Arms Sales-An Alternative To Dialogue

Wednesday, January 24, 2007

Christopher R. Brauchli

But I’m always true to you, darlin’ in my fashion, yes,
I’m always true to you, darlin, in my way.
— Ella Fitzgerald Song

There’s one thing George Bush knows. You don’t get to be the biggest arms merchant in the world by only selling arms to friends. If that were the case the only countries to which we’d sell arms would be countries like Great Britain and Canada and they’re not going to buy enough to keep us in first place. And it’s not Mr. Bush’s fault that he doesn’t know that there is a history in the United States of selling arms to people who have ended up using the arms against the United States. After all, it’s hard enough for him to keep up with what’s going on right now.

If Mr. Bush knew history, he’d know that in the 1980s the United States sold Iran 12,000 anti-tank missiles, 235 Hawk missiles and 200 Phoenix air-to-air missiles costing more than $1 million each. He’d recall that when we thought Mr. bin Laden was our friend for trying to kick the Soviets out of Afghanistan (a country to which we are now bringing law and order in order to show the Russians how good old American know-how can get the job done) we provided him with stinger missiles. The ones bin Laden couldn’t use he sold to Iran and got cash that has helped in his ongoing battle with his former arms supplier). Now Mr. Bush is arming the Palestinian organization known as Fatah.

President Mahmoud Abbas is a member of the Fatah party and the president of the Palestinian Authority. He was elected in 2005 and until 2006 Fatah controlled the Palestinian Authority. Some parts of Fatah get along with Israel-sort of. In 2006 legislative elections were held. Hamas won and took control of parliament. Fatah cabinet members resigned and were replaced by Hamas members. Hamas does not get along with Israel. It wants it removed from the face of the earth. Since the elections, relations between Fatah and Hamas have been tense and often violent. The two groups have tried unsuccessfully to form a unity government and since that failed have resorted to shooting at one another in the streets.

Mr. Bush is very concerned about the destabilizing effect a full-scale conflict between the two groups could have on the region. He fears it could turn into another Iraq. One way of dealing with the concern would be for him to initiate talks with the two groups and see if there is a way forward that would protect Israel’s right to exist while at the same time eliminating the risk of civil war between Hamas and Fatah. That is impossible because the United States (and Israel for that matter) do not talk to groups that are dedicated to the destruction of Israel. Mr. Bush also doesn’t talk to countries he doesn’t like but that’s another story. Ever creative, Mr. Bush has another plan. Sell arms.

Mr. Bush is going to pour $86 million into the coffers of Fatah. That is more than the total of all the monies the United States has given the PLO since it was formed in 1994. None of this aid would be necessary if Fatah had not lost the 2006 election. The money will help it regain what it lost at the ballot box. Mr. Bush understands that kind of thinking since he had to go the Supreme Court to become president after losing at the ballot box.

According to media reports in late December, with Israel’s and the United States’s approval, 2,000 AK-47s and two million bullets were transferred to Mr. Abbas’s security forces, many of whom are loyal to Mr. Abbas and to Fatah. (Fatah’s armed wing known as Al-Aqsa fighters are hostile to Israel and some Fatah folk have launched terrorist attacks against both the U.S and Israel but Mr. Bush hopes those people won’t be given those weapons.) With $86 million it’s a sure bet there will be lots more weapons heading Fatah’s way. More arms is a sure fire way to bring peace to that region.

There is, of course, always the chance that the arms being sold will eventually be used against the merchant (us) or even Israel. That is because there are people loyal to Fatah who dislike Israel. Bassam Eid, head of the Palestinian Rights Monitoring Group in East Jerusalem says the Fatah faction is not a moderate movement and that the infusion of cash will “double the number of thugs” in Fatah. Dennis Roth, a Middle East advisor to two administrations said: “The $86 million reflects the basic sense in the administration that the only way to change things is through confrontation.”
That is not surprising. Bullies are usually inarticulate and prefer a show of force to a show of brains, especially when not possessed of the latter. Mr. Bush is their poster child.

Discuss this column [1]

Christopher Brauchli, columnist and lawyer is known nationally for his work.

He is a graduate of Harvard University and the University of Colorado School of Law where he served on the Board of Editors of the Rocky Mountain Law Review. Chris served as President of the Boulder Bar Association in 1974-1975 and the Colorado Bar Association in 1989-1990. He is a fellow in the American College of Trust and Estate Counsel, the American Bar Foundation, the Colorado Bar Foundation and the Boulder Bar Foundation of which he was the founder and first president. He was the founder and first President of the Colorado Bar Association’s Lend-a-Lawyer, Inc., a program designed to provide legal services to the less fortunate members of society through out the State of Colorado. Chris is the author of The Human Race and Other Sports, a newspaper column that is syndicated by Knight Ridder newswire.

Canada is now accepting Jewish refugees - from Israel

Related
Immigration to Israel falls to 18 year low
World Jewry is losing its interest in Israel: Under the current state of affairs, is it any question why Israel is not attractive?
---
Thousands of Israelis seeking asylum in Canada: reports

Last Updated: Friday, January 26, 2007 | 12:35 PM ET

CBC News

At least 3,000 Israelis, most of them citing a fear of spousal abuse and Palestinian violence, have requested asylum in Canada since 2000, recent reports out of Israel said.

