Sunday, November 12, 2023










Portuguese prosecutors reportedly mistranscribed wiretaps that implicated PM in corruption scandal

By Euronews with Agencies
Published on 12/11/2023

Socialist Costa who has led Portugal since 2015 stepped down on Tuesday after a corruption investigation appeared to implicate his chief of staff and one of his ministers.

Portugal's Public Prosecutor's Office reportedly confused the name of Prime Minister António Costa with that of Economy Minister António Costa Silva in the transcript of the 'Operation Influencer' wiretaps that led to the fall of the Portuguese government earlier this week.



That's according to the lawyer for one of the defendants in the case, who revealed that the error was detected during questioning and said that prosecutors have recognised their mistake.

There's been no public comment yet from the Attorney General's Office or the Supreme Court of Justice.

Costa, a Socialist, has led Portugal since 2015 and won a landslide election just last year. But he stepped down immediately after his government was rocked by a major police raid on Tuesday as part of a corruption investigation that included the arrest of his chief of staff along with four other people and one of his ministers being named as a suspect.

Costa took only a few hours to address the nation and say that, while asserting his innocence, he was unable to stay in his post. He's due to remain as a caretaker prime minister until new elections in March.

The investigative judge who ordered the raids and arrests alleged malfeasance, corruption of elected officials and influence peddling related to lithium mine concessions near Portugal’s northern border with Spain and plans for a green hydrogen plant and data centre in Sines on the south coast.

 

Israel Alone in Supporting the US Embargo of Cuba

On November 2, against the weight of the entire world, the US, once again, voted against a UN General Assembly resolution calling for the end of its six decade embargo of Cuba.

The resolution was called the “necessity of ending the economic, commercial and financial embargo imposed by the United States of America against Cuba.” 187 countries voted in favour of the resolution. Only the US and Israel – who is dependent on the US for military support and who is obliged to return cover for cover at the UN – voted against the resolution. Ukraine, whose government is dependent on the US, not only militarily, but for its economic survival, abstained.

This year’s vote marks the thirty-first consecutive international rebuke of America’s Cuba policy. It also marks the most united the world has been in its condemnation of the US. Last year, the resolution attracted 185 yes votes. Like this year, only Israel sided with the US. But last year Brazil joined Ukraine in abstaining. The replacing of Jair Bolsonaro with Lula da Silva as president of Brazil brought Brazil back over to Cuba’s side, leaving the US the most isolated it’s been in the long history of the resolution.

Ambassador Paul Folmsbee, the senior US advisor for Western hemisphere affairs, explained to the General Assembly that the US voted to maintain the embargo on Cuba because “The United States stands resolutely with the Cuban people.” He said that “Sanctions are one set of tools in our broader effort” to help Cuba: “We therefore oppose this resolution.”

One might excuse the Cuban people for not thanking him. Instead, Cuban foreign minister Bruno Rodríguez Parrilla called it “an act of economic warfare, in times of peace.” He said that it violates the human rights of all Cubans and reminded the world that “Cuba was not threat at all <sic> to the US and that to subject a small nation for decades to economic warfare, was unacceptable.” He called America’s embargo an “illegal, cruel and inhumane policy.”

And it is illegal. The General Assembly called on the US to end the embargo and return to its “obligations under the UN Charter and international law.” The Assembly also reiterated its concern that the US continues to defy UN resolutions dating back to 1992.

Chile’s Permanent Representative to the UN said that “Chile does not agree with the imposition of unilateral sanctions of any kind, the only legitimate sanctions are those adopted by the Security Council in the exercise of its authority for the maintenance of international peace and security.” Peru also reminded the world that the embargo violates the principles of the UN Charter and international human rights law and said that that is view shared by “practically the entire international community.”

Though usually attributed to Kennedy, the genesis of the US embargo on Cuba goes back to the Eisenhower administration. On January 25, 1960, President Eisenhower suggested that the US navy “quarantine” Cuba. “If they are hungry,” the President fumed, “they will throw Castro out.” His ambassador to Cuba, Philip W. Bonsal, chided him with a moral reminder: “We should not punish the whole Cuban people for the acts of one abnormal man.”

Less than a year later, that moral restraint no longer ruled. In October, the US banned exports to Cuba except food and medicine, planting the seed of the embargo that grips Cuba to this day. In February 1962, Kennedy finished the job and locked the people of Cuba under a full economic embargo. With growing cruelty, in January 1964, Johnson moved to include food and medicine in the embargo. By 2018, that embargo had cost Cuba $130 billion, according to the UN. Bruno Rodríguez Parrilla said at a recent press conference that from March 2022 to February 2023, the blockade caused more than $4.8 billion in losses to Cuba. “If we calculate the damage caused by the blockade in these 60 years, based on the value of gold,” he added, “it amounts to 1.337 trillion dollars.”

Campaigning to be president in March 2020, Biden promised that he would “promptly reverse the failed Trump policies that have inflicted harm on the Cuban people and done nothing to advance democracy and human rights.” He has not kept that promise.

Ted Snider is a regular columnist on US foreign policy and history at Antiwar.com and The Libertarian Institute. He is also a frequent contributor to Responsible Statecraft and The American Conservative as well as other outlets.  To support his work or for media or virtual presentation requests, contact him at tedsnider@bell.net.

 

The War on Civilians

It has been one month since Hamas launched its vicious attack on Israel, killing many and taking many more hostage on October 7. There were many reports of killings, rape, potential beheadings, and more. The attacks were horrific, and the world quickly condemned the actions.

