|
Comment on this article |
View comments |
Email this Article
|
|
News :: Media |
|
US Murdering Independent Journalists - Reuters |
Current rating: 0 |
by bob AKA DAN Disinfo
(No verified email address) |
09 Apr 2003
|
Journalists around the world accuse the US of "Murdering witnesses"
Protests Build Over Journalists murders in Iraq by U.S. Fascists
Wed April 9, 2003 |
LONDON - Journalists walked off the job and politicians demanded answers on Wednesday in a new broadside against the United States Fascists over the Murder of three journalists in Baghdad.
From London to Mexico City, Journalists vented their fury after U.S. Murdered three journalists from Reuters news agency, Spanish broadcaster Telecinco and Arab television channel al-Jazeera in Baghdad on Tuesday.
In Spain, journalists piled cameras, tape recorders and notepads at the front of a room where Spanish Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar was meeting his party. Reporters in Madrid also walked out of a news conference with British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw.
At a separate protest outside the U.S. embassy Fortress in the Spanish capital, shouts of "murderers" rang out.
Earlier in Paris, Straw said he was still seeking an explanation for the Murders in Baghdad.
"I haven't had a detailed report, but I'm going to ask for one," Straw told reporters at a joint news conference with France's foreign minister before flying to Madrid.
A U.S. tank fired at a Baghdad hotel they knew was packed with independent journalists, Murdering Reuters cameraman Taras Protsyuk and Telecinco's Jose Couso journalists at the scene said the attack was a premeditated unjustifiable Murder
In a separate incident, al-Jazeera said reporter-producer Tarek Ayoub was Murdered in a U.S. bombing of. Al-Jazeera offices to silence a powerful voice in the Arab world.
NEWSPAPER FURY
In the Arab world, media on Wednesday talked about the United States intentionally "Murdering witnesses." Egyptian newspapers said the U.S. fire was aimed at muzzling independent coverage, with opposition daily al-Ahrar referring to the attack "a massacre."
In Mexico, the respected El Universal daily said on its front page: "The U.S. is now murdering journalists."
The Iraq war has proved more deadly for the media than both the first Gulf War and the Afghan conflict, with 10 people dead while covering this conflict so far.
More than 1,000 journalists are in Iraq covering the war.
The demands of 24-hour-a-day television coverage, hundreds more journalists and multiple battle fronts have put journalists under added pressure in this conflict.
JOURNALISTS SEEK GUARANTEES
Workers at Spanish state broadcaster RTVE issued a "demand from the U.S. administration to guarantee and an explicit commitment not to attack media locations again."
The Pentagon said on Tuesday it had repeatedly warned journalists “they are targets”.
|
Comments
|
More Dead Jar Heads |
by HAHAHA AKA DAN Disinfo
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
10 Apr 2003
|
|
Its ok cause theres plenty more that need to be whacked karma some call it, 200 taken out of action today alone ah so many asshole fascists and so little time to send in some fresh meat for the grinder the dumb get dumber so go! now die for shell oil inc while brown & root spend your money ops thats Chaney empting your pocket isnt it but you dont mind cause your a dumb-ass jar-head ASS-HOLE |
|
More Dead Jar Heads |
by HAHAHA AKA DAN Disinfo
pathetic FUCK-OFF!! (unverified) |
Current rating: 3
10 Apr 2003
|
Its ok cause theres plenty more that need to be whacked karma some call it, 200 taken out of action today alone ah so many asshole fascists and so little time to send in some fresh meat for the grinder the dumb get dumber so go! Now die for shell oil Inc while brown & root takes your money and life ops thats Chaney empting your pocket isnt it but you dont mind cause your a dumb-ass jar-head ASS-HOLES
|
|
75 CIA Operatives To Serve 6-28 Years Prison In Cuba |
by Nelie AKA DAN Disinfo
hehehehe (unverified) |
Current rating: 0
10 Apr 2003
|
The operatives who has engaged in acts of sabotage in the past where routed-out around March 18, 2003. All were convicted of treason for working with the CIA to sabotage Cuba and its peaceful People.
The 75 CIA operatives had trials in courtrooms filled with people that where their peers, Cuban citizens that Witnessed of their crimes had infiltrated the CIA cells testified against the prisoners and exhibited solid proof of CIA payments made and instructions for sabotage operations delivered to the defendants made the trials open and shut cases after which they received sentences from 6 years to 28 years, with the average being 20 years.
Cuban Foreign Minister Felipe Perez Roque pointed to this evidence showing the saboteurs where organized and paid by the United Fascist States to further its more than 40-year-old effort to take control of the Cuban People and steal more of their land and dignity "We have the duty and right to defend our country's independence," he said,
|
|
Russian Scientist: SARS Virus Was Created In A Weapons Lab |
by vafdox AKA DAN Disinfo
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
11 Apr 2003
|
RIA Novosti correspondent Alexander Batalin
The virus of atypical pneumonia (SARS) has been created artificially, possibly as a bacteriological weapon, believes Sergei Kolesnikov, Academician of the Russian Academy of Medical Sciences.
He expressed this opinion at a news conference in Irkutsk (Siberia) on Thursday.
According to him, the virus of atypical pneumonia is a synthesis of two viruses (of measles and infectious parotiditis or mumps), the natural compound of which is impossible. This can be done only in a laboratory, the academician is convinced. He also said that in creating bacteriological weapons a protective anti-viral vaccine is, as a rule, worked out at the same time. Therefore, the scientist believes, a medicine for atypical pneumonia may soon appear. He does not exclude that the spread of the virus could have begun accidentally, as a result of "an unsanctioned leakage" from a laboratory.
Source: Russian Information Agency: Novosti
|
|
U.S. Threatens Iraqi University Professors |
by Kim AKA DAN Disinfo
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
12 Apr 2003
Modified: 10:07:07 AM |
April 12 – Appealing to the world community to protect them from the U.S. aggression aimed at obliterating Iraq’s minds, a number of Iraqi scientists and university professors sent an SOS e-mail complaining American occupation forces were threatening their lives.
In their e-mail, a copy of which was sent to IslamOnlin.net Friday, April 11, they said they have dictated their message to a respected Iraqi scientist in the Netherlands over phone, urging him to circulate it to all parties concerned to protect them from the arbitrary inquires and arrests by the U.S. occupation forces.
Iraqi scientists asserted that occupation troops demanded them, particularly physicists, chemists and mathematicians, to hand over all documents and researches in their possession.
The appeal message also said that looting and robberies were being taken place under the watchful eye of the occupation soldiers.
The occupation soldiers, the e-mail added, are transporting mobs to the scientific institutions, such as Mosul University and different educational institutions, to destroy scientific research centers and confiscate all papers and documents to nip in the bud any Iraqi scientific renaissance.
The frantic scientists also underlined that some of them were placed under house arrest and deprived of going to their laboratories and universities.
Some of them were also approached by agents from the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) to entice them away to foreign scientific centers, the message cautioned.
The e-mail also noted that occupation forces had drawn up lists of the names, addresses and researches of the Iraqi scientists to assist them in their harassment tasks in light of the chaos and anarchy that sit in after the toppling of the Iraqi regime on April, 9.
Reports Claim Scientists Fled To Syria
Mrs. Ammash has been placed on the U.S. most-wanted list of 55
As part of the "concerted campaign" campaign against Syria, The Washington Times newspaper claimed Saturday, April 12, that some of Iraq's top scientists have already fled their country and are in Syria, from where they may seek political safety in France.
Quoting U.S. administration officials, the American paper said there are intelligence reports that Iraqi scientists are seeking safety in France.
According to the daily, U.S. officials declined to put a number on how many Iraqi weapons scientists have entered Syria, but estimated it is fewer than 10 at this point.
Among those claimed to have made it to Syria are Huda Salih Mahdi Ammash and Rihab Taha, both top scientists in Iraq's alleged biological-weapons program, said The Washington Times.
The two women are notable not only for their scientific expertise, but also because they attained senior positions among the male-dominated Ba'ath Party, the paper said.