Two major newspapers in Israel said that Canada has already granted refugee status to hundreds of Israelis, but thousands of others have filed applications.

The reports, from the Yediot Ahronot and Maariv newspapers, both quoted figures from the Israeli Foreign Ministry that show at least 3,000 Israelis filed applications seeking asylum in Canada. Maariv said that upwards of 500 of the applications had been approved in the last six years.

Yediot quoted the Israeli Ambassador to Canada, Alan Barker, as saying many of the applications Canadian officials were seeing were in fact bogus and that they were "harming Israel's image and representing it as a country whose citizens are persecuted."

Israeli Foreign Ministry spokesman Mark Regev said the department was aware of the number of Israelis seeking asylum in Canada, and said "we have taken the matter up with the Canadians," but he did not elaborate.

The Canadian embassy in Tel Aviv said it did not have the data, and referred inquiries to the government in Ottawa.

With files from the Associated Press

Rabbit in the headlights

The fate of a tiny Palestinian village highlights what is wrong with Israel's policies.

January 27, 2007 02:30 PM

Seth Freedman

Sometimes it's hard to be Israeli. There are those who think the Arab world wants to kill us all, there are those who think that Europe unfairly singles us out for harsh criticism, there are those who think that, apart from America, we don't have a single friend out there at all. Then there're those - like me - who think we deserve all we get.

As I sat on the ruins of yet another demolished house in the tragic village of al-Nu'eman yesterday, I wondered why we think we merit any kind of sympathy at all.

You reap what you sow. And what we've sown in al-Nu'eman can only yield a harvest of more anger, more bitterness, more hate. And that's just from the residents - what the rest of the world will feel for the Zionist machine is another story altogether.

To put it succinctly, Al-Nu'eman has been done like the proverbial kipper. Twenty-two houses, home to a tight-knit community who have lived in the same hills for generations, it sits on land annexed by Israel during the 1967 war.

However, due to the villagers' clan chief living in a town located deeper in the West Bank, al-Nu'eman residents were registered under his address, and consequently denied Israeli status and IDs. This meant they could not enter Jerusalem - fine, until the plans for the security wall were finalised. Al-Nu'eman is to be fenced off, like countless other Palestinian hamlets and villages, but - and this is the Kafkaesque nightmare - they'll be on the Israeli side of the wall when it's completed.

West Bank residents who can't go to the West Bank. People living in Israel proper who can't go into Israel. Prisoners in their own homes? Spot on. And an utter disgrace.

I'm not going to bang a drum for peace, co-existence, make-love-not-war, and so on. I'll leave that to the Israeli girls with flowers in their hair, to the long-haired Israeli boys back from Goa with opium-infused fantasies. I don't reckon I'll see a lasting peace in the region during my lifetime - and, truth be told, that's not the reason I go on trips like these.

Just like I served in the army to try and understand the Israeli psyche better, so I go to Ramallah, Bethlehem, Hebron, etc, to see the other side of the story. And, 90% of the time, I come away ashamed of my country in the same way that a child gets embarrassed by a racist or otherwise socially unacceptable parent.

I'm no mug - the fact that there are PFLP members among the town's residents doesn't exactly make me want to rent a villa there in the summer months; the fact that our host - Yusuf - wore a beaming smile and spoke perfect Ivrit doesn't convince me that he doesn't raise his kids to hate Jews, but then this is mere conjecture. Whereas the hard facts are these: Israel has stitched up this village - which is in many ways a microscopic example of the Occupied Territories as a whole - and, furthermore, the whole octopus of Israeli authority is complicit in the crime.

From the upper echelons of government who delay reviewing the residents' pleas for Israeli citizenship, to the municipality who serve demolition orders on the houses, to the boneheaded Magavniks who hassle the locals on an hourly basis. Magav, or border police, are the dregs of the army - the delinquent kids none of the other units want, those with criminal records and other behavioural issues. Often from poor immigrant families, they have a reputation for dishing out their own style of justice - up alleyways, out of the prying eyes of the media - and I know them only too well, from my 15 months in the IDF.

In late 2005, Magav thugs stopped two al-Nu'eman residents and tried to arrest them both. Only one cooperated and, to cut a long story short, the second was found later tied to his mule and beaten unconscious. The 43-year-old never came round - he died, and so too did the chance of his eight children ever forgetting and forgiving Israel for its deeds.

After meeting on Hebron road, we all climbed into our cars and set off for the village. We turned right, past the imposing, fortress-like settlement of Har Homa, and down into the lowland. Within seconds, the landscape became indistinguishable from the countryside in any of the Middle Eastern states. Dotted on the side of the golden, barren hills were stone houses, and down in the valleys were neatly planted rows of olive trees.

The roads we drove along were in such a state of disrepair that we were reduced to crawling pace. They are meant to be maintained by the Palestinian Authority but, as has been witnessed over the last decade of misrule, the swollen coffers of the PA are rarely put to good use for its people.

