Showing posts sorted by date for query Fallujah. Sort by relevance Show all posts
Showing posts sorted by date for query Fallujah. Sort by relevance Show all posts

Monday, November 04, 2024

KUSHNER REALTY  GAZA BEACH FRONT PROPERTIES 4 SALE

Exterminate, Expel, Resettle: Israel’s Endgame In Northern Gaza

Debates over the details of the ‘Generals’ Plan’ distract from the true brutality of Israel’s latest operation — one that drops the veneer of humanitarian considerations and lays the groundwork for settlements.
November 2, 2024
Source: +972 Magazine


The Israeli army rounds up Palestinians at gunpoint near the Indonesian Hospital in Beit Lahiya, northern Gaza Strip. (X/AvichayAdraee)



Look at these two photos, which were both taken on Oct. 21, 2024. On the right, we see a long line of displaced people — or, more accurately, women and children — in the ruins of Jabalia refugee camp, in the northern Gaza Strip. Men over the age of 16 are separated, waving a white flag and holding up their ID cards. They are on their way out.

On the left, we see a camp built by the settler organization Nachala just outside Gaza, as part of an event celebrating the festival of Sukkot. The event was attended by 21 right-wing ministers and Knesset members and several hundred other participants, all of whom were there to discuss plans for building new Jewish settlements in Gaza. They are on their way in.Left: Israeli settlers gather at an event celebrating Sukkot near the Gaza Strip, calling for annexation and resettlement, October 21, 2024. (Oren Ziv) Right: Displaced Palestinians line up at gunpoint in the ruins of Jabalia refugee camp. (Used in accordance with Clause 27a of the Copyright Law)

These photos tell a story that is unfolding so rapidly that its harrowing details are already on the brink of being forgotten. Yet this story could start from any point during the past 76 years: the Nakba of 1948, the “Siyag Plan” that followed it, the Naksa of 1967. On one side, displaced Palestinians with all the belongings they can carry, hungry, wounded, and exhausted; on the other, joyful Jewish settlers, sanctifying the new land that the army has cleared for them.

But the story of what is happening right now, on either side of the Gaza fence, revolves around what has come to be known as the “Generals’ Plan” — and what it conceals.
The blueprint

The “Generals’ Plan,” published in early September, has a very simple goal: to empty the northern Gaza Strip of its Palestinian population. The plan itself estimated that about 300,000 people were still living north of the Netzarim Corridor — the Israeli-occupied zone that bisects Gaza — although the UN put the number closer to 400,000.

During the first phase of the plan, the Israeli army would inform all of those people that they have a week to evacuate to the south through two “humanitarian corridors.” In the second phase, at the end of that week, the army would declare the whole area a closed military zone. Anyone who remained would be considered an enemy combatant, and be killed if they didn’t surrender. A complete siege would be imposed on the territory, intensifying the hunger and health crisis — creating, as Prof. Uzi Rabi, a senior researcher at Tel Aviv University, put it, “a process of starvation or extermination.”

According to the plan, providing the civilian population advance warning to evacuate guarantees compliance with the requirements of international humanitarian law. This is a lie. The first protocol of the Geneva Conventions clearly states that warning civilians to flee does not negate the protected status of those who remain, and therefore does not permit military forces to harm them; nor does a military siege negate the army’s obligation to allow the passage of humanitarian aid to civilians.

Besides, the lip service to humanitarian law falls flat when considering that the man spearheading the plan, Maj. Gen. (res.) Giora Eiland, has spent the past year calling for collective punishment against the entire population of Gaza, for treating the enclave as if it were Nazi Germany, and for allowing disease to spread as a step that will “bring victory closer and reduce harm to IDF soldiers.” After rattling off like that for 10 months, he recognized an opportunity — in consultation with a number of shadow advisors, to whom we will return — to pilot an extermination plan in northern Gaza. He diligently delivered it to politicians and the media, disguised in a mask of lies about adhering to international law.

The media and the politicians did what they always do: manufactured a distraction. While Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Yoav Gallant hastened to deny, anonymous officials and soldiers in the field were already briefing the media that the plan was starting to be implemented.Giora Eiland testifies during a hearing of the civil investigative committee on the October 7 massacres, Tel Aviv, August 8, 2024. (Avshalom Sassoni/Flash90)

The reality, however, is even more appalling. What the army has been implementing in northern Gaza since early October is not quite the “Generals’ Plan,” but an even more sinister and brutal version of it within a more concentrated area. One could even say that the plan itself and the intense international media and diplomatic storm it has created has helped keep everyone in the dark as to what is actually going on, and obscure the two ways in which the plan has already been redefined.

The first, most immediate distinction is the abandoning of provisions for reducing harm to civilians, i.e. giving residents of northern Gaza a week to evacuate southward. The second departure concerns the real purpose of emptying the area: while portraying the military operation as a security necessity, it was, in fact, an embodiment of the spirit of ethnic cleansing and resettlement from day one.
Attention diverted

The catastrophe in northern Gaza is growing by the minute, and the confluence of circumstances means that the unimaginable — extermination of thousands of people inside the besieged area — is no longer beyond the realm of possibility.

The current military operation began in the early hours of Oct. 6. Residents of Beit Hanoun, Beit Lahiya, and Jabalia — the three localities north of Gaza City — were ordered to flee to the Al-Mawasi area in the south of the Strip through two “humanitarian corridors.” Israel presented the attack as a means to dismantle Hamas infrastructure after the group had reestablished itself in the area, and to prepare for the possibility of Israel taking over responsibility for acquiring, moving, and distributing humanitarian aid around the Strip — in other words, for the return of the Israeli Civil Administration that governed Gaza until the “disengagement” of 2005. The first cause was only partially true, and the second was no more than a smokescreen.

For Palestinians in those areas, things looked rather different. The army attacked residents in their homes and in shelters with airstrikes, artillery, and drones, while soldiers moved from street to street demolishing and setting fire to entire buildings to prevent residents from returning. Within a matter of days, Jabalia had turned into a vision of the apocalypse.

As opposed to the picture painted by the army, implying that residents in the northern areas were free to move south and get out of the danger zone, local testimonies presented a frightening reality: anyone who so much as stepped out of their home risked being shot by Israeli snipers or drones, including young children and those holding white flags. Rescue crews trying to help the wounded also came under attack, as well as journalists trying to document the events.

One particularly harrowing video, verified by The Washington Post, shows a child on the ground pleading for help after being wounded by an airstrike; when a crowd gathers to help him, they are suddenly hit by another airstrike, killing one and wounding more than 20 others. This is the reality amid which the people of northern Gaza were supposed to walk, starved and exhausted, into the “humanitarian zone.”An IDF drone shows displaced Palestinians forced to evacuate Jabalia, October 21, 2024. (X/Avichay Adraee/used in accordance with Clause 27a of the Copyright Law)

In view of this brutality, the Israeli propaganda machine spurred into action to offer a slew of excuses as to why civilians were not evacuating — primarily that Hamas was “beating with sticks” those who tried to leave. If Hamas did indeed stop civilians from evacuating, how can the army then claim that those who chose not to evacuate are terrorists condemned to be killed? But listening to the residents themselves, one could hear the same desperate cry repeatedly: “We cannot evacuate because the Israeli army is shooting at us.”

On Oct. 20, the army circulated a photo of a long line of displaced Palestinians, beside a caption worded as mundanely and numbingly as a weather forecast: “The movement of Palestinian residents continues from the Jabalia area in the northern Gaza Strip. So far, more than 5,000 Palestinians have evacuated from the area.”

Observant viewers would have noticed that all of the heads in the picture were covered: it is a line of women and children, who were not “evacuated” but forcibly uprooted. Where are the men? Taken away to unknown locations. We may yet hear of their time in Israeli detention camps a few months from now, describing the torture and abuse that have killed at least 60 Gazan prisoners since October 7.

Unlike what was stated in the “Generals’ Plan,” civilians were not given a week to evacuate, as Eiland later acknowledged; from the get-go, the army treated the northern areas as a military zone in which any movement is met with deadly fire. This is the first way in which the plan has been used as a lightning rod to divert attention and criticism from a much more brutal reality than what it proffers.
A policy of extermination

Since the Israeli army began its operation in northern Gaza, it has killed over 1,000 Palestinians. The Israeli Air Force usually bombs at night while the victims are sleeping, slaughtering entire families in their homes and making it more difficult to evacuate the wounded. And on Oct. 24, rescue services announced that the intensity of the bombardment left them with no choice but to cease all operations in the besieged areas.