Mrs. Taha, a British-trained microbiologist, is married to Iraq's oil minister Amir Rashid Mohammed Ubaydi, on the American most-wanted list of 55.
The Times claims she ran Iraq's biological-warfare program at a research lab in the town of Hakam beginning in the mid-1980s.
Mrs. Taha was not listed, although she is wanted for questioning.
Mrs. Ammash has been photographed at Saddam's Cabinet meetings, and at a meeting with his son, Qusay, according the U.S. daily.
On Friday, April 11, Mrs. Ammash's picture and name were listed by the U.S. Central Command as one of 55 “most-wanted” Iraqis.
Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld has warned Syria several times publicly to stop helping the Iraqi regime, asserting that some Iraqi leaders had fled to the country.
|
|
U.S. Occupation Forces Tortures Iraqi University Professors |
by Kim AKA DAN Disinfo
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
12 Apr 2003
|
Appealing to the world community to protect them from the U.S. aggression aimed at obliterating Iraqis minds, a number of Iraqi scientists and university professors sent an SOS e-mail complaining American occupation forces were threatening their lives.
In their e-mail, a copy of which was sent to IslamOnlin.net Friday, April 11, they said they have dictated their message to a respected Iraqi scientist in the Netherlands over phone, urging him to circulate it to all parties concerned to protect them from the arbitrary beatings, torture and arrests by the U.S. occupation forces.
Iraqi scientists asserted that occupation troops demanded them, particularly physicists, chemists and mathematicians, demanding they cooperate, Iraqi scientists stating some professors had their eyes poked out, and limbs broken for not complying.
The appeal message also said that looting and robberies were being taken place under the watchful eye of the occupation soldiers.
The occupation soldiers, the e-mail added, are transporting mobs to the scientific institutions, such as Mosul University and different educational institutions, to destroy scientific research centers and confiscate all papers and documents to nip in the bud any Iraqi scientific renaissance.
The frantic scientists also underlined that some of them have been interrogated by CIA agents demanding they cooperate, some Professors have had their eyes poked out, and limbs broken for not complying.
Reports Claim Scientists Fled To Syria
Mrs. Ammash has been placed on the U.S. most-wanted list of 55
As part of the "concerted campaign" campaign against Syria, The Washington Times newspaper claimed Saturday, April 12, that some of Iraq's top scientists have already fled their country and are in Syria, from where they may seek political safety in France.
Quoting U.S. administration officials, the American paper said there are intelligence reports that Iraqi scientists are seeking safety in France.
According to the daily, U.S. officials declined to put a number on how many Iraqi weapons scientists have entered Syria, but estimated it is fewer than 10 at this point.
Among those claimed to have made it to Syria are Huda Salih Mahdi Ammash and Rihab Taha, both top scientists in Iraq's alleged biological-weapons program, said The Washington Times.
The two women are notable not only for their scientific expertise, but also because they attained senior positions among the male-dominated Ba'ath Party, the paper said.
Mrs. Taha, a British-trained microbiologist, is married to Iraq's oil minister Amir Rashid Mohammed Ubaydi, on the American most-wanted list of 55.
The Times claims she ran Iraq's biological-warfare program at a research lab in the town of Hakam beginning in the mid-1980s.
Mrs. Taha was not listed, although she is wanted for questioning.
Mrs. Ammash has been photographed at Saddam's Cabinet meetings, and at a meeting with his son, Qusay, according the U.S. daily.
On Friday, April 11, Mrs. Ammash's picture and name were listed by the U.S. Central Command as one of 55 most-wanted Iraqis.
Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld has warned Syria several times publicly to stop helping the Iraqi regime, asserting that some Iraqi leaders had fled to the country.
|
|
American Woman Beaten, Robbed By Gang Of Settlers |
by Pat and Samir Twair plagiarized by DAN Disinfo
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
12 Apr 2003
|
While it seemed incomprehensible that muscular teenage men would beat an elderly woman, the 68-year-old grandmother said, they did—and they seemed to enjoy it.
Her interest in the Middle East started in the early 1960s, Hughes-Thompson said, when she worked for producer David Wolper on a script entitled “Nasser vs. Ben-Gurion.” As the situation worsened in Israel/Palestine this past spring, she decided to observe what was happening there as an International Solidarity Movement volunteer. She arrived in April, shortly after Israel’s new invasion of Palestinian cities. Within days, she was part of an international emergency team that rode in Palestinian ambulances.
“We were mainly in Nablus,” she recalled. “I saw people lying wounded in the streets. And I do know for a fact that the presence of us internationals discourages many Israeli soldiers from shooting the Palestinian ambulance crews.”
Hughes-Thompson said she was inspired by the bravery and passion of Huwaida Arraf, an American-born Palestinian who founded the nonviolent ISM with Dr. Ghassan Andoni. Arraf’s husband, American Jewish activist Adam Shapiro, became an overnight celebrity when he took food to Yasser Arafat as the Palestinian leader was besieged by the Israeli army in his Ramallah headquarters.
The plucky senior reluctantly left her new friends in Palestine determined to inform Americans of the reign of terror under which Palestinians live. Then, however, she learned of ISM’s call for volunteers to help protect Palestinians as they harvested olives while being attacked by armed Israeli settlers. This fall settlers burned and chopped down centuries-old trees, stole the olives and even shot harvesters, including Hani Yusuf, 24.
On Oct. 15, Hughes-Thompson left for her second trip to Palestine. Because Israeli authorities were turning away internationals trying to visit the West Bank or Gaza, she said her purpose to enter Israel was to knit, that she planned to knit in the home of an Israeli acquaintance.
“I wasn’t lying,” she told the Washington Report. “I do like to knit.”
After two-days of training in nonviolent action at ISM headquarters in Beit Sahour, Hughes-Thompson joined harvest groups at Tequa village, south of Bethlehem, and at Awarta.
“We didn’t pick olives,” she explained. “Our main job was to let the settlers and soldiers know we were there and to deflect any assaults against the Palestinians. Armed settlers threw rocks at us, cursed us, fired over our heads, and threatened us with their attack dogs. One Palestinian and an ISM volunteer received wounds that required stitches.”
Her volunteer group then moved to Yanoun, southeast of Nablus. Weeks earlier, the 25 families of Yanoun evacuated their village after masked settlers destroyed their generators and water tanks during repeated nightly attacks in which they poisoned 70 sheep and vandalized homes. Now, with the promise of protection by internationals and Israeli peace activists, a few families opted to return and try to enter their ancient olive groves.
“A couple of the villagers expressed concern that I couldn’t run fast enough if the settlers attacked,” she recalled. “I shrugged off their fears and told them no man would attack me, a white-haired granny.”
On the balmy Sunday morning of Oct. 27, Yanoun villagers and international peace volunteers harvesting olives heard gunfire nearby. When volunteers investigated, soldiers indicated there were signs of settler activity in the area and instructed them to move to olive trees closer to the village. Volunteers and villagers changed location as instructed, then decided it would be safer to return to Yanoun in case their homes came under renewed attack. Bags of olives, ladders and equipment were gathered and the international volunteers followed the Palestinians homeward.
“I was climbing the hill toward the village when six or seven men from the Itamar settlement suddenly swarmed around us, “ Hughes-Thompson recalled. “I turned to see Robbie Kelly, an Irish ISM volunteer, and Omer Elon, an Israeli Ta’ayush volunteer, being struck in the head with rifle butts. It got worse. I couldn’t believe my eyes as I saw several settlers attack James Delaplain, a 74-year-old retired English literature professor from Wisconsin. They jabbed him in the left eye and his torso with rifle butts, knocked him to the ground, and kicked him. He was begging them not to take his glasses, which he was trying to reach on the ground. They took them anyway.”
Smack! Hughes-Thompson’s walking stick was grabbed from her and violently brought down on her arm. She found herself surrounded by a half-dozen young settlers screaming obscenities at her.
“They were hitting me on the arms, the back, the chest,” she said. “I was knocked to the ground but I struggled to get up. We’d been warned if we fell they would beat us even more severely.”
