URGENT!! All Eyes on Gaza Disengagement

Source(s): counterpunch.org, ifamericansknew.org

What May Come After the Evacuation of Jewish Settlers from the Gaza Strip
A Warning from Israel

By Uri Davis, Ilan Pappe, and Tamar Yaron
July 15, 2005

We feel that it is urgent and necessary to raise the alarm regarding what may come during and after evacuation of Jewish settlers from the Gaza Strip occupied by Israel in 1967, in the event that the evacuation is implemented.

We held back on getting this statement published and circulated, seeking additional feedback from our peers. The publication in Ha’aretz (22 June 2005) quoting statements by General (Reserves) Eival Giladi, the head of the Coordination and Strategy team of the Prime Minister’s Office, motivated us not to delay publication and circulation any further. Confirming our worst fears, General (Res.) Eival Giladi went on record in print and on television to the effect that “Israel will act in a very resolute manner in order to prevent terror attacks and [militant] fire while the disengagement is being implemented” and that “If pinpoint response proves insufficient, we may have to use weaponry that causes major collateral damage, including helicopters and planes, with mounting danger to surrounding people.”

We believe that one primary, unstated motive for the determination of the government of the State of Israel to get the Jewish settlers of the Qatif (Katif) settlement block out of the Gaza Strip may be to keep them out of harm’s way when the Israeli government and military possibly trigger an intensified mass attack on the approximately one and a half million Palestinians in the Gaza Strip, of whom about half are 1948 Palestine refugees.

The scenario could be similar to what has already happened in the past - a tactic that Ariel Sharon has used many times in his military career - i.e., utilizing provocation in order to launch massive attacks.

Following this pattern, we believe that Prime Minister Ariel Sharon and Defence Minister Shaul Mofaz are considering to utilize provocation for vicious attacks in the near future on the approximately one and a half million Palestinian inhabitants of the Gaza Strip: a possible combination of intensified state terror and mass killing. The Israeli army is not likely to risk the kind of casualties to its soldiers that would be involved in employing ground troops on a large scale in the Gaza Strip. With General Dan Halutz as Chief of Staff they don’t need to. It was General Dan Halutz, in his capacity as Commander of the Israeli Air Force, who authorized the bombing of a civilian Gaza City quarter with a bomb weighing one ton, and then went on record as saying that he sleeps well and that the only thing he feels when dropping a bomb is a slight bump of the aircraft.

The initiators of this alarm have been active for many decades in the defence of human rights inside the State of Israel and beyond. We do not have the academic evidence to support our feeling, but given past behavior, ideological leanings and current media spin initiated by the Israeli government and military, we believe that the designs of the State of Israel are clear, and we submit that our educated intuition with matters pertaining to the defence of human rights has been more often correct than otherwise.

We urge all those who share the concern above to add their names to ours and urgently give this alarm as wide a circulation as possible.

Circulating and publishing this text may constitute a significant factor in deterring the Israeli government, thus protecting the Palestinian population in the Gaza Strip from this very possible catastrophe and contributing to prevent yet more war crimes from occurring.

Please sign, circulate, and publish this alarm without delay!

Please send notification of your signature to Tamar Yaron tiyaron@hazorea.org.il.

WE WOULD ALSO APPRECIATE RECEIVING NOTIFICATION IF THE ALARM WAS PUBLISHED IN ANY MEDIA AND/OR IF IT WAS SENT TO A GROUP DISTRIBUTION LIST.

Uri Davis, Sakhnin, uridavis@actcom.co.il,
Ilan Pappe, Tiv’on, pappe@poli.haifa.ac.il, and
Tamar Yaron, Kibbutz Hazorea, tiyaron@hazorea.org.il

Nationalism Blinds Us With Arrogance Put Away The Flags

June 30, 2005
Howard Zinn

On July 4, we would do well to renounce nationalism and all its symbols: its flags, its pledges of allegiance, its anthems, its insistence in song that God must single out America to be blessed.

Is not nationalism - that devotion to a flag, an anthem, a boundary so fierce it engenders mass murder - one of the great evils of our time, along with racism, along with religious hatred?

These ways of thinking - cultivated, nurtured, indoctrinated from childhood on - have been useful to those in power, and deadly for those out of power.