Some of the most notable attacks include the bombing of a home in the Al-Fallujah area of Jabalia camp on Oct. 14, killing a family of 11 along with the doctor who came to treat them; an attack on the Abu Hussein School in Jabalia camp on Oct. 17 that killed 22 displaced people who were sheltering there; the killing of 33 people in three houses in Jabalia camp, among them 21 women, on Oct. 19; the leveling of several residential buildings in Beit Lahiya on the same day, killing 87 people; airstrikes on five residential buildings in Beit Lahiya on Oct. 26, which killed 40 people; and the massacre of 93 people in the bombing of a five-storey residential building in Beit Lahiya on Oct. 29.

The extermination operation that is currently underway in northern Gaza should not come as a surprise to anyone who has paid attention to Israel’s war crimes over the past year, and the countless investigative reports that the world’s most respected media outlets have written about them. From dropping 2,000-pound bombs where there are no military targets nearby to the regular killing of children by sniper fire to the head — these past atrocities show us what the Israeli army will continue to do if they’re not stopped.


There are only three major medical facilities within the encircled area of northern Gaza, to which the hundreds of casualties of the past few weeks have been directed: the Indonesian Hospital and Kamal Adwan Hospital in Beit Lahiya, and Al-Awda Hospital in Jabalia. Yet the Israeli army has also subjected these hospitals to attacks, rendering them unable to treat the wounded. Reports by Doctors Without Borders and the UN have defined the situation as “immediately life threatening.”

At the start of the operation, the Israeli army ordered the three hospitals to evacuate within 24 hours, threatening to capture or kill anyone found inside them — not quite the “week of grace” stated in the “Generals’ Plan.” The army bombed Kamal Adwan and its surroundings in the early stages of the operation, before subjecting it to a three-day raid which removed it from service entirely and saw most of the doctors detained.

The army has also repeatedly bombed both the Indonesian Hospital and Al-Awda. Two patients in the former died due to the resulting power outage, before the hospital stopped functioning altogether. This is the reason why even mild injuries often end in death — because medical teams simply do not have the resources necessary to treat them.

Israel, of course, deems every house and every alley in Gaza a potential threat and a legitimate target. And what will be the excuse for denying six medical aid groups that work with the World Health Organization from entering Gaza? Most likely, it is a punishment for sending Western doctors to the Strip who later published testimonies about Israeli snipers targeting children. A UN report published shortly beforehand concluded that Israel is carrying out “a concerted policy to destroy the health-care system of Gaza” as part of “the crime against humanity of extermination.”
A policy of starvation

These attacks have been accompanied by a complete siege that has blocked all food and medical supplies from entering northern Gaza, which appears to have been an intentional starvation policy. According to the UN’s World Food Program, Israel began cutting off food on Oct. 1 — five days before the military operation.Palestinians queue for bread at the only open bakery in Khan Younis, southern Gaza Strip, October 24, 2024. (Abed Rahim Khatib/Flash90)

This fact received official, albeit indirect, acknowledgement in the form of a U.S. ultimatum on Oct. 15, demanding that Israel allow aid shipments to enter northern Gaza within 30 days or face a halt in U.S. weapons deliveries to Israel. This indicates, as humanitarian groups had warned, that no such aid was being allowed in before then. The 30-day grace period is laughable; as the EU’s foreign policy chief stated, within 30 days thousands of people might die of starvation.

Moreover, an exposé by Politico strengthened the feeling that like previous such “threats,” the latest demand from Washington was but an empty ceremonial gesture to reassure liberal consciences. Already in August, the top U.S. official working on the humanitarian situation in Gaza told aid organizations in an internal meeting that the United States would not countenance delaying or stopping weapon shipments to Israel to pressure it on humanitarian aid. As for the breaking of international humanitarian law, the sentiment expressed by the representative, according to one of the attendees, was that “the rules do not apply to Israel.”

Israel’s starvation policy in northern Gaza has not been limited to preventing the entry of food. On Oct. 10, the army bombed the only flour store in the area — as clear a war crime as you’ll find, forming a significant part of the genocide case against Israel at the International Court of Justice. Four days later, the army bombed a UN food distribution center in Jabalia, killing 10 people.

Aid agencies have provided urgent warnings about this escalating disaster, alerting as to their inability to fulfill their basic functions amid the impossible conditions Israel has created in northern Gaza. A new IPC report about hunger in Gaza predicts “catastrophic outcomes” of severe malnutrition, especially in the north.

On Oct. 16, Israeli media reported that following U.S. pressure, 100 aid trucks had entered northern Gaza. But journalists in the north were quick to correct the record: nothing at all had entered the besieged areas. On Oct. 20, Israel denied a further request by UN agencies to bring in food, fuel, blood, and medicines. Three days later, in response to a request for an interim order by the Israeli human rights group Gisha, the state admitted to the High Court that no humanitarian aid had been allowed into northern Gaza up to that point. By this time, we are already talking about a three-week-long food siege.

Since then, Israel claims to have allowed a trickle of aid trucks into northern Gaza — but without photographic evidence, it is very hard to know how many have reached their stated destination.
Winking at the right, feigning security justifications to the left

From the very start, the military rationale for such a drastic operation was questionable. Eiland spoke of “5,000 terrorists” hiding in the north, but anyone following the situation on the ground closely could see that encounters with Hamas operatives in these areas were few and far between.

Indeed, as Haaretz’s Yaniv Kubovich revealed, “commanders in the field … say that the decision to start operating in northern Gaza was made without detailed deliberations, and it seems that it was mainly intended to put pressure on the population of Gaza.” Military forces were told to prepare for the operation, the report continued, “even though there was no intelligence to justify it.”

Furthermore, there was no unanimity among senior defense officials regarding the necessity of the maneuver, and there were plenty in both the army and the Shin Bet who thought it might endanger the lives of hostages. Sources who spoke to Haaretz testified that the soldiers who entered Jabalia “did not encounter terrorists face-to-face,” though at least 12 soldiers have since been killed in northern Gaza.

So what was the real motivation for the operation? To answer that question, we need look no further than the Sukkot event organized by settlers and their supporters on Oct. 21, titled “Preparing to Settle Gaza.” There, they laid out a vision for building Jewish settlements all across the Gaza Strip after cleansing the enclave of Palestinians. Gaza City, for example, would become “a Hebrew, technological, green city that would unite all parts of Israeli society.” And in this, at least, they are telling the truth: Israelis have always united around the displacement and dispossession of Palestinians.

That event was only the latest to call for annexation and settlement of the Strip, coming after an ecstatic January conference in Jerusalem that was attended by thousands, including no fewer than 26 coalition members. And while only a quarter of the Israeli public supports resettling Gaza, the significant presence of ministers and supporters from Netanyahu’s Likud party shows that at the political level, it is growing increasingly mainstream.

Daniela Weiss’ Nachala movement has already drawn up the plans: six settlement groups, with 700 families waiting in line. All they need is a window of opportunity — one moment when national attention is distracted (in Lebanon, the West Bank, Iran), one moment of determination in Bezalel Smotrich’s “decisive” style, and the stake will be planted across the fence.

They will call it a “military outpost” or an “agricultural farm,” a time-tested strategy of winking at the right while feigning security justifications to the left. The army will never abandon them: these are our “finest boys,” the military is their flesh and blood. And so the return shall come to pass.
The brains behind the ‘Generals’ Plan’

The observant among us could see the way the wind was blowing from the very first week of the war. While most Israelis were still wrapping their heads around the magnitude of the disaster of October 7, the settlers were already drawing maps and sticking settlement pins on them.

The wound of the “disengagement,” when the military uprooted 8,000 settlers from the Strip, was left deliberately open, never allowed to heal: a “trauma” being re-lived and passed down year after year, bleeding its poison into the infamous Kohelet Policy Forum — a right-wing think tank responsible for much of the current government’s masterplans — and to a whole row of right-wing politicians imbued with hatred and an insatiable desire for revenge.

It was the reincarnation of an old fundamental Israeli theme: the eternal victims can never sin. It is the mindset that turned the trauma of October 7, in the words of Naomi Klein, into “a weapon of war,” seamlessly infusing the Hamas attack with Holocaust imagery.

And of course, far-right minister Orit Strook knew it before anyone else, predicting in May 2023: “About [resettling] Gaza — I don’t think that the people of Israel are mentally there right now, so it won’t happen today or tomorrow morning. In the long-term, I suppose there will be no choice but to do it. It will happen when the people of Israel will be ready for it, and sadly we will pay for it in blood.” How sad she really was about it is hard to tell, since the very same Orit Strook, in the midst of the war, rejoiced at the surge of new settlements and outposts in the West Bank and described it as “a time of miracles.”

What is the connection between this overflowing cauldron of messianism and the “Generals’ Plan”? That was revealed earlier this month, when Omri Maniv of Channel 12 found that although the military generals are the face of the plan, the brains behind it is the right-wing organization Tzav 9 — the group responsible for setting humanitarian aid trucks on fire before they could enter Gaza, and which was consequently sanctioned by the United States along with its founder, Shlomo Sarid.