Israel responded by declaring war with Hamas and launching a brutal war. While all wars are brutal, this one in particular has been unnecessarily brutal against a group of people: civilians

In the first 31 days of war, Gaza’s Health Ministry claimed that 10,000 Palestinians living in Gaza have been killed as a result of the war. Even more tragic is that over 4,000 of them were children.

In response, the United States has casted doubts on the number. However, the United Nations countered this by saying the number is potentally much higher because the ministry did not include those trapped under rubble. “Some U.N. officials, however, say the real number of casualties is likely significantly higher because the health ministry’s tally doesn’t include people still under the rubble.”

Others have put the number of civilians deaths at a staggering 20,000 people since the war began. However, there is doubt that the number is this high due to the lack of sources for the claim, as David DeCamp points out.

The number of civilians killed by Israel is horrifying. But Israel’s war against Hamas gets even worse when you realize what they are doing is criminal.

In an attack on November 4, Israeli airstrikes hit a public water tank that supplied water for several neighborhoods in the area. According to Al Jazeera correspondents, Israeli airstrikes also hit solar panels, which serve as the sole source of electricity for the Gazans.

That same day, it was reported that an Israeli airstrike hit the generator to the Al-Wafaa Hospital in Gaza. The excessive damage caused by the airstrike led to a power outage in the facility. The fire started by the airstrike was thankfully able to be controlled by civil defense teams.

Thanks to Israel cutting off electricity, water, and fuel to Gaza, many of the wounded civilians in desperate need of treatment are struggling to get the care. However, hospitals in Gaza are still trying to treat the wounds of their patients. Their reward? Bombs.

12 of the 35 hospitals are now out of service thanks to Israel’s bombing, according to the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA). They added that 46 of the 72 healthcare clinics have shut down, making the crisis that much worse.

Africanews reported that an Israeli airstrike in late October hit a populated refugee camp in the southern city of Khan Younis. They killed scores of men, women, children, elderly, and disabled people. The same day, The Electric Intifada reported that an Israeli airstrike killed three children in the refugee camp in Jenin while injuring 23 more. All the while, Israeli forced refused to allow ambulances to enter for twenty minutes.

It should come to no surprise that many experts and organizations are claiming that Israel is committing war crimes against Gaza.

The United Nations claimed that Israel may be committing war crimes in the form of collective punishment through its siege of Gaza. The International Committee of Red Cross also claimed the same thing, according to The Guardian.

Amnesty International claimed they have evidence of Israeli war crimes, including “indiscriminate attacks,” which have caused mass civilian death. Human Rights Watch claimed that multiple war crimes have been committed in Israel and in Palestine.

For this reason, calls for ceasefires have only increased. The unlawful attacks, the rising death toll, and the blocking of aid needs to end immediately. We need a humanitarian ceasefire to allow those who need to be treated to get the treatment they need and deserve.

A ceasefire would allow for negotiations to release the hostages detained in Gaza and for international investigations to take place into the war crimes committed by all parties to end the impunity.

Trenton Hale is a young libertarian researcher and author. He regularly posts on his Instagram account, @casual_libertarian, and writes articles on his Substack page. He is the author of two books, The Failed Idea: Why Socialism Fails in Theory and Practice, and Freedom for All: How a Libertarian Society Would Function.

 

The Dehumanization of War: A Meditation for Veterans Day

When humans embrace the dehumanization of others, we release our ugliest, most destructive selves. Dehumanization is a perverse force that propagates violence and justifies the lust for war and its atrocities.

On August 6, 1945, Sakue Shimohira was 10 years old when an atomic blast obliterated her home in Hiroshima, Japan, burning her mother into an unrecognizable block of ash. Afterward, the only feature that could identify her was a single gold tooth.

Sakue struggled to survive in Hiroshima’s post-apocalyptic, postwar landscape, while her older sister soon fell into despair and threw herself in front of a train. When the American soldiers of the occupying army arrived, Sakue remembered that they constructed an airstrip in front of the shack where she was living. “There were skeletons all over the area,” she said, “so when they built the airstrip, the bones were crushed into dust.”

The American soldiers handed out chewing gum and chocolate to orphans like her. Some of the Japanese children quickly learned how to say “hello” in English, but Sakue confronted the soldiers in her native Japanese. “Why?” she insisted. “Why did you kill my family? Why did they deserve to die?” She added, “Of course, they didn’t understand Japanese. They just smiled at me. ‘Give them back to me!’ I shouted.”

Recalling such memories so many decades later, Sakue’s face still reveals how that historically disastrous bombing blotted out her inner light. As she put it, “I carried this pain that I couldn’t talk about. Even today, I can’t say my sister’s name aloud. It hurts too much.”

Dehumanization and People Living Under the Mushroom Cloud

In recent years, I’ve traveled to Japan numerous times with university students to study the legacy of the first and only use of atomic weapons as World War II ended. In that way, my students and I became moral witnesses to the consequences of the terror for people under those mushroom clouds that shattered, incinerated, and flattened the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

But in my own country, the United States, the continuing specter of nuclear catastrophe generally fails to pierce a commonplace apathy toward such weaponry. Instead, most Americans hold war’s ultimate horror at arm’s length, while rationalizing the way our country and so many others on this planet all too regularly lurch into such conflicts as the only right and just way to address human greed, tyranny, and fear.

Almost 80 years after those first atomic blasts, Americans have yet to seriously reckon with how easily we learned to rationalize such structural violence. Meanwhile, our country continues to pour endless money into the wasteful creation, stockpiling, maintenance, and now the “modernization” of those weapons of mass, even global, destruction. In his poignant diagnosis, psychiatrist Robert Jay Lifton concluded that we developed a deep “psychic numbing,” while becoming detached and morally disengaged from the growing possibility that such weaponry could, in the end, create a “nuclear winter” and destroy humanity.