National spirit can be benign in a country that is small and lacking both in military power and a hunger for expansion (Switzerland, Norway, Costa Rica and many more). But in a nation like ours - huge, possessing thousands of weapons of mass destruction - what might have been harmless pride becomes an arrogant nationalism dangerous to others and to ourselves.

Our citizenry has been brought up to see our nation as different from others, an exception in the world, uniquely moral, expanding into other lands to bring civilization, liberty, democracy.

That self-deception started early.

When the first English settlers moved into Indian land in Massachusetts and were resisted, the violence escalated into war with the Pequot Indians. The killing of Indians was seen as approved by God, the taking of land as commanded by the Bible. The Puritans cited one of the Psalms, which says: "Ask of me, and I shall give thee, the heathen for thine inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the Earth for thy possession" (Psalm 2:8).

When the English set fire to a Pequot village and massacred men, women and children, the Puritan theologian Cotton Mather said: "It was supposed that no less than 600 Pequot souls were brought down to hell that day."

On the eve of the Mexican War, an American journalist declared it our "Manifest Destiny to overspread the continent allotted by Providence." After the invasion of Mexico began, The New York Herald announced: "We believe it is a part of our destiny to civilize that beautiful country."

It was always supposedly for benign purposes that our country went to war.

We invaded Cuba in 1898 to liberate the Cubans, and went to war in the Philippines shortly after, as President William McKinley put it, "to civilize and Christianize" the Filipinos.

As our armies were committing massacres in the Philippines (at least 600,000 Filipinos died in a few years of conflict), Elihu Root, our secretary of war, was saying: "The American soldier is different from all other soldiers of all other countries since the war began. He is the advance guard of liberty and justice, of law and order, and of peace and happiness."

We see in Iraq that our soldiers are not different. They have, perhaps against their better nature, killed thousands of Iraq civilians. And some soldiers have shown themselves capable of brutality, of torture.

Yet they are victims, too, of our government's lies.

How many times have we heard President Bush and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld tell the troops that if they die, if they return without arms or legs, or blinded, it is for "liberty," for "democracy?"

One of the effects of nationalist thinking is a loss of a sense of proportion. The killing of 2,300 people at Pearl Harbor becomes the justification for killing 240,000 in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The killing of 3,000 people on Sept. 11 becomes the justification for killing tens of thousands of people in Afghanistan and Iraq.

And nationalism is given a special virulence when it is said to be blessed by Providence. Today we have a president, invading two countries in four years, who announced on the campaign trail last year that God speaks through him.

We need to refute the idea that our nation is different from, morally superior to, the other imperial powers of world history.

We need to assert our allegiance to the human race, and not to any one nation.

Howard Zinn is the author of "A People's History of the United States" (Perennial Classics, 2003). He wrote this for Progressive Media Project, an op-ed service.

Poll: China Image Scores Better Than U.S.

WASHINGTON (AP) - The United States' popularity in many countries - including longtime allies in Europe - is lagging behind even communist China.

The image of the U.S. slipped sharply in 2003, after the invasion of Iraq, and two years later has shown few signs of rebounding either in Western Europe or the Muslim world, an international poll found.

``The U.S. image has improved slightly, but is still broadly negative,'' said Andrew Kohut, director of the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press. ``It's amazing when you see the European public rating the United States so poorly, especially in comparison with China.''

In Britain, which prides itself on its ``special relationship'' with Washington, almost two-thirds of Britons, 65 percent, saw China favorably, compared with 55 percent who held a positive view of the United States. In France, 58 percent had an upbeat view of China, compared with 43 percent who felt that way about the U.S. The results were nearly the same in Spain and the Netherlands, the Pew polling found.

The United States' favorability rating was lowest among three Muslim nations that are also U.S. allies - Turkey, Pakistan and Jordan - where only about one-fifth of those polled viewed the U.S. in a positive light. Only Indonesia and Poland viewed the U.S. more positively than China. [Full Article]

Related Link: Pew Research Center Survey

Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2005

Saddam Insists He's Still Iraq President

NEW YORK - Saddam Hussein loves Doritos, hates Froot Loops, admires President Reagan, thinks Clinton was "OK" and considers both Presidents Bush "no good." He talks a lot, worries about germs and insists he is still president of
Iraq.

