Foreign Policy magazine's new feature, "The Ultimate Ally" by Michael Oren, is a hardly slick, and hardly new, piece of propaganda aimed at prolonging the US's blindly dangerous support of the state of Israel. Not the least bit surprising since Oren is Israel's ambassador to the US, but still, it is particularly offensive to those who have the courage to question this dangerous relationship between the USA and Israel, especially when considering the context of recent events in the Middle East.
The Arab world is in the middle of a great wave of change fueled by popular uprising in opposition to the authoritarian, in most cases, American-backed, regimes. It will not be long before Israel can no longer hold on to its claim of being the only democracy in the Middle East. In the eyes of the honest, this claim has never been substantiated in any case when taking into account of Israel's current Apartheid-like policies toward its Arab citizens and its obvious record of human rights violations in the occupied territories. Regardless, its obvious why Israeli government is in a state of complete and utter refusal to launch a new round of peace negotiations with the Palestinians. The wave of popular movement has made its way into the Palestinian territories, and with the recent unification of Hamas and Fatah, Obama's recent articulation of support for a resolution based upon the pre-1967 borders, and an upcoming UN general assembly vote for Palestinian statehood (backed by nearly all members of the international community except for the US), the Palestinian cause seems to be stronger than ever today. That is Israel's ultimate fear of course: a negotiating partner in a position of strength.
Not just because Israel is afraid of not having an upper hand in the negotiations particularly, but because any negotiations that would happen now are bound to actually bear some sort of fruit in general. It is against Israeli interest to end this conflict, plain and simple; any resolution is a bad resolution for the Israeli state and that is precisely why the conflict continues today. The continuation of the conflict allows an undefined amount of land grabbing for Israel, thus it is in the ultimate interest of the expansionists in Israel to block any peace process from ever resolving. With the continuation of the conflict, water resources, East Jerusalem, and much more are up for grabs and annexation for the Israeli government and elite, as well as a vast cheap, exploitable and indeed already greatly exploited, Palestinian labor force which is the fuel of Israeli prosperity.
The facts have always been clear in this conflict, and although much of the press has always made an effort to fog it all up with its claims that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is a complex issue, the facts convey that this is and has always been a very simple problem with a very simple solution. Israel took and occupied land illegally and it must give it back. Israel expelled, whether directly or indirectly, many people illegally and it must allow them to return.
And let's not ever forget that this is not merely an Israeli occupation of the West bank and Gaza Strip, but a US-Israel occupation considering that the US has blocked all efforts towards peace and has funded Israeli expansion and atrocities since '67 and beyond. It was encouraging to hear Obama clearly articulate a policy in favor of pre-1967 borders, however, it is more disheartening that he expressed, not too long after that, to an AIPAC audience that the US will never support a UN resolution creating Palestinian statehood. Why Obama would make such a policy is clearly political, but he must know he is playing domestic politics at the expense of the suffering.
All the same sentiment goes for the US's current attitude towards the unification of Hamas and Fatah, which is obviously progress but cannot be admitted as such; indeed it is interesting enough that Israel's old excuse for not participating in previous peace talks was that they claimed it was impossible to make peace when the negotiation partner was so divided, and now that they aren't the excuse is that it is impossible because the negotiation partner is united. Obviously they are backed into a corner, and considering that, who can blame them for being so rejectionist...right? uhhh...
Still, times are changing, and that is why Micheal Oren's propaganda piece is particularly offensive, as it is insulting to any one's intellect who has been keeping informed with recent developments in the Middle East. Now's not the time to be beating that dead horse; for the propagandist its time to find a new horse to kill.
On a side note, when looking at the comments on Oren's piece, it seems that the Israel supporters who call anyone who criticizes Israel state policies anti-Semitic (which is a ridiculous claim obviously, but has been very effective at silencing dissent in this country) are just as quick to make sweeping negative generalizations about the Arab peoples. On that website, anyhow.
Below are some stats for all of you, just a taste of how many people have died in the overall Arab-Israeli conflict. Most of these are complete estimates because many Arab governments used to or still don't separate civilian casualties from combatant casualties, and because organizations such as the Palestinian Authority don't have adequate resources to count all casualties. Also, missing are the overall casualties of the Israeli occupation of southern Lebanon besides the two wars. Indeed, the Israeli death toll is far less than the Arab toll, which begs the question of who's a threat to who, especially when you consider how many of these conflicts came about. But that's not the point, because every Israeli human life is just as important as every Arab life and we should be very worried about this situation: people are dying. It's unacceptable, and especially for us here in the USA, we are not immune from blame since our tax dollars contribute to these deaths.