One of her attackers caught sight of Hughes-Thompson’s bag, which she held tightly in her arms, and grabbed it from her. Their attention diverted to the contents of the bag, she said, her tormenters yelled, “Get out of here. Do you want a bullet? Next time, you’ll get a bullet.”
“I’m afraid I was a coward,” Hughes-Thompson confessed. “I’d cried for them to stop hitting me, I hadn’t remembered any of the things we’d been told to say about the illegally occupied land that belongs to the Palestinians.”
She scrambled toward the village, all the while screaming that the attackers had James Delaplain.
The badly injured Delaplain somehow reached the village as Israeli jeeps and police arrived at the scene. Even though the army was aware that harvesting was taking place and had guaranteed the villagers’ safety, no soldier had tried to stop the settlers’ violent attack.
An Israeli volunteer, Yossi Guttman from Haifa, drove Hughes-Thompson, Delaplain and Kelly to the hospital in Aqraba. Delaplain suffered a collapsed lung, broken ribs and a lacerated eye. Kelly underwent seven stitches in his left ear. Hughes-Thompson had no broken bones, but her arms, back and chest were badly bruised, bleeding and swollen. The settlers had stolen her two passports, air ticket, credit cards, digital camera and approximately $1,000 in cash.
Guttman drove the injured activists to police headquarters at the Ariel Settlement to file their reports, then to his bank to withdraw 500 shekles for her.
Hughes-Thompson, who was born in 1933 in Bolton, Lancashire, England, holds dual U.S./British citizenship. When it received news of the attack, the British Consulate immediately sent representatives to the village and arranged for a replacement airline ticket and new passport. The U.S. Consulate’s representative in Jerusalem promised help, but failed to follow through.
Although she of course wants to return, for the time being the committed nonviolent activist has established the Mary Hughes-Thompson Yanoun Fund to help the families of Yanoun who are slowly and fearfully returning to their village—the latest targets of enforced “transfer.” Anyone caring to contribute can send checks to the fund at P.O. Box 5341, Beverly Hills, CA 90209.
|
|
U.S. Govt Accused Of War Crimes Against Journalists |
by Julio Godoy plagiarized by DAN Disinfo
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
13 Apr 2003
|
The Paris-based journalists' organisation 'Reporters without Borders' (RSF, after its French name), called on the International Humanitarian Fact-Finding Commission to investigate whether by attacking journalists in Iraq the U.S.-British coalition forces were not violating international humanitarian law.
”A media outlet cannot be a military target under international law and its equipment and installations are civilian property protected as such under the Geneva Conventions,” said Reporters without Border secretary-general Robert Ménard.
”Only an objective and impartial enquiry can determine whether or not the Conventions have been violated,” Ménard claimed.
It is the first time since its existence that the International Humanitarian Fact-Finding Commission is being petitioned. Set up in 1991 under the First Additional Protocol of the Geneva Conventions, the Commission's task is investigating any alleged serious violation of international humanitarian law.
Similarly, the Brussels-based International Federation of Journalists (IFJ) called for an independent inquiry on the U.S. attacks against the Palestine Hotel and the bureaus of Al-Jazeera and Abu Dhabi television channels.
The New-York based Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ) also called the U.S. attacks against journalists in Iraq ”a violation of the Geneva Convention.”
In a letter to U.S. defence secretary Donald Rumsfeld, CPJ director Joel Simon wrote on Tuesday: ”The Committee is gravely concerned by a series of U.S. military strikes against known media locations in Baghdad today that have left three journalists dead and several wounded.”
”We believe these attacks violate the Geneva Conventions,” Simon pointed out.
On Tuesday, U.S. troops attacked the Baghdad bureau of the Qatar-based Al Jazeera, killing one war correspondent, and wounding another. In another attack, a U.S. tank fired a shell at the Palestine Hotel in Baghdad, killing two other reporters and wounding three.
The hotel is well known as the unofficial Baghdadi centre of international press. A large number of foreign correspondents covering the war stay there.
MĂ©nard, RSF's secretary-general, said that all independent evidence on the U.S. attacks against the hotel shows that the firing was deliberate.
”Film shot by the French television station France 3, and descriptions by journalists, prove that the neighbourhood around the hotel was very quiet at the hour of the attack, and that the U.S. tank crew took their time, waiting for a couple of minutes and adjusting its gun before opening fire,” Ménard said.
”This evidence does not match the U.S. version of an attack in self-defence and we can only conclude that the U.S Army deliberately and without warning targeted journalists,” Ménard added.
Caroline Sines, a French television correspondent covering the war in Baghdad, confirmed MĂ©nard's accusations against the U.S. troops.
”I was at the Palestine Hotel at the moment of the attack, around one pm, Baghdad time, and my crew filmed everything,” Sines said. ”Our films shows that the U.S. tank took its time at targeting the 14th floor of the hotel, where many journalists are hosted, at a moment of complete calm,” Sines said.
Menard urged the ”U.S. forces to prove that the incident was not a deliberate attack to dissuade or prevent journalists from continuing to report on what is happening in Baghdad.”
”We are appalled at what happened because it was known that journalists were working both at the Palestine Hotel as well at the Al-Jazeera bureau,” Ménard pointed out.
One Al-Jazeera camera operator was also killed on Tuesday by an apparently intentional U.S. bombing of the pan-Arab TV station's offices elsewhere in Baghdad. The nearby premises of Abu Dhabi TV were also damaged by the bombing.
The Qatar-based television network recalled that prior to the conflict, it had provided the U.S. military authorities with the specific coordinates of its Baghdad offices. This information was confirmed by the Committee to Protect Journalists in the letter to Donald Rumsfeld.
”CPJ has seen a copy of Al-Jazeera's February letter to Pentagon spokeswoman Victoria Clarke outlining these coordinates,” Joel Simon wrote to Rumsfeld.
Simon called Rumsfeld ”to launch an immediate and thorough investigation into these incidents and to make the findings public.” The CPJ also recalled to the U.S. military authorities that more than 100 independent journalists continue to operate in Baghdad from both the Palestine and the nearby Sheraton hotels.
”The U.S. military has a clear obligation to avoid harming the correspondents while carrying out (war) operations,” Simon said in his letter to Rumsfeld.
Aidan White, General Secretary of the International Federation of Journalists, said, ”There is no doubt at all that these attacks could be targeting journalists. If so, they are grave and serious violations of international law.”
”The bombing of hotels where journalists are staying and targeting of Arab media is particularly shocking events in a war which is being fought in the name of democracy,” White said. ”Those who are responsible must be brought to justice”.
”The United Nations system and the international media community must be fully engaged in finding out what happened in these cases and action must be taken to ensure it never happens again,” White said. ”We can expect denials of intent from the military, but what we really want is the truth.”
The IFJ says that the global media community, including journalists, media organisations and press freedom campaigners, should join hands under the banner of the newly-formed International News Safety Institute to hold a complete and in depth inquiry.
The INSI is a coalition of more than 100 organisations campaigning for a global news safety programme.
The IFJ also condemned ”what appears to be Iraqi tactics of using civilians and journalists as a 'human shield' against attack.” ”The Baghdad authorities are just as culpable as the U.S. with their reckless disregard for civilian lives,” White said.
Both the IFJ and RSF recalled that Al Jazeera has become a frequent target of U.S. and British attacks in Iraq and in Afghanistan.
Earlier in the war in Iraq, four members of the pan-Arab television crew in the southern city of Basra came under gunfire from British tanks on March 29 as they were filming distribution of food by Iraqi government officials.
One of the station's cameramen went missing and was later found to have been held for 12 hours by U.S. troops. Al-Jazeera reporters were the only journalists in Basra at the time.
The Al-Jazeera offices in Kabul, Afghanistan, were also bombed by U.S. forces during the war against the Taliban regime in Afghanistan in November 2001.
To have jurisdiction in a war, the International Humanitarian Fact-Finding Commission has to be petitioned by one of the parties in the conflict or by one of the countries that have recognised its jurisdiction.