Those and other details of the deposed Iraqi leader's life in U.S. military custody appear in the July issue of GQ magazine, based on interviews with five Pennsylvania National Guardsmen who went to Iraq in 2003 and were assigned to Saddam's guard detail for nearly 10 months.

The magazine, which reached newsstands Monday, said the GIs could not tell their families what they were doing and signed pledges not to reveal the location or other details of the U.S.-run compound where Saddam was an HVD, or "high value detainee," awaiting trial by Iraqi authorities for mass killings and other crimes.

However, the five soldiers told GQ of their personal interactions with Saddam, saying he spoke with them in rough English, was interested in their lives and even invited them back to Iraq when he returns to power.

"He'd always tell us he was still the president. That's what he thinks, 100 percent," said Spc. Jesse Dawson, 25, of Berwick, Pa.

A Pentagon spokesman had no comment on the article.

The GIs recalled that Saddam had harsh words for the Bushes, each of whom went to war against him.

"The Bush father, son, no good," Cpl. Jonathan "Paco" Reese, 22, of Millville, Pa., quoted Saddam as saying.

Spc. Sean O'Shea, then 19, of Minooka, Pa., said Saddam later mellowed in that view. "Towards the end, he was saying that he doesn't hold any hard feelings and he just wanted to talk to (George W.) Bush, to make friends with him," he told the magazine.

Dawson quoted Saddam as saying: "He knows I have nothing, no mass weapons. He knows he'll never find them."

Their description of the man who once lived in palaces and now occupies a cell with no personal privacy matched recently published photos, apparently smuggled out of prison, showing Saddam in his underwear and a long robe.

The story said that once, when Saddam fell during his twice-a-week shower, "panic ensued. No one wanted him to be hurt while being guarded by Americans." One GI had to help Saddam back to his cell, while another carried his underwear.

Saddam was friendly toward his young guards and sometimes offered fatherly advice. When O'Shea told him he was not married, Saddam "started telling me what to do," recalled the soldier. "He was like, `You gotta find a good woman. Not too smart, not too dumb. Not too old, not too young. One that can cook and clean.'"

Then he smiled, made what O'Shea interpreted as a "spanking" gesture, laughed and went back to doing his laundry in the sink.

The soldiers also said Saddam was a "clean freak" who washed after shaking hands and used diaper wipes to clean meal trays, utensils and table before eating. "He had germophobia or whatever you call it," Dawson said.

The article said Saddam preferred Raisin Bran Crunch for breakfast, telling O'Shea, "No Froot Loops." He ate fish and chicken but refused beef.

For a time his favorite snack was Cheetos, and when that ran out, Saddam would "get grumpy," the story said. One day, guards substituted Doritos corn chips, and Saddam forgot about Cheetos. "He'd eat a family size bag of Doritos in 10 minutes," Dawson said.

The magazine said Saddam told his guards that when the Americans invaded Iraq in March 2003, he "tried to flee in a taxicab as the tanks were rolling in," and U.S. planes struck the palace he was trying to reach instead of the one he was in.

"Then he started laughing," recalled Reese. "He goes, `America, they dumb. They bomb wrong palace.'"

Saddam also said his capture in an underground hideout on Dec. 13, 2003, resulted from betrayal by the only man who knew where he was, and had been paid to keep the secret.

"He was really mad about that," Dawson said. "He compared himself to Jesus, how Judas told on Jesus. He was like, `That's how it was for me.' If his Judas never said anything, nobody ever would have found him, he said."

U.S. officials said at the time that intelligence from several sources led to Saddam's capture.

The magazine said Saddam prayed five times a day and kept a Quran that he claimed to have found in rubble near his hideout. "He proudly showed (it) to the boys because it was burned around the edges and had a bullet hole in it," GQ said.