Casualties since 1987 in Israeli-Palestinian conflict:
Palestinian: 7,978 (including 1,620 minors)
Israeli: 1,503 (including 142 minors)
2006 Lebanese War:
Foreign Civilians: 51
Lebanese Civilians: 1,191
Lebanese military: 46
Israeli Civilians: 43
Israeli Military: 117
Amal Movement: 17
Hizbollah: up to 700
Lebanese Communist Party: 12
PFLP-GC: 2
United Nations Civilians: 1
United Nations Military: 4
Casualties of 1982 Israeli invasion of Lebanon:
Lebanese: 17,825
Syrian: 1,200
PLO: 1,500
Israeli: 368
Casualties of 1973 Israeli raid on Lebanon:
Palestinian and Lebanese: up to 100
Israeli: 2
Casualties of 1973 Yom Kippur War:
Egyptian: 8,000-15,000
Syria: 3,000-3,500
Israeli: 2,520-2,800
Casualties of 1967 Six Day War:
Egyptian: 9,800-15,000
Jordanian: 700-6,000
Syrian: 1,000
Israelis: 776-983
Casualties of 1948 War:
Arab: 8,000-15,000
Israeli: 6,373
Monday, May 23, 2011
Wednesday, May 11, 2011
Thoughts on the death of Osama Bin Laden
After reading reader-responses to a recent article in the New York Times reporting on Omar Bin Laden's (Osama's fourth son) condemnation of the US Government obviously for the assassination of his father, I was compelled to write my thoughts regarding this matter.
It should be noted that, as background information, Omar Bin Laden was not a terrorist like his father as he consistently publicly rejected his father's use of violence against innocent civilians. Omar Bin Laden's condemnation of the US Government, and specifically of US President Barack Obama, was based upon the lack of a due process for his father. In this sense, it seems that Mr. Bin laden has been consistent in his views; he was against the violence of his father and he is against the violence perpetrated by the US Government. Indeed, I happen to somewhat agree with his sentiment, to an extent; or rather, I would if I was positive that this was purely a targeted assassination. On the contrary, it seems that Osama Bin Laden's death was the result of an unpredictable-by-nature military operation, of which the main goal was to capture Bin Laden. That military raids are unpredictable by nature, of course, does not excuse anything, and in general the pretenses for the whole War on Terror is obviously deeply and fundamentally flawed in not only its means, but furthermore, its objectives.
However, the fact that killing an unarmed criminal, no matter who it is, was ever sanctioned as a possibility in the first place (i.e. "Dead or Alive") is disturbing. This must be stressed: No matter who the criminal is. Not because I believe that Osama Bin Laden deserves anything but a violent death in the same fashion he perpetrated on so many innocents, but because it sets a precedent. An extremely frightening precedent; that whoever is popularly believed to be a criminal or whoever is labeled as such by the government, without due process of law, can be assassinated. If such a practice continues to expand, you can say goodbye to free speech rights, and I don't believe I really have to tell you why; all you have to do is think about the nature of the state and it becomes clear.
Of course, this violation of human rights is not a new avenue for our government as the Terrorist Watchlist has been around for quite awhile: a list created by the executive branch of people they deem to be national security threats, which can be added to without any sort of proof of an individual's guilt, and gives the government the right to apprehend anyone on the list in whichever way they see fit. It's basically a way to bypass due process so the government can really just take out anyone they want to. We've already seen some of the blaring disgraces, as Nelson Mandela was only recently taken off the list; Mandela, a man of peace and justice who brought equality to South Africa was deemed to our government as a threat. Thus it is obvious that the list has been every bit about politics and power as about national security since the beginning. Did our government not take Sadam Hussein off the list in the 80's when he became an ally (you know, when he was committing the worst of his atrocities, all paid for by our tax payer dollars), and put him back on when he (politically) defied the US? Can it get anymore obvious?
We gave a trial to Milosevic. We gave one to Sadam Hussien. Trials were held for Nazi war criminals in Nuremburg, who committed atrocities far more immense in scale and inhumanity than anything Bin Laden could ever dream of. Yes, Bin Laden's death may have not been meant to be a targeted killing, but what about all those who are blown to pieces by our unmanned Drones flying over Pakistan, Afghanistan and Yemen? Right after the US's triumph over Osama Bin Laden, I heard on the news that US Drones were bombing locations in Yemen, apparently looking to kill a certain radical cleric, who also happens to be a US citizen. Now you can't say that those operations weren't meant to be targeted assassinations.
However, there is a certain confusion to all of this: apparently we are supposed to be considering this a war. But at the same time President Obama has conveyed his view that alleged terrorists should be tried in civilian courts. The fact is, this isn't a war, whether you call it such or not, and treating it like one will only end in failure of reaching any sort of peace. In any case, I never saw Congress ever declare this war. It would make more sense to view Al Qaeda as an international criminal organization, but even that falls short of the big picture, as we are dealing with something much bigger. You could say the enemy is the ideology, but even that is misleading, because the ideology of the Islamist terrorists is the result of ours and Britain's foreign policy in the region since the end World War I. The absolutely obvious only way to end the violence carried out by terrorists is by us ending our foreign policy of exploitation and conquest.