In Japan, my students and I have had the distinct privilege of meeting atomic bomb survivors, or hibakusha as they are known there. One hibakusha, an elderly, somewhat stern man, told us that he was outside of the city of Nagasaki with his brother when the second bomb exploded. The two boys rushed into the city to search for their father and finally found his body near his workplace, burned (like Sakue’s mother) almost beyond recognition.

We listened as his testimony viscerally evoked that horror from so long ago as if it had only taken place days earlier. He remembered how, as a child, when he tried to prepare the body for burial, he touched his father’s head and the skull crumbled beneath his fingers, while parts of the brain oozed into his hands.

In those precious moments in Japan when my students and I heard the stories of hibakusha, we could also ask questions. “Do you hate Americans?” the students often asked. “What kind of assistance was there for you and other hibakusha in the terrible aftermath of months and years after the war?” And we would thank them for sharing their painful and invaluable stories with us, but it never felt like enough. So many of them have a single request: that we take their words back to the United States with us and share them with others here.

During our conversation with that elderly man in Nagasaki, one moment was particularly unforgettable. Despite the harsh struggle and war-time brutalization he endured as a child, the elder we now experienced was a soul of deep reflection and humane philosophical searching. During the question-and-answer period following his testimony, he told us about his life-long struggle to understand what had happened to him and why. He mentioned a book that helped him better grasp how the world arrived at such a place of inhumanity and violence, historian John Dower’s award-winning history, War Without Mercy: Race and Power in the Pacific War.

“I know that book!” I blurted out. He stared at me, and I stared back. Dower’s history had also deeply impacted my life and thought, so I felt a sudden powerful connection with that hibakusha and was simultaneously rendered speechless after my outburst, overwhelmed and amazed by the journey that man had taken in his life to meet me then and there.

Two Truths About War and Dehumanization

Dower’s investigation helped me better understand two truths about violence. First, dehumanization always precedes and paves the way for the horrors of war. Human beings won’t kill other humans if they truly believe their lives are as worthy as their own. In his book, Dower vividly exposes the dehumanizing, racist imagery that enveloped both the United States and Japan in the early 1940s. The Japanese were portrayed here as “vermin” and “apes,” “inferior men and women,” “primitive and childish” creatures. They were “the Yellow Peril” or “the menacing Asian horde.” Versions of such tropes of dehumanization lubricated the eruption of violence that followed and have emerged repeatedly in human history.

And it wasn’t just the Americans. Japanese cartoons from the era depicted Westerners as a kind of vermin like lice, caricatured President Franklin Delano Roosevelt as a demon, and British Prime Minister Winston Churchill and FDR as “debauched ogres” looming over Mount Fuji, a sacred symbol of Japan. American cartoons typically drew Japanese bodies in bright yellow.

I remember my mother, who grew up in California during that war, remarking on a Japanese flag I brought home from one of my trips. “That was such a symbol of hatred when I was a child,” she told me. And such dehumanization paved the way for devastating violence as the only possible solution. Both sides plummeted into “victimage rhetoric” that portrayed the “enemy” as barbaric, irrational, and irredeemably violent, while “we” were moral, rational, and sensible. Tragically, this way of thinking justified the horrors to come. Given such an enemy, only through colossal destruction could we save the world, or so people came to think.

Dower’s book reveals a second truth about violence as well: dehumanization does more than just enable war. It also generates an annihilating energy all its own through which the atrocity-laden destruction of war multiplies exponentially. In the case of the Pacific front in World War II, violence begat ever greater violence and the hunger for it grew ever deeper and more insatiable until there was a veritable “frenzy of violence” on both sides in the final year of that war. More than half of all American deaths occurred in that single year and that was when the kamikaze, or suicide plane, became “the consummate symbol of the pure spirit of the Japanese” to “turn back the demonic onslaught.”

Meanwhile, the Americans abandoned precision bombing and initiated the full-scale firebombing of Japanese cities. The firebombing of Tokyo in March 1945 burned to death more than 100,000 civilians in a single night. More than 60 cities were similarly targeted, killing hundreds of thousands of Japanese in a final paroxysm of violence that preceded Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Today’s Escalation of the Drumbeats of Dehumanization

In these terrible recent days, we again can hear the drumbeats of dehumanization in Ukraine, Israel, and the Gaza Strip, as grief explodes in the face of unimaginable violence, loss, injury, and the sort of pain that rips at the very fabric of our world. Human beings are once again being described as “animals.” The other side is pure “evil.” The only remedy for such a conflict, people imagine, is to wipe the enemy out and achieve “full victory.” Indescribable destructive force against the other is rationalized as necessary because of the terrible violence wreaked on us.

But we won’t find our way out of such a morass of violence through more of the same, or through the further dehumanization of people we call our enemy. In the end, dehumanization destroys us, too, even if we don’t realize it. The perennial question facing the world is this: Is there a way for us to move toward a greater rehumanization?

In reality, we don’t have to accept psychic numbing or endless dehumanization and violence as the only possible responses to our broken world. We can glimpse a different way forward when we turn our attention to people whose experiences of horrific violence, amazingly enough, didn’t destroy them. Instead, their awareness was crystalized, leaving them with so much to share with the rest of us about the deep, irreplaceable importance of every human being and the immeasurable value of our fragile planet.

Along with the remarkable hibakusha I’ve been privileged to meet, I also have come to know U.S. veterans of war with the same astonishing kinds of awareness. I wrote a book about them and their struggles to remain human in a world all too saturated with violence titled And Then Your Soul is Gone: Moral Injury and U.S. War Culture.