According to Maniv’s report, it was Sarid who connected Eiland with the Forum of Reserve Commanders and Fighters, which published the plan. Among the founders of the Forum is Maj. Gen. (res.) Gabi Siboni from the Misgav Institute, which was descended from the now defunct Zionist Strategy Institute, a front organization for — surprise, surprise — Kohelet.

Over the course of years, Kohelet has perfected the ability to significantly influence the public agenda in Israel through extensions and sub-branches operating under seemingly innocuous names, with its researchers sometimes even denying any relation to it. Sarid practically quoted Kohelet’s operating manual when he explained in an internal Zoom meeting of Tzav 9 members: “We’ve come up with a clever strategy here: taking a controversial core issue, and then as civilian organizations we come and offer the solution to the government. We come from all sides. We’ve offered solutions from both the right and the left.”

Eiland was aware that Sarid and members of the Forum of Reserve Commanders and Fighters were striving to reestablish settlements in Gaza, but denied that his plan was intended to prepare the ground for it. This is what a denial by a useful idiot sounds like.

Like any good commander in the IDF Central Command, who is sent to secure a religious celebration of settlers at Joseph’s Tomb in Nablus, or to block the exits from the Palestinian villages of Kafr Qaddum and Beita, he will keep claiming that he merely provides “security” solutions that have nothing to do with the settlers’ agenda. “It’s not political,” they explain to us over and over again, while the messianists rejoice, shedding an occasional tear over “the bloody price to be paid.”But was he really a useful idiot? This week we learned that Israel’s political leadership is pressuring the military to prevent the residents of Jabalia from returning to their homes, “despite the fact that the objectives of the operation … have mostly been achieved.” Eiland now expects that for Palestinians, northern Gaza “will slowly turn into a distant dream. Like they have forgotten Ashkelon [Al-Majdal], they will forget that area too.” This is no longer the voice of a mindless military tactician but rather of a full-blown advocate of ethnic cleansing.

And so we have cut through all the layers of deception in the “Generals’ Plan”: contrary to what was stated, the plan itself is a war crime; the army did not provide any grace period for evacuating civilians; the military justification is questionable, and certainly in no way proportionate to the intensity of the drastic operation; and the ultimate goal of the plan is not military but political — resettling Gaza.
Israel’s window of opportunity

Right now, around 100,000 residents remain besieged in Beit Lahiya, Beit Hanoun, and Jabalia, starving and thirsty. Entire families are being massacred and entire neighborhoods flattened every day. Israel’s destruction of healthcare infrastructure and blocking of medical aid has rendered hospitals defunct, unable to care for the wounded. All the while, a partial communications blackout and the near total absence of journalists within the besieged areas keeps us largely in the dark.

Is it possible to foresee what comes next? Some will inevitably look to the United States for answers. In a few days, Americans will go to the polls in what is sure to be a close race between Donald Trump and Kamala Harris. If Trump wins, the Israeli leadership can breathe a sigh of relief. He will not stop any Israeli plan, however brutal — even for the simple reason that he is not clear on what the difference between Gaza and Israel is.

Harris, for her part, will not risk the final days of her campaign by making any strong statements. She certainly won’t jeopardize the Democrats’ Jewish vote by issuing Israel a real ultimatum — in fact she has already said so. And if she wins? There’s no rush. The new president will need to study the situation. “We are closely following what is happening in Gaza, and working with our allies toward a solution to this tragic situation,” she’ll be sure to say.

Europe has no levers of influence on Israel in the immediate future, and in any case the internal difference of opinions within the EU — and, first and foremost, Germany’s resolute support for Israel — thwart any drastic shift in policy. In The Hague, the mills of justice grind slowly.

Salvation can only come from Washington, but Washington is busier every passing day with Trump’s latest scandalous statement. The poison machine of the American right, aided by Elon Musk, is already in high gear in the production of disinformation and fake news. The inevitable result will be that once again, no one will care about Palestinian bodies piling up.

All this provides Israel with a window of opportunity of a month or two, during which it can even intensify the extermination operation in northern Gaza. As far as I can see, nothing will stop it during this period, or probably even after. The intensifying war in Lebanon and Israel’s north also acts as a further smokescreen.

How many Palestinians will Israel exterminate in northern Gaza before then? The killing of over 1,000 in the four weeks since the current operation began may not sound like a lot compared to the numbers we saw at the beginning of the war, but we have to remember that the area currently under siege contains less than a fifth of Gaza’s population. Proportionally, then, this is equivalent to the record numbers in the first two months of the war, when the army killed an average of 250 people per day through incessant airstrikes. It is therefore no wonder that the residents of northern Gaza say the last few weeks have been the most difficult since the beginning of the war.
Forced out, never to return?

Barring the possibility of mass annihilation by means not yet seen, Israel appears to be choosing something of a middle ground between extermination and transfer. The extermination was intended as a form of terror and intimidation, the army’s way of persuading the residents of northern Gaza to evacuate “voluntarily.” But even that was not enough. And so soldiers were sent to shelters to round up the refugees at gunpoint and send them south, after the men were separated and taken for questioning or arrest.

On Oct. 21, the Israeli public broadcaster, Kan, published drone footage of Palestinians being rounded up and forced southward. Kan titled it “Gazans leaving Jabalia.” They are “leaving” in the same way the residents of Lyd, Al-Majdal, and Manshiyya “left” in 1948. Gazan residents themselves testify: “Whoever does not follow orders is shot.”

And so it is: women and children in one line, separated from men over the age of 16 holding up ID cards in another — a forced displacement captured by the cameras of the displacing force. In years to come, Israel will write in the history books: they left of their own accord.Displaced Palestinians line up at gunpoint in the ruins of Jabalia refugee camp.

And just as Israeli TV broadcasted images of this “calm departure,” journalists in Gaza reported on another bombing of a shelter in the very same refugee camp, in which 10 people were killed and 30 wounded. The testimony of a paramedic who was there reveals the horror: a drone announced from the air that residents of the compound had to evacuate, and no more than 10 minutes later, before most people had managed to leave, the site was blown up.

The “Generals’ Plan,” is thus not only a deceit but also an operational flop. The threatened population was not inclined to voluntarily evacuate into the path of flying bullets and mortar shells, preferring familiar to unfamiliar horrors as is human nature (then again, who in the Israeli army is capable of perceiving Palestinians as human?). Even extermination as an instrument of terror was not enough to persuade the residents of northern Gaza to evacuate “voluntarily.” And so infantry forces were sent to the shelters to force the displaced, at gunpoint, to come out and start marching south (after the men were separated and taken for questioning or arrest).

All the signs indicate that Israel is not planning to let the displaced return. In this sense, the destruction in northern Gaza is unlike anything we have seen before. The army really does make sure to burn, destroy, and raze every building after the Palestinians leave — and sometimes while they’re still inside. Even the Americans and the Europeans can see the writing on the wall this time.

How long will it take to totally cleanse northern Gaza of its population? It is difficult to predict exactly, between the stamina of local residents to remain, the maximum daily death toll that the army allows itself based on its own considerations, and the international reaction. Certainly, it appears that the current assault will continue for weeks to come.

In the meantime, many of those displaced are not settling south of the Netzarim Corridor but rather on the outskirts of Gaza City, afraid that if they leave the north altogether, they may never be able to return. If the army expels them from there as well, this will be yet further evidence that the cleansing operation is not being guided by operational considerations.
A fight for life

What is left for us to do? Inside Israel, we are few who see the reality in front of us with clear eyes. But what little we can do, we must.

First of all, we must tune out the heckles from the peanut gallery: from “But what about Hamas’ charter?!” to “But, Iran!” and “But they’re barbarians!” None of this is relevant in the face of the genocide that our army is carrying out as you read these words (and I don’t choose that term hastily; here are four Israeli historians that reached this conclusion, who are greater experts than I). How, exactly, does the massacre of October 7 justify the burning of schools and bakeries? What does Hamas’ charter have to do with denying medical equipment from entering Gaza, leading to wholesale death of wounded people?Palestinians displaced from Jabalia, Beit Lahiya, and Beit Hanoun shelter in tents at Al-Yarmouk Stadium in Gaza City, November 1, 2024. (Omar Al-Qataa)

We must also ignore the caricature that is “the opposition.” The “alternative” that Israel’s “center left” offers lies between a “strategic occupation” of more territory on the one hand, and a policy of “separation” on the other that still allows the army complete freedom of action in the occupied territories or even contemplates a revival of the “Jordanian option.”

The incessant rambling about grand multilateral political arrangements only serves one purpose: an evasion from the bloody reality. It is a refusal to face our own actions, a refusal to claim responsibility for the catastrophe — for which Hamas indeed carries considerable blame, but we carry much more. And ultimately, a refusal to see Palestinians as humans, just like us.