As we approached the edge of al-Nueman, up rocked a jeepful of Magav. Their first display of their might was to blare on their horn to attract the attention of two passing youths. They checked their IDs perfunctorily, nothing heavy, and to an outsider their behaviour was perfectly above board. I'm not saying any different but, having spent a month doing exactly the same in Beit Jalla, know that it is this low-level form of assertion of power that keeps the Palestinians constantly resentful of us - just as the black and Irish communities in London felt during the stop-and-search years.

We reached the house of Yusuf - a rotund, well-turned out resident and de facto head of the welcoming committee. He ushered us into a beautifully tended garden - lush grass, neat flowerbeds, and rather at odds with the villagers' assertion that their water was routinely cut off for weeks at a time by the army.

However, splitting hairs was not my aim here - just as listening to the sadly-familiar recounting of IDF abuses by Yusuf was also not my top priority. Anyone can meticulously detail the complaints of the Palestinians, the rebuttals by the Israelis, and go mad trying to see the wood for the trees.

Instead, I prefer to focus on my emotional reaction to the visit. Of the seven of us touring, two of the group were non-Jewish Europeans - one a human rights worker from Paris, the other a film-maker from Bosnia. Their presence sharpened my feeling of guilt and shame at what we were witnessing. Had we been a homogenous group, all Israeli and all Jewish, then perhaps I wouldn't have felt that our dirty laundry was being aired in public. And this is one of my main concerns with Israel's policy toward its Palestinian neighbours.

I don't claim to be a military expert, and I am sure that there are strategists who have an explanation for every little incident carried out by the army in the interests of national security (road blocks, ID checks, house demolitions), but this is not the point. To the outsider, the treatment of the West Bank residents is nothing short of brutal and oppressive, and it is no wonder that organisations such as the BBC treat Israel with such disdain when the likes of the Bosnian film-maker are exposed to situations like that of al-Nueman. We can decry Hamas's policies all we like, we can use suicide bombings as justification for the security wall, but - until our own house is put in order - we'll never win over world opinion. Or be able to hold our heads up high.

Al-Nu'eman is a tragedy, plain and simple. There can be no possible humane explanation for the complete cutting off of this unassuming cluster of houses from the outside world. It is nothing short of pure malice - and it's being done in my name. The government continues with the expansion of settlements, continues to fight terror with draconian measures, continues to rule the roost with an iron fist.

And almost no one cares enough about the plight of al-Nu'eman to do a thing about it. The futility and hopelessness of this particular village is overwhelming - the area has been earmarked for the extension of Har Homa, and the government are doing their level best to bully the residents into upping sticks and leaving.

Do the settlers know, or care, what their cheap housing means in terms of Palestinian distress and disruption? Does anyone in Magav realise the enormity of killing a father of eight and leaving him tied to his donkey yards from his family home? Does anyone in Israeli officialdom give a damn that we are displacing and dispossessing these people in exactly the same way as our enemies have been doing to us since Bible times?

I doubt it. And, much as the shame should be felt more by the main protagonists than the man on the street, we're all complicit in the crime by our ostrich-like refusal to acknowledge what's happening in our own backyard.

In the Book of Samuel, the prophet Nathan tells King David a parable, during his rebuking of the king for his underhand pursuit of Bathsheva. He speaks of two neighbours - one man very rich, with a flock of a thousand sheep, the other dirt poor, with just one lamb in his possession which he loves as though it were his own child. When a guest comes to visit the rich man, the wealthy farmer goes next door and steals the other man's only sheep, which he slaughters and serves to his friend for a meal. A totally unnecessary theft, a totally heartless and selfish act - and, I'm sorry to say, Israel is that rich farmer.

We appear to be pursuing a policy of making the Palestinians' lives a misery just because we can. Leaving aside that overbearing anti-terror measures are actually counterproductive (how many of the dead man's eight children will grow up to be peaceniks?), what has happened to the collective Israeli sense of right and wrong? Where did all the good guys go?

As we left the village, heading back for Jerusalem, Har Homa loomed above us, underneath thick evening clouds, atop its perch on the hill. For an instant, it appeared like a juggernaut thundering towards the West Bank - ready to crush anything in its way. Which is why I see al-Nu'eman as the rabbit, frozen in the headlights - unable to run, unable to avoid its inevitable crushing under the wheels of the 18-wheeled settlement lorry.

Only we, the voters and citizens of Israel, can put the handbrake on. And, until we do, we only have ourselves to blame when the world points its finger at us.

Seth Freedman is a freelance writer and journalist based in Jerusalem. He grew up in London and worked as a stockbroker in the City for six years, before moving to Israel. He writes for falsedichotomies.com

Overblown Threat and Islamophobia

By Abukar Arman

Jan 27, 2007, 11:49

abukar_arman@yahoo.com

Analysts both in the Muslim and the Western world by and large agree that “fear” and lack of objective dialogue are the root cause of Islamophobia and Anti-Americanism. And while the debate on which one of the two ignited the other is still ongoing, one fact remains irrefutable: more people were victimized as a result of Islamophobia than the other way around.

