Palestine needs a political solution, not aid

Al Jazeera
Ben White


The funds recieved by the Palestinian Authorities have cast a shadow over the liberation that people are demanding.

Part of the Israeli government's response to critics of its Gaza policy is to deny that there is a "humanitarian crisis" in the coastal territory. The implication being that participants in initiatives such as the flotilla are not concerned with "aid" but seek to cause a political "provocation". In a similar vein, recent news of the opening of a five star hotel in Gaza prompted Israel lobby group AIPAC to suggest that the flotilla's real aim was to "delegitimise Israel".

Rather than go into the specifics of Gaza's socio-economic plight - excellent resources can be found at Gisha/Gaza Gateway, PCHR-Gaza, and OCHA - it is important to emphasise a point missing from Israel's propaganda and also neglected by some rights activists: Palestinians are seeking liberation, not aid. The conditions Palestinians are suffering from have political origins and political solutions. This is not a natural disaster; for more than 40 years, Palestinians in the Gaza Strip and West Bank have been subject to a military regime shaped by the priorities of colonial settlement and apartheid control.

Pro-Israel lobby groups in the West like to explain Israel's Gaza policies as first and foremost a response to "terror", and aimed at preventing arms smuggling. Unexplained is why Israel almost entirely prevents Palestinians from exporting goods out of Gaza, why the military enforces a "buffer zone", targeting farmers and fishermen, and why Israel continues to separate Gaza from the West Bank in contravention of their designation as a "Single Territorial Unit".

Furthermore, Israeli officials are on record as framing the siege as a form of collective punishment. In 2008, then PM Ehud Olmert said that there was "no justification" for allowing "residents of Gaza to live normal lives while shells and rockets are fired from their streets and courtyards [at Israel]". The year before, an official in Israel's National Security Council said that the goal of the blockade was to "damage Hamas economic position in Gaza and buy time for an increase in Fatah support". In September 2007, Israeli newspaper Ha'aretz reported on the Israeli military's plans "to limit services to the civilian population in Gaza" in order "to compromise the ability of Hamas to govern".

So this is no secret. Israeli newspaper Ha'aretz noted in May that "the Israeli closure was directed mainly at merchandise, rather than at weapons smuggling". The New York Times wrote that Israel's "goal" meant deliberately "suppressing economic growth in Gaza". A Wikileaks cable described how US officials were repeatedly told by the Israelis that the intention is "to keep the Gazan economy on the brink of collapse without quite pushing it over the edge". Famously, in early 2006, an advisor to Israel's prime minister said that "the idea is to put the Palestinians on a diet".

In other words, the conditions facing Palestinians in the Gaza Strip are a deliberate result of Israeli policies. A similar logic is at work in the West Bank, where economic gains in recent years are built on the weak foundations of foreign aid and conditional Israeli "concessions".

UN Gaza report co-authors reject Goldstone’s capitulation to Israel

theglobalrealm
Jean Shaoul

UN Gaza report co-authors reject Goldstone’s capitulation to Israel
By Jean Shaoul
WSWS.org
28 April 2011

Israeli bombardment of Gaza in 2009

Last week, the co-authors of the United Nations Gaza report, known as the Goldstone Report, issued a statement vigorously defending their report and rejecting Richard Goldstone and Israel’s repudiation of their 2009 accusations against Israel and Hamas of war crimes and “possibly crimes against humanity”.

The three co-members of the UN Human Rights Council’s Fact Finding Mission, Hina Jilani, Pakistani human rights lawyer, Colonel Desmond Travers, former Irish peace-keeper, and Christine Chinkin, professor of international law at the London School of Economics, said they stood by the conclusions of their report since neither Israel nor Hamas had provided any new evidence that invalidated them.

Referring to Goldstone’s op-ed piece in the Washington Post absolving Israel of intentionally, and thus criminally, targeting civilians as a matter of policy during its assault on Gaza in December 2008, they said that “it had misrepresented the facts in an attempt to delegitimize the findings” of their report and “to cast doubts on its credibility”.