I’ve spent countless hours reading testimonies from Gaza over the past year, and one phenomenon that struck me as particularly horrifying, even though it does not result in the most horrible crimes, is the way Israeli soldiers treat the Palestinians as if they were sheep or goats, herding them from one location to another. Like a flock of animals, snipers and drones corral them, firing live ammunition at anyone who refuses to move or takes too long. Planes and drones deliver evacuation notices and then almost immediately bomb those who did not yet manage to escape. Such dehumanization cannot help but trigger our associations with scenes depicting the Nazis loading Jews into cattle cars.

The web of crimes described here is not so abstract — a vast part of the Israeli public takes part in them. Hundreds if not thousands recorded themselves in action, while many more called for extermination outright. The majority, however, is not so explicit or smug. Most just serve the military over hundreds of days of reserve duty “because we must protect our country.” They commit crimes while giving it no thought, or half a thought, or only a silenced, trampled-upon thought.

They can come up with myriad excuses, but each one crumbles in the face of more than 16,000 dead children — over 3,000 of them under the age of 5 — who have all been identified by their name and ID numbers. And they crumble in the face of the destruction of all civilian infrastructure, which does not and cannot have a purely military purpose.

So we all bear the weight of responsibility for this, albeit some more than others. The army refusal movement arose too late and too slowly, yet it requires all encouragement and support and any voice it can be lent. The consensus concerning the war of extermination poisons Israeli society and blackens its future so profoundly that even small pockets of resistance can proliferate stamina and hope to those who have not yet been carried away by the currents of madness.

Monday, October 14, 2024

BOOK REVIEW

NON-FICTION: HUBRIS AND MISCALCULATION

Ahmad Faruqui 
Published October 13, 2024
DAWN


The Achilles Trap
By Steve Coll
Penguin
ISBN: 978-0525562269
576pp.

The United States invaded Iraq in March 2003. In The Achilles Trap, Steve Coll, a professor of journalism at Columbia University and the author of nine books, including the Pulitzer Prize-winning Ghost Wars, provides a behind-the-scenes look at the decisions that led to the war.

The book is based on more than 100 interviews with several individuals who had first-hand involvement in the invasion of Iraq and transcripts of tape recordings made by the regime of Saddam Hussain. This allows Coll to take a deep dive into the minds of the two men who made the war possible: US President George W. Bush and Iraqi President Saddam Hussain.


The book is a searing indictment of how Saddam governed Iraq and an even bigger indictment of Bush. Not only were some of George W.’s senior advisers opposed to the war, so also was the former President George H.W. Bush, his father. The elder Bush expressed his opposition via his former national security advisor, Brent Scowcroft, who penned an editorial, ‘Don’t Attack Saddam’ in the Wall Street Journal.

Coll concludes that “The president careered toward an unnecessary war… based on unabashed fear-mongering.” None of Iraq’s neighbours wanted the US to invade Iraq, worried that it would destabilise the region.

The US did not have any evidence that Iraq had ‘Weapons of Mass Destruction’ and Saddam assumed the CIA knew that and thus the US was unlikely to attack Iraq. The book is entitled The Achilles Trap because both sides assumed the other had a fatal weakness, which did not exist.

Washington assumed that Saddam did not have the guts to fight the US. Saddam assumed that the US would never attack Iraq because it did not have the guts to incur large-scale battlefield casualties: “Saddam thought of the CIA as all-knowing. This contributed to his misunderstandings of America, which were at least as profound as America’s misunderstandings of him.”

The CIA’s record in Iraq after 1991 “was mostly one of operational and analytical calamities.” Even within the agency, the Iraq Operations Group was known as “the ‘House of Broken Toys’.” Of course, that did not stop the CIA from being ruthless. As one observer put it, the agency was “completely prepared to burn down your house to light a cigarette.”

Bush just wanted to get rid of Saddam. When his secretary of state presented some made-up evidence on WMDs to the UN, he was met with scepticism. Iraq had no connection with the terrorist attacks of 9/11, yet the US thought it would carry out an even deadlier attack against the US.

Almost to the very end, citing new evidence, the book shows that the US Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld was opposed to the invasion. But Bush was determined to attack Iraq to implement regime change, to turn Iraq into a Western-style democracy.

Saddam comes across as a dual-faced man wallowing in hubris. On the one hand, he had created an extensive social/welfare system within Iraq. On the other hand, he had created an equal system of terror, directed at his political opponents. If anyone dared speak against him, they could be arrested, tortured and executed within a matter of days. He did not have the slightest qualms in killing nearly 200,000 Kurds.

Soon after he came to power in 1979, Saddam plunged Iraq into a senseless war against Iran. It lasted for eight years and cost $500 billion. It left Iraq saddled with a debt of $80 billion, of which $35 billion was owed to Saudi Arabia and $10 billion to Kuwait. Hundreds of thousands were killed on both sides.

US troops pull down a statue of Saddam Hussein in Baghdad | Reuters

Unable to repay the debt, Iraq invaded Kuwait in 1990. The US failed to anticipate Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait, but neither did Saddam realise that the invasion would turn the world against him. After the US captured him, Saddam left his US investigators befuddled by saying: “If you didn’t want me to go in, why didn’t you tell me?”

Equally naïve was the king of Saudi Arabia. King Fahd knew that the presence of American and European troops on Saudi soil would upset many Saudis and the clergy. But under US pressure, he caved in. Later, Osama bin Laden would capitalise on anti-Saudi sentiments to launch the 9/11 attacks. As shown in the book by Nelly Lahoud, The Bin Laden Papers, he did not expect the US would invade the Muslim world. He thought the US would withdraw from the region.

In March 2003, when the US finally attacked Iraq, Saddam invoked the “Mother of all Battles” metaphor and thought he would defeat “the treacherous criminal Bush … because this is a fight between good and evil.” He also thought the Iraqi army would go underground and fight a guerilla war on his behalf.

But there was no love lost between the conscripts and the dictator. After the US dropped 150,000 “dumb” gravity bombs, killing some 10-12,000 Iraqi soldiers, most surviving soldiers simply took off their uniforms and went home.

The book also paints a damning picture of other actors in the tragedy. King Hussein of Jordan had served as America’s lackey in the Arab world. He fancifully thought that “by helping engineer a regime change in Baghdad, he might somehow restore his own extended family’s royal rule in Iraq.”

Earlier, in 1996, Madeleine Albright, the former US ambassador to the UN, said that even though the economic sanctions imposed by the US after Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait had killed 500,000 Iraqi children, the price was worth it.

In April 2003, Scott McLaughlin, the former weapons inspector in Iraq and now a CIA analyst, cross-examined the head of Iraq’s nuclear programme, Jafar Dhia Jafar, and said: “We made a terrible mistake.” But that did not slow down the US invasion of Iraq, which would then turn into a multi-year occupation. More than 200,000 Iraqi civilians eventually died. More than 4,400 US servicemen died and more than 30,000 were wounded.

Early on, when Iraq was looking for nuclear weapons, its leaders would often cite the example of Pakistan, which they believed had moved to acquire a bomb to deter and balance India. An Iraqi scientist said that Iraq was at least as advanced as Pakistan and should be able to do it.

Dr A.Q. Khan, known as the father of Pakistan’s nuclear bomb, sensed an opportunity and reached out to Iraq with an offer of assistance that was spurned by Iraq, according Coll. Meanwhile, Israel, under Prime Minister Menachem Begin, bombed Iraq’s nuclear reactor at Tuwaitha without the knowledge, let alone the permission, of the US.

There are several lessons to be learned from the tragic history of the Iraq War, which this book vividly brings out. First, wars, instead of solving problems, create more problems. Second, wars are often based on faulty assumptions. Third, military superiority does not guarantee victory. Fourth, the US understands the Middle East even less than the UK, which colonised the region for decades. Finally, dictators, who rule through fear, delude themselves into believing that the population would rise to support them when a war breaks out.

The book leaves some big questions unanswered, however. How competent is US intelligence about other parts of the globe, given how incompetent it was about Iraq? When will the US ever learn any lessons from the wars it wages around the globe? Is it necessary to spend nearly a trillion dollars on the US military, which exceeds the sum of the next 10 countries combined? Would that money not be better spent on human, social and economic development of the US?

Even despite these unanswered questions, the book is a great read for anyone with a serious interest in US foreign policy. It will also interest the general reader, since it reads like a thriller.

The reviewer is the author of Rethinking the National Security of Pakistan:
The Price of Strategic Myopia.

X: @ahmadfaruqui

Published in Dawn, Books & Authors, October 13th, 2024

NON-FICTION: FISK’S FINAL WORDS
Published September 22, 2024
DAWN




Night of Power: The Betrayal of the Middle East
By Robert Fisk
Fourth Estate
ISBN: 978-0007255481
672pp.

Robert Fisk’s book Night of Power: The Betrayal of the Middle East was published posthumously and is a reminder of the strength and courage of his voice and words, not only as a journalist but also as a historian.