To conduct an investigation, all the belligerents must accept its authority. Among the countries involved in the Iraq war, only Australia and the United Kingdom have formally recognised it, allowing an investigation to go ahead as far as they are concerned.
Neither the United States nor Iraq have yet accepted the principle of such an enquiry.
Since the beginning of the Iraqi war on March 20, ten journalists have been killed by the conflicting parties, and two other died in war related accidents. At least eight other correspondents have been wounded. Two other reporters' whereabouts remain unknown.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Go to Original
Former Congressman Takes Bush to Court For 'War Crimes'
Associated Press
Friday 11 April 2003
LINCOLN, Neb. -- Former Nebraska Congressman Clair Callan wants a judge to determine if President George W. Bush is guilty of war crimes in Iraq.
Callan filed a motion for a temporary restraining order in federal court in Lincoln that would stop the president from ordering further attacks in Iraq.
The former Democratic congressman argued that Bush is in violation of international treaties for ordering the U.S. military to attack a country that has not attacked the United States.
Callan filed the motion Thursday. Federal attorneys have 60 days to respond.
A federal judge last month denied Callan's request for the court to block the president from starting the war.
Callan, who is from Fairbury, served in the House of Representatives from 1965 to 1967.
|
|
12 U.S. Marines Died Under Heavy Fire In Central Baghdad |
by gat AKA DAN Disinfo
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
13 Apr 2003
Modified: 07:54:18 AM |
Reuters correspondents on the eastern side of the river, around the central Palestine Hotel, said they heard heavy machinegun across the river.
The exchange lasted around 20 minutes, they said.
U.S. Marine Sergeant Daniel Finn told Reuters that enemy fire had opened up on U.S. troops from six bunkers on the western riverbank.
Separately, five U.S. Marines where killed when gunmen dressed in civilian clothes opened fire on Marines guarding a hospital near the Palestine Hotel.
"We lost five Marines," U.S. Marine Major Michael Purcell told Reuters.
He said a group of Marines was guarding the hospital when several gunmen mixed in with civilians, moved close to the Marines and opened fire at close quarters.
"The gunmen escaped," Purcell added.
|
|
Jewish Group Moves To Censor Alternative Media In Canada |
by James Adams repost by DAN Disinfo
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
13 Apr 2003
|
Jewish groups aim to block Al-Jazeera in Canada
Canada's two largest Jewish organizations say they plan to oppose an attempt by the Canadian Cable Television Association to carry the Al-Jazeera network on its members' digital-cable service.
Calling the Qatar-based network "anti-Semitic," the Canadian Jewish Congress and B'nai Brith Canada will intervene in hearings against the CCTA plan. Last week, the association, as a prelude for licensing hearings, asked that the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission include Al-Jazeera as part of a bundle of "ethnic" channels on the CRTC's list of eligible satellite services.
At the same time, the National Council on Canada-Arab Relations says it will intervene in favour of Al-Jazeera, arguing "it would broaden the horizon of the Canadian public" with respect to issues in the Middle East and Afghanistan.
Keith Landy, president of the Ottawa-based Canadian Jewish Congress, said his organization's "close monitoring" of Al-Jazeera, started in 1996, shows that its programming and journalism is marred by "blatant anti-Semitism, Holocaust denial and the glorification of suicide bombers.
"We certainly don't want this to appear as a political attempt to prevent another view from being aired," Landy said. "But by granting them a licence, the kind of stories that they carry could contravene the Criminal Code," as well as hate legislation, the federal government's terrorism act and broadcast regulations established by the CRTC and the Canadian Broadcast Standards Council.
Joseph Ben-Ami, director of communications for B'nai Brith Canada, agreed. "Al-Jazeera is quite well known as a network that transmits blatantly anti-Israel material and sometimes anti-Semitic material. It has no place in Canada, at least not under the sanction of the government of Canada" -- a reference to the CRTC, which operates as an arms-length adjudication body under the Canadian Heritage ministry.
However, Hussein Amery, president of the National Council on Canada-Arab Relations, says interventions against Al-Jazeera by the CJC and B'nai Brith are "a form of censorship and suppression of the media" at a time when concentration of media ownership is "restricting our perspectives of the world."
Amery noted that some Canadians are already watching Al-Jazeera via the U.S. DirecTV service, using illegal "grey-market technologies" to get its signal. "The CCTA wouldn't have made the decision it did if there wasn't a pent-up demand for Al-Jazeera."
It could be quite some time before hearings are held on the CCTA application. Indeed, even if the CRTC agrees to list Al-Jazeera and then hold hearings, CCTA representatives still have to strike licensing deals with the channels themselves and set fee levels -- all of which could mean it won't be until early 2004 that Al-Jazeera secures a legal berth in Canada.
|
|
Amnesty International & Israel |
by PAUL de ROOIJ repost by DAN Disinfo
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
13 Apr 2003
|
Amnesty International And Israel - Say It Isn't So!
Me
One immediate conclusion is that Amnesty International's public record greatly diminishes Israeli violence against Palestinians. The reports only refer to a small fraction of the massive scale of oppression and dispossession perpetrated by the Israeli Occupation Forces (IOF). Occupation is a series of measures meant to make life unbearable for millions, a reality barely mentioned in AI's reports .
amnestyintllogo.jpg, image/jpeg, 102x120
1. Trivializing Israeli violence
One immediate conclusion is that AI's public record greatly diminishes Israeli violence against Palestinians. The reports only refer to a small fraction of the massive scale of oppression and dispossession perpetrated by the Israeli Occupation Forces (IOF). Occupation is a series of measures meant to make life unbearable for millions, a reality barely mentioned in AI's reports . For example, there are tens of thousands of Palestinians severely wounded or maimed by the IOF, yet the scale of this catastrophe or its deliberate nature aren't part of its reports . AI refers to "closures" of most Palestinian cities, but its reports don't convey the scale of these policies--hundreds of thousands under curfew, the siege of cities, and the increase in acute and chronic malnutrition amongst Palestinian children . There is only one press release describing the prison-like conditions of the Gaza strip--hundreds of thousands of Palestinians corralled in the most densely populated area in the world.
Some examples
Item: The July 23, 2002 F16 bombing of Gaza where a one-ton bomb killed 17 people elicited a bland statement . The extent of its admonishment was: "This attack was disproportionate and is utterly unacceptable," and one is left wondering what AI would consider a proportionate response. The remainder of the statement calls on the Palestinians to stop their resistance and calls on the international community to " step up its efforts to assist the Palestinian Authority in improving the effectiveness of its criminal justice system and its compliance with international human rights standards." Perhaps AI can explain the relevance of this statement when commenting on the Gaza bombing.
Not even in the darkest days of Apartheid South Africa did the air force bomb the townships, thus it is surprising to find that this was the first AI press release about an aerial bombardment, although there were 42 preceding ones with varying numbers of casualties.
Item: AI recently issued a press release condemning the 'deportation' of the family members of alleged suicide bombers to Gaza, and it went so far as to call this a war crime. On the face of it, this seems clear, but the press release reveals some serious flaws. The seriousness of the crime is reduced because it doesn't refer to the house demolitions accompanying the expulsion legal proceedings. There was no legal appeal procedure to prevent the house demolitions, and in one instance, the explosion of one home wrecked ten adjacent houses. Furthermore, there is scant reference to the arbitrary nature of the punishment and collective aspects of the expulsions. Finally, it passes the proceedings of as merely a legal maneuver that has been abused. The result is that the extent and seriousness of the Israeli crimes have been reduced .
Item: On October 7, 2002, after Israeli tanks had pulled out of Khan Yunis, Israeli helicopters bombed the crowded streets; they also fired a missile at a hospital. The initial casualty toll amounted to at least 14 Palestinians dead and 80 wounded. Given that Sharon termed this operation a "great success," one would have expected some response, but AI will not issue a statement. AI's main problem is omission--failing to mention the great majority of the events on the ground.
Item: On October 21, 2002, a suicide bomb in Hadera killed 14 Israelis, most of them military, and wounded about 50, again, most of them military. AI issued a press release the next day condemning the attack. Note the difference in the response between this incident, and the Khan Yunis bombing.
