Hamas: The Israeli government's sanctions are a "declaration of war"

Ehud Olmert announced on Wednesday that his government has decided to cut off fuel and electricity to the Gaza Strip - only allowing the flow of water to continue. In response to this contravention of the Fourth Geneva Conventions that address collective punishment, a Hamas spokesman said they considered this move a "declaration of war".

The UN secretary-general, Ban Ki-moon, wasted no time in coming out and insisting that this move by the Israeli government violates international law but, considering the scores of UN resolutions that Israel has defied for decades, it's doubtful that it will suffer any consequences as a result.

Barak also said that Israel is moving closer to a large-scale military operation in Gaza. "Every day that passes brings us closer to an operation in Gaza," Barak was quoted as saying. He said an array of options would be considered before a major invasion.

The PMO statement also said that there would be restrictions on "the passage of various goods to the Gaza Strip," but stressed that all steps "will be enacted following a legal examination, while taking into account both the humanitarian aspects relevant to the Gaza Strip and the intention to avoid a humanitarian crisis."

The thing is that there is already a humanitarian crisis in Gaza. To state that you intend to look at your legal standing in imposing such crushing sanctions in order to avoid one is absolutely ludicrous.

Meanhwile, Condi Rice is in Israel for a 24-hour drive-by visit - no doubt to bring the White House's support for Olmert's actions while pretending to be concerned about the fate of the Palestinian people as the US government keeps funneling money to Abbas in the West Bank.

Israeli officials are promoting a proposal that the West Bank and Gaza be viewed as separate entities, and that Israel act more forcefully in Gaza to crack down on Hamas militants.

Senior Bush administration officials said no decision had been made. Some State Department officials argue that the administration could only support such a separation if Israel agreed to make political concessions to Mr. Abbas in the West Bank, with the goal of undermining Hamas in the eyes of Palestinians by improving life in the West Bank.

But it would be diplomatically perilous for the United States to be seen as turning its back on Gaza. Almost half of the Palestinian population lives on the teeming strip of land. A more desperate Gaza could become a breeding ground for Al Qaeda.

“Nobody wants to abandon the hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of people in the Gaza Strip to the mercies of a terrorist organization,” said the State Department spokesman, Sean McCormack. “We’re certainly not going to participate in extinguishing the hopes of a whole swath of the Palestinian population to live in a Palestinian state.”

The administration has led international efforts to isolate the Hamas-dominated government, demanding that it renounce violence, recognize Israel’s right to exist and abide by existing agreements between the Palestinians and Israel.

So, while state department spokespuppets like Sean McCormack say one thing, the Bush administration is doing the opposite by backing Olmert in this latest move. They are already actively participating in extinguishing those hopes by giving financial and military aid to the Israeli government.

Hollow words.

Needless to say, this is not the way to promote any kind of peace process, especially in the broader volatilities going on in the region with respect to Israel's relationships with Syria and Iran. Egypt also joined Syria today in calling for an IAEA resolution to have Israel's nuclear facilities inspected - a proposal, as the article states, that is brought up regularly by Arab states which has often been put off but which, this time, seems to be receiving more of push from those 2 countries. And Syria has every reason to be concerned after Israeli air strikes occurred within its borders just 2 weeks ago - a move finally confirmed by Netanyahu on Wednesday (although no reason for the strike has yet been given).

It seems Condi's cherished November "peace conference" meeting is in jeopardy as Abbas is now under pressure from Fatah not to attend if other Arab states like Syria are shut out of the meeting. The Saudis are also threatening to boycott the conference is it isn't expected to offer anything of substance. By the time November rolls around, it may just be Rice and Olmert playing footsies at the table while everyone else stays home.

They're even fighting over what to call the damn thing:

White House: Int'l Mideast meeting is not a big peace conference

By Aluf Benn, Barak Ravid and Avi Issacharoff, Haaretz Correspondents and The Associated Press

The White House said Tuesday the international meeting on the Middle East proposed by U.S. President George W. Bush should not be viewed as a big peace conference and it is too early to say where or when it will be.

However, the U.S. State Department said Tuesday that the meeting would most likely be held in the United States but the participants are still to be worked out.

White House spokesman Tony Snow at first described the meeting as an international conference, but several hours later he backed away from that portrayal as being too ambitious.

And let's play spot the contradiction yet again:

"This is a meeting," Snow said. "I think a lot of people are inclined to try to treat this as a big peace conference. It's not."

Announcing the meeting in a major policy speech Monday, Bush said it would be chaired by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and attended by envoys from Israel, the Palestinians and Arab nations. He framed the meeting in the context that the world can do more to build the conditions for peace.