In the Night Of Power, Fisk ponders over the 35 years he spent as a Middle East correspondent for The Independent, witnessing an almost Dante’s Inferno-level of darkness, bloodshed and tragedy wrought upon that part of the world. His constant struggle to stay true to what he saw underlies all his writing, as he acknowledges, “Our own cowardice, the manufacture of deceit, the safe, formulaic expressions used to mask the reality of this tragic place, have turned us journalists into blood-soaked brothers of the politicians who go to war.”

That is who he was, a journalist who reported from the dangerous side, the ‘other’ side.

It would be convenient to qualify this book as a memoir of an award-winning journalist reflecting upon events that he covered, but it is so much more than that. Night Of Power outlines the cataclysmic events of post-invasion Iraq and its impact on the Middle East as a whole. Fisk navigates his way through a country where, “Killings were now like heartbeats in Iraq”, witnessing the callousness of the occupiers who showed wanton disregard for the path of destruction they paved on their way to their ‘Emerald Cities’, the green zones they allocated themselves.

Journalist Robert Fisk’s posthumously published book about the Middle East is an analysis of his decades of reporting from that part of the world and a reminder of the power his words wielded

He takes stock: the bodies that pile up because of the shootings, bomb blasts, private contractors who kill with a blood lust that would rival the Saddam-era secret police. Then there are the diseases and cancers left behind, children born with deformities, stillbirths, birth defects, a result of the use of phosphorus shells and other uranium-laced weapons. Fisk is matter of fact; he does not allow his pain to distract him from his purpose. He writes, “You go on a story in a war and you’re there to report on the atrocity, to speak for the dead, but not to cry.”

It will be pertinent to mention here that Robert Fisk was perhaps one of the most significant voices of our time. His ability to look past innate biases and identify the context in which events occur has always been immaculate. In the chapter ‘Walking on Windows’, he reminds us of the plague that was Blackwater and other private defence contractors. He recorded their actions with meticulous detail, the contempt and arrogance they showed towards the Iraqis and the shooting down of innocent people with complete impunity.

He reminds us that, “like all wars…[the Iraq war’s] reasons [were] fraudulent, its occupation ferocious, its ‘victors’ ever more cruel in responding to the insurgency that overwhelmed them…” Mercenary casualties were not included in the military fatality/injury lists put out by occupation authorities.

The duplicity is enraging and, as one continues to read the book, Fisk’s own anger is very much tangible. With meticulous detail, he deconstructs the ‘truths’ we have been fed by the media and by our governments and politicians. Language is weaponised, as he illustrates how mainstream Western media has toed the line when it comes to ‘selling’ the Iraq invasion to the public.

Later, when news of torture cells, black sites, mercenaries, and terrifying rebellions began creeping into headlines, many prominent newspapers provided space for advocacy of war crimes that were being committed by occupation soldiers, under the pretext that Saddam’s torturers were attacking US troops. Even today, mainstream media stands accused of promoting a one-sided narrative and working to drown Palestinian voices as the assault on Gaza continues.

Robert Fisk | AP

Mainstream media has never been less reliable and, as governments rush to curtail free speech, we are reminded by Fisk that, “I always believed that those who suffered on the ‘other’ side deserved to have their story told, that Western powers should not have the press corps as their foot-soldiers.”

Fisk was that rare journalist who had the ability to comprehend the enormity of what he was witnessing, stepping back and placing it into context. In this book, he lays it out, calling the Iraq invasion for what it was, a “vast and lamentable occupation.” He makes it clear though that, while Britain and the US have consistently denied that this was also an ‘oil-grab’, let’s be abundantly clear: “if the major export of Iraq had been beetroot, did anyone believe the American 82nd Airborne would really have gone to Fallujah and Mosul?”

Fisk’s ability to use words that cut like the sword of a samurai is, frankly, inimitable. He credits author and activist Naomi Klein for being one of the first to recognise “the boldest attempt at crisis exploration” in Iraq by the US and Britain, as they prepared to re-organise the country’s oil exports.

Fisk is detailed and judicious in his condemnation of the many ‘client states’ of the West, the despots and dictators of the Middle East and South Asia. He explains in great depth how the Middle East has been carved up and divided amongst authoritarian figures who are in a constant state of war with their own citizens. They are tolerated, armed even, and oftentimes ignored for their crimes by the ‘upright, civilised’ world for as long as they maintain a status quo for the US and its allies.

He writes of how the depravity of the Assads, Saddams and Mobaraks birthed a network of ruthless secret police and ‘elite’ army units that work within the shadows, stoking the fires of sectarianism, weaponising religion and crushing even a whisper of dissent. And yet, all dictators are not created equal. The West decides who becomes a liability and when. In the case of Saddam, it was the invasion of Kuwait and not his feared torture cells or use of chemical weapons against fellow Iraqis that made him unacceptable.

Night of Power is a testimony from one of the most prominent journalists of our time. Robert Fisk had called the Arab world home for more than 40 years and so stands as a giant among his peers. One of the first witnesses of history in the making, he was an analyst and interpreter par excellence. Each chapter in this book looks back on moments in history that have shaped the Middle East in one way or the other.

Fisk’s words are clinical and succinct, yet there is heartbreak and pain as he faces the bloody abyss that is the Middle East at the hands of its own leaders and the West. Fisk reminds the reader that this book is not about him, it is not a memoir, instead it is a cautionary tale, a tragedy and the story of betrayal and deceit. He tells the story as it stands, regardless of consequences.

If Robert Fisk were alive today, I wonder what he would report when confronted by the more than 40,000 innocent civilians viciously killed in Gaza and the tens of thousands more buried under the rubble since October 7, 2023? What would Fisk think after seeing photographs of the Haditha Massacre that were acquired and published by The New Yorker on August 28, 2024, showing the grisly aftermath of the bloody rampage carried out by US Marines.

Fisk had covered the Haditha atrocity extensively in 2005, where he asked his readers if this could be the “tip of the mass grave?” (It is pertinent to note that not a single perpetrator spent a day in prison.) How would he respond to the horrific images coming from Gaza that flood our social media timelines? How would he have reported on the brave young men and women studying in high profile universities scattered across the Western world, as they risked their futures to set up encampments in protest for a free Palestine, for an end to the siege that he and many others had reported on and that imprisons the people of Gaza?

It is difficult to read when he writes about the Nakba, and the pain behind his words is difficult to hide. “Keys must always be the symbol of the Palestinian Nakba,” he writes. “That terrible last turning of the lock of those front doors. Goodbye — only for a few days.”

Simple words, but they complete the job and, like a dagger, strike the heart of their reader. This was the power of the pen yielded by Robert Fisk.

The reviewer is a freelance writer with a background in law and literature. X: @ShehryarSahar

Published in Dawn, Books & Authors, September 22nd, 2024


Sunday, October 06, 2024

 October 2, 2024

Revisiting a war based on lies and deceit


Mike Phipps reviews Deadly Betrayal: The Truth About Why the United States Invaded Iraq, by Dennis Fritz, published by OR Books.

It’s over twenty years since the US invaded Iraq. There have been plenty of books picking over the ‘errors’ of what the US did, although not so many lately. Dennis Fritz’s offering may seems a bit belated, but it reminds us of the deceit on which the entire policy was based. It also holds lessons for future US incursions in the region.

A dissident in the Pentagon

Fritz worked directly for and advised some of the most senior figures in the Department of Defense, including General Richard Myers, who served as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff at the height of the Iraq War. After military retirement, he worked inside Donald Rumsfeld’s Pentagon working for Douglas Feith, the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy and key architect of the case for war. 

In the course of his work, Fritz unearthed documentation about the invasion of Iraq in 2003 which he believed to be as damning as the Pentagon Papers had been for the Vietnam War, which had shown the extent to which then President Johnson had misled the American public. The material Fritz found showed that all the justifications for the Iraq War were “pure fabrications.”

Fritz is clear on why the US invaded Iraq, a country which did not have Weapons of Mass Destruction and posed no military threat to the US. The first reason was to reassert American credibility in the region, which had become more feasible at a moment when public opinion could be corralled into support following 9/11. “The second reason why we invaded Iraq was to start a proxy war on behalf of Israel by eliminating its enemies, Hamas and Hezbollah.”

“The third reason we invaded Iraq was to bring democracy to the Middle East through force,” writes Fritz. This sounds more questionable, but if we reframe the author’s idea as one of bringing a free market economy with a limited electoral input into selecting the Iraqi governing elite, it makes more sense. Democracy in its fullest sense was never on the agenda.

Fritz goes further: “If we hadn’t gotten bogged down in Iraq, the plan was to invade Syria next, then Iran.” In fact, Israelis working with the Bush Administration wanted these countries targeted first.