The three joint authors said that calls to recant their report or misrepresent its purpose “disregard the rights of Palestinian and Israeli victims to truth and justice”.

Goldstone, a former South African judge and chief prosecutor at the UN Yugoslavia and Rwanda Tribunals, sought to justify his volte-face by saying that new evidence from Israel “probably would have influenced our findings about intentionality and war crimes” and that “If I had known then what I know now, the Goldstone Report would have been a different document”.

Goldstone’s cringing retraction of his own conclusions came after an international campaign of bullying, intimidation and vilification of the investigation and its authors, particularly Goldstone, by Israel. As his co-authors explained, these attacks were “clearly aimed at undermining the integrity of the report and its authors”.

According to US State Department cables published by WikiLeaks, Israel’s Prime Minister Benyamin Netanyahu claimed that the Goldstone report posed the third most important threat to Israel after Iran’s nuclear programme and missile proliferation.

Netanyahu had initially refused to carry out any investigations into Israel’s conduct of the assault on Gaza. He only acceded to international demands in an attempt to deflect criticisms and avoid any possible prosecution.

Israel greeted Goldstone’s volte face with jubilation and called for the report to be formally revoked. The US Senate passed a resolution calling for the UN to rescind the report and redress the damage done to Israel’s reputation. As Avigdor Lieberman, Israel’s right wing foreign secretary, put it, “The price of dealing [with the report] over the past few years was worth it”.

Taking it as a green light to do whatever it liked, Israel within days mounted an aerial bombardment on Gaza’s defenceless population, killing at least 25 and wounding dozens more. Most of the casualties were civilians, and many of those injured were children.

But Goldstone’s co-authors dismissed Israel’s demand to bin the report. They rejected any notion that “subsequent developments have rendered any part of the mission’s report unsubstantiated, erroneous or inaccurate”.

Israel’s assault, known as Operation Cast Lead, was waged against a largely unarmed and defenceless population. It killed 1,400 people, the majority of them civilians, including 400 women and children, injured at least 5,000 people, and destroyed 21,000 homes and much of its basic infrastructure, including water and sewerage treatment works. Such was the one-sided and criminal nature of the operation that Israel suffered only 13 deaths, and several of these were by “friendly fire”.

The 574-page Goldstone Report confirmed the findings of numerous other respected international studies and said little that was substantively new.

It called the war “a deliberately disproportionate attack designed to punish, humiliate and terrorise a civilian population, radically diminish its local economic capacity both to work and to provide for itself and to force upon it an ever-increasing sense of dependency and vulnerability”.

But the report itself was not, as Israel has maintained, hostile to Israel. It did not question Israel’s right to self-defence against a defenceless people whom it had illegally occupied and brutally suppressed for more than 40 years. Nor did it raise the illegality of the declared objective for the assault, the destruction of Hamas, which on its own admission Israel had been preparing for at least six months, leading it to equate Hamas’ rocket attacks on Israeli civilians with Israel’s attack on Gaza.

Goldstone had called for the UN Security Council to refer the case to the International Criminal Court (ICC) so that individuals who had ordered, planned or carried out international crimes could be prosecuted if Israel failed to conduct an independent investigation into the military’s conduct within six months. It also called on countries that are signatories to the 1949 Geneva Conventions to use their “universal jurisdiction” to search for and prosecute those responsible for war crimes.

The report’s conclusions were endorsed by the UN Human Rights Council by a majority of 25 to six, with 11 countries absenting themselves or abstaining.

Last month, the final report, written by a follow-up committee headed by the American judge Mary McGowan Davis and Swedish judge Lennart Aspergren, was presented to the UN Human Rights Council.

That committee insisted that while Israel had carried out some 400 investigations into allegations by the Goldstone Report and other human rights organisations, these were operational not legal investigations. As military investigations, it was a case of the military investigating itself and they were thus not independent investigations as required by the UN.