A recent public opinion survey conducted by the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) indicates that Muslims are still viewed negatively in the U.S. There are estimated 7 million Muslims in America and over 50 thousand in Central Ohio alone- the majority being Somalis.

Among a number of questions raised in the survey, the open-end question “When you hear the word ‘Muslim,’ what is the first thought that comes to your mind?” had the revealed the most daunting reality that Muslims still carry the 9/11 burden. Six percent of those surveyed indicated positive perception as they offered response such “good religion,” “good people,” “faithful,” “devout,” “misunderstood.” On the other hand, twenty-six percent of them indicated to espouse negative perceptions about Muslims as they offered answers such as “violence,” “hatred,” “terrorists,” “war,” “guns,” “towel-heads” and “rag-heads.”

The irony is that this came at a time when Muslims in the U.S. and in the West were doing more outreach than ever before. Are the powerful engines that propel the “war on terror” blowing smoke of fear and distrust that ultimately hindered efforts toward building bridges of understanding?

I recently had an opportunity to interview Professor John Mueller, the author of bestselling book Overblown: How Politicians and the Terrorism Industry Inflate National Security Threats, and Why We Believe Them. Professor Mueller is a national security expert. He holds the Woody Hayes Chair of National Security Studies at the Mershon Center.

In that interview arranged by SomaliLink Journal, Professor Mueller reiterated the premise of his book that America is frightened senseless…and that there are some “well-meaning” special interest groups “who grossly exaggerated the threat of terrorism” and as a result created “terrorism industry” that in due course became an economic abyss.

The national treasury is being drained as the U.S. tries to build a bulwark against a mirage of fear and dashes to every corner of the world where “al-Qaida flag is waved.”

“If there were any sleeper cells or al-Qaida operatives who are as determined, as inventive and as demonically competent as assumed, why have they not done it yet, especially when carrying a terrorist act does not require flying planes into buildings? Could it be because they are not yet here? If not, they must not been trying hard enough or perhaps they are far less dedicated, diabolical, and competent than we are being told.” said Professor Mueller. “Apparently, there are no terrorists under the bed or hiding in mosques- the very lamppost that they should be avoiding in the first place” he added.

And while Professor Mueller acknowledged the need and the importance of enhancing the security of the United States, he repeatedly pointed out the sheer absurdity that justifies the post 9/11 fear-driven policies and initiatives. He said the FBI embraces a spooky line of reasoning that he refers to as “I-think-therefore-they-are”. He quoted the FBI Director Robert Mueller who said “…the greatest threat is from al-Qaida cells in the U.S. that we have not yet identified," who substantiates his claim by repeating “his alarmist mantra” and telling the public “I remain very concerned about what we are not seeing."

According to Professor Mueller, it is this kind of mindset combined with the rhetoric of fear-mongering politicians whose aim often is to frighten voters to their side; lazy journalism and the media’s desire to sensationalize the news; and those in the security business who are motivated to seize this golden opportunity to push their profits and services and maximize their profits that perpetuate the terrorism industry, keep Muslims demonized, and the anti-terrorism laws irrationally rigid.

Even a well-meaning innocent person could be held as an “enemy combatant”.

“When a judge raised a hypothetical question on who might be detained as an enemy combatant and asked ‘what about an old lady in Switzerland who donates money to an orphanage in Afghanistan who, unbeknown to her, finances al-Qaida? Could she be detained as an enemy combatant? The answer provided by the Justice Department representative was simply “Yes”.

The rationale of course is that ‘we live in age of terror’- a notion that Professor Mueller outright rejects as “hyperbolic”. He said “the probability of an American being killed by an act of terrorism is 1 in 80,000, which is more or less the same probability of being hit by an asteroid.” But, no one is frightening people with the latter.

“Including 9/11 in the count, the number of Americans killed by international terrorism in the last three decades is about the same as the number of Americans killed over the same period by lightning, accident-causing deer, or severe allergic reaction to peanuts.” Yet, the message often repeated is that the sky is about to fall….which makes diplomacy seem irrelevant. Despite all this, Professor Mueller still maintains a rare sense of optimism. He believes an introspective government working with people of goodwill can change the course of history.

And, in order to reverse the current trend, two main things must happen: first, the gross inflation of the threat of terrorism that implicitly portrays Muslims as ticking bombs must be appropriately calibrated. Second, diplomacy and constructive dialogue must be revived, and moderate Muslims must be engaged.

Abukar Arman is a freelance writer who lives in Ohio.

Watada points out our responsibilities

Sunday, January 28, 2007
Joe Copeland
P-I COLUMNIST

If Army 1st Lt. Ehren Watada has some extra hope this morning about ending the Iraq war, Americans can take a little credit. Toward the end of last week, the 28-year-old officer who courageously refused orders to go to Iraq was hoping for good turnouts in anti-war events planned for Saturday in Washington, D.C., and elsewhere.