Imagining a Different Veterans Day

As Veterans Day approaches, I’m thinking about those veterans I respect so dearly who have themselves come through such crucibles of horror. Many live with the deep despair that accompanies military moral injuries. Yet they refuse to give up on life, hope, and the belief that there could be a different way forward. They remind me of Sakue who, in the end, offered this reflection: “There are two kinds of courage.  One type of courage is the courage to die. I chose the courage to live.”

American veteran and former Iraq War medic Jenny Pacanowski witnessed that conflict’s calamitous effects on Iraqi children. She shared her agony with a military chaplain, asking him, “Why would God do this to the children of Iraq, to the soldiers, to the medics who only want to bring healing?” The chaplain responded, “God works in mysterious ways.”

Such a facile response made her deeply angry. It was as though her soul could no longer occupy her physical body and left her to float above it, connected by only the most fragile tether, as she screamed in anger and sorrow. That was close to 20 years ago. As she told me, “To truly reintegrate, and invite my soul back into my body, I needed to tell my story in a secure space.” Today, Jenny is like a comet blazing a trail to support the peace-building activities of women veterans.

Recently, I was introduced to the poetry of Vietnam War veteran Doug Rawlings. He was in his early twenties when he was drafted and sent to Vietnam. Returning to the United States, like so many others, he was “confused, angry, and lost.” But he’s been writing poetry for more than 50 years and, in his most recent collection, he explains, “Most of us do not want to be vulnerable, especially men, and, exponentially, veterans. However, the vulnerability in the poet invites vulnerability in the reader/listener.”

One of Rawlings’ poems speaks to me strongly in this painful moment on our planet. Near the U.S. Army base at Long Binh in what was then South Vietnam, there was “a beautiful if dilapidated French villa.” During the war, it was repurposed as an orphanage. A hand-painted sign in front of it read in English: “Please don’t shoot the orphans.”

In response to that memory, Rawlings wrote:

“Imagine all the interstates in and out of our cities
Clogged with cars brought to a standstill by
‘Please don’t shoot the orphans’ plastered on placards

Their drivers stumbling out of their seats
Onto the median strips crisscrossing this land
Of the mobile and free to question

If not just for a minute
How their own busy lives can possibly be
Intertwined with the lives of orphans

Their hearts in their mouths when they realize

The hands on their steering wheels
The fingers dancing across their radio dials

Hold the answer to those questions”

The answer is directly in front of us if only we would pay attention. Please don’t kidnap, maim, starve, or deny water, electricity, or healthcare to children anywhere. Don’t separate them from their parents, drown, bomb, rape, burn, imprison, shoot, bury in rubble, use as human shields, or kill the children. Please, do not find ways to justify such horrors. Instead, look them squarely in the eye and decide that you will demand an alternative.

If we are to remain human on this planet in this devastating moment, there is — or at least, should be — no other way.

Follow TomDispatch on Twitter and join us on Facebook. Check out the newest Dispatch Books, John Feffer’s new dystopian novel, Songlands (the final one in his Splinterlands series), Beverly Gologorsky’s novel Every Body Has a Story, and Tom Engelhardt’s A Nation Unmade by War, as well as Alfred McCoy’s In the Shadows of the American Century: The Rise and Decline of U.S. Global Power, John Dower’s The Violent American Century: War and Terror Since World War IIand Ann Jones’s They Were Soldiers: How the Wounded Return from America’s Wars: The Untold Story.

Kelly Denton-Borhaug, a TomDispatch regular, has long been investigating how religion and violence collide in American war-culture. She teaches in the global religions department at Moravian University. She is the author of two books, U.S. War-Culture, Sacrifice and Salvation and, more recently, And Then Your Soul is Gone: Moral Injury and U.S. War-Culture.

 

Unconstitutional Killings

The Biden administration is killing people, openly in Ukraine and Gaza and secretly around the world. It has continued to use the killing machinery crafted by President George W. Bush, expanded by President Barack Obama and employed by President Donald Trump. These presidents have used drones and other unmanned projectiles to target persons in foreign countries with which the United States is not at war.

They have done this notwithstanding the prohibition against taking life, liberty or property from any person – not just any American, but any person – in the Constitution each has sworn to uphold, and they have done so pursuant to secret rules that they themselves have established for these killings.

Last year, 11 senators and 39 members of the House of Representatives sent a harshly worded letter to President Joe Biden asking him to stop the secret, but not the public, killings. As of this writing, he has not publicly replied.

Here is the backstory.

The purpose of the Bill of Rights – the first 10 amendments to the Constitution – is to protect personal liberty by restraining the government.

The Fifth Amendment prohibits killing persons, restraining liberty and taking property without due process; that means a jury trial at which the government must prove criminal behavior or fault, depending upon its goal.

If the country is at war – lawfully and constitutionally declared by Congress – obviously the president can use the U.S. military to kill the military of the opposing country. And if an attack on the U.S. is imminent, the president can strike the first blow against the military of the entity whose attack is just about to occur.

There are no other constitutional circumstances under which a president may kill.

When President Harry Truman targeted Japanese civilians as the Japanese government was within days of surrendering in World War II, he murdered them. Notwithstanding his unprosecuted war crimes, and with the government’s version of Pearl Harbor still fresh in many Americans’ minds, Truman was regarded as heroic for using nuclear bombs to cause the profoundly immoral, militarily useless and plainly criminal mass killings of the hated Japanese.