In Fritz’s assessment: “Saddam was willing to give us everything we wanted to prevent war: open elections monitored by the UN; disarmament inspections led by US personnel; support in the global war on terror; first priority in mining rights and oil; and, finally, help in finding solutions to end the Palestinian/Israeli conflict. And yet, the neocons completely rejected Saddam’s offer—nothing was going to stop the war.”

Fritz believes that the strategy of President Bush’s Defense Secretary could be summarised as follows: “Create a diversion by declaring war on terrorism, starting with Afghanistan. Then, enlarge the problem by pursuing the so-called sponsors of terrorism: Iraq (WMD), Syria (chemical weapons), and Iran (nuclear weapons program).”

“If the American people knew the real reasons we went to war, they probably wouldn’t have supported the invasion,” suggests Fritz. Hence the Administration’s Information Strategy, which “aggressively sold the war by flooding the media with disinformation,” with the help of pliant journalists and retired generals.

So far, so opinionated. The problem for Fritz’s account is that, at the Pentagon’s insistence, large chunks of the documentation he unearthed to support his analysis, have been redacted: huge blocks of blacked out text punctuate the book. This must have been all the more galling, as Doug Feith, whom Fritz had worked for and whom one senior general called “the fucking stupidest person on the planet”, had earlier written a book justifying Bush’s Iraq policy which escaped such censorship. It’s Feith whom Fritz holds most responsible for the war: “Most of the deceit was devised by him.”

Once in Iraq, the Administration appeared to have swallowed its own propaganda that its troops would be welcome with open arms: it was blindsided by the mounting opposition to it. “There was a reconstruction plan, but we couldn’t implement it due to the insurgency,” writes Fritz. “ Besides, keeping the peace was of lesser concern to the neocons, compared to protecting the oil fields and refineries.”

Fritz calls for a major shift in US foreign policy. Terrorist attacks should be seen as criminal acts, not as military operations that can be used to justify launching invasions. “Terrorism is ideological; we cannot defeat it solely through military efforts.” Moreover, he concludes, “we can’t keep provoking other countries and not expect them to retaliate sooner or later.”

The view from Iraq

There is a lot of perception in Fritz’s analysis. Take his first reason for invading Iraq – to reassert American credibility in the region. The end of the Cold War allowed the US to operate with much less restraint in several international theatres. The September 11th 2001 terrorist attacks generated popular support for doing so. I have argued elsewhere that ‘regime change’ in Iraq was “an opportunity to impose the power realities of the New World Order on a host of countries not yet willing to subordinate themselves to the requirements of the US.”

Fritz’s third reason – bringing democracy to the Middle East through force – needs reframing. The imposition of a free market economy may have had an ideological motive but it also suited material interests. As  I have written elsewhere, “More than forty government-owned enterprises were earmarked for privatisation within months of the invasion and there were lucrative profits to be made from reconstructing Iraq’s infrastructure in a bidding process that was restricted to US firms. On top of this, Iraq’s vast international debt was used by international creditors as a lever to control its economic policies in a further affront to Iraq’s sovereignty.”

Iraq’s oil reserves in particular were largely privatized in processes that have given foreign companies decades-long control of these resources. The law to do this was prepared in secret behind the backs of Iraqi parliamentarians and forced through following US threats to withhold financial support from the country that its military had so recently trashed.

Another notion to interrogate in Fritz’s analysis is that the reconstruction plan for Iraq was thrown off course by the insurgency. The problem with this oft-repeated line is that it ignores the sheer scale of the occupation’s brutality that made such resistance inevitable. An estimated 37,000 Iraqi civilians were killed in the first eight months of the occupation alone. These numbers increased sharply with the widespread deployment of US air strikes over civilian areas.

Such contempt for human life was not a ‘mistake’ – especially if one accepts that a key rationale for the invasion of Iraq, as Fritz suggests, was to reassert US credibility in the region. On that basis, the occupation had to be murderous in order to have the necessary effect – just as the Israeli onslaught on Gaza today needs to be barbarous in order to deter regional players from coming to the aid of the Palestinians.

US forces committed grave war crimes in Iraq, from the torture of prisoners in Abu Ghraib and elsewhere to the bombardment of Fallujah, where up to 6,000 civilians were killed and three quarters of the city’s housing was destroyed and where white phosphorous and depleted uranium munitions were used, resulting in a rise in birth defects and cancers.

The US also saddled Iraq with a toxic political legacy. Using the traditional tactic of ‘divide and rule’, it imposed a previously unknown religious sectarianism on the country, dividing its central state between parties based on ethnic and religious lines, which used their privileged position to sell public sector jobs to their supporters.

It also imported wholesale corruption. Transparency International consistently ranks Iraq as one of the most corrupt countries in the world. But, as I have argued elsewhere, “the template for the financial plundering of Iraq was made not by Iraqis, but by the US-led occupation itself. Halliburton alone, whose former CEO, Dick Cheney, was Vice President from 2001 to 2009, made $39.5 billion on Iraq contracts. Some of the profits made by business came from flagrant overcharging, such as the contractor which billed the US government $900 for a switch that was valued at $7.05, a 12,000% mark-up.”

It’s worth pondering too why the insurgency was so militarily potent. The so-called ‘Islamic State’ in particular benefited enormously from the sheer volume of war materiel that the western coalition had brought into Iraq. When the Iraqi army fled Mosul without firing a shot, it left behind a majority of all the armoured vehicles the US had delivered to Iraq – which made the subsequent war against the terrorists all the more protracted.

The US response was a new wave of aerial bombardment in 2016, including the alleged targeting of civilians. A further estimated 10,000 civilians were killed in this new phase of ‘liberation’.

As with its other wars, the US has moved on from Iraq. We are left with a version of history embodied in entertainments like The Hurt Locker, which focus on the psychological impact fighting in Iraq had on US soldiers.

Iraqis are less fortunate. There are no Hollywood investors to underwrite the telling of their stories. The social, cultural and psychological damage done to an entire nation endures. It is unlikely to be overcome without a deep-rooted truth and reconciliation process, focusing on physical and psychiatric healing, health and wellbeing, neighbourhood re-generation, schooling, a cultural renaissance and much more. None of these much-needed steps look likely in the near future.

Mike Phipps’ book Don’t Stop Thinking About Tomorrow: The Labour Party after Jeremy Corbyn (OR Books, 2022) can be ordered here.

Tuesday, September 03, 2024

BUSH CHENEY WAR

'This Is What the US Military Was Doing in Iraq': Photos of 2005 Haditha Massacre Finally Published



"I watched them shoot my grandfather, first in the chest and then in the head. Then they killed my granny," said one survivor who was just 8 years old during the attack by U.S. Marines.


The arm of 66-year-old Khomeisa Tuma Ali, one of 24 Iraqi civilians killed by U.S. Marines during the Haditha massacre on November 19, 2005 in Haditha, Iraq.
(Photo: U.S. military/The New Yorker)


Brett Wilkins
Aug 28, 2024
COMMON DREAMS

After years of working with Iraqis whose relatives were killed by U.S. Marines in the 2005 Haditha massacre, American journalists finally obtained and released photos showing the grisly aftermath of the bloody rampage—whose perpetrators never spent a day behind bars.

On Tuesday, The New Yorker published 10 of the massacre photos—part of a collaboration with the "In the Dark" podcast that joined the magazine last year.

The podcast's reporting team had filed its public records request four years ago, then sued the U.S. Navy, Marine Corps, and Central Command over their failure to hand over the images. "In the Dark" host Madeleine Baran also traveled with a colleague to Iraq's remote Anbar Province to meet relatives of some of the 24 Iraqi civilians—who ranged in age from 1 to 76—slaughtered by U.S. troops.

"The impact of an alleged war crime is often directly related to the horror of the images that end up in the hands of the public."

Baran explained that she sought the relatives' help partly because "we anticipated that the government would claim that the release of the photos would harm the surviving family members of the dead," as "military prosecutors had already made this argument after the trial of the final accused Marine."

Khalid Salman Raseef, an attorney who lost 15 members of his family in the massacre, told Baran that "I believe this is our duty to tell the truth."

The graphic photos show dead Iraqi men, women, and children, many of them shot in the head at close range. One 5-year-old girl, Zainab Younis Salim, is shown with the number 11 written on her back in red marker by a U.S. Marine who wanted to differentiate the victims in photos.



On November 19, 2005, a convoy of Humvees carrying Marines of Kilo Company, 3rd Battalion, First Marine Division was traveling through Haditha when a roadside bomb believed to have been placed by Iraqis resisting the U.S. invasion killed Miguel Terrazas, a popular lance corporal, and wounded two other Marines.

In retaliation, Marines forced a nearby taxicab to stop and ordered the driver and his four student passengers out of the vehicle. Sgt. Frank Wuterich then executed the five men in cold blood. Another Marine then desecrated their bodies, including by urinating on them.