Copyright © 2005 The Associated Press. Full Article

Behind the Downing Street Memos

Behind the Downing Street Memos Lurks the specter of treason

by Justin Raimondo

Everyone is talking about the Downing Street memos, and they are important – although not for the reasons generally assumed. Naturally, we covered these on Antiwar.com when they were first published, but now that the "mainstream" media is finally paying attention it behooves us to go over them with a fine-tooth comb, in an attempt to tease some meaning out of the daily slaughter on the evening news. The key paragraph in the first memo, and the one most cited, is this: "C reported on his recent talks in Washington. There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy." The mysterious "C" is none other than Richard Dearlove, then head of MI6, Britain's intelligence service, no doubt conferring with his American equivalent, then-CIA director George Tenet. The date – July 23, 2002 – is significant: if you'll remember, at that time our lying president was telling us that war with Iraq would be a "last resort." Yeah, sure. Not that anybody really believed him, but it's significant that he still felt it necessary to make the effort to deceive. Meanwhile, the War Party was plotting to pull a fast one, using every trick in the book to gin up a war with Iraq – a constant stream of wild stories presented in the guise of "intelligence" and planted in a compliant media, all positing "weapons of mass destruction" poised to hit American cities. Bob Woodward revealed that the decision to go to war had already been made in his book, Plan of Attack, but the media doesn't cover books. Leaked memos, however, are another matter: especially ones with "SECRET AND STRICTLY PERSONAL – UK EYES ONLY" emblazoned at the top, along with a further notation: "This record is extremely sensitive. No further copies should be made. It should be shown only to those with a genuine need to know its contents." Well, yes, we genuinely do need to know why our young people are dying by the dozens every week, until now it's over 1,700 and rising. And it isn't sensitive anymore, now that the horse is out of the barn, so it's OK for the public to see these previously secret documents: that's why we're reading them today and why they're being covered in the "mainstream" media.[Full Story] Copyright 2005 Antiwar.com

U.S. House votes to curb Patriot Act, defies Bush

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. House of Representatives on Wednesday defied President Bush by approving a measure making it harder for federal agents to secretly gather information on people's library reading habits and bookstore purchases.

The House voted 238-187 to scale back the government's powers to conduct secret investigations that were authorized by the Patriot Act, a post-Sept. 11 anti-terrorism law.

"We can fight terrorism without undermining basic constitutional rights. That's what the message of today is about," said Rep. Bernie Sanders, a Vermont independent who pushed the measure through the House with the support of 38 Republicans.

The White House has warned Congress that any weakening of the Patriot Act would prompt senior advisers to recommend that Bush veto the $57.5 billion bill to fund activities next year for the Justice Department and other federal agencies, which now contains Sanders' amendment. [Full Story]

© Reuters 2005. All Rights Reserved.

Debate deepens over Guantánamo

Wednesday's hearing in Congress highlights the rift between the Bush administration and critics over the role of detention.

By Peter Grier | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor

WASHINGTON – In Washington, debate over conditions at the US detention facility at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, is escalating into a larger argument: What role should detention properly play in a conflict with stateless, extremist enemies?

To top US officials, the war against terrorism is unexplored territory. Thus traditional doctrines covering criminals and military prisoners do not apply.

To critics, the continued fuzzy legal status of Guantánamo detainees undermines US values - not to mention the nation's image abroad. Shutting the camp, they claim, is now the administration's best option. [Full Story]

Copyright © 2005 The Christian Science Monitor.

Relatives of Gujarat riot victims seek damages from state

AHMEDABAD, India (AFP) - Survivors of one of the worst massacres during the 2002 sectarian riots in Gujarat filed a compensation claim against the western Indian state's ruling Hindu nationalist BJP party.

Over 120 people from the minority Muslim community were burnt or hacked to death by Hindu mobs in February 2002 in two separate residential colonies.

A former member of parliament, Ehsan Jaffri, from the opposition Congress Party, was among those killed in the riots.

"Today, I have filed a civil suit for compensation along with 24 other families of the Gulbarg Society who lost all in a single day of communal hatred," said his son Tanvir Jaffri.

He said the victims were seeking total damages of seven million rupees (162,800 dollars) from the BJP state government as well as Hindu right wing groups.

Representatives of the families whose kin were killed said the process of filing the compensation claim was delayed because of red tape.

The Gujarati government was accused of turning a blind eye to the riots in which about 2,000 people, mostly Muslims, died.

The riots were triggered after claims that a Muslim mob torched a train carrying Hindus at Godhra, killing 59 people. A subsequent official report said the train fire was an accident.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20050614/wl_sthasia_afp/indiagujaratunrest_050614045545
Copyright © 2005 Agence France Presse.