Arab Man = Militant or Terrorist

This seems to be the formula most widely accepted by the western media and the US/US's Puppy (Englerica? Ameriland?) governments. Lets take a recent Associated Press article, regarding civilian casualties (being a woman or a child under 10 still counts as a "civilian," at least for now):

BAGHDAD -- U.S. soldiers destroyed two buildings being used by insurgents in a town in the western Anbar province, killing six militants, two women and a boy believed to be under 2, the U.S. military said Sunday.

Now, out of curiosity, what legally recognised court passed the guilty verdict on these six individuals that there was sufficiently binding evidence that they must fall into a legally recognised category of illegal "militants" pursuant to civil and international law?

Or was simply being an Arab man enough to justify their death sentence?

------------------------------------------------
Also, Al Jazeera reports that Kofi Annan (previously scared to call a duck a duck and admit that the civil war in Iraq is a civil war) today did muster the courage to say what Iraqis have been thinking for years and openly articulating without qualification of late:

Annan said he agreed with Iraqis who say that life is worse now than it was under Saddam.

"I think they are right in the sense of the average Iraqi's life," he said.

"If I were an average Iraqi obviously I would make the same comparison - that they had a dictator who was brutal but they had their streets, they could go out, their kids could go to school and come back home without a mother or father worrying, 'Am I going to see my child again?" Annan said.

So, the UN Secretary General comes out and finally tacitly admits that the US (whose UN Mandate on Iraq was just renewed in the past week or so) has created a civil war in Iraq.

Yet the rest of the world stands by and does nothing.

Why?

Israel's Peace Offer?

Recently there has been much news coverage of the "ceasefire" between Hamas and Israel (which Condi Rice was in Israel trying to "shore up" on Thursday) and the magnanamous offer by Ehud Olmert of peace negotiations with the Palestinians.

The fact that the ceasefire has been anything-but aside (monday, for example, after the ceasefire took effect sunday, Palestinian militants fired rockets into Israel and the IDF shot and killed a "militant" and a 50 year old woman they claimed tried to "run off" with his weapon. I must say, that's the first time I've ever heard of a 50 year old woman running...), Israel's "offer of peace" has been on the table now since 1947.

Peace is offered to Palestine in return for the wholesale removal of all palestinians and the creation of a Jewish-Zionist state that runs from the mediterranean to the Jordan river. Okay, I exaggerate (a little). The best offer made by Israel at the Camp David negotiations still included a 12 percent reduction in the then-current territory under direct control of the Palestinian Authority, which didn't include of course any area that is still legally part of Palestine but under de-facto Israeli control. All current offers by Israel include taking Palestinian territory that cuts straight through the center of the west bank to the Jordan river, thus dividing the West Bank into walled-in enclaves with no inter-regional transportation (due to the Israeli "security fence" and buffer zone).

Palestine's offer (from Hamas and Fatah and Al-Aqsa etc.), which was made with much less publicity just a few months back, is that Israel withdraw to their pre-1967 borders (internationally viewed as the legal boundries of Israel and referred to as the "green line") and cease all military operations in Palestine. However, we don't hear about Palestine's offer in the West, although it has stood fairly unchanged since the early 1970s.

Yet, the western media gleefully reports every action by Olmert as a "major policy shift" that is obviously him taking the high road in looking for peace. He echos the offer of a "Palestinian State" but fails to mention, and this is never pointed out in the media, that the "state" they offer is essentially a small number of small and impossible to leave communes, all surrounded by the "State" of Israel and cut off from access to water or arable land, which technically (by international law) belongs to Palestine now but is part of the self-declared state of Israel in reality.

Olmert's offer is that some "suspected militants", thousands of whom are being detained without charge or trial by Israel, will be released after a kidnapped Israeli soldier is returned to Israel. They have already begun by releasing one Palestinian government minister who was kidnapped just a few weeks ago. Yes, you read that correctly: their graciousness has been displayed by releasing a kidnapped Palestinian government minister.

They also consistantly claim that Israel was planning to "unilaterally withdraw" from the west bank. But that is misleading. Israel offered to withdraw from the sections of the west bank it does not wish to keep, but maintains its claims on the farmlands and water supplies that are legally in the West Bank but viewed (only by the US and Israel and their puppy... what's it called again? Bushtain? Blairtain? Britrael?) as part of "Israeli territory."

What doesn't get covered is the UN report that was released this week that stated Israel "violated every article" of a crossings agreement they made last year regarding entry and exit from Palestinian areas. You need look no further than the blog of "A Mother From Gaza" who, as we speak, is waiting to get back into Palestine. She has been waiting, and waiting, and waiting and waiting, and waiting, and waiting... The effects of this de-facto blockade are disasterous for the Palestinians, left with no livelyhood, no food, and no water. So, as the report just linked to explains, while Israelis freely water their lawns with sprinklers, Palestinians are left having to pray for Red Cross water shipments... which are usually blocked by the IDF from entering Palestinian areas anyway.

Meanwhile, Palestine suffers from a whopping 40% unemployment rate; simultaneously, the US has historically provided unconditional aid to Israel to the tune of nearly a hundred billion dollars, and it continues to increase to this day.

The Human Rights Situation in Palestine is a travesty, and it has been inflicted upon Palestinians by Israel for decades. Additionally, those familiar with the situation are well aware of the disasterous effects that America's unconditional support for Israel has on the US's standing in the world, as evidenced by a letter from 50 retired American diplomats to George Bush on the subject. However, we in the west cannot say anything negative about Israel.

To give an example, a well known and very knowledgeable diplomat and former US president intricately familiar with the subject recently published a book called "Peace not Apartheid" which is naturally critical of Israel's actions towards Palestine.

Upon the book's release, the "new breed" of democrats who are taking over the US Congress in january were chomping at the bit to condemn the book as anti-semetic. Among those who came out against the book were Nancy Pelosi and John Conyers.

The formula is nothing new. Anything that is anti-Zionist (Zionism meaning building a Jewish state in the holy land, by UN terms it was a code-name for racism for 20 years lets not forget) and disagrees with Israel's murderous policies (much like 62 percent of the Israeli population disagreed with Ehud Olmert's actions in Lebanon this summer) must therefore be anti-semetic.

I think this kind of fear-and-hate mongering insults the intelligence and the morality of Jews and Gentiles everywhere. One does not have to support murder to be jewish, as those who are so quick to throw out the anti-semetic label would like you to believe, and one does not hate jews just because they disagree with the wholesale slaughter of Palestinians. The whole issue is so asinine I can't believe it even has to be addressed.

In 2002 Counterpunch published an interesting article on "anti-semitism." It's worth a read.

As far as Israel's "peace offer" goes, I would like to reiterate my take on the issue. Once the following conditions are met, I'm sure peace will soon follow.

• The US needs to cut off its unconditional military aid to Israel, instead offering such aid only on the condition that murderous incursions by the IDF into foreign territories is ended immediately and finally.


• Israel must withdraw from occupied territories back to the internationally agreed 1967 borders, and tear down its illegal perimeter wall.


• The US must at once re-evaluate its position of unconditional support for Israeli policies and cease using its Security Council Veto to stymie any international attempt at mediation.


• Iran must exert its influence on Hamas and Hizballah to stop targeting civilian areas, as it is a violation of the Geneva Conventions.


• Israel must cease aggressive posturing against Iran that encourages the Iranian leadership to encourage Hamas and Hizballah to continue to provoke the IDF into attacks.

Respect

Bishop Desmond Tutu once said "a person is a person because he recognises others as persons." The implication of that recognition is an integral part of my definition for what I believe is an important concept: Respect.

For an individual to be treated with respect, they must exhibit respect. There are concepts I believe that a morally guided person must have respect for. The very idea that we are capable of contemplating such concepts is unique to the human species, as we are the only ones capable of rational thought; that is what differentiates us from every other species of organism on this planet. Without the higher level of thought that is the basis for the particularly human system of intellectual organisation, we are no better than or different from slugs or bacteria.

Today, as in many other dark times in human history, there are individuals who for one reason or another have lost sight of the important notion of respect. For the greater good of our species, we must all maintain a level of respect for our fellow man, for the fragile ecosystem that sustains all life on this planet, for the sanctity of human life, for Morality, for the equality of all persons, for the freedom to pursue individual thought, for reason, for true freedom, for human rights, for love, and for knowledge.

An american race car driver by the name of Richard Petty once said "if guys don't respect themselves, they don't respect other people." Perhaps powerful people in our world today have no respect for themselves. Perhaps that's how they are able to justify taking away the freedom and the dignity of their fellow human beings, taking their lives, and doing so without any respect for basic humanity.

Aristotle once said "At his best, man is the noblest of all animals; separated from law and justice he is the worst." There is no justice for those who have been tortured in Nazi-style prison camps. There is no law controlling the actions of perverted individuals operating illegally in an occupied country. This can only bring out the worst in people, at both the giving and receiving end of these policies.

Certain powerful individuals in the world today exhibit a total lack of respect for knowledge. The current prevailing mentality of certain regimes to move towards a military attack as the first option for a course of action is to ignore the lessons history has taught us as to the consequences of such a doctrine. Empires have crumbled under the weight of their own military ambitions. Such a contempt for knowledge, and for learning history's lessons, is contrary to the teachings of one of the most influential writings on military strategy, The Art of War by Sun Tzu. One of the main points of this writing is that knowledge is the most essential element for victory. The attack as a first response doctrine is also contrary to the teachings of the oldest recorded philosophical teachings, the Tao Te Ching. The Tao's book of Leadership and Strategy tells a story of a master thief who was caught stealing from the army of an ancient chinese king. The leader of that army, knowledgeable in the art of successful conflict resolution, decided that he would put the thief to use rather than put him to death for his crime. The theif was sent to the enemy camp where he stole the pillow from the bed of the sleeping enemy leader. The next day that pillow was returned with apologies. The enemy leader, fearing that if it were so easy for the pillow to be stolen from under his head as he slept it must be also possible for him to be killed in the same fashion, offered a truce and withdrew. The end result was the most preferable one: victory without any bloodshed.

This concept is an important one to note. I have mentioned previously my views on the fact that violence only brings more violence, as evidenced by the continuing "resistance" in Iraq, the ongoing bloody conflict between Palestine and Israel, murderous attacks by and against the Marxist rebels in Columbia, and so on. If a doctrine or mentality or virtuous intent is genuinely so strong, there is no need for continuing violence as to do so only sparks more angry resistance. If the virtuous intent of America is to be believed, they must stop their constant resort to violence, as it is the least desirable method towards an attempt at conflict resolution.

For some time now many powers have shown a contemptuous lack of respect for the fragile ecosystem that supports life on this planet. Our species must learn to enact the concepts of respect not only towards each other but towards our environment. Without the environment, there will be no human species for it to support. While the trend of Global Warming is well documented in recent years, startling knowledge has come to light recently that leads many experts to believe that the process of global warming due to greenhouse gas emissions is to increase exponentially in speed. This is due to the fact that ice shelfs that have covered a peat bog the size of France and Germany combined (peat produces Methane gas, a potent greenhouse gas) are melting rapidly so as to expose the Greenhouse gas producing substance. This will accellerate the warming process, which has already drastically increased in recent years as a result of industrial pollution. Not only is there a high probablity that such accelerated warming will leave large parts of this planet uninhabitable, but there is also research that suggests that it could lead to an abrupt non-linear climate change event. It is important to note that the end of the last ice age came abruptly, with the world temperature shifting from ice to temperate in only 20 years. Such a climate shift today would likely wipe out a large percentage of the worlds population, in addition to much animal and plant life. The continuing lack of respect for the environment in which we live will eventually, if it continues as it is going now, lead to there being no environment left for us to respect, and in turn we won't be around to try to fix the issue. Voluntary reduction of the level of increase of emissions from the worlds most dangerous pollutor are not enough. If changes are not made soon, and those in power realise that respecting the environment is vital to our survival, the consequences could be catastrophic.

Treat a person like an animal and they will behave like an animal. Treat a person with dignity and they will act with respect. To torture and detain our fellow man, to murder, to destroy: such actions by the worlds most powerful can only bring out the worst in people. I believe that we, as a people, have the capability to be so much better, and when leading with such an example others can be sure to follow. By leading with the example of kill first ask questions later (question 1: where are those WMDs?), we only encourage others to do the same. If we treat our environment with no respect, the environment will be incapable of showing us respect (allowing our continued existance). Changes must be made soon, because by all accounts later might be too late.




I shall leave you today with the inspired words of a U.S. Senator/ Basketball star by the name of Bill Bradley:

"Respect your fellow human being, treat them fairly, disagree with them honestly, enjoy their friendship, explore your thoughts about one another candidly, work together for a common goal and help one another achieve it. No destructive lies. No ridiculous fears. No debilitating anger."

Rumsfeld Indictment?

An article relating to Rumsfeld's knowledge of torture of Guantanamo detainees that I discussed in my "deranged American government" entry was posted last week in Human Rights Watch's news:

"Rumsfeld could be liable under the doctrine of command responsibility the legal principle that holds a superior responsible for crimes committed by his subordinates when he knew or should have known that they were being committed, but fails to take reasonable measures to stop them. "

PBS describes the American concept of command responsibility quite well for those of you who haven't heard of it before.

Donald Rumsfeld's actions are not only in violation of international law, they are also in violation of American Law. When will the American government take responsibility for their actions?

And, out curiosity, how many of you lovely readers are old enough to remember the Iran/Contra affair of the 1980s? Or how it ended with the pardon of key players by george w bush's father? How it led to the death of the Swedish Prime minister, the (fairly recent) execution of a reporter who investigated the affair? Or how it tarnished the office of the President of the United States? Or how alot of the key players were recycled into the current Bush administration?