Is it any wonder the Bush administration has been completely AWOL on the ME peace process? Let's face it: Bush's agenda is just to coast until he's done his term while passing this situation, along with Iraq and Afghanistan, to whoever wins the WH in '08. Neocons only know how to start wars, not end them. "Peace" is just a word in the dictionary between "paranoia" and "profits".

And it's clear that the Israeli government wants nothing to do with this talk of "peace":

On Tuesday, Israeli officials welcomed Bush's initiative for an international summit, but Prime Minister Ehud Olmert's spokeswoman Miri Eisin said that "this is not the time to discuss the key issues."

Eisin said the meeting would provide an opportunity to bring together all those who are truly interested in peace in the Middle East. However, she said it is too early to talk about full-fledged peace talks as long as Palestinian violence against Israel continues. A peace settlement would require agreement on such contentious issues as borders, the fate of millions of Palestinian refugees and the status of Israel's disputed capital Jerusalem.

"Israel has been very clear. We don't think at this stage you can talk about final status issues, but such a meeting would certainly add to the capability of arriving at the core issues," she said.

Around and around it goes as tensions between the countries in the region grow as a result of the neglect of any viable path to peace.

And I haven't even mentioned Iran, which has reportedly announced retaliation against Israel should its government attack or the assassination of an anti-Syrian lawmaker in Lebanon today.
 

Sunday Food for Thought: 'Children of War'

From Gideon Levy:

Again children. Five children killed in Gaza in eight days. The public indifference to their killing - the last three, for example, were accorded only a short item on the margins of page 11 in Yedioth Ahronoth, a sickening matter in itself - cannot blur the fact that the IDF is waging a war against children. A year ago, a fifth of those killed in the "Summer Rain" operation in Gaza were children; during the past two weeks, they comprised a quarter of the 21 killed. If, heaven forbid, children are hurt in Sderot, we will have to remember this before we begin raising hell.

The IDF explains that the Palestinians make a practice of sending children to collect the Qassam launchers. However, in this case, the children killed were not collecting launchers. The first two were killed while collecting carob fruit and the next three - according to the IDF's own investigation - were playing tag. But even if we accept the IDF's claim that there is a general trend of sending children to collect launchers (which has not been proven), that should have brought about an immediate halt to firing at launcher collectors.

But the IDF does not care whether its victims are liable to be children. The fact is that it shoots at figures it considers suspicious, with full knowledge - according to its own contention - that they are liable to be children. Therefore, an IDF that fires at launcher collectors is an army that kills children, without any intention of preventing this. This then is not a series of unfortunate mistakes, as it is being portrayed, but rather reflects the army's contempt for the lives of Palestinian children and its terrifying indifference to their fate.

A society that holds ethical considerations in high regard would at least ask itself: Is it permissible to shoot at anyone who is approaching the launchers, even if we know that some of these people may be small children, lacking in judgment, and thus not punishable?
[...]
Anyone who takes an honest look at the progression of events during the past two months will discover that the Qassams have a context: They are almost always fired after an IDF assassination operation, and there have been many of these. The question of who started it is not a childish question in this context. The IDF has returned to liquidations, and in a big way. And in their wake there has been an increase in Qassam firings.

That is the truth, and they are hiding it from us.
[...]
Yes, the children of Gaza gather around the Qassams. It is practically the only diversion they have in their lives. It is their amusement park. Those who arrogantly preach to their parents "to watch over them" have never visited Beit Hanoun. There is nothing there, except for the filthy alleys and meager homes. Even if it is true that those launching the Qassams are taking advantage of these miserable children (which has yet to be proven), this should not shape our moral portrait. Yes, it is permissible to exercise restraint and caution. Yes, it is not always necessary to respond, especially when the response ends up killing children.

When the continual use of military might becomes so ordinary that the killing of children cannot even cause a forceful enough impetus to truly reject militarism, what hope is there?

Related: Protocol 1 Additional to the Geneva Conventions, 1977; PART IV: CIVILIAN POPULATION

(h/t Editerette)

Marines Investigated for Deaths of 8 Iraqis

Via Reuters:

SAN DIEGO (Reuters) - Up to 10 U.S. Marines are under investigation for the deaths of eight Iraqi prisoners during the November 2004 battle for Fallujah, marking the third war crimes probe of Marines at California's Camp Pendleton, a government spokesman said on Thursday.

There is obviously something very wrong going on at Camp Pendleton and it's incredible that these Marines are only now under investigation since this happened in 2004.

Ed Buice, a spokesman for the Naval Criminal Investigative Service, said he could not disclose details of the inquiry at the U.S. Marine Corps base.