2. Why is there violence at all?
Reading AI's reports doesn't reveal why there is a conflict in the area in the first place. The portrayal of violence is stripped of its context, and historical references are minimal. The fact that Palestinians have endured occupation, expulsion, and dispossession for many decades, the explanation of why the conflict persists, is nowhere highlighted in its reports. This posture eliminates the possibility of taking sides, and AI doesn't automatically side with the oppressed victims; instead, it assumes a warped sense of balance. It qualitatively equates the violence perpetrated by the IOF with Palestinian resistance. In attempting to be impartial, AI is oblivious to the history of ethnic cleansing that is the root cause. Israeli violence is qualitatively different than Palestinian violence; it is different than that found in other conflicts because it aims to expel the native population.
AI refers often to the 'cycle of violence'. As John Pilger has said: "It suggests, at best, two equal sides, never that the Palestinians are resisting violent oppression with violence." The 'cycle of violence' portrays the conflict as something we can't explain, and let alone, do much about. Furthermore, the pernicious element of this term is that AI doesn't accept Palestinian justifications for violence, and the Israelis are always portrayed as responding.
3. The human rights mantra--apolitical fence sitting
AI's exclusive focus on human rights may be acceptable when dealing with a single individual languishing in jail for no apparent reason; in this case, its "apolitical" stance also may be suitable. However, this approach is inappropriate when dealing with a situation where abuses are perpetrated on an unprecedented scale. Mass human rights violations are central to the Israeli policy in Palestine, a key point that AI ignores. Even in this case, AI utters increasingly tiresome calls to respect human rights on "both sides" and calls to make human rights "central to any negotiations." This is almost comical.
The problems with AI's reports start with the mantra it recites obsessively without regard to the people in question. On the surface, this simple and neutral premise seems sound enough, but it introduces serious problems if AI is to function as an effective human rights advocate. One cannot equate the violations of the rights of Palestinians, the oppressed people, with the violations against Israelis, the oppressor. It also is hard to imagine how criticizing the violent aspects of state power can ever be non-political.
One thing is to have an "apolitical stance," which may be acceptable, but the other is to use this as an excuse to neuter criticism of any regime. It is clear that AI hasn't carefully analyzed this aspect of its stance, and hence, in the case of Israel/Palestine, the stated non-political stance amounts to an avoidance of critical language or the leveling of severe accusations. In the process, it also has lost its critical edge, and its reports are trite recitation of some abuses. Sharon hardly cowers over AI's reports.
4. Transfer.
Israeli government officials openly discuss the notion of "transfer"--mass expulsion of the Palestinian population. This discussion also takes place within Israeli society to the extent that it is now a centrist political position. Given the seriousness of the situation and the political acceptability of this impending mass crime, it would seem to dictate immediate action to impede it and to make clear to the Israeli government that this would unambiguously constitute a plethora of serious crimes. However, no such call or warning has been issued by AI. A possible explanation is that AI specializes in retail human rights abuses, and it is up to the UN and the international community to mobilize against wholesale crimes. AI and other human rights organizations appear to deal only with abuses that have taken place, and do not work to prevent mass abuses.
5. An astonishing report.
Even more disturbing is a recent Amnesty report , Without Distinction July 2002, which de-legitimizes in one fell swoop Palestinian violence against Israelis. AI accomplishes this in three steps. First, it projects that Palestinians are subject to some international statutes as other states -- which is remarkable since Palestine isn't a state, but a people under occupation. Israel has violated all but one of the provisions of the Fourth Geneva Convention , as well as numerous other international legal conventions including those on torture. It is remarkable then that AI holds Palestinians accountable to international laws that have lent them no protection whatsoever. Second, it removes the legitimacy conferred by the UN to people fighting occupation or oppression. It therefore equates Palestinian violence to that of the Israeli occupier. Third, it prohibits resistance against settlers. This is an odd statement given that a significant fraction of the settlers are armed, violently dispossess the native population, act with impunity, and with acquiescence and protection of the Israeli army . It states without any qualification that settlers are civilians, and thus should not be targeted. Finally, it also prohibits any violence against civilians within Israel proper. Possibly the only legitimate violence accorded to the Palestinian struggle is to confront one of the most powerful armies in the world--but even this right is not clarified in its report. Finally, it levels the clearest accusation of various serious crimes, including war crimes, against Palestinians themselves. This is a shameful report.
6. Evident bias
Even the language used in AI's reports exhibits a bias. Since the beginning of the second intifada AI has seldom outright condemned Israeli violence, the word "condemn" was used primarily when referring to Palestinian violence . Furthermore, emotive adjectives used to describe violent acts, like "horrific" or "shocking", were only used when describing Palestinian violence; in the case of the Israeli acts, the terms used were almost inert -- in this case AI has a proclivity to use the "alleged" adjective. The very first paragraph of a report on Palestinian violence uses words like "deliberately killed" --although this is not entirely clear; reports referring to Israeli violence rarely attribute intention. It is mostly Palestinian violence that has elicited forthright accusations, e.g., war crimes. Despite the preponderance of violence on the Israeli side, AI seldom has leveled such clear accusations against Israeli actions during the same period; Israeli actions are mostly reported to breach certain legal provisions, to breach standards, to be disproportionate, or elicit calls to respect human rights, but the accusation of "war crimes" has been made only thrice .
An important word to describe the conflict is 'occupation'. Now, leaving aside the name 'occupied territories', there has been scant reference to the Israeli occupation of Palestinian land. In no report was the meaning or the implications occupation made clear. Again, this sanitizing of language is troubling.
7. Adopting Israeli-centric language
AI uncritically uses Israeli terms to describe the conflict. The Israeli army likes to refer to itself as the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF)--so does AI; a more neutral name like the "Israeli army" would be more appropriate. It is curious that AI refers to some occupation forces' actions by their operation name, e.g., "Defensive Wall". Names of military operations are part of the PR campaign; AI's adoption of such terms serves Israeli propaganda. It is also disconcerting to find that AI accepts the rationale given by the IOF for its campaigns--invariably it is 'retaliation' or 'response'. For example, the very first page of its extensive report, Broken Lives, uses the Israeli 'response' justification for its violence.
In general, AI uses terms coined by the occupation forces, e.g., "administrative detention" which conveys the impression of a legal process; in reality it refers to arbitrary imprisonment without charges, trial, appeal, often without legal representation, for undefined terms, and frequently at the notorious Ansar concentration camp.
Without exception, AI uses quotation marks around the word 'collaborators.' The IOF regularly uses collaborators to inform on other Palestinians--it is evident in most towns, and the men who were severely beaten because they refused attest to its pervasiveness. Do the quotation marks refer to the alleged accusation, or to AI's unwillingness to accept collaboration with the IOF as a crime? The use of "alleged" instead of the quotation marks would make its meaning clear.
In contrast, AI refers to the persons killed in Israeli extra judicial assassinations as wanted men, or as men validly accused for violent acts. AI is taking the Israeli statements about these men at face value--no quotes needed around 'wanted' or 'accused'. A different standard is applied to either justification for assassination.
AI uses the term 'deportation' for the expulsion of Palestinians from the occupied territories. Deportation implies a legal procedure that Israelis would have a right to implement . However, given the fact that the victims of this procedure are Palestinian natives this should be termed an expulsion, but preferably an exile. Sending a resident of the West Bank to Gaza should perhaps be termed imprisonment--given that Gaza resembles today a giant prison. The term deportation also hides the arbitrary nature of the action, e.g., expelling family members of an alleged attacker, and the collective punishment of the act accompanied by demolishing their houses.
8. The harmful
David Holley, an AI military adviser, uttered statements diminishing the events in Jenin . Given that the statements were made before a UN fact-finding team was instituted, such statements were detrimental in the attempt to establish the UN investigation -- an investigation that ultimately never occurred. Because of that, we may never know what happened at Jenin. Given that no detailed investigation ever took place, his statements were sheer speculation. His statements helped whitewash whatever occurred on the ground. Finally, Mr. Holley concurred with an Israeli demand to include military experts, erstwhile seen as a ploy to mollify the investigation team, further delay, and undermine the UN team. AI has not sought to clarify Mr. Holley's remarks. AI should also explain why it employs military experts; military justifications for destruction or killings should not play a role in human rights abuse investigations.