Fast-forward to the 9/11 era, and Bush had precedent to begin his own presidential killings of people the government wanted Americans to hate. While Congress did authorize him to use force against those who caused or aided the 9/11 attacks, we all know that his thirst for Middle Eastern blood knew no regard for the Constitution, evidence, proportionality, civilian lives, morality or human decency. Thus, $3 trillion spent and 1 million dead in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Julian Assange sits in a British dungeon awaiting decisions on his extradition to the U.S. because he courageously, lawfully and constitutionally published documents and videos demonstrating conclusively that Bush’s use of drones targeted and murdered Afghan and Iraqi civilians, and his administration covered it up.

Obama took this to another level when he targeted and killed Anwar al-Awlaki, who was born in the U.S. Obama’s attorney general, Eric Holder, advised Obama that the killing was lawful, as al-Awlaki had encouraged folks in the Middle East to fight against American soldiers there. Holder likened killing al-Awlaki to police shooting at a bank robber whom they are chasing while he is shooting at them.

Holder forgot that al-Awlaki was unarmed, was not charged or indicted for any crime, was never accused of violence, and was not even the subject of an arrest warrant when a drone evaporated him while sitting at an outdoor cafe in Yemen.

The exercise of power by the federal government is largely based on precedent and politics. Whenever a president wants to kill, he need only find an example of a predecessor having killed with impunity – without due process, without a declaration of war and without an imminent attack. And then he needs only to calculate what he thinks he can politically get away with.

Joe Biden – whose drones in 2021 destroyed a dam in Syria, killing thousands, and who targeted civilians in Afghanistan, killing dozens, and whose shipments of guns to Ukraine and Israel are killing tens of thousands of folks he wants us to hate – is using unlawful powers that his modern predecessors used and got away with to target and kill unsympathetic persons. But the U.S. has not declared war on Russia or Gaza.

The nature of political power is to expand so that it fills a perceived need, unless there are mechanisms in place to restrain its expansion.

The founding generation believed that British monarchs had no limits on their powers and that was a good enough reason for the 13 colonies to secede violently. They also believed that they had crafted the Constitution and the Bill of Rights to impose sufficient restraints on the federal government. And they believed that the states could peacefully leave a federal government they had voluntarily joined when it exceeded its constitutional powers.

The Constitution is the supreme law of the land. Its language is clear that only Congress writes laws and declares war, and presidents can kill only troops in wartime or civilians consistent with due process.

Sadly, the Founders were wrong.

Every president takes an oath to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution as it was written, not as he may wish it to be.

Yet, today, the president writes laws and rules that let him restrain personal liberty and kill with impunity, and Congress and the American people let him get away with it. Formally, we still have a Constitution. Functionally, it has utterly failed to restrain the government.

Ultimately, we have ourselves to blame for these killings and undeclared wars. Why do we repose the Constitution for safekeeping into the hands of those who subvert it? If a future president uses Bush’s lust and Obama’s logic and Biden’s hatreds to kill Americans in America, then no one’s life, liberty or property will be secure.

Andrew P. Napolitano, a former judge of the Superior Court of New Jersey, is the senior judicial analyst at Fox News Channel. Judge Napolitano has written seven books on the US Constitution. The most recent is Suicide Pact: The Radical Expansion of Presidential Powers and the Lethal Threat to American Liberty. To learn more about Judge Andrew Napolitano, visit https://JudgeNap.com.

Only Israeli military failure will stop the genocide in Gaza

Israel's massacres against civilians in its past military engagements have never pushed the U.S. to pressure Israel into a ceasefire. Only when Israel has suffered a military defeat has the U.S. called for a cessation of hostilities.
ISRAELI TROOPS CONDUCTING GROUND OPERATIONS IN THE NORTHERN GAZA STRIP, NOVEMBER 10, 2023. 
(PHOTO: © CHEN JUNQING/XINHUA VIA ZUMA PRESS/APA IMAGES)

As the Gaza Strip is subjected to the most intensive bombing in the history of an already conflict-ridden Middle East, and as mass killings of Palestinian civilians by the Israeli military are perpetrated on a daily basis, there is a growing belief that there is a level of death, destruction, and suffering beyond which Western governments will cease or significantly reduce their participation in Israel’s war on the Gaza Strip, as well as their support for its actions.

Yet the supposition reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of how such governments formulate policy. Thus far, Israel has imposed a comprehensive siege on the Gaza Strip, depriving an entire society of all essential supplies except oxygen; razed entire towns and neighborhoods to the ground; and in the space of one month, killed more than 10,000 people and wounded perhaps three times that number, more than a third of them children.

It has done so as part of a bombing campaign that demonstrably has no legitimate military purpose or objective, and whose transparent purpose is terror, revenge, physical destruction, and the punishment of an entire society. Nor has the bombing campaign degraded the military capabilities of the Palestinian organizations in the Gaza Strip in any meaningful way. By its own count, Israel has killed more UN employees than Palestinian military commanders.

If the volume of Palestinian death, destruction, and suffering indeed played a role in the calculations of Western governments, it would have already done so. It hasn’t, and independently of other developments, it won’t. As Israeli forces directly and repeatedly shell schools, hospitals, refugee columns, UN facilities, self-proclaimed safe zones, and all forms of civilian infrastructure, most Western governments continue to proudly stand in full solidarity with Israel’s government. Pope Francis is virtually the only Western leader who hasn’t made the pilgrimage to Netanyahu.

Rather, and as during the 1982 Siege of Beirut, previous Israeli assaults on the Gaza Strip, and virtually every other Israeli campaign against the Palestinians since 1948 and particularly after 1967, Western governments have framed their policy campaigns around Israel’s “right to defend itself,” something all too often presented as its duty and obligation as well. It is a right these governments have, quite literally, never accorded to the Palestinian people on a single occasion since 1917.