But he said none of the Marines under investigation are being held in detention.

Why not? They've been holding people suspected of war crimes in Gitmo for 5 years.

Nat Helms, a Vietnam veteran who has written a book about the Marine Corp's battle for Fallujah in Iraq's Anbar Province, provided an account of the deaths on his Web site -- defendourmarines.com -- writing that eight Iraqi prisoners were executed.

According to Helms, Marines held eight unarmed Iraqi men in a house during the battle and executed them after receiving orders to move to a new location.

And defend the marines, he certainly does. Apparently he thinks this is some kind of witch hunt in order to influence the Haditha massacre trial against innocent warriors who were just doing their jobs. But, according to this quote in Helms' article from former Corporal Ryan Weemer (who ended up having to reveal what happened when he took a polygraph exam when he applied to work for the secret service), this is what happened:

In this case the eight men were allegedly taken prisoner while unarmed, Weemer revealed to NCIS investigators. They were of military age, dressed in so-called "track suits" favored by the insurgents at Fallujah, and running from a firefight, he claimed. The Iraqi men were placed under guard by squad members while the fight raged around them.* After a brief time the squad was ordered to move out. The Marine in charge radioed headquarters for instructions about what to do with the suspected insurgents. The laconic response - "They’re still alive?" - came back on the radio.

The leader took it to mean kill the Iraqis, Weemer said. Moments later the squad was ordered to move on. Guns were aimed, triggers were pulled, and the Iraqis died. The bodies were left where they lay.

* At that point they became prisoners of war so which soldier, in their right mind who's studied the Geneva Conventions about the proper handling of POWs, would think he actually had the right to kill these men?

That's what they have to answer for.

Marty Graham, the Reuters reporter who wrote the article above continues with: "The allegation is another embarrassment for the U.S. military fighting in Iraq and Camp Pendleton, one the Marine Corps' largest installations in the United States."

I'm sorry - "an embarrassment"?? Just look at the track record of these Camp Pendleton marines:

In June 2006, seven Marines and a U.S. Navy corpsman were charged in the April 2006 killing of a 52-year-old grandfather in Hamdania, Iraq.

According to testimony, the man was kidnapped from his bed and killed in a scenario planned to make his death look like he was planting a bomb.

All but three of the troops have pleaded guilty to reduced charges, while the remaining three Marines pleaded innocent to charges including kidnapping and murder and are awaiting court martial.

In December 2006, eight Marines from the same platoon being investigated in the Fallujah killings were charged in the November 2005 killings of 24 residents of Haditha, Iraq.

Four officers face charges for failing to investigate and accurately report the Haditha killings and three Marines face murder charges. Charges against a fourth Marine were dismissed in exchange for testimony.

This is a systemic, criminal abuse of military power and force - not an "embarrassment".

Perhaps the fact that I'm watching the documentary Ghosts of Abu Ghraib as I write this has a bearing on my anger towards these latest revelations. But, as someone in that film said, "If there were no photographs, there would be no Abu Ghraib".

And in this latest investigation, if Weemer hadn't had to tell the truth during that polygraph exam, we wouldn't know about these killings either.

That's the thing to think about: what else has gone on that we don't know about and perhaps never will? Who else is covering up possible war crimes?
 

Britain's Alberto Gonzales

The Independent reports:

The Attorney General, Lord Goldsmith, is facing accusations that he told the Army its soldiers were not bound by the Human Rights Act when arresting, detaining and interrogating Iraqi prisoners.

Previously confidential emails, seen by The Independent, between London and British military head-quarters in Iraq soon after the start of the war suggest Lord Goldsmith's advice was to adopt a "pragmatic" approach when handling prisoners and it was not necessary to follow the " higher standards" of the protection of the Human Rights Act.

That, according to human rights lawyers, was tantamount to the Attorney General advising the military to ignore the Human Rights Act and to simply observe the Geneva Conventions. It was also contrary to advice given by the Army's senior lawyer in Iraq, who urged higher standards to be met.

Today, rights groups and experts in international law will call on the Government to disclose Lord Goldsmith's legal opinion, which they say could have helped create a culture of abuse of Iraqis by British soldiers.

Who are these heartless men who obviously have no functioning conscience who decide that torturing and abusing human beings is acceptable in any instance - especially considering that the Geneva Conventions have been in place for decades to stop these horrendous practices? And who are the extremely ignorant people who give them promotions as rewards for their unconscionable and illegal opinions? And who are the lawmakers who support these crimes against humanity?

Cowards. They're all cowardly criminals.