After four years of quiescence in the face of a wrongly launched war that has gone from "Mission Accomplished" to what a top commander finally confessed is a "dire" situation, Americans ought to demand a change of course. Change requires more public involvement than voting out a few congressional incumbents. National protest organizers hoped for up to 300,000 people to march Saturday.

Watada has had the courage to point out citizens' responsibilities. As he awaits a court-martial beginning Feb. 5 for acting responsibly and refusing to serve in what he regards as an illegal war (he volunteered to go to Afghanistan instead), Watada is allowed to travel up to 250 miles from Fort Lewis. He has been telling groups in Seattle, Tacoma and elsewhere that citizens have the power to end the war.

His honesty isn't surprising, and asking people to take responsibility doesn't at all go beyond what Watada expects of himself. When most of the country was still following President Bush's post-Sept. 11 admonitions to go shopping, Watada decided to enlist in a delayed-entry program while he wrapped up studies at Hawaii Pacific University.

As we went to war, Watada believed the false talk about imminent danger to the United States and weapons of mass destruction. His views changed as he read up on Iraq in preparation, as he put it, to be a better leader of troops under his command. Instead, the growing knowledge led him to become the only commissioned officer known to refuse Iraq duty, acknowledging from the start that he might have to carry the imprisonment that the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. and other practitioners of civil disobedience felt was their responsibility to accept in calling attention to wrongful government policy. In Watada's case, the prison time could be as much as six years.

Watada talks about a small group that regularly protests in Seattle. But, he asks, "Where are the other 600,000 people in Seattle?"

More than anything, I wanted to know from Watada what he thought others of us should be doing. He starts with where his journey began: learning about our country's actions. Then there is the matter of doing something. Action certainly started with the November elections (although, as Watada points out, the turnout means only a limited number of people sent any message).

Without more pressure on national leaders, it's not safe to assume they will change the country's course. The Iraq Study Group's bipartisan recommendations to start withdrawal planning got tossed. Generals seem willing to complain publicly about missteps, but only after they have their pensions. Unless better in the way of preventing needless deaths of U.S. troops and Iraqis is demanded by the public, members of Congress likely will settle for -- at best -- resolutions of disapproval for the war's escalation. Non-binding resolutions will just draw snarling dismissals from Vice President Dick Cheney. But maybe members of Congress think they can satisfy voters by saying, see, we told the president what a mistake he was making.

Watada said, "No longer can we say, 'Oh, the Democrats will take care of it. Or, the peace activists will take care of it' " and simply go about our lives.

Staffers to politicians have told him that their bosses listen to the public. "But you know what, if it is the same person calling over and over," the call is very easy to dismiss, he said.

He thinks more individuals need to speak up, and organizations -- churches, labor unions, student groups and faculties -- need to lend their voices. And he thinks the public should tell big donors to speak on their behalf and demand the media go beyond their "lazy and inadequate attempt to cover the news."

As someone occasionally shocked by the behavior of fellow Vietnam war protesters, I wondered how a conscientious young soldier of this generation looked at street demonstrations: Will protest lead to the kind of divisions and lack of regard for U.S. troops seen during Vietnam? "That is why knowledge is first and foremost," Watada said. "We need to come together as Americans." We need to understand, he said, that simply being there is inflaming rather than improving Iraq.

Watada is idealistic enough to expect a lot of people to act. He has been disappointed in the amount of attention his case has received in most of the media. But, he said, "I think my stand and my case have raised the level of awareness and thinking about what we are doing in Iraq and what our soldiers are being forced to do."

Beyond knowledge, though, is action, whether it is writing a letter, making a call or getting out of our chairs to make our views known.

By JOE COPELAND

Joe Copeland is an editorial writer and member of the P-I Editorial Board. E-mail: joecopeland@seattlepi.com.

Serbia's Next PM Faces Imperial Carve-Up

Related UN plan for Kosovo promises independence, with strings --- January 27, 2007