9. The Absurd
AI has called on several Israeli governments to set up tribunals to prosecute and punish Israeli perpetrators of crimes against Palestinians. AI is requesting a government, led by someone who essentially is a war criminal, to prosecute Israeli soldiers. One can only imagine Sharon's hoots of laughter upon hearing this recommendation. Had AI called its colleagues at B'tselem in Jerusalem it would have found that the Israeli soldiers act with impunity against Palestinians. The few cases investigated for abuses were dismissed or have been shelved forever. Should anyone be actually convicted one can only expect suspended sentences or minor sentences in open prisons.
10. The questions
AI has admitted in a press release that its officers " have had meetings with Israeli officials or members of Israeli diplomatic missions in many countries." It would be nice to know who instigated those meetings. If it is the Israeli side, then their interests must be no doubt to change the language in the reports or to engage in damage control. If AI was the instigator of the meetings, then one would like to know what was the result of these meetings. A singular lack of improvement in Israeli observance of human rights should have dictated cessation of its dealings with such "embassy" officials long ago. Furthermore, one can understand meetings with Israeli officials in London, AI's headquarters, or in Israel proper, but they occurred "in many countries"--why?
Second, AI insists that those involved in report writing not be connected to the area to sustain impartiality and objectivity. In the case of Israel/Palestine AI enforces an exclusion of Palestinian and Israeli rapporteurs. However, it doesn't implement exclusion based on ethnic-origin. In the name of objectivity, there is a case to be made to exclude Jewish and Muslim rapporteurs.
Finally, the AI university campus chapters in the US have become suspect. That is, many of the students attend meetings mostly to deal with questions pertaining Israel. If so, it behooves AI to enforce ethical conduct rules in these chapters.
11. The semi-useful
AI is primarily effective by using moral suasion with the governments involved in human rights abuses, and it exerts pressure by directing letter-writing campaigns--or its modern online equivalent. Its reports used to shame and embarrass the odd dictator. Today's petition drives take the human rights activist to website where one can pick from a menu of victims. Some description of the condition of the hapless victim is given, and one can then press a button to register one's concern.
Presto! Liberals will feel much better, their guilty conscience assuaged. No matter what AI does with the petition lists, this amounts to a means to dissipate anger and not to redirect it into productive action. Could AI please describe the reception of the petition list by Israeli embassy staff?
AI repeatedly calls for the introduction of 'unarmed' observers. The experience of the unarmed Norwegian observers in Hebron proves that this measure is grossly inadequate. Settler violence and threats forced the evacuation of the observers, and they weren't able to provide any protection to the Palestinian population. AI's call for human rights observers assumes that it is helping two parties desiring a peaceful solution to the conflict. However, given the history of human rights violations by the Israelis, any further calls for the introduction of unarmed observers is at best disingenuous. Furthermore, AI's stance on this issue ignores the repeated calls by Palestinians for armed protection. It is essential that armed military enforcers be brought in to protect the Palestinians, as only this measure will likely create conditions to resume meaningful negotiations.
Photo Musa Alshaer, 2002
If AI is serious about motivating human rights campaigners around the world, then a deeper understanding is needed of why there are conflicts. At present, its reports are seriously flawed, and of limited use to educate human rights activists. An informed activist with a firm grasp of the issues will be more effective than one who is only expected to press a few buttons on the website.
12. Sharon
Ariel Sharon has blood on his hands -- dating back many decades. Thousands of people have been his victims and vast swathes of cities have been demolished by him. The Sabra and Shatila massacre is among the bloody chapters, one for which even an Israeli commission attributed blame.
Up to now, AI has only piggybacked on the attempts to indict Sharon in Brussels--an action instigated by others. And that case deals only with the Sabra & Shatila massacre.
Given what is happening now in the Occupied Territories, e.g., Jenin, the repeated bombing "successes", gross violations of the Fourth Geneva Convention, etc., it would seem that calling unambiguously for a war crimes tribunal would be a constructive step. One thing is certain: Sharon, Peres, Elieser are afraid of war crimes indictments. A credible threat thereof would stop them from further escalation. What stops AI from issuing a call for a war crimes tribunal now?
13. Israeli propaganda compliant
The website of The National Interest, a pro-Israeli rightwing foreign affairs journal , reveals in the "Other Links Page" a list of the usual rightwing organizations, e.g., Heritage Foundation, CATO, Milken Institute and among them is AI . It strikes one that AI is amongst odd company. Perhaps it is a case that AI's reports are so sanitized and without any critical edge that they don't offend such dubious journals.
Israel and its propagandists may not like it when AI accuses it of war crimes, but in general, they will be pleased with the lame nature of Amnesty's stance and its reports. Here is why:
(1) It diminishes the nature and extent of Israeli crimes against the Palestinians, partly whitewashing Israeli actions.
(2) It equates the nature of violence of the oppressor and oppressed. AI refuses to hold Israel up to a different standard. Although it accuses Israel of war crimes, it also levels the same accusation against Palestinians.
(3) AI remarkably accepts Israeli justifications for its violence, e.g., 'response,' but accepts no justification for Palestinian violence.
(4) AI doesn't issue strong condemnations against Israeli actions. There have only been three clear war crime accusations, and all the other accusations are lame breaches of policing standards, etc.
(5) AI doesn't call for any measures that would curtail Israeli actions. Calling for unarmed observers is a woefully inadequate measure given the need to protect the population.
AI's approach will please the Israeli government and its supporters. AI's current stance not only doesn't offend pro-Israeli organizations, it doesn't call for effective action putting it on a collision course.
Conclusion
Human rights organizations have taken on a responsibility to stand up against the injustices perpetrated by state power. In the case of Amnesty International, its public record indicates that its stance is ineffective and dubious when it comes to defending Palestinian human rights. It is not a question of desiring more, but demanding the very minimum.
Paul de Rooij is an economist living in London, and is an ex-supporter of Amnesty. He would like to thank Donatella Rovera, AI's researcher on Israel/Palestine, for the long discussion held with her--unfortunately, many questions remain. He would like to thank the 20+ academics, human rights professionals, and lawyers who reviewed this article. It is odd to put one name as an author to a document towards which so many people contributed.
|
|
Amnesty International - Say It Isn't So! |
by Joe Young still a repost by DAN Disinfo
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
13 Apr 2003
|
Amnesty International & Israel:
Say it isn't so!
This article analyzes Amnesty's entire public record and stance during the current intifada (Sep. 2000 thru Sep. 2002). It is an analysis of a meager record of 83 press releases and six reports . It reveals the following shortcomings and questions about its stance.
1. Trivializing Israeli violence
One immediate conclusion is that AI's public record greatly diminishes Israeli violence against Palestinians. The reports only refer to a small fraction of the massive scale of oppression and dispossession perpetrated by the Israeli Occupation Forces (IOF). Occupation is a series of measures meant to make life unbearable for millions, a reality barely mentioned in AI's reports . For example, there are tens of thousands of Palestinians severely wounded or maimed by the IOF, yet the scale of this catastrophe or its deliberate nature aren't part of its reports . AI refers to "closures" of most Palestinian cities, but its reports don't convey the scale of these policies--hundreds of thousands under curfew, the siege of cities, and the increase in acute and chronic malnutrition amongst Palestinian children . There is only one press release describing the prison-like conditions of the Gaza strip--hundreds of thousands of Palestinians corralled in the most densely populated area in the world.
Some examples
Item: The July 23, 2002 F16 bombing of Gaza where a one-ton bomb killed 17 people elicited a bland statement . The extent of its admonishment was: "This attack was disproportionate and is utterly unacceptable," and one is left wondering what AI would consider a proportionate response. The remainder of the statement calls on the Palestinians to stop their resistance and calls on the international community to " step up its efforts to assist the Palestinian Authority in improving the effectiveness of its criminal justice system and its compliance with international human rights standards." Perhaps AI can explain the relevance of this statement when commenting on the Gaza bombing.