Related:
Shami Chakrabarti: We risk the values that make Britain worth defending
An abuse of human rights - and a blot on our integrity
 

War Crimes Allegations Against Hillier & O'Connor

Via CTV:

Chief of Staff Gen. Rick Hillier and Defence Minsiter [sic] Gordon O'Connor have both been named in a 14-page letter to the International Criminal Court by Michael Byers of the University of British Columbia and William Schabas, director of the Irish Centre for Human Rights in Galway.

The professors claim "possible war crimes" have been committed by Hillier and O'Connor, resulting from the prisoner transfer agreement between Canada and Afghanistan, and have asked the ICC to investigate.

More via the Globe and Mail:

The chief of Canadian defence has dismissed calls that he and Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor be investigated for “possible war crimes” in light of revelations Afghan prisoners handed to the local authorities are being abused.

General Rick Hillier dismissed the letter, sent to the International Criminal Court, during an appearance on CTV's Canada AM on Thursday.

“First of all, much attention has been paid to what is a very, very small part of our mission,” Gen. Hillier said. “I concentrate on setting our young men and women up for success . . . on reducing the risk to them.

“So I just let the theatrics, if you will, of these kinds of things go on around me. I've got a job to do. I'm going to do that job.”

"Theatrics"...."a very, very small part of our mission".

Since when is protecting the rights of detainees, which is required under the Geneva Conventions, something to be minimized? Once again, Hillier's absolute arrogance is on display for all to see.

In March, Hillier said he had "no regrets" about the 2005 detainee agreement he signed with the Afghan government - an agreement we now know was so fundamentally flawed and inferior to those signed by other countries that it offered no protections to the detainees handed over to Afghan officials.

In fact, this story in the Globe and Mail earlier this week shows exactly why the continual trail of lies told by our so-called defence minister Gordon O'Connor is so damaging to all involved:

The Harper government knew from its own officials that prisoners held by Afghan security forces faced the possibility of torture, abuse and extrajudicial killing, The Globe and Mail has learned.

But the government has eradicated every single reference to torture and abuse in prison from a heavily blacked-out version of a report prepared by Canadian diplomats in Kabul and released under an access to information request.

Initially, the government denied the existence of the report, responding in writing that "no such report on human-rights performance in other countries exists." After complaints to the Access to Information Commissioner, it released a heavily edited version this week.

Among the sentences blacked out by the Foreign Affairs Department in the report's summary is "Extrajudicial executions, disappearances, torture and detention without trial are all too common," according to full passages of the report obtained independently by The Globe.

The Foreign Affairs report, titled Afghanistan-2006; Good Governance, Democratic Development and Human Rights, was marked "CEO" for Canadian Eyes Only. It seems to remove any last vestige of doubt that the senior officials and ministers knew that torture and abuse were rife in Afghan jails.

On Wednesday, O'Connor insisted that Canada now has a new agreement with the Afghanistan government that would allow members of the RCMP and Corrections Canada to monitor detainee treatment in Afghanistan. During question period on Thursday however, Stephen Harper said "no formal agreement" has been signed yet.

First that was the ICRC's job. Then the Afghanistan Independent Human Rights Commission was supposed to oversee their treatment. Now, it's the RCMP. Who's next?

Murky, shady, shifty and completely incompetent.

A very defensive Harper also tried his damn best during question period to accuse the opposition parties of disrespecting the troops by bringing up allegations of detainee abuse - a handy Bushco tactic. Don't like questions? Just attack the questioner's patriotism and insist they're attacking the troops. Don't like allegations? Claim they're false (repeatedly) even before they're investigated (and there are 4 investigations currently underway). Stockwell Day even had the nerve to repeat the Rumsfeld talking point that detainees are taught to lie about abuse. If that's what this tory government believes, why are they even investigating?

This should not be a partisan matter. If Canada's military is involved in possible war crimes, if detainees handed over by our soldiers are being abused, tortured or executed, if the Geneva Conventions have been violated, this government owes all Canadians a serious dose of humility - not defensiveness - and a promise to act on this country's behalf to resolve this situation as soon as possible while leaving no stone unturned in order to get to the truth. These tories seem to forget that they work for us and that their jobs require them to work for all of us and that means they need to get past playing politics - now - before more people suffer and die.

There are peoples' lives on the line here.

Both Hillier and O'Connor must be held to account. If this government won't do its job, perhaps a war crimes investigation at The Hague will, but we have to ask ourselves if that's what we've been reduced to - a country that refuses to take responsibility for its actions during a time of war.


Related: Irish Centre for Human Rights
Michael Byers, UBC (bio/contact info)