I wonder if these people will EVER take responsibility for their actions, rather than being hypocrites (ex. selling arms to Iran last time they were in power and demanding the world not sell arms to iran now) and demanding obedience while they themselves do not feel constrained by such frivolous things as laws. If they were part of any other country's government they would be in jail or worse, but I guess there's more than one interpretation of "land of the free."

Even the BBC

I would expect this from the American news agencies, as their parent companies have alot to gain from America's aggressive foreign policy (also known as colonialism, theft, pillaging, inhumanity, aggression, etc.), but not from the BBC. I've been quite impressed by the BBC and their strict adherence to the facts and objectivity through the years, but I fear they are going the way of Viacom's CBS (Dan Rather you poor soul, 30 years with the network, you run one anti-bush story and your ass is out the door) or GE's NBC. Honestly, I always held them in high regard what with programs like Panorama and even their World News was generally the spot to find news the American media was hiding. In the words of a famous folk singer, "the times, they are a-changin."

In an article run monday on the front page of BBC News, regarding the Tel Aviv Bombing and Israel's response to it, they said:
"Israel holds Hamas responsible for a deadly suicide bombing in Tel Aviv but will not hit back against the Palestinian Authority, officials say.
A special cabinet meeting ended with agreement to increase security efforts but not launch a military strike. "

That is simply not true. Within hours Israel had launched a military strike, several in fact, sending troops in to the Gaza strip, Nablus, Qalqilia, Jenin, and Gaza City. The operation involved more than 80 military vehicles, including BULLDOZERS (and they aren't for anything to do with clearing away Palistinian settlements to make way for Israeli settlements, they are strictly to "fight terror" my Israeli sources tell me. They swear to this.) and the ubiquitous (American) Apache Helicopter Gunships. It's in print if BBC would get off their lazy asses and check it out.

Examples

1. "troops did roll into Nablus moments after Monday's attack. The army will also likely consider targeting the Palestinian Authority" -Jerusalem Post
2. "the IDF attacked targets in Gaza yesterday and last night" -Arutz Sheva, Israel National News
3. "Israel Responds with Military Raids" (that was the TITLE, need I say more?) - Al Jazeera
4. "Other decisions were taken about actual operation in the territories, which were not released for publication. It seems security forces will carry out pinpoint operation in reaction to the terror attack. " Is what Y-Net News (Yedioth, Israel's largest media company) said about the 80 vehicles they sent in to Palestine. That statement was after their bit about the revoking the travel priviledges of Hamas ministers living in Israeli occupied (but legally Palistinian) lands.
5. "Israeli troops raided a West Bank village near Jenin " -Israel Insider

I think it would be superfluous for me to continue, but you get the idea. Additionally, nearly every article mentioned that the Israeli cabinet had decided to revoke the residency of some Hamas MPs that were living in Israeli occupied territories. No mention that it was occupied territory that they were to be removed from, simply that they were to be removed from "Israeli Territory." And of course, no mention of the fact that "the Occupied Palestinian Territory and its associated régime are contrary to international law". -(2004 judgement by the International Court of Justice at the Hague)

Thank you BBC. Thank you very much. You have proved once again that western media is worthless.

The Deranged American Government

Ok, if ANYONE out there cares AT ALL about how terrifying the prospect of a bunch of mutinous insane asylum escapees having their fingers hovering (can't you just picture them standing there twitching going "c'mon, I dare ya!") over the Big Red Button that will bring about The End of our species' short reign as kings(/queens) of this planet, then please, let me know. Lets take the news today.
Reuters, not exactly a far left wing anti-bush news agency (example #1, they give an article to bush saying quite asinine things about his failed reaganomics tax cut scheme, and ONE LINE at the end to the opposition), ran a news story today based on an article run on Salon.com about Donald Rumsfeld (American Secretary of Defense) having PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE of prisoner abuses at Guantanamo Bay, and as having PERSONALLY authorised them.
This is NOT a revelation for those of us who often read the dissident media or frequent sites that provide more unbiased views on the world today, BUT, it was in REUTERS. One of the 2 MAIN news providers for ALL news organisations worldwide. AP and Reuters stories are listed on just about every news site you'll find, from The Khaleej Times to The Asia Times to AlJazeera to The BBC to LeMonde to EVERYWHERE. IN REUTERS!!! So, one of the MAIN sources of information for THE WORLD has come out today saying that the American Secretary of Defense PERSONALLY AUTHORISED his subordinates to VIOLATE INTERNATIONAL LAW (check www.icj-cij.org) as it relates to the Geneva Conventions on Humane Treatment of prisoners, and yet these men are NOT being brought before the International Court at the Hague... WHY?!?!?!?!?!?!