In 2023, for example, U.S. and EU officials began referring for the first time to selective settler pogroms in the West Bank as “terrorism.” Yet they pointedly refrained from stating that Palestinians have a right to defend themselves against terrorism. They instead called upon the state that has armed the settlers, deployed them as auxiliary militias to realize its policies, and ensured impunity for their actions, to rein them in. When governments promote Israel’s right of self-defense against a people it occupies, they are, in actuality, supporting Israel’s right to dispossess an entire people and seize their lands. They cannot but be fully aware of this, and that their calls upon the Israeli government to control the settlers that, as a matter of state policy, it has unleashed, is much like the current handwringing about sending humanitarian aid to the killing fields of Gaza: meaningless drivel.

What will cause a change in Western policy is Israeli military failure. That is why the Biden administration has devoted more energy to compelling Israel to formulate attainable objectives than it has counseled the restoration of fuel and water to Gaza’s hospitals.

To give a prominent recent example in this regard, in 2006, U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice ecstatically welcomed Israel’s war against Lebanon as the “birth pangs of a new Middle East.” Confident that Israel was pulverizing Hezbollah, the U.S. imperiously dismissed efforts to achieve a cessation of hostilities. Yet, as soon as Israeli armored columns and ground forces faced slaughter when they attempted to advance into southern Lebanon, the U.S. immediately changed its tune and beseeched the UN Security Council to adopt a ceasefire resolution.

Similarly, in 1982, the U.S. gave Israel a free hand to eradicate the PLO in Lebanon. Once it became clear it lacked the capacity to occupy West Beirut, the Reagan administration sent Philip Habib to negotiate an agreement that preserved the PLO. In other words, so long as the U.S. and other Western governments reject a Gaza truce and focus on meaningless obscenities like “humanitarian pauses,” it means they still believe Israel will or can succeed. If they reverse their position, you can take all the homilies about civilian suffering motivating their new position with a grain of salt. Window dressing. It means they have concluded Israel has failed.

An alternative scenario would be that Western governments have concluded that their and Israel’s conduct is producing a significant threat to their own interests and that it’s time to wind down the clock. This could take the form of growing instability in the region and threats to client regimes within it, the prospect of an expanded war requiring direct intervention, which the U.S. would prefer to avoid, and concerns about domestic economic or security repercussions or potentially partisan political or electoral calculations. In their absence, reports that those enabling Israel’s onslaught are “discussing” or “negotiating” with the Israeli government about various issues but are encountering resistance from Netanyahu sound about right. In the absence of consequences for its conduct — and since 1948, there is no instance of Israel facing significant, sustained repercussions on account of its policies — it knows it can proceed without inhibition.

TEHRAN, Nov. 12 (MNA) – A high-ranking official with the Lebanese Hezbollah Resistance movement says the Tel Aviv regime is mistaken if it thinks it would be able to wipe out the Palestinian Hamas Resistance group.

“The occupying regime is delusional and mistaken if it believes that it can eliminate the Hamas movement or other Resistance factions. The Resistance front has developed both in terms of presence and strength, while the Occupation is repeating an obsolete experience in Gaza,” Sayyed Hashem Safieddine, head of the Executive Council of Hezbollah, said at a ceremony in southern Beirut on Sunday.

He added, “Hamas will remain, the Axis of Resistance will become stronger, and buildings and hospitals much better than previous ones will be constructed in their place.”

The high-ranking Hezbollah official stressed that resistance fighters will never lay down their arms as they are fighting off an enemy that cannot be trusted at all.

“What is happening in the Gaza Strip confirms that it is impossible to rely on any force. We are facing an enemy that does not recognize any value. Security and safety are created using our weapons, blood, and capabilities,” Safieddine said.

The senior Hezbollah official went on to say that the Israeli regime “is enjoying political support from the United States to carry out its acts of aggression, including killing of civilians and targeting any facility in Gaza.”

The Gaza experience has proven that measures taken by Resistance fighters are most effective in the face of Israeli atrocities, Safieddine pointed out.

Elsewhere in his remarks, the head of Hezbollah's Executive Council stated that Israel would not have hesitated to wreak havoc on Lebanon and take revenge on the Arab nation if it had been able to do so, emphasizing that the regime is deterred by equations imposed by his resistance movement.

“If the enemy's goal is to frighten us through its crimes, then it must realize that such acts make people more committed to resistance. No one in the world can stop the tide of Resistance in our region,” he continued.

He stressed that Resistance is the guarantor of regional nations, dismissing the so-called two-state solution as an out-of-date method to resolve the Palestinian conflict.

“Combatants in Gaza are the ones who will determine battles on the ground. They are the ones who will shape the future, with better conditions in their favor,” Safieddine concluded.

SD/PressTV

WHY I WATCH AL JAZEERA
How America’s bloodthirsty journalism cheers on Israel’s war on Gaza

American journalists like Jake Tapper mince no words in justifying the Israeli annihilation of the Palestinian people.


Belén Fernández
Al Jazeera columnist
Published On 12 Nov 2023
[Screenshot/CNN]


In a recent segment on how Hamas “frames the civilian casualties” of Israel’s war on the Gaza Strip, CNN’s Jake Tapper starts out by acknowledging that we “do know that innocent civilians in Gaza continue to be killed by Israeli strikes”. It is impossible to “not be affected by these horrific images that we’re seeing”, he states, as the humanitarian crisis in the enclave grows “increasingly dire”.

What is the solution, then? In Tapper’s view, apparently, it is for Israel to continue killing innocent civilians and presiding over a humanitarian catastrophe, because it is all Hamas’s fault anyway.

Near the beginning of the segment, we are shown a clip of Queen Rania of Jordan responding to those who argue that a ceasefire will help Hamas – an argument she says amounts to “endorsing and justifying the death of thousands of civilians”.