And the Winner Is…

by Nebojsa Malic

The general elections in Serbia, held on January 21, were described as "low-key" by the BBC. Somewhat greater voter turnout than in the past – 60% of the electorate showed up at the polls – didn't translate into clear results, however. Of the 250 seats in the Skupstina, the Serbian Radical Party (SRS) got the biggest share – 81 – but not enough to form a majority. Sixty-four seats went to the Democratic Part (DS) of President Boris Tadic, and 47 to the Popular Bloc of outgoing Prime Minister Vojislav Kostunica. His former coalition partners, G17 Plus, won 19 seats. Sixteen went to the Socialists (SPS), once led by Slobodan Milosevic, and eight were filled with candidates from ethnic minority parties. Fifteen seats went to a coalition led by Cedomir Jovanovic's Liberal Democrats (LDP). Cheering from the Sidelines From the very beginning, the campaign was influenced from the outside – first by the decision of the UN to postpone its recommendations on the future status of the occupied Serbian province of Kosovo, and then by the constant pressure from the EU and US to elect "pro-Western" candidates. UK and US ambassadors wrote editorials in Serbian papers, hectoring voters. So did the British PM Tony Blair. US diplomat Daniel Fried openly cheered for the Democratic Party. After the results were announced, these same people issued congratulations to the "democratic victors" – obviously expecting their favorites to somehow overcome their internal disputes and form a government that would obediently accept diktats from the Empire, just as DOS once did. Winners and Losers Even though they got the largest share of the votes, the Radicals didn't really win the election. They cannot form a government of their own, and the odds of other parties forming a coalition with them are slim. This is mostly because the Radicals are reviled by the Empire, and the other parties are competing mainly in who can grovel more and better before Washington and Brussels. Similarly, the Democrats may claim victory, but they won far fewer votes than they hoped for, and now have the unenviable choice of making deals with parties they've sniped at in the past. Some analysts float the mathematical possibility of a DS-G17-LDP minority government, but the leadership conflicts in this arrangement make it an unlikely development in reality. Kostunica and his Popular Bloc didn't do too well, but are still in a strong position to influence policy, and may well become a junior partner in the new government. The biggest winners by far are Cedomir Jovanovic and the LDP. Formerly a fringe splinter of the Democrats, the LDP gathered up all the loud, malicious voices of Jacobinism and Empire-worship and won parliamentary representation. Already wielding public influence widely disproportionate to their marginal political strength, the Jacobins now have a parliamentary outlet. Conversely, the elections were an utter defeat for Vuk Draskovic, whose coalition with Kostunica in the last government got him the position of Foreign Minister. His party, once considered the main opposition to Milosevic, didn't even qualify to enter the parliament. The post-Milosevic Serbia has been cursed by an astoundingly poor choice of top diplomats in times when diplomacy was crucial – first the treacherous Goran Svilanovic, then the uncouth, self-centered Draskovic – so whoever follows on the job would almost have to be an improvement by default. This being Serbia, that is by no means a foregone conclusion. Kosovo Looming Unfortunately, what Serbia needs most at this juncture is a strong government and a strong diplomacy. After delaying the proposal for "resolving" the status of occupied Kosovo for almost three months, UN envoy Martti Ahtisaari has met with Contact Group representatives in Vienna this Friday, and is scheduled to announce his plan to Belgrade and the Albanians next week. Ahtisaari – and more importantly, those in the US and Europe pushing for a separation of Kosovo from Serbia – are seizing on the moment when the government in Belgrade is in transition. Another clue is in the perception of the Democrats: "The major parties all say they will not accept the loss of Kosovo, but the Democratic Party of President Boris Tadic – the party favored by the West – has come closest to telling Serbs that it might be inevitable." (Reuters) Britain's Daily Telegraph phrased it similarly, calling the Democrats "the only major party to accept that Kosovan sovereignty is probably a fait accompli." Western cheerleading for Tadic and his party now begins to make sense. Ahtisaari's Plan In a feature published Thursday, Reuters writer Douglas Hamilton rightly described what's coming as the "carve-up" of Serbia. Hamilton cites Ahtisaari's claim that his proposal "provides the foundations for a democratic and multiethnic Kosovo in which the rights and interests of all members of its communities are firmly guaranteed and protected." That is, of course, complete and utter nonsense. If human rights of non-Albanians could not have been protected in the past seven-plus years, with a UN government and a presence of up to 60,000 NATO troops, how can anyone honestly expect that a KLA-dominated Albanian regime running an independent Kosovo would guarantee them? The systematic murder and expulsion of Serbs, and destruction of Serb property and heritage, that have taken place during the occupation are crystal clear indicators that no Serbs would survive in an independent "Kosova." Otherwise, why would NATO be "braced for a possible Serb exodus"? (Reuters) Matt Robinson of Reuters cites "diplomatic and UN sources" as to the contents of Ahtisaari's plan, considering Kosovo's separation a fait accompli. According to these enthusiastic leaks, the proposal "gives Kosovo the right to enter into international agreements and apply for membership of international organizations and institutions… talks of the right to ‘dual-citizenship' and urges Pristina to establish good relations with Serbia and other neighboring states." Of course, all this would be done under the supervision of 15,000 NATO troops and an EU governor, with similar powers to those of the Bosnian Viceroys since Dayton. As "compensation," Serbs would get some local autonomy, empty promises about protection of heritage, and the possibility of getting money from Belgrade – so long as Pristina takes a cut first. "In effect, Kosovo would be given the attributes of independence but remain under the wing of the international community … similar to the status given to Bosnia in 1995," comments the Financial Times. Deliberate Attrition Faced with unexpected opposition from Belgrade and Moscow over the past year or so, the US and EU imperialists appear to have decided the solution to their Kosovo conundrum should be more of the same. They know they have no legal grounds for declaring the occupied province independent. A recent LA Times article analyzing the "inevitable" loss of Kosovo, contained this interesting passage: "US diplomats queried on the point said that lawyers had not looked at the precedents but that Kosovo's case was different because it had been a UN protectorate, and that the Serbian ‘ethnic cleansing' there in 1999 in effect ended Serbia's right to control the province." This sort of "logic" is ludicrous. Kosovo was made a UN protectorate in 1999 following an illegal NATO aggression, launched not to stop alleged "ethnic cleansing," but to impose a peace agreement (Rambouillet). Faced with a shortage of arguments, the Empire is trying the argument of force; to effect, continuing the occupation until "status quo" becomes so entrenched that independence remains the only option. Ahtisaari's proposal doesn't end the occupation, but rather redefines it – to benefit the independence cause. The rationalization offered by editors at the Los Angeles Times, who endorsed the Ahtisaari proposal, confirms this reasoning: "…the UN compromise is the only practical solution for now… The two sides aren't ready to be peaceful neighbors, but taking small steps in that direction, while preserving the peace, would help them get used to the idea" 'Nice, Soft Landing' Imperial policymakers may think that by establishing a "democratic" government in Belgrade they've neutralized Serb opposition, and that Moscow would accept some sort of payoff (neither of which may be true), but that still leaves the Albanians themselves to manage. Promised independence by the KLA, having seen NATO support it in 1999 with bombs and boots on the ground, and assured near-constantly by the partisan press and high-powered allies in the West that their seizure of Kosovo was a foregone conclusion, the Albanians are getting impatient and unhappy. Certainly many of their leaders understand what Ahtisaari's proposal will eventually accomplish, but how do they communicate this to the masses they've fired up to extraordinary lengths of single-minded hatred? EU's foreign policy commissar Javier Solana, himself a key player in the events of 1999, told the Albanians this week, "It is very important that everybody behaves properly if we want the last part of the journey to have a nice, soft landing." Facing a Choice In order to make Kosovo's separation "nice and soft," the Empire needs Serbia's acquiescence. The pressure is again on Serbia to approve of this land grab. Whoever ends up leading the new government in Belgrade will have to make a choice: defend Serbian sovereignty, constitution and interests, or submit to Imperial coercion. While Moscow's support is promising, Russia can't – and shouldn't – fight battles the Serbs themselves aren't interested in fighting. However watered down, Ahtisaari's proposal is still secession. There is no way Belgrade can, or should, agree to this. Nebojsa Malic left his home in Bosnia after the Dayton Accords and currently resides in the United States. During the Bosnian War he had exposure to diplomatic and media affairs in Sarajevo. As a historian who specializes in international relations and the Balkans, Malic has written numerous essays on the Kosovo War, Bosnia, and Serbian politics. His exclusive column for Antiwar.com debuted in November 2000. "Balkan Express" appears every Thursday. For more of his thoughts on the Balkans and other topics, check out his blog.