It noted that only three of the 400 Israeli cases were to be the subject of prosecutions. Of these three, only two have resulted in convictions. One person was convicted for the theft of a credit card which resulted in a seven month prison sentence. Another person was convicted for using a Palestinian child as a human shield, but received a lesser and derisory punishment of a three-month suspended sentence. A third case relating to allegations that Israel had deliberately targeted someone carrying a white flag has still to be heard.

The McGowan committee had deplored the dilatory nature of the proceedings, the lack of transparency and the failure to take evidence from victims and witnesses. It noted that two years after Operation Cast Lead, more than one third of the 36 incidents cited in the report were still unresolved or were without a clear status. Such delays would erode the possibility of any meaningful investigation.

Even more importantly, the committee pointed out that Israel had failed to address the most serious allegation: the policies guiding Operation Cast Lead. Israel was widely known to have a policy of targeting civilians and indeed its own officials had made statements to that effect. In October 2008, Gadi Eizencout, an IDF commander, explained Israel’s “Dahiyah doctrine”—the indiscriminate targeting of civilians and non-military sites—in an interview with the mass daily Yedioth Aharonoth.

He insisted that this was not a recommendation but a plan that “has already been approved”.

Despite this, as the committee noted, there was “no indication that Israel has opened investigations into the actions of those who designed, planned, ordered and oversaw Operation Cast Lead”.

There was therefore no basis whatsoever for revoking the Goldstone report. As the authors noted, the UN report has triggered a legal process that is still underway and should continue until justice is done. That means bringing Israel before the International Criminal Court to answer the allegations of war crimes and “possibly crimes against humanity”.

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2011/apr2011/gold-a28.shtml

The use of drones against Al-Qaeda is inefficient to prevent new attacks in Europe and USA

Physorg

Note:   Drone attacks are especially ineffective when used as a retaliatory measure of collective punishment the day after Raymond Davis is released.

The unmanned aerial vehicles -also named "drones"- that the CIA is employing against Al-Quaeda in Pakistan are inefficient to prevent new terrorist attacks against Europe and the USA. Nevertheless, drones are likely to keep being employed at the short and medium term since, as CIA's director states, these vehicles are the only instrument that the USA has to undermine Al-Qaeda and taliban's leadership and operating capacity in Pakistan.

This is the conclusion exposed in an article recently published in the Newsletters of the Real Instituto Elcano, prepared by a >University of Granada professor and an expert in jihadism Javier Jordán Enamorado. In his article, professor Jordán notes that the campaign launched by the CIA is reducing Al-Qaeda's troops and is negatively affecting its operating capacity.

The employment of armed drones to undermine Al-Qaeda's capacity was an option that was already being considered before the 11-S attacks. They started to be operated at the start of the intervention in Afghanistan, although it was Obama's administration that finally launched drone attacks in Pakistan, which have gained a very significant intensity. This situation is putting the legal and ethical aspects of this strategy into question, while discussion has arisen as to the effectiveness of eliminating enemy leaders, in the light of the poor results obtained in previous experiences against other Al-Qaeda groups.

Lack of reprisals

Professor Jordán stresses "the lack of reprisals from Al-Qaeda in response to CIA's stategy of eliminating their leaders". Recently, Al-Qaeda has launched only one attack -against the CIA in Khost in December 2009- where they made it clear through a later communiqué that they acted out of a desire for revenge, for their leaders being eliminated by drones.

Javier Jordán notes that, in 2009, the number of attacks by armed unmanned aircraft vehicles was higher than that launched in 2004 and 2008 �� against 43-. In September 2010, the number of attacks already exceeded the total number of attacks launched in 2010 (69).

Currently, most of the drones flying in Afghanistan belong to the US Air Force and perform military tasks -route and facility protection, infantry support, etc. These CIA-operated vehicles employed in Pakistan are of a different type. Their main aim is eliminating Al-Qaeda's key leaders and the taliban insurgency, and their activities are secret.