Then it is back to Tapper, who calls Queen Rania’s remarks an “interesting turn of phrase” and goes on to wonder condescendingly whether it did not occur to Hamas, when the organisation undertook its operation on October 7, that Israel would “retaliate in a way that would cause innocent Palestinians in Gaza to die”.

To start with, the “interesting turn of phrase” is not so much “interesting” as a straightforward statement of fact. If you insist there should be no ceasefire in an Israeli onslaught that has now killed over 11,000 people in Gaza in just over a month – well, yeah, you are straight up “endorsing and justifying” civilian deaths.

And you are especially endorsing and justifying them if – instead of blaming Israel for slaughtering men, women and children in Gaza with abandon – you blame Hamas for failing to foresee the unprecedentedly psychotic nature of Israel’s “retaliation”. Were the American media and political establishment not so firmly committed to transmitting a thoroughly decontextualised version of this war – and of Israel/Palestine in general – perhaps a news anchor would ask whether it never occurred to Israel that the Palestinians would ever “retaliate” for 75 years of ethnic cleansing, suffocating blockades and massacres.

Tapper forges ahead with his assault on logic and humanity with the help of an arsenal of video clips, several of them courtesy of the Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI), itself an unofficial Zionist propaganda arm – although CNN and other US media outlets are doing a fine job in that respect, as well.

From these clips, featuring former Hamas leader Khaled Meshaal among others, Tapper draws three convenient conclusions, which he conveys with Orientalist smugness and disdain: that Hamas is totally content to have Palestinian civilians die; that Hamas does not care about protecting civilians and only cares about their own military tunnels; and that Hamas is determined to keep attacking Israel for eternity.

In case anyone remains unconvinced, he has also thrown in a clip of former US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who is evidently unsatisfied with the quantity of blood she already has on her hands and requires more: “People who are calling for a ceasefire now do not understand Hamas. That is not possible. It would be such a gift to Hamas.”

Near the end of the segment, we are presented with the “point of view of Israel”, as if that is not what we have been receiving this whole time: “They [the Israelis] hear all the calls for a ceasefire. What they do not hear is anyone in the international community proposing any way for them to get back their 240 hostages that Hamas kidnapped.”

This is funny, since, as NPR reported this month, a recent opinion poll in Israel found that almost two-thirds of the Israelis surveyed were in favour of a prisoner exchange – something Hamas has repeatedly offered – in which Israel would release its Palestinian detainees in exchange for the hostages held by Hamas. Why look to the “international community” when there is a solution right there?

It bears emphasising that prisoner exchanges are nothing new. In 2011, for example, Israel freed no fewer than 1,027 Palestinian prisoners in exchange for a single soldier held by Hamas since 2006 – chalk the ratio up to the superior value placed on Israeli lives.

And, in 2008, Israel acquired the remains of two Israeli soldiers in exchange for five Lebanese nationals and the remains of 199 Lebanese and Palestinian captives.
Advertisement

As of the Hamas operation of October 7, there were over 5,000 Palestinians languishing in Israeli jails; two weeks later, the number had doubled, as Israel went about maniacally arresting people.

But, hey, we are only supposed to see the “point of view of Israel”.

Proceeding in his defence of that viewpoint, Tapper laments that the Israelis “don’t hear anyone proposing any way for Hamas to be removed from the leadership of Gaza.” This is an “interesting turn of phrase”, to borrow Tapper’s own words, seeing as removing Hamas from leadership isn’t really anyone else’s business at all.

Recall that, after Hamas won democratic elections in 2006, the US decided it was indeed their business, and helpfully sparked a civil war in Gaza – to Hamas’s eventual advantage. Oops.

Anyway, who needs a Palestinian civil war when you can just annihilate Gaza altogether?

Tapper’s segment received praise from various US media figures, with Brit Hume of Fox News lauding his “excellent analysis”. It is an “analysis”, of course, that is shared by President Joe Biden and across the US politico-media spectrum: That a ceasefire is off the table and Palestinians must continue to die.

And as Tapper continues to audition for the role of Israeli military spokesperson, an immediate ceasefire needs to be called on bloodthirsty journalism.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera’s editorial stance

.
Belén Fernández
Al Jazeera columnist
Belén Fernández is the author of Inside Siglo XXI: Locked Up in Mexico’s Largest Immigration Center (OR Books, 2022), Checkpoint Zipolite: Quarantine in a Small Place (OR Books, 2021), Exile: Rejecting America and Finding the World (OR Books, 2019), Martyrs Never Die: Travels through South Lebanon (Warscapes, 2016), and The Imperial Messenger: Thomas Friedman at Work (Verso, 2011). She is a contributing editor at Jacobin Magazine, and has written for the New York Times, the London Review of Books blog, Current Affairs, and Middle East Eye, among numerous other publications.

For Canadian veterans, the toxic legacy of burn pits lingers: advocate

By David Baxter Global News
Posted November 12, 2023

Exposure to toxic burn pits has emerged as a modern concern for veterans. Burn pits were a common way of eliminating waste, including toxic chemicals, in military bases in Iraq and Afghanistan. The U.S. has already passed a law to extend health-care benefits to veterans dealing with adverse health issues stemming from exposure to these pits. ‘The West Block’ host Mercedes Stephenson speaks with retired Master Cpl. Arjun Grewal about the dangers of toxic burn pit exposure, how the issue is playing out in Canada, and more.

The effects of serving in a war zone can linger with veterans long after they end their tour of duty and an emerging health concern is exposure to toxic burn pits.

Retired Master Corp. Arjan Grewal, a veteran of the war in Afghanistan, told The West Block host Mercedes Stephenson that burn pits were a common part of life on bases during his six tours of duty.