Wuterich then ordered his men to "shoot first and ask questions later," and they went house to house killing everyone they saw. They killed seven people in the Walid family home, including a toddler and an elderly couple.

"I watched them shoot my grandfather, first in the chest and then in the head. Then they killed my granny," Iman Walid, a survivor who was 8 years old when her family was slain, toldTime in 2006.

Next, the Marines killed eight people in the Salim family home, six of them children. Finally, the troops executed four brothers in a closet in the Ahmad family home.

The Marines subsequently conspired to cover up what a military probe would deem a case of "collateral damage." The military initially claimed that 15 Iraqi civilians were killed by the same explosion that took Terrazas' life. However, a local doctor who examined the victims' bodies said they "were shot in the chest and head from close range."

Eight Marines were eventually charged in connection with the massacre. Six defendants were found not guilty and one had their case dismissed. Initially charged with murder, Wuterich pleaded guilty and was convicted of dereliction of duty. He was punished with a reduction in rank and was later honorably discharged from service.

Marine Corps Gen. James Mattis—who earned his "Mad Dog" moniker during one of the atrocity-laden battles for the Iraqi city of Fallujah in 2004—intervened on behalf of the Haditha defendants and personally dismissed charges against one of them.

Later, while serving as former President Donald Trump's defense secretary, Mattis oversaw an escalation in what he called the U.S. war of "annihilation" against Islamic State in Iraq and Syria. The general warned that "civilian casualties are a fact of life in this sort of situation," and thousands of men, women, and children were subsequently slaughtered as cities including Mosul and Raqqa were leveled.


The Haditha massacre was part of countless U.S. war crimes and atrocities committed during the ongoing so-called War on Terror, which has claimed hundreds of thousands of civilian lives in at least half a dozen countries since 2001. One of the reasons why the Haditha massacre is relatively unknown compared with the torture and killings at the U.S. military prison in Abu Ghraib, Iraq is that photos of the former crime have been kept hidden for decades.

"The impact of an alleged war crime is often directly related to the horror of the images that end up in the hands of the public," Baran wrote in the New Yorker article. She noted that Gen. Michael Hagee, who commanded the Marines at the time of the Haditha massacre, later boasted how "proud" he was about keeping photos of the killings secret.

"This," journalist Murtaza Hussain reminded the world on Tuesday, "is what the U.S. military was doing in Iraq."

Wednesday, August 21, 2024

 AU CONTRAIRE 

Iran: Key to World Peace

From what is read and what is said, Iran is the major sponsor of international terrorism — creating turmoil, preventing peace, and wanting to dominate the Middle East. One problem with the accepted scenario is that the facts do not coincide with the assumptions.

Except for revenging terrorist attacks by Iranian dissidents and Israeli intelligence and military services, the Islamic Republic has not harmed anybody in the Western nations. In the last 200 years, Iran has fought only one war ─ a defensive battle against aggressor Iraq. It has assisted friendly nations in their conflicts with other nations, similar to United States actions, but on a smaller scale. The demise of Ayatollah Khomeini established a refreshed Islamic Republic that promoted cordial relations with nations who were willing to return the cordiality. Iran has not sought hegemony, economic advantage, or extension of its influence to others than those who desire the influence.

Do a somersault and find the real Iran. The real Iran has tried to cooperate with the United States and other nations and bring peace and stability to the Middle East.

This does not excuse Iran’s semi-autocratic regime and human rights violations, no more than they can be excused in nations with whom the United States has friendly relations — Israel, Egypt, Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Pakistan, Mexico, Tajikistan, and others. For American diplomats, the concept of “cannot excuse” is an excuse for not engaging in diplomacy and resolving problems with Iran. The results have been disasters — harm to American society, harm to the American people, and an unending voyage to calamities.

Designating Iran as the greatest menace to peace assumes there is peace in the Middle East. Is there peace and has there been peace since the words Middle East entered the lexicon? The conflagrations in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Syria would have existed without the presence of the Islamic Republic; the former two wars occurred due to United States’ invasions in those nations. Is the Islamic Republic responsible for Israel’s continuous wars with its neighbors and for Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, and the Emirates battles with their own citizens and quarrels they had with Yemen and Gaddafi’s Libya. The Islamic Republic and its well-educated and alert citizens have not initiated a war against another nation and their restraint holds the key to Middle East peace. The United States refusal to allow the key to unlock the cages that maintain the doves of peace is one of the great tragedies of the century. This was shown in the U.S. invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq.

Unlike America, Iran had special connections and interests in Afghanistan. After the Sept. 11 attacks, U.S. officials responsible for preparing the war in Afghanistan, solicited help to unseat the Taliban and establish a stable government in Kabul. Iran had organized the resistance by the Northern Alliance and provided the Alliance arms and funding, which helped topple the Taliban regime.  In an interview with Iranian Press Service (IPS), Flynt Leverett, senior director for Middle East affairs in the National Security Council (NSC), said, “The Iranians had real contacts with important players in Afghanistan and were prepared to use their influence in constructive ways in coordination with the United States.”

Because the Northern Alliance played a significant role in driving the Taliban out of Kabul in November 2001, they demanded 60 percent of the portfolios in an interim government and blocked agreement with other opposition groups. According to the U.S. envoy to Afghanistan, Richard Dobbins, Iran played a “decisive role” in persuading the Northern Alliance delegation to compromise its demands.

Dobbins, J. (2009). “Negotiating with Iran: Reflections from Personal Experience,” The Washington Quarterly, 33(1), 149–162.

The Northern Alliance delegate, Younis Qanooni, on instructions from Kabul, was insisting that his faction not only retain the three most important ministries—defense, foreign affairs, and interior—but also hold three-fourths of the total. These demands were unacceptable to the other three Afghan factions represented in Bonn. Unless the Northern Alliance demand could be significantly reduced, there was no way the resultant government could be portrayed as broadly based and representative.

Finally Iranian representative, Javad Zarif, stood up, and signaled Qanooni to join him in the corner of the room. They spoke in whispers for no more than a minute. Qanooni then returned to the table and offered to give up two ministries. He also agreed to create three new ones that could be awarded to other factions. We had a deal. For the following six months, Afghanistan would be governed by an interim administration composed of 29 department heads plus a chairman. Sixteen of these posts would go to the Northern Alliance, just slightly more than half.

Dobbins worked with Iranian negotiators in Bonn and related that at a donors conference in Tokyo, in January, 2002, Iran pledged $540 million in assistance to Afghanistan.

Dobbins writes:

Emerging from a larger gathering in Tokyo, one of the Iranian representatives took me aside to reaffirm his government’s desire to continue to cooperate on Afghanistan. I agreed that this would be desirable, but warned that Iranian behavior in other areas represented an obstacle to cooperation. Furthermore, I cautioned him by saying that my brief only extends to Afghanistan. He replied by saying, “We know that. We would like to work on these other issues with the appropriate people in your government.”

On returning to Washington, O’Neill and I reported these conversations, to then-National Security Adviser Condoleeza Rice and cabinet level colleagues, and to the Middle Eastern Bureau at the Department of State (DOS). No one evinced any interest. The Iranians received no private reply. Instead, they received a very public answer. One week later, in his State of the Union address, President George W. Bush named Iran, along with Iraq and North Korea, an “axis of evil.” How arch-enemies Iran and Iraq could form any axis, evil or otherwise, was never explained.

How would the Afghanistan fiasco have played out if the American governments cooperated with the Iranian governments? No analysis can supply a definite and credible answer; clues are available.

The result of 20 years of U.S. occupation and battle in Afghanistan resulted in nearly 111,000 civilians killed or injured, more than 64,100 national military and police killed, about 2500 American soldiers killed and 20,660 injured in action, and $1 trillion spent by the U.S. in all phases of a conflict that ended with the Taliban return to power. The only accomplishment of the twenty years of strife had Osama bin Laden leave the isolated, uncomfortable, and rugged mountain caves in Tora Bora for a comfortable and well-equipped walled compound in Abbottabad, Pakistan, a gift from Pakistan intelligence. Note that the al-Qaeda leader did not flee to U.S. adversary, Iran; he joined his family in U.S. friendly, Pakistan. The 20-year U.S. occupation of Afghanistan was a catastrophe and anything is better than a catastrophe.

More than any other nation Iran had justifiable reasons for wanting a stable, friendly, and economically secure government in Afghanistan.

  • Iran had previous problems with the Taliban and did not want to repeat them.
  • Terrorists enter Iran from Afghanistan and cause havoc to the Islamic Republic.
  • Iran and the Afghan government created a free trading zone on their border and Iran wanted to continue to continue to exploit the arrangement.
  • In 2017, Iran surpassed Pakistan as Afghanistan’s top trade partner and, in 2019, Iranian exports reached $1.24 billion.
  • Iran had funded construction of the 90-mile (140 kilometer) line from Khaf in northeastern Iran to Ghoryan in western Afghanistan.
  • Iran and Afghanistan had several mutual problems that needed, and still need, close contact to resolve. Among them are water distribution, poppy production in Afghanistan, export of opium to Iran, and refugee flow to Iran. “Between 1979 and 2014, Iran claims to have lost some 4,000 security forces fighting heavily armed drug traffickers along its eastern border. In 2019, Iran seized more heroin and illicit morphine than any other country, according to U.N. Office on Drugs and Crime.”
  • Iran shared ethnic, linguistic and religious links with millions of Afghan Shi’a and was interested in their protection.

More than any other nation, Iran had assets to assist in achieving a stable, friendly, peaceful, and economically secure government in Afghanistan.

  • Iran was a large source of foreign direct investment, and provided millions of dollars for Afghanistan’s western provinces to build roads, electrical grids, schools, and health clinics.
  • Afghanistan found Iran could assist Afghanistan in trade. “On April 2016, Iran, Afghanistan and India signed an agreement to develop the Chabahar port in southeastern Iran as a trading hub for all three nations.  Afghan goods would be transported to the Iranian port by rail, and then be shipped to India by sea. The first phase of the port was inaugurated in 2017.”
  • Iran had knowledge of Taliban personnel, arrangements, and activities. It had contacts and informants who could provide intelligence.
  • Not sure if they would acquiesce, but the Iranians could accommodate bases from which to attack the Taliban and to which fighters could retreat.

The U.S. State Department learned nothing from its disjointed and catastrophic actions in Afghanistan. It repeated the same worthless and aggressive policy in its invasion of Iraq.

After supporting Iraq against Iran in the 1980s Iraq-Iran war, the U.S. declared war in 1991 against Saddam Hussein’s Iraq, and performed a first in the history of foreign policy ─ helping a nation that wars against a nation that is not doing any harm to you, and then attacking the nation that it helped do the harm to the nation that was not harming you. The U.S. continued with sanctions against the nation it previously supported, Iraq, and then, in 2003, engaged it in another war, finally ending up with the nation it initially wanted to contain, Iran, essentially winning the war without firing another shot, and gaining influence in Iraq; another example of a U.S. policy toward Iran that backfired. Foreign policy at its finest.

While stumbling and fumbling its way into destroying Iraq, the U.S. managed to have al-Qaeda (remember them, the guys that America invaded Afghanistan to defeat) reconstitute itself in Iraq. This renewed al-Qaeda, “organized a wave of attacks, often suicide bombings, that targeted security forces, government institutions, and Iraqi civilians.” The American military was forced to use Iraq’s notorious militias, known as “Awakening Councils,” to expel the al-Qaeda organization; a short-lived victory that led to the formation of the Islamic State in Syria and Iraq (ISIS).

A statement by the ever-unaware President Trump, in a January 8, 2020 speech, argued the US had been responsible for defeating ISIS and the Islamic Republic should realize that it is in their benefit to work with the United States in making sure ISIS remained defeated. The US spent years and billions of dollars in training an Iraqi army that fled Mosul and left it to a small contingent of ISIS forces. Showing no will and expertise to fight, Iraq’s debilitated military permitted ISIS to rapidly expand and conquer Tikrit and other cities. Events energized Iraq’s Popular Mobilization Forces, which, with cooperation from Iran and personal assistance from Major General Qasem Soleimani, was able to retake Tikrit and Ramadi, push ISIS out of Fallujah, and eventually play a leading role in ISIS’ defeat in Mosul. The U.S. honored Soleimani’s efforts by assassinating him ─ one of the most vicious crimes in history ─ and commended Iran by continually sanctioning it. No good deed goes unpunished.

As in Afghanistan, the Islamic Republic assisted in the re-building of Iraq. As far back as 2012, The Guardian reported that “Iran is one of Iraq’s most important regional economic partners, with an annual trade volume between the two sides standing at $8bn to $10b.” The U.S. confused competitive advantage with diabolical meddling and regarded Iran as a troubling factor in the Fertile Crescent, even though the inhabitants of Mesopotamia considered the United States as the troublemaker in the region. Iran had leverage in Iraq that could not be ignored nor easily combated.

Why is the Islamic Republic, sanctioned, vilified, and isolated? One clue is that almost all references to Iran in the U.S. media succeed with the phrase, “leading state sponsor of terrorism.” The phrase is stuck onto the word Iran as if by Velcro and all the words are one word. How does this coincidental commonality occur?

It occurs because the Zionist press distributes most reports on Iran to the American media. Israel has used U.S. support to subdue Israel’s adversaries — Syria, Jordan, Egypt, Libya, Sudan, and Iraq —and  has turned its national army to coerce Iran, the last man standing, into battle. It has turned its worldwide army of thought controllers to vilify Iran and entice Western powers to remove the Islamic member of the “axis of evil” from the map. Blind the world to reality.

Substitute the nation Israel for the nation Iran in each of the salient accusations made against Iran and the accusations become correct. Nowhere do the facts and historical narrative demonstrate that Iran has disrupted peace and stability by any of the combining factors. Israel is present in all the factors. During the 2016 presidential campaign, contender Donald Trump said, “Many nations, including allies, ripped off the US.” Doesn’t Donald Trump, in his support for apartheid Israel, know that he verified his statement? Bet on the wrong horse and you are sure to lose.

The following table summarizes the factors and clarifies the issues.

Iran ─ Key to World Peace

Resolving Iran’s oppression of its people and Israel’s genocide of the Palestinians are separate topics and cannot be resolved together. Permitting Israel to subdue Iran might dispatch the Ayatollahs, but enables the genocide of the Palestinian people, and allows Israel additional opportunities of expansion and continuous threats to other nations. The Zionist influence on Western governments and media will be enhanced.

Separating Iran’s internal oppression from its external policies allows using a challenging force to overcome an unchallenged destructive power. Which is more important and expedient — continually scolding and sanctioning Iran for its oppressive behavior or energizing an Iran that might repel the Israel juggernaut and push Israelis to realize they can no longer survive as a criminal enterprise and can become a “shining light on the Mediterranean,” a part of a truly democratic and bi-national state?

Analysis shows Iran has not displayed characteristics of a “major sponsor of international terrorism — creating turmoil, preventing peace, and wanting to dominate the Middle East.” The only international directives against Iran are sanctions and human rights violations. Israel displays all the characteristics falsely attributed to Iran plus recipient of tens of Resolutions and decisions by International agencies that accuse Israel and its leaders of aspects of genocide, war crimes, apartheid, illegal occupation, and crimes against humanity. The U.S. fought World War II to defeat Nazism, then allows its traits to arise again and gives support to its features ─ an enormous betrayal to the American public.

The defeated Nazi German state evolved into the German Democratic Republic. The defeated Israeli state will evolve into the Middle East Democratic Republic. The world will breathe easier and less concerned that events can spiral out of control and can usher in Armageddon. The multitude of arrogant Jewish organizations that served a foreign state will disappear. Jews will not display divided loyalty and will not arouse suspicion. They will no longer pose as victims who demand special attention but will express themselves as support for those who need attention. Washington DC will no longer be referenced as “occupied Zionist territory.”

Preventing Iran’s defeat does not strengthen Iran’s image or its government’s oppressive tactics. Just the opposite. With the threat of Israel removed, Hezbollah, Palestinians, and Assad’s Syria will have less need to be reliant on Tehran and will turn move favorably to the United States.

Counterfeit U.S. policies have led to continuous warfare in the Middle East, unnecessary sacrifice of U.S. lives, economic disturbances, and waste of taxpayer money. In the cauldron of corruption and autocracies, which pits Sunni against Shi’a, Gulf States and Saudi Arabia against Iran, religious extremists against moderates, and Israel against all, the United States makes its choice of allies. Whom does Washington support — those who are the most repressive, most corrupt, most militaristic, most prone to cause Middle East instability — Israel, cited by Osama bin Laden as a principal reason for Al Qaeda terrorism and Saudi Arabia, a principal supplier of al-Qaeda terrorists. A less resentful outlook on Iran yields a revised perspective of a violent, unstable, and disturbed Middle East. Israel would finally be recognized as the major cause of chaos to the region.

If Israel claims God permits it to ignore international law, murder whomever at will, and threaten all civilization, then even the devil should be approached to replace Israel with a law-abiding nation. Iran, similar to a multitude of nations, might be a problem; Israel is THE PROBLEM.




FacebookTwitteReddit

Dan Lieberman publishes commentaries on foreign policy, economics, and politics at substack.com.  He is author of the non-fiction books A Third Party Can Succeed in AmericaNot until They Were GoneThink Tanks of DCThe Artistry of a Dog, and a novel: The Victory (under a pen name, David L. McWellan). Read other articles by Dan.