CIA's attacks have caused intense controversy within Pakistani society, which explains Islamabad's administration ambiguity. On the one hand, Pakistani's government has openly condemned what they consider a violation of their sovereignity, while at the same time, they are allowing drones to use their air space and the airfield of Shamsi, which belongs to the Pakistani Air Force, Javier Jordán states in his article.

Simultaneously, these attacks have caused critics in the USA. The legality of these actions is being questioned, and there are many critics to the unintended civil casualties caused. "As these attacks are launched in a region inaccessible to the media and to humanitarian relief organizations, having a clear perspective of the collateral damage caused is difficult" -the University of Granada professor affirms.
Provided by University of Granada

Rare condemnation by PM, army chief: 40 killed in drone attack

Dawn

ISLAMABAD/MIRAMSHAH: A US drone attack with an unusually high death toll of 40 on Thursday drew a rare condemnation both from civilian and military leadership. 

In the attack which came a day after CIA operative Raymond Davis had been set free by a court in Lahore, US drones fired missiles when a jirga was in progress in Nevi Adda Shega area of North Waziristan, killing 40 people, including tribal elders.

Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani strongly condemned the incident and called the attack an “irrational act”.

“Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani has strongly condemned the drone attack and said it will only strengthen hands of radical and extremist elements,” an official statement said.

“Such an irrational behaviour negatively impacts efforts to separate militants from peaceful and patriotic tribesmen of the areas,” he said.

In a statement issued by ISPR, Chief of the Army Staff Gen Ashfaq Parvez Kayani said: “It is highly regrettable that a jirga of peaceful citizens, including elders of the area, was carelessly and callously targeted with complete disregard to human life.

“In complete violation of human rights, such acts of violence take us away from our objective of elimination of terrorism.”

In a rare statement, the first during his second term in office, Gen Kayani said it was imperative to understand that this critical objective could not be sacrificed for temporary tactical gains.
“Security of people of Pakistan, in any case, stands above all.”

He said: “Pakistan Army condoles with the families whose dear and near ones have been martyred in this senseless attack. It shares the grief of people of Waziristan. Troops on the ground have been ordered to render all possible assistance to bereaved families.

“Pakistan Army wishes to assure the brave people of Waziristan that we shall do our best and utmost to protect their life, honour and dignity at all costs. Pakistan Army is fighting terrorists and not its brethren in tribal areas,” Gen Kayani said.

A statement issued by ISPR said that Pakistan Army had already lodged a protest in the strongest possible terms. It has been highlighted clearly that such an aggression against the people of Pakistan was unjustified and intolerable under any circumstances.

The Khyber Pakhtunkhwa governor also condemned the killing of civilians and police officers in the drone attack. “I strongly condemn this drone attack. A tribal jirga (council) was targeted in which several tribal elders and tribal policemen were martyred,” said Syed Masood Kausar.

“We want to make it clear that the government of Pakistan and its people will not tolerate such attacks. These attacks are against the sovereignty of Pakistan,” the statement added.

According to our reporter in Miramshah, people said that unmanned planes fired a volley of missiles when a jirga was in progress in Nevi Adda Shega, some 40km east of Miramshah. The attack, considered to be one of the deadliest over the past few months, was carried out at about 10am.
Elders of Madakhel, a sub-clan of the Ahmadzai Wazir tribe, had been called to resolve a dispute between two local tribes over the ownership of a chromite mine in the area. An official said that about 50 people, elders among them, were attending the jirga.

Sources said that four missiles were fired at the gathering. US drones had been seen flying over the area since morning.

Tribal people have disputes over the ownership of mines and forests and such disputes are usually resolved through jirgas.

US drones have intensified movement over North and South Waziristan.

The sources said that eight drone attacks had been carried out in both agencies so far, killing 80 people, militants among them.

Some of the elders killed in the missile attack were identified as Malik Bary Khan, Malik Daud, Malik Ismail, Malik Sherbad Khan and Malik Hassan Ahmad.