“It’s a large bonfire, if you will, that is in the middle of a military base or a forward operating base. And it’s used to incinerate everything, and I mean everything; helicopter carcasses, batteries, human waste, ammunition, food waste,” Grewal explained.

“Why burn pits are such a specific cause of toxic exposure is because it smolders. It doesn’t incinerate at a high rate. It’s not plasma-fired and it doesn’t get rid of anything very fast. And with the populations that exist on military bases, they’re often living around where those burn pits are placed.”

Grewal describes burn pits as “a necessary evil” because bases are often set up in areas where there aren’t proper waste disposal facilities, and where establishing them could be a security risk.

“So, burn pits are utilized often and a lot more so than just in a couple of these large forward operating bases,” he said.


2:24 Biden signs PACT act to help veterans exposed to toxic substances, as Jon Stewart looks on


Now in his civilian life, Grewal is the CEO of Ventus Respiratory Technologies, a company that creates specialized personal protective equipment (PPE) – masks to protect military, law enforcement and first responders from toxic particulates they can be exposed to on the job.

He’s also been advocating for research into how the health effects of burn pits are impacting Canadian soldiers and veterans years later.

“We are some of the healthiest, fittest, most tracked population in Canada, and we’re still seeing a high rate of illness. So in terms of what types of illnesses that we see, cancers are obviously one that are very scary, but there’s COPD, asthma, infertility,” he said. “From these chemicals metabolizing into your bloodstreams, into major organs, into the brain, we’re seeing really complex cases earlier in age. And as we talk about veterans, some of these afflictions are coming to currently serving soldiers, not just people who’ve retired.”

He says there is little research being done in Canada but he suspects if more is done, it will paint a serious picture of health impacts on veterans — something already prompting change in the United States.


2:17 This is BC: Veteran pens memoir to heal from PTSD


The U.S. Department of Veteran Affairs established the Airborne Hazards and Burn Pits Center of Excellence in 2019 to study the impacts of this practice.

Research suggests that American soldiers deployed in Afghanistan and Iraq during the War on Terror are four times more likely to develop cancer and respiratory illnesses like chronic obstructive pulmonary disease than the general population.

Last year, President Joe Biden led a successful effort to cover a wide range of cancers and respiratory conditions as presumptive conditions linked to burn pit exposure. That means if a veteran is diagnosed with one of those conditions, there is presumed to be a connection between their service and their diagnosis and they can get covered for treatment costs through veterans programs

“Toxic smog thick with poison spread through the air and into the lungs of our troops. When they came home, many of the fittest and best warriors that we sent to war were not the same. Headaches, numbness, dizziness, cancer. My son Beau, was one of them,” Biden said in August 2022.

Joseph “Beau” Biden died of glioblastoma, an aggressive form of brain cancer, in 2015 at the age of 46. He was a major in the Delaware National Guard and had served in Iraq.

Grewal is advocating for Canada to take similar steps as the Americans but doesn’t believe there is much work on the issue. He says his organization has reached out to Veterans Affairs Canada and the military to raise the matter, but says little appears to change.

Global News has reached out to Veterans Minister Ginette Petitpas-Taylor for a comment.

Another reason so much of science is so bad: bias in what gets researched.


Nina Strohminger and Olúfémi Táíwò write:

Most of us have been taught to think of scientific bias as a distortion of scientific results. As long as we avoid misinformation, fake news, and false conclusions, the thinking goes, the science is unbiased. But the deeper problem of bias involves the questions science pursues in the first place. Scientific questions are infinite, but the resources required to test them — time, effort, money, talent — are decidedly finite.

This is a good point. Selection bias is notoriously difficult for people to think about, as by its nature it depends on things that haven’t been seen.

I like Strohminger and Táíwò’s article and have only two things to add.

1. They write about the effects of corporations on what gets researched, using as examples the strategies of cigarette companies and oil companies to fund research to distract from their products’ hazards. I agree that this is an issue. We should also be concerned about influences from sources other than corporations, including the military, civilian governments, and advocacy organizations. There are plenty of bad ideas to go around, even without corporate influence. And, setting all this aside, there’s selection based on what gets publicity, along with what might be called scientific ideology. Think about all that ridiculous research on embodied cognition or on the factors that purportedly influence the sex ratio of babies. These ideas fit certain misguided models of science and have sucked up lots of attention and researcher effort without any clear motivation based on funding, corporate or otherwise. My point here is just that there are a lot of ways that the scientific enterprise is distorted by selection bias in what gets studied and what gets published.

2. They write: “The research on nudges could be completely unbiased in the sense that it provides true answers. But it is unquestionably biased in the sense that it causes scientists to effectively ignore the most powerful solutions to the problems they focus on. As with the biomedical researchers before them, today’s social scientists have become the unwitting victims of corporate capture.” Agreed. Beyond this, though, that research is not even close to being unbiased in the sense of providing accurate answers to well-posed questions. We discussed this last year in the context of a fatally failed nudge meta-analysis: it’s a literature of papers with biased conclusions (the statistical significance filter), with some out-and-out fraudulent studies mixed in).

My point here is that these two biases—selection bias in what is studied, and selection bias in the studies themselves—go together. Neither bias alone would be enough. If there were only selection bias is what was studied, the result would be lots of studies reporting high uncertainty and no firm conclusions, and not much to sustain the hype machine. Conversely, if there were only selection bias within each study, there wouldn’t be such a waste of scientific effort and attention. Strohminger and Táíwò’s article is valuable because they emphasize selection bias in what is studied, which is something we haven’t been talking so much about.



VIDEO