of Israeli soldiers' torture of detained Palestinian children issued in late 2010 by Israeli human rights groups. In the case of detained Palestinian sixth graders, in addition to being beaten up and deprived of sleep by Israeli soldiers, two thirteen-year old children testified that "the most awful thing that happened, was when the soldiers went to the bathroom, they peed on us and did not use the toilet. One of them videotaped it." But Obama was not moved by their plight, for they were not Jewish children.

Zionism and Jewish children

 Interestingly and unlike Obama, Zionism did not always show similar love towards Jewish children, whom it never flinched from sacrificing for its colonial goals. In the Nazi period, Zionist leaders, for example, protested strongly against granting European Jews refuge in any country other than Palestine. In December 1938, David Ben-Gurion responded to a British offer, in the aftermath of Kristallnacht, to take thousands of German Jewish children directly to Britain by saying: "If I knew it would be possible to save all the children in Germany by bringing them to England, and only half of them by transporting them to Eretz Yisrael (the land of Israel), then I would opt for the second alternative, for we must weigh not only the life of these children but also the history of the people of Israel." http://leftwing-christian.net/2011/09/27/media-ignore-heart-wrenching-death-of-palestinian-boy.aspxFor Zionism, Jewish children are as expendable as Palestinian and Arab children, unless they serve its colonial goals. In light of this, it becomes clear that it is not simply the Jewishness or Arabness of children that makes them expendable or not, but their insertion into a political project as figures that can advance its goals or constitute obstacles to them.

Israel's recruitment of Jewish children in paramilitary organisations, which began in 1948, continues apace, and is perhaps best exemplified in its Gadna ["Youth Battalions"] programme, where young Jewish boys and girls are prepared early for their future military service in the most militarised state on earth. The most outrageous use of Jewish children, however, would be illustrated when the Israeli army invited them to write messages of hate on the missiles about to be launched against Lebanese children during Israel's July 2006 invasion of Lebanon. Captured by an Associated Press cameraman, the picture of blond Jewish girls near the Israeli town of Kiryat Shmona writing messages of death to Lebanese children circulated the globe - though it remains unclear if they ever made their way to Obama's desk. It is important to note that Obama might have met these same blond girls when he visited Kiryat Shmona a few months earlier, in January 2006. He recalled later that the town resembled an ordinary suburb in the US, where he could imagine the sounds of Israeli children "at joyful play just like my own daughters".

Teaching children to hate

 Given this history, not only are Palestinian children guilty of hating Israeli Jews, but also, Obama insists, they have no reason to hate Jews unless their evil elders indoctrinate them to do so. Binyamin Netanyahu himself, in his speech before Congress last week, reiterated Obama's condemnation of Palestinians who allegedly "continue to educate their children to hate". But what about Israeli Jewish children's hatred of Arabs? A March 2010 poll by Tel Aviv University found that 49.5 per cent of Israeli Jewish high school students believe Palestinian citizens of Israel should not be entitled to the same rights as Jews in Israel; 56 per cent believe they should not be eligible for election to the Knesset, the Israeli parliament. According to a report in January 2011 in the largest Israeli daily Yediot Aharonot, Jewish teachers in Israel stated that anti-Arab racism among Jewish students reached alarming levels, advocating killing Palestinians. The teachers found graffiti written on school walls and even on exam papers stating "Death To Arabs". According to the report, a student at a school in Tel Aviv told his teacher during class that his dream is to become a soldier so he can exterminate all Arabs; several students in his class applauded in support of him. This, in no small amount, is the direct result of the racist Israeli school curricula with which Jewish children are regularly indoctrinated.

In his speech to Congress, Prime Minister Netanyahu correctly diagnosed the situation on the ground. He declared: "Our conflict has never been about the establishment of a Palestinian state. It has always been about the existence of the Jewish state." It is the establishment of a Jewish settler colony that the Palestinians must accept to ensure a future for Jewish children and terminate a future for Palestinian children. Indeed it is precisely the refusal of Arabs to adopt Arabopedophobia that is the biggest impediment to peace in the region. Obama hopes that a Palestinian bantustan could limit the threat that Palestinian children constitute to the nightmare that is "the Jewish and democratic state". He recognises that the world can no longer claim to support universalism while endorsing Israel's right to discriminate against non-Jews. In his AIPAC speech, he said as much when he told Israel's lobby that the entire world, including Asia, Latin America, Europe (and he could have added Africa, which he inexplicably excluded) and the Arab World can no longer tolerate Israel's institutionalised racism; that America in fact stands alone with Israel today. Clearly, Obama's love for Jewish children knows no limits. His Arabopaedophobic views, however, are not accidental, but are motivated by his great love for the "children of Israel", a love that can only be realised through continued hatred and containment of all Arabs, children and adults alike.
Joseph Massad is Associate Professor of Modern Arab Politics and Intellectual History at Columbia University. He is author of The Persistence of the Palestinian Question (Routledge, 2006). 

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian