Justin Podur

Why did they kill Rantisi?

A friend recently asked in the ZNet forum system for some answers about why Israel killed Abd-el-Aziz al-Rantisi, and Sheikh Ahmed Yassin. I didn’t have anything profound to say, unfortunately. I suspect the most useful answer is that they killed him because they could. When the US-Israel gets a chance to kill, it will. That’s a fairly safe assumption to go on.

For example, on April 16, a 17-year old Palestinian child was shot dead by the Israeli Army in Beitunia, near Ramallah in the West Bank. It was a protest against the wall. Apparently there was rock throwing at the protest, sufficient reason to kill a child.

On April 18, De’yaa Abdul Karim Abu Eid died in a hospital in East Jerusalem. He was 23. He was shot in the chest by an Israeli soldier — you guessed it — protesting the wall in Biddu. He was 400 meters (that’s a quarter of a mile) from the nearest soldier. That means, just for clarification, that it wasn’t crossfire. It was assassination.

The point of pointing out these killings is just to remind readers that probably most of the killing that Israel does in the Occupied Palestinian Territories is just flat out murder of plain civilians, without even a pretense having a mafia-like logic behind it like that against Rantisi.

Israel kills Rantisi

Israel and the US are competing for the most shocking atrocity, and are managing to keep up with one another quite well. Israel killed Hamas’s leader, Rantisi, today. Remember that when they killed Sheikh Ahmed Yassin, they promised that they would kill everyone, and named specific people including Rantisi, Nasirallah in Lebanon, Arafat…

Not much else to be said, though it is in the fitness of things to mention that like most of these killings, the Israelis killed more than just the person they intended to illegally assassinate, but also his son, his bodyguard, and an unknown number of civilians (the early reports are that people were wounded).

Irony, anyone?

Okay, so what is the textbook, classic example everyone thinks of first when they think of a US-sponsored coup in Latin America to install a murderous dictatorial regime?

Hint: Castro told Chavez not to become the assassinated President of this country on the phone during the April 2002 coup in Venezuela.

Hint #2: Kissinger said, about this country: “I don’t see why we have to sit back and let a country go communist just because of the irresponsibility of its own people.”

Answer? The same country that is sending more troops to help the US with its post-coup occupation of Haiti, of course!

Yes, it’s true. Chile, the country that suffered so brutally under Pinochet’s dictatorship, is now sending soldiers to occupy Haiti, or so said Chile’s ambassador to Haiti Marcel Young, today. There are over 300 Chilean troops in Haiti, along with US Marines, Canadians, and French soldiers.

(On the hints: Castro apparently told Chavez ‘No seas un Allende’, or ‘Don’t become another Allende’: Salvador Allende was the president who was murdered during the 1973 coup in Chile — on 9/11, as I’m sure most people reading this blog know. The Kissinger quote comes via Noam Chomsky, of course, so I’m sure most have read that one as well!)

Bush and Sharon agree on Palestinians’ fate!

That ought to come as a shocker. It seems that Bush has endorsed Sharon’s plans for the unilateral destruction — oops, I meant starvation — oops, I meant withdrawal — of Gaza. He has also said that Palestinian refugees ought to forget about the right of return, and he has said nothing about the settlements on the West Bank. Or the bombings. Or the starvation. Or the closures. But then, how could he, when he’s applying these very techniques in Iraq?

Speaking of Iraq, what’s this I see? A new headline that ‘fighting flares up again in Fallujah’?

Now, class, what does it mean when the passive voice is used? It means that friends of ours (or us, ourselves) are killing people. Of course, that headline is doubly dishonest because the assumption is that there was a period before the ‘flareup’ when there wasn’t fighting going on in Fallujah — a lie.

The first line of the AP story has a bit more of an honest description of what’s going on: “US warplanes strafed gunmen in Fallujah…”

Democracy takes root in Haiti

Check out this press release from Latortue, Haiti’s new democratically-paramilitary-coup-installed leader who is presiding over a major massacre and occupation right now. It comes from his meeting with Powell and is published (where else?) on the State Department’s website.

“The third thing we discussed is the democratic process and how it is going on in Haiti today. I was happy that last night, I was the first to sign, with the political parties, the civil society groups, a convention, an agreement, in how this process should go on, go forward.”

“Secretary Powell is the first person to whom I explained this, because we just signed this last night. And I spoke to him, too, right after Easter, we will be setting up the Provisional Electoral Council, right after Easter. One of the things we assured the Secretary of State is that whether you were a former official, a minister, a secretary, in the present government, you will not be allowed to participate in the political process coming up.”

That’s why, I suppose, people like Oriel Jean, who worked for Aristide, is now sitting in a cell in Miami (thank the Canadian authorities for that one, as for many illegal actions and atrocities in this coup). Jean is being investigated for ‘drug charges’. But, of course, if you want to know how the drug trade really works, you should check out Al McCoy’s ‘Politics of Heroin’, Cockburn & St. Clari’s ‘Whiteout’, or, on Haiti, this piece from Paul DeRienzo.

Sadr, dead or alive?

Talk about a ‘feeler’. So various outlets are saying that the US is vowing to capture or kill Moqtada as-Sadr. Someone even used the famous ‘dead or alive’ phrase, last used for Osama bin Laden. I’m a little surprised. I would have thought they would have wanted to build him up into another famous Arab villain and make the ‘fiery cleric’s’ face known all over the country, stoking the racism that has played such a useful role in US war plans all over the world for a little longer.

It’s another page out of the Israeli handbook. I’m sure you’ve all read Fisk’s latest:

It seems that as long as you say “war on terror”, you are safe from all criticism. For not a single American journalist has investigated the links between the Israeli army’s “rules of engagement” – so blithely handed over to US forces on Sharon’s orders – and the behaviour of the US military in Iraq. The destruction of houses of “suspects”, the wholesale detention of thousands of Iraqis without trial, the cordoning off of “hostile” villages with razor wire, the bombardment of civilian areas by Apache helicopter gunships and tanks on the hunt for “terrorists” are all part of the Israeli military lexicon.

In besieging cities – when they were taking casualties or the number of civilians killed was becoming too shameful to sustain – the Israeli army would call a “unilateral suspension of offensive operations”. They did this 11 times after they surrounded Beirut in 1982. And yesterday, the American army declared a “unilateral suspension of offensive operations” around Fallujah.

Not a word on this mysterious parallel by America’s reporters, no questions about the even more mysterious use of identical language. And in the coming days, we shall – perhaps – find out how many of the estimated 300 dead of Fallujah were Sunni gunmen and how many were women and children. Following Israel’s rules is going to lead the Americans into the same disaster those rules have led the Israelis.

The media will, of course, go along with anything the US does, and racism will help those who want to to swallow it. But in Iraq, I wonder what the message will be, given that they took Saddam (Murder, Inc.) alive (even gave him a free dental exam), and are planning to blow Moqtada as-Sadr up?

Some Shady Arms Dealings

Some stuff that came through a little while ago. There is a trial in process of a fellow called Montesinos. He’s your friendly neighbourhood arms dealer, with a long resume of CIA work, as well as work for the notorious Peruvian democrat Alberto Fujimori. Obviously his work with the CIA involved providing weapons to illegal armed groups with the purpose of destroying social movements in Latin America.

The odd thing is, however, that he’s on trial in Peru right now for an arms deal — selling 10,000 AK-47 rifles to FARC — the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia.

Why would someone with a CIA resume sell weapons to FARC? That’s actually the basis of his plea for innocence: “I never sell to the left,” he’s said. As for the CIA, they say the matter is before the courts. One thing is for sure: this is not the whole story.

In other shady dealings:

Israel is apparently trying to figure out how helicopters sent to it from the United States (for the purpose of attacking more or less helpless Palestinian civilians) ended up in Colombia (where they are presumably being used for the purpose of attacking more or less helpless Colombian peasants). Canadians: make sure you read to the end of the article — there was a Canadian corporation involved. Somehow, there always is…

Haiti inconsistencies

In a previous post, I lamented the concept of the ‘Anti-Aristide, Anti-Occupation’ left. My principal argument was that Aristide was really besides the point. He was not the target of the coup: it was the Haitian people, the democratic process, and the population itself that was. But I’ve recently thought of something else.

If the ‘anti-Aristide, anti-occupation’ people were willing to condone a paramilitary terror campaign that slaughtered hundreds of people in order to get rid of Aristide, and are now willing to countenance those very paramilitaries in power, selling what little of the country there is to multinationals at a more rapid rate than before, will they be supporting and/or participating in armed struggle against the US Marines and Canadian soldiers? It seems to me that to be consistent, they would have to.

Meanwhile, an Amnesty International delegation has made a report, having just returned from Haiti. Here is an excerpt on what’s going on, confirming Fenton’s recent report:

“Amnesty International has also received recent reports of killings and kidnappings of persons belonging to pro-Aristide grassroots organizations in poor neighbourhoods of Port-au-Prince. Among those allegedly responsible were several escaped prisoners who had been jailed for rapes and other common crimes. These men have reportedly been working together with the Haitian police and MIF forces to identify people associated with the Lavalas regime. “

Fallujah is a test…

States rarely commit atrocities without putting out ‘feelers’ to see how they are going to go over. Israel, for example, has been putting out ‘feelers’ about assassinating Yasser Arafat for quite some time. The US has been putting out ‘feelers’ about attacking Syria and Iran since the invasion of Iraq. Likewise, plenty of ‘feelers’ are going out about getting Colombia to attack Venezuela. These things are tests: if the reaction suggests they can get away with it, they go for it.

So it is with Fallujah (See Andrea Schmidt’s latest report here). There is a note that came over the networks by various international organizations yesterday, with new estimates of the magnitude of the atrocity: “470 killed. 1200 injured, of which 243 are women and 200 are children. This is the first, underestimated body count from Falluja.” (The entire note is reproduced below).

This should actually be the sort of thing that our movement is good at: halting a dramatic massacre in progress against a civilian population, done directly by us, unfolding as we speak. And there have been emergency demonstrations and pickets all over North America. It is a major slaughter that will take place if the public response is inadequate. Here is the call for solidarity in its entirety:

End the Massacre in Falluja!

470 killed.
1200 injured, of which 243 are women and 200 are children.
This is the first, underestimated body count from Falluja.

April 9 2004
Occupied Baghdad

Since fighting escalated at the beginning of the week, Iraqi people, especially in the city of Falluja, are facing a humanitarian disaster. Occupation Forces have laid siege to the city. More than 470 people have been killed, 1200 injured. Dead bodies are lying in the streets.

Falluja is being mortared and bombed by F-16 fighter planes, helicopters dropping cluster bombs and rocket-propelled grenades.

Ambulances are being shot at by snipers. Medical aid and supplies have been stopped by US Occupation Forces. Aid workers delivering supplies have had to take secondary roads into the city; once they arrived, they found themselves under fire from US snipers.

No humanitarian corridor has been put in place.

A cease-fire was announced and people began trying flee, but US troops resumed their attacks. Many people remain trapped inside the city, and refugees trying to escape from Falluja to Baghdad are being prevented from reaching their destination by US military. They form a column that extends over 10 kilometers of highway.

The thousands of families who remain trapped in Falluja are running out of basic necessities like food and potable water. Hospitals and medical staff are overwhelmed, and are asking desperately for blood, oxygen and antiseptics.

Fighting is spreading all over the country, Al-Sadr City has been attacked and paid a high price with almost 100 casualties. The situation in Southern cities – Kerbala, Najaf, Kut – is unknown to us, but they are also feared to be the sights of humanitarian emergencies.

The international community, the United Nations and the European Community cannot remain spectators to the massacre in Falluja and the terrorization of Iraqi people all over the country.

The international community must take a firm position and demand that Coalition Forces stop these massacres and respect international conventions and allow for a humanitarian corridor through which refugees can safely escape, and medical supplies can reach Falluja.

Stop the massacre.
Stop attacking civilians.
End the siege of Falluja.

Signed:
Bridge to Baghdad/Italy (001 914 360 9080 in Baghdad)
CCIPPP/France (079 01 427 627 in Baghdad)
Italian Consortium of Solidarity/Italy
Iraq Solidarity Project/Canada (079 01 429 115 in Baghdad)

Globalization is Dead?

I have to admit that I have a soft spot for genuine liberals that is probably not entirely rational. One Canadian writer who falls into this category for me is John Ralston Saul, the husband of Canada’s governor general, Adrienne Clarkson. I have read all his books, and he strikes me as someone who really knows a lot more than he says. It might not be the case: I just like to think that he’s secretly a radical, even though he makes all kinds of inconsistent arguments (in Voltaire’s Bastards, for example, he says the trouble with the US methods of waging war is that they don’t work, because generalship wins battles not hardware. That might be true, but the big problem with US methods of waging war are the ends of those wars and the slaughter they bring). Anyway, he’s recently published an article proclaiming the death of globalization…

It is fun to read (phrases like: “This was the crucifixion theory of economics: you had to be killed economically and socially in order to be reborn clean and healthy.”) , but I don’t really buy it.

He pokes fun at pompous neoliberal ideologues, he provides some interesting historical context (though I’m not sure of its accuracy), and he gives novel interpretations of events. It’s also nice to hear a liberal acknowledge the genocide in the Congo and at least hint that the West had something to do with it, as he does:

“In a global world of economic and social measurement, we are bombarded daily by apparently exact statistics measuring growth, efficiency, production, reproduction, sales, currency fluctuations, comparative levels of obesity and orgasms, divorce, salaries and incomes. Yet we don’t know, or don’t care to know, whether it was a million or half a million Rwandans who were massacred. And the genocide was facilitated by Paris and Washington, using old-fashioned nation-state powers at the UN security council to block a serious international intervention. The Rwanda catastrophe then morphed into the Congo catastrophe, involving 4.7 million deaths between 1998 and 2003. Or was it 3 million? Or 5.5 million?”

And yet. As much as I enjoy the essay, it suffers from all the liberal flaws:

-Rwanda is mentioned as a ‘failure to intervene’. The ‘successful’ interventions where civilians were, and are being slaughtered (Afghanistan, Haiti, Iraq…) are left untouched.

-Globalization policies ‘don’t work’. Don’t they? Or are they doing exactly what they are intended to do — distribute wealth from the poor to the rich?

-Likewise, there’s a problem with nationalism:

“What we do know is that there has been a return across Europe of 19th-century-style negative nationalism. Although usually the product of fear, it reappeared in countries that had nothing to fear: Jorg Haider in Austria speaking out against immigrants, while echoing race and monolithic national myths. Italy governed by three nationalists, one of them the leader of Mussolini’s old party. Related phenomena in Belgium, Denmark, France, the Netherlands, Norway, Switzerland. A sudden revival of sectarian nationalism in Northern Ireland. The defeat of a compromise in Corsica. Everywhere these nationalists are now in coalition governments or are leading oppositions.”

The problem? John might have noted the major flag bearer (waver?) of what he calls ‘negative nationalism’ is the United States, rallying it to attack helpless countries, threaten others, etc.

That’s the trouble with this kind of politics: it makes elites seem like they’re ‘lost’ when they actually know exactly what they’re doing; it exhibits a blind spot when it comes to one’s own society; it takes on the easy battles but avoids the ones that would bring serious flak down on a good ‘public intellectual’.

Still, I’m a sucker for a liberal who can turn a phrase.