Mengele in Mesapotamia

Friday, January 26, 2007

Felicity Arbuthnot

26th January marks Holocaust Memorial Day in the U.K., established by Prime Minister Blair in 2001.The message of the Holocaust was ; ' never again', so, at this time, have you noticed that there are no Iraqis anymore?

No children: no Alis, Jassims, Omars, Sabahs, Husseins; no Nairas, Ranins, Yasmins, Esthers, Fetuahs. No Parents; no Umm (mother of) Jassim, Ranin, Sabah, or Abus' (father of) Yasmin, Ali, Omar ... there are no Am or Khal (uncles) or Ama and Khala (aunts) no Jeda (grandmothers) or Jedu (grandfathers.)

No familes, friends, taleb (students) yufadh (teachers) mentors, coaches, shop keepers, friends to children on a special household errand. No fish, date, fruit, falafal, pistachio sellers ... In Iraq, humanity has been erased.

Instead there are 'terrorists', 'insurgents', 'Ba'athistremanants','militants', 'Saddamists', 'Sunnis', 'Shia's', 'foreign fighters', 'Al Qaeda'.

There are 'rag heads', 'camel jockeys' and the all become 'collateral damage' as they are sliced in pieces, beheaded, tortured, slaughtered, by the occupiers or their militia goons as they sleep, drive, walk, play, dying in numbers 'not productive to count', as so succinctly putby General Kimmitt, a man who would seemingly be unphased running a concentration camp.

Car bombs, for which the occupiers are responsible, since they are legally responsible for all under their watch, do not kill Iraqis, with names, loves, plans, hopes. They result in 'body parts', which are pronounced 'Sunni' or 'Shia' (though how they can tell from a bit of foot, flesh, finger or brain, is one of life's chilling, dark miracles.) As under Nazi occuption and in the death camps, bodies pile up or are left to rot in streets, fear preventing collection.

Villages and towns, are now non-communities, where non-people live, they are: 'restive', 'hotbeds', to be 'cleansed' - reminiscent of the WW11 antics of Kommandant Amon Goeth in the Krakow ghetto, who, as in Abu Ghraib, set dogs on the naked and stood on his balcony, a sharpshooter, picking off the terrorified, hounded Jews* .

Iraqis are 'flushed out', 'pacified' (read mass murder) slaughtered along with their non-cattle, goats, sheep, chickens and pets. Ancient, evocotive homes, in their haven of citrus groves, regal date palms, fig trees, the all razed.

'Mission accomplished', it's back to base, with perhaps the odd rape en route, or squashing a few non-kids and the toddlers holding their hands, along the way - since reportedly, America's valiant occupiers, have been told to drive on, if they are in the road, as they might be decoys, to slow them, to enable Umm, Abu, Am or Jedu to lob an RPG their way.