Not even in the darkest days of Apartheid South Africa did the air force bomb the townships, thus it is surprising to find that this was the first AI press release about an aerial bombardment, although there were 42 preceding ones with varying numbers of casualties.
Item: AI recently issued a press release condemning the 'deportation' of the family members of alleged suicide bombers to Gaza, and it went so far as to call this a war crime. On the face of it, this seems clear, but the press release reveals some serious flaws. The seriousness of the crime is reduced because it doesn't refer to the house demolitions accompanying the expulsion legal proceedings. There was no legal appeal procedure to prevent the house demolitions, and in one instance, the explosion of one home wrecked ten adjacent houses. Furthermore, there is scant reference to the arbitrary nature of the punishment and collective aspects of the expulsions. Finally, it passes the proceedings of as merely a legal maneuver that has been abused. The result is that the extent and seriousness of the Israeli crimes have been reduced .
Item: On October 7, 2002, after Israeli tanks had pulled out of Khan Yunis, Israeli helicopters bombed the crowded streets; they also fired a missile at a hospital. The initial casualty toll amounted to at least 14 Palestinians dead and 80 wounded. Given that Sharon termed this operation a "great success," one would have expected some response, but AI will not issue a statement. AI's main problem is omission--failing to mention the great majority of the events on the ground.
Item: On October 21, 2002, a suicide bomb in Hadera killed 14 Israelis, most of them military, and wounded about 50, again, most of them military. AI issued a press release the next day condemning the attack. Note the difference in the response between this incident, and the Khan Yunis bombing.
2. Why is there violence at all?
Reading AI's reports doesn't reveal why there is a conflict in the area in the first place. The portrayal of violence is stripped of its context, and historical references are minimal. The fact that Palestinians have endured occupation, expulsion, and dispossession for many decades, the explanation of why the conflict persists, is nowhere highlighted in its reports. This posture eliminates the possibility of taking sides, and AI doesn't automatically side with the oppressed victims; instead, it assumes a warped sense of balance. It qualitatively equates the violence perpetrated by the IOF with Palestinian resistance. In attempting to be impartial, AI is oblivious to the history of ethnic cleansing that is the root cause. Israeli violence is qualitatively different than Palestinian violence; it is different than that found in other conflicts because it aims to expel the native population.
AI refers often to the 'cycle of violence'. As John Pilger has said: "It suggests, at best, two equal sides, never that the Palestinians are resisting violent oppression with violence." The 'cycle of violence' portrays the conflict as something we can't explain, and let alone, do much about. Furthermore, the pernicious element of this term is that AI doesn't accept Palestinian justifications for violence, and the Israelis are always portrayed as responding.
3. The human rights mantra--apolitical fence sitting
AI's exclusive focus on human rights may be acceptable when dealing with a single individual languishing in jail for no apparent reason; in this case, its "apolitical" stance also may be suitable. However, this approach is inappropriate when dealing with a situation where abuses are perpetrated on an unprecedented scale. Mass human rights violations are central to the Israeli policy in Palestine, a key point that AI ignores. Even in this case, AI utters increasingly tiresome calls to respect human rights on "both sides" and calls to make human rights "central to any negotiations." This is almost comical.
The problems with AI's reports start with the mantra it recites obsessively without regard to the people in question. On the surface, this simple and neutral premise seems sound enough, but it introduces serious problems if AI is to function as an effective human rights advocate. One cannot equate the violations of the rights of Palestinians, the oppressed people, with the violations against Israelis, the oppressor. It also is hard to imagine how criticizing the violent aspects of state power can ever be non-political.
One thing is to have an "apolitical stance," which may be acceptable, but the other is to use this as an excuse to neuter criticism of any regime. It is clear that AI hasn't carefully analyzed this aspect of its stance, and hence, in the case of Israel/Palestine, the stated non-political stance amounts to an avoidance of critical language or the leveling of severe accusations. In the process, it also has lost its critical edge, and its reports are trite recitation of some abuses. Sharon hardly cowers over AI's reports.
4. Transfer.
Israeli government officials openly discuss the notion of "transfer"--mass expulsion of the Palestinian population. This discussion also takes place within Israeli society to the extent that it is now a centrist political position. Given the seriousness of the situation and the political acceptability of this impending mass crime, it would seem to dictate immediate action to impede it and to make clear to the Israeli government that this would unambiguously constitute a plethora of serious crimes. However, no such call or warning has been issued by AI. A possible explanation is that AI specializes in retail human rights abuses, and it is up to the UN and the international community to mobilize against wholesale crimes. AI and other human rights organizations appear to deal only with abuses that have taken place, and do not work to prevent mass abuses.
5. An astonishing report.
Even more disturbing is a recent Amnesty report , Without Distinction July 2002, which de-legitimizes in one fell swoop Palestinian violence against Israelis. AI accomplishes this in three steps. First, it projects that Palestinians are subject to some international statutes as other states -- which is remarkable since Palestine isn't a state, but a people under occupation. Israel has violated all but one of the provisions of the Fourth Geneva Convention , as well as numerous other international legal conventions including those on torture. It is remarkable then that AI holds Palestinians accountable to international laws that have lent them no protection whatsoever. Second, it removes the legitimacy conferred by the UN to people fighting occupation or oppression. It therefore equates Palestinian violence to that of the Israeli occupier. Third, it prohibits resistance against settlers. This is an odd statement given that a significant fraction of the settlers are armed, violently dispossess the native population, act with impunity, and with acquiescence and protection of the Israeli army . It states without any qualification that settlers are civilians, and thus should not be targeted. Finally, it also prohibits any violence against civilians within Israel proper. Possibly the only legitimate violence accorded to the Palestinian struggle is to confront one of the most powerful armies in the world--but even this right is not clarified in its report. Finally, it levels the clearest accusation of various serious crimes, including war crimes, against Palestinians themselves. This is a shameful report.
6. Evident bias
Even the language used in AI's reports exhibits a bias. Since the beginning of the second intifada AI has seldom outright condemned Israeli violence, the word "condemn" was used primarily when referring to Palestinian violence . Furthermore, emotive adjectives used to describe violent acts, like "horrific" or "shocking", were only used when describing Palestinian violence; in the case of the Israeli acts, the terms used were almost inert -- in this case AI has a proclivity to use the "alleged" adjective. The very first paragraph of a report on Palestinian violence uses words like "deliberately killed" --although this is not entirely clear; reports referring to Israeli violence rarely attribute intention. It is mostly Palestinian violence that has elicited forthright accusations, e.g., war crimes. Despite the preponderance of violence on the Israeli side, AI seldom has leveled such clear accusations against Israeli actions during the same period; Israeli actions are mostly reported to breach certain legal provisions, to breach standards, to be disproportionate, or elicit calls to respect human rights, but the accusation of "war crimes" has been made only thrice .
An important word to describe the conflict is 'occupation'. Now, leaving aside the name 'occupied territories', there has been scant reference to the Israeli occupation of Palestinian land. In no report was the meaning or the implications occupation made clear. Again, this sanitizing of language is troubling.
7. Adopting Israeli-centric language
AI uncritically uses Israeli terms to describe the conflict. The Israeli army likes to refer to itself as the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF)--so does AI; a more neutral name like the "Israeli army" would be more appropriate. It is curious that AI refers to some occupation forces' actions by their operation name, e.g., "Defensive Wall". Names of military operations are part of the PR campaign; AI's adoption of such terms serves Israeli propaganda. It is also disconcerting to find that AI accepts the rationale given by the IOF for its campaigns--invariably it is 'retaliation' or 'response'. For example, the very first page of its extensive report, Broken Lives, uses the Israeli 'response' justification for its violence.
In general, AI uses terms coined by the occupation forces, e.g., "administrative detention" which conveys the impression of a legal process; in reality it refers to arbitrary imprisonment without charges, trial, appeal, often without legal representation, for undefined terms, and frequently at the notorious Ansar concentration camp.