But that's neither here nor there as the issue at hand is urgent enough; the precedent of unproven condemnations of guilt is turning this country's founding principles upon its head. A free society needs due process, its the only way justice can ever be legitimate. I have no sympathies for Osama Bin Laden and I hope he rots in hell, but tomorrow it may not be Osama Bin Laden who is being killed by our government. It may not be a murderer at all. Rather, it may just be a hero.
It should be noted that, as background information, Omar Bin Laden was not a terrorist like his father as he consistently publicly rejected his father's use of violence against innocent civilians. Omar Bin Laden's condemnation of the US Government, and specifically of US President Barack Obama, was based upon the lack of a due process for his father. In this sense, it seems that Mr. Bin laden has been consistent in his views; he was against the violence of his father and he is against the violence perpetrated by the US Government. Indeed, I happen to somewhat agree with his sentiment, to an extent; or rather, I would if I was positive that this was purely a targeted assassination. On the contrary, it seems that Osama Bin Laden's death was the result of an unpredictable-by-nature military operation, of which the main goal was to capture Bin Laden. That military raids are unpredictable by nature, of course, does not excuse anything, and in general the pretenses for the whole War on Terror is obviously deeply and fundamentally flawed in not only its means, but furthermore, its objectives.
However, the fact that killing an unarmed criminal, no matter who it is, was ever sanctioned as a possibility in the first place (i.e. "Dead or Alive") is disturbing. This must be stressed: No matter who the criminal is. Not because I believe that Osama Bin Laden deserves anything but a violent death in the same fashion he perpetrated on so many innocents, but because it sets a precedent. An extremely frightening precedent; that whoever is popularly believed to be a criminal or whoever is labeled as such by the government, without due process of law, can be assassinated. If such a practice continues to expand, you can say goodbye to free speech rights, and I don't believe I really have to tell you why; all you have to do is think about the nature of the state and it becomes clear.
Of course, this violation of human rights is not a new avenue for our government as the Terrorist Watchlist has been around for quite awhile: a list created by the executive branch of people they deem to be national security threats, which can be added to without any sort of proof of an individual's guilt, and gives the government the right to apprehend anyone on the list in whichever way they see fit. It's basically a way to bypass due process so the government can really just take out anyone they want to. We've already seen some of the blaring disgraces, as Nelson Mandela was only recently taken off the list; Mandela, a man of peace and justice who brought equality to South Africa was deemed to our government as a threat. Thus it is obvious that the list has been every bit about politics and power as about national security since the beginning. Did our government not take Sadam Hussein off the list in the 80's when he became an ally (you know, when he was committing the worst of his atrocities, all paid for by our tax payer dollars), and put him back on when he (politically) defied the US? Can it get anymore obvious?
We gave a trial to Milosevic. We gave one to Sadam Hussien. Trials were held for Nazi war criminals in Nuremburg, who committed atrocities far more immense in scale and inhumanity than anything Bin Laden could ever dream of. Yes, Bin Laden's death may have not been meant to be a targeted killing, but what about all those who are blown to pieces by our unmanned Drones flying over Pakistan, Afghanistan and Yemen? Right after the US's triumph over Osama Bin Laden, I heard on the news that US Drones were bombing locations in Yemen, apparently looking to kill a certain radical cleric, who also happens to be a US citizen. Now you can't say that those operations weren't meant to be targeted assassinations.
However, there is a certain confusion to all of this: apparently we are supposed to be considering this a war. But at the same time President Obama has conveyed his view that alleged terrorists should be tried in civilian courts. The fact is, this isn't a war, whether you call it such or not, and treating it like one will only end in failure of reaching any sort of peace. In any case, I never saw Congress ever declare this war. It would make more sense to view Al Qaeda as an international criminal organization, but even that falls short of the big picture, as we are dealing with something much bigger. You could say the enemy is the ideology, but even that is misleading, because the ideology of the Islamist terrorists is the result of ours and Britain's foreign policy in the region since the end World War I. The absolutely obvious only way to end the violence carried out by terrorists is by us ending our foreign policy of exploitation and conquest.
But that's neither here nor there as the issue at hand is urgent enough; the precedent of unproven condemnations of guilt is turning this country's founding principles upon its head. A free society needs due process, its the only way justice can ever be legitimate. I have no sympathies for Osama Bin Laden and I hope he rots in hell, but tomorrow it may not be Osama Bin Laden who is being killed by our government. It may not be a murderer at all. Rather, it may just be a hero.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)