Gives a whole new meaning to would-be President Hilary Clinton's : 'No child left behind', initiative - brought into a sqatted U.S., base, stuck in bits to the tank tracks, or Humvee tyres. Road meat.

In strategic moves of which Kommandant Goeth would be proud, U.S.,service personnel, in their new 'clampdown', are reported as hauling hospital patients out of bed, expelling doctors from their institutions (currently in 'restive' western Anbar province) and taking over the buildings, in which, even liberated of all needed to sustain life since the invasion, Iraq's remaining inventitve, dedicated doctors might have saved some in dangerous or critical conditions.

Water purification plants (where they exist) are destroyed, water and electricity cut off (all in strict violation of the Geneva and Hague Conventions) streets blocked and barricaded, homes raided.

The dead, as ever, simply written off as 'terrorists', insurgents - no questions, no trial,,just the summary execution of those brave enough to go about their daily business. The culling of Iraq.

On 11th September 2001; after the Bali bombings, the 7th July 2005 London bombings, the Madrid atrocities, the world sent condolences, candlelight vigils were held, there are emotional annual memorials. Where are the condolences for the silent holocaust of the perhaps one point seven million people who died quietly in Iraq of 'embago related causes'? (U.N.)

Where are the condolences, the international rescue teams, the flood of medical aid for the 9/11 every month in Baghdad?Where is the same for the Madrid, July 7th, Bali, daily, weekly across Iraq?Where is the shame, the outrage, the horror,of the international community as represented by their governments?

Where is the succour for the average one hundred thousand a month fleeing for their lives, who is opening their borders to Iraq's Palestinians, generations who found safety there, since expelled from their heritage after the formation of the Jewish state, now threatened with a very 'final solution' under the liberators watch?

Attacks on U.S., and British troops? A legal and legitimate resistance to an illegal invasion and the genocide of a further ( probably underestimated) nearly three quarter of a million Iraqis (to September 2006.) Bush and Blair never miss an opportunity to reminisce over the courage of the resistance in World War 11, after another illegal invasion plunged Europe in to war.Spot the difference.

The response from Washington's Draft Dodger in Chief, is that Iraqis owe the mass murderering invaders: 'a debt of gratitude' - and for their also dying at the hands of mercenaries brought in with the invasion and countless other factions who have invaded since, detonating, beheading. Washington's patience is running out with the dismembered, distraught and daily near-demented in grief, we are told.

As for Britain's spineless, shameful, 'truthfully economic', Prime Minister: two days before Holocaust Memorial Day, Parliament finally secured a debate on the current Iraq one, for the first time since the invasion and lasting for six and a half hours.

Blair was too busy to attend, addressing instead, the Confederation of British Industry ,which surely included executives from the oil companies, which, he assured the late former Foreign Secretary, Robin Cook (according to Cook's memoirs) were going to contribute to paying for and even turn a profit from the invasion.

He was prevented attending even the winding up of the debate, by a meeting to discuss the rights of same sex couples to adopt. Doubt he thought passingly of Iraq's orphans, evicted from the safety of their orphanages, by the invading forces, in March 2003, and abandoned again, in bewilderment ands trauma, to wander the streets, fend for themselves, or worse, in the mahem, as the bombs fell and since.

The Leader of the opposition Conservative Party, David Cameron was also notably absent. Constantly trying to (unconvinceingly) cash in on the 'green' card, he might have had something pithy to say about the four and a half billion year pollution of Iraq by the radioactive and toxic depleted uranium weapons used by the US and UK. It was not to be.

A member of one of the Committees, involved in the establishment of Holocaust Memorial Day, pointed out, that given history's numerous holocausts, such a day would seem as if: “western lives have more value than non-western lives”. A perception which needed to be changed. “One way of doing that is if the government were to sponsor a national Genocide Memorial Day.“The message of the Holocaust was ‘never again’, and for that message to have practical effect on the world community it has to be inclusive.

We can never have double standards in terms of human life." Further: " Muslims feel hurt and excluded that their lives are not equally valuable to those lives lost in the Holocaust time.”Ibrahim Hewitt, chairman of the charity Interpal, said: “There are 500 Palestinian towns and villages that have been wiped out over the years.

That’s pretty genocidal to me.” ** As is Afghanistan, now and when the US backed the Taliban against the Russians; American decimations echo from the Phillippines to VIetnam, from Haiti to Central America. Britain and other Europeans have been at it since the crusades, as most of the world.Genocide Day, once a year,would have been a minute step to acknowledgement that no one, unique, precious life has more value than another.

An acknowledgement of our common humanity. A tiny atonement and tinier acknowledgement of some supreme western wickednesses. And, as Auschwitz, Buchenwald, Bergen Belsen, of the piles of empty shoes, childrens' beyond counting, which litter the planet: testimony to mans' enduring psychosis: ramapant greed and inhumanity to mankind.

* Thomas Kenneally : Schindler's List.
** Sunday Times, 11th September 2005.