Without exception, AI uses quotation marks around the word 'collaborators.' The IOF regularly uses collaborators to inform on other Palestinians--it is evident in most towns, and the men who were severely beaten because they refused attest to its pervasiveness. Do the quotation marks refer to the alleged accusation, or to AI's unwillingness to accept collaboration with the IOF as a crime? The use of "alleged" instead of the quotation marks would make its meaning clear.
In contrast, AI refers to the persons killed in Israeli extra judicial assassinations as wanted men, or as men validly accused for violent acts. AI is taking the Israeli statements about these men at face value--no quotes needed around 'wanted' or 'accused'. A different standard is applied to either justification for assassination.
AI uses the term 'deportation' for the expulsion of Palestinians from the occupied territories. Deportation implies a legal procedure that Israelis would have a right to implement . However, given the fact that the victims of this procedure are Palestinian natives this should be termed an expulsion, but preferably an exile. Sending a resident of the West Bank to Gaza should perhaps be termed imprisonment--given that Gaza resembles today a giant prison. The term deportation also hides the arbitrary nature of the action, e.g., expelling family members of an alleged attacker, and the collective punishment of the act accompanied by demolishing their houses.
8. The harmful
David Holley, an AI military adviser, uttered statements diminishing the events in Jenin . Given that the statements were made before a UN fact-finding team was instituted, such statements were detrimental in the attempt to establish the UN investigation -- an investigation that ultimately never occurred. Because of that, we may never know what happened at Jenin. Given that no detailed investigation ever took place, his statements were sheer speculation. His statements helped whitewash whatever occurred on the ground. Finally, Mr. Holley concurred with an Israeli demand to include military experts, erstwhile seen as a ploy to mollify the investigation team, further delay, and undermine the UN team. AI has not sought to clarify Mr. Holley's remarks. AI should also explain why it employs military experts; military justifications for destruction or killings should not play a role in human rights abuse investigations.
9. The Absurd
AI has called on several Israeli governments to set up tribunals to prosecute and punish Israeli perpetrators of crimes against Palestinians. AI is requesting a government, led by someone who essentially is a war criminal, to prosecute Israeli soldiers. One can only imagine Sharon's hoots of laughter upon hearing this recommendation. Had AI called its colleagues at B'tselem in Jerusalem it would have found that the Israeli soldiers act with impunity against Palestinians. The few cases investigated for abuses were dismissed or have been shelved forever. Should anyone be actually convicted one can only expect suspended sentences or minor sentences in open prisons.
10. The questions
AI has admitted in a press release that its officers " have had meetings with Israeli officials or members of Israeli diplomatic missions in many countries." It would be nice to know who instigated those meetings. If it is the Israeli side, then their interests must be no doubt to change the language in the reports or to engage in damage control. If AI was the instigator of the meetings, then one would like to know what was the result of these meetings. A singular lack of improvement in Israeli observance of human rights should have dictated cessation of its dealings with such "embassy" officials long ago. Furthermore, one can understand meetings with Israeli officials in London, AI's headquarters, or in Israel proper, but they occurred "in many countries"--why?
Second, AI insists that those involved in report writing not be connected to the area to sustain impartiality and objectivity. In the case of Israel/Palestine AI enforces an exclusion of Palestinian and Israeli rapporteurs. However, it doesn't implement exclusion based on ethnic-origin. In the name of objectivity, there is a case to be made to exclude Jewish and Muslim rapporteurs.
Finally, the AI university campus chapters in the US have become suspect. That is, many of the students attend meetings mostly to deal with questions pertaining Israel. If so, it behooves AI to enforce ethical conduct rules in these chapters.
11. The semi-useful
AI is primarily effective by using moral suasion with the governments involved in human rights abuses, and it exerts pressure by directing letter-writing campaigns--or its modern online equivalent. Its reports used to shame and embarrass the odd dictator. Today's petition drives take the human rights activist to website where one can pick from a menu of victims. Some description of the condition of the hapless victim is given, and one can then press a button to register one's concern.
Presto! Liberals will feel much better, their guilty conscience assuaged. No matter what AI does with the petition lists, this amounts to a means to dissipate anger and not to redirect it into productive action. Could AI please describe the reception of the petition list by Israeli embassy staff?
AI repeatedly calls for the introduction of 'unarmed' observers. The experience of the unarmed Norwegian observers in Hebron proves that this measure is grossly inadequate. Settler violence and threats forced the evacuation of the observers, and they weren't able to provide any protection to the Palestinian population. AI's call for human rights observers assumes that it is helping two parties desiring a peaceful solution to the conflict. However, given the history of human rights violations by the Israelis, any further calls for the introduction of unarmed observers is at best disingenuous. Furthermore, AI's stance on this issue ignores the repeated calls by Palestinians for armed protection. It is essential that armed military enforcers be brought in to protect the Palestinians, as only this measure will likely create conditions to resume meaningful negotiations.
Photo Musa Alshaer, 2002
If AI is serious about motivating human rights campaigners around the world, then a deeper understanding is needed of why there are conflicts. At present, its reports are seriously flawed, and of limited use to educate human rights activists. An informed activist with a firm grasp of the issues will be more effective than one who is only expected to press a few buttons on the website.
12. Sharon
Ariel Sharon has blood on his hands -- dating back many decades. Thousands of people have been his victims and vast swathes of cities have been demolished by him. The Sabra and Shatila massacre is among the bloody chapters, one for which even an Israeli commission attributed blame.
Up to now, AI has only piggybacked on the attempts to indict Sharon in Brussels--an action instigated by others. And that case deals only with the Sabra & Shatila massacre.
Given what is happening now in the Occupied Territories, e.g., Jenin, the repeated bombing "successes", gross violations of the Fourth Geneva Convention, etc., it would seem that calling unambiguously for a war crimes tribunal would be a constructive step. One thing is certain: Sharon, Peres, Elieser are afraid of war crimes indictments. A credible threat thereof would stop them from further escalation. What stops AI from issuing a call for a war crimes tribunal now?
13. Israeli propaganda compliant
The website of The National Interest, a pro-Israeli rightwing foreign affairs journal , reveals in the "Other Links Page" a list of the usual rightwing organizations, e.g., Heritage Foundation, CATO, Milken Institute and among them is AI . It strikes one that AI is amongst odd company. Perhaps it is a case that AI's reports are so sanitized and without any critical edge that they don't offend such dubious journals.
Israel and its propagandists may not like it when AI accuses it of war crimes, but in general, they will be pleased with the lame nature of Amnesty's stance and its reports. Here is why:
(1) It diminishes the nature and extent of Israeli crimes against the Palestinians, partly whitewashing Israeli actions.
(2) It equates the nature of violence of the oppressor and oppressed. AI refuses to hold Israel up to a different standard. Although it accuses Israel of war crimes, it also levels the same accusation against Palestinians.
(3) AI remarkably accepts Israeli justifications for its violence, e.g., 'response,' but accepts no justification for Palestinian violence.
(4) AI doesn't issue strong condemnations against Israeli actions. There have only been three clear war crime accusations, and all the other accusations are lame breaches of policing standards, etc.
(5) AI doesn't call for any measures that would curtail Israeli actions. Calling for unarmed observers is a woefully inadequate measure given the need to protect the population.
AI's approach will please the Israeli government and its supporters. AI's current stance not only doesn't offend pro-Israeli organizations, it doesn't call for effective action putting it on a collision course.
Conclusion
Human rights organizations have taken on a responsibility to stand up against the injustices perpetrated by state power. In the case of Amnesty International, its public record indicates that its stance is ineffective and dubious when it comes to defending Palestinian human rights. It is not a question of desiring more, but demanding the very minimum.
Paul de Rooij is an economist living in London, and is an ex-supporter of Amnesty. He would like to thank Donatella Rovera, AI's researcher on Israel/Palestine, for the long discussion held with her--unfortunately, many questions remain. He would like to thank the 20+ academics, human rights professionals, and lawyers who reviewed this article. It is odd to put one name as an author to a document towards which so many people contributed.
|
|
