Great article on BBC’s “Our Correspondent” website covering a recent US conference trying to see whether there was still anything in common with Europe. Apparently not:

“The West is an outdated concept,” declared one supremely self-confident senior American official at a lunch where he was the guest of honour. “And if there is still a West, then it includes Australia, Japan and South Korea. We have a global vision now” […] Seen through American eyes, it seemed the era of fixed alliances was over.

[…]

The name of the game would be selective and loose commitments: “Like an open marriage,” said one former US official […] “In my experience an open marriage tends to work only for one side,” [said] a British academic, “and I suspect it is the Americans who will benefit.”

When all’s said and done, there’s no real change in outlook. You’re still either with US, or against US.

Ever wanted to fact check some obscure reference in a history book, or tried to research exactly what US government officials thought about, say, US attitudes towards oil in the Middle East, the Monroe Doctrine, or some other item of US foreign policy? Well, if, like me, you enjoy digging around for little nuggets of history and confirming what you read, you’ll enjoy the University of Wisconsin’s Digital Archives of the Foreign Relations of the United States.

For example, search for the Monroe Doctrine, and you can come across Robert Lansing (who became US President Woodrow Wilson’s Secretary of State) describing his interpretation of it:

 �??In its advocacy of the Monroe Doctrine the United States considers its own interests. The integrity of other American nations is an incident, not an end. While this may seem based on selfishness alone, the author of the Doctrine had no higher or more generous motive in its declaration. To assert for it a nobler purpose is to proclaim a new doctrine.�?�

Regarding oil, you’ll find an often used quote by critics of US energy policy, which states, in 1945, that Saudi Arabia’s �??oil resources constitute a stupendous source of strategic power and one of the greatest material prizes in world history�?� (one of the principle reasons, in fact, that the United States wished to destroy colonial Britain’s dominance in the region). You can also have a look at the proposed Petroleum Policy of the United States (1944) and how they intended to keep any competition (namely the British) out.

This tool is a must for anyone who enjoys history.

Alternet has an interesting interview with historian Greg Grandin discussing his new book, Empire’s Workshop: Latin America, the United States, and the Rise of the New Imperialism, and “how ‘militant anti-Communists’ in the Reagan administration developed the model for the Bush doctrine.” (There is an excerpt from the book also available here on Alternet). As he explains, the book tries to “look at how U.S. corporate elites — the Guggenheims, the Rockefellers and so forth — first established themselves in Latin America with their overseas subsidiaries and how U.S. political elites viewed the region as the first place to project American power.” Another great quote from the interview:

The war on terror or its component parts — gaining public acceptance of torture, for example, or rendition or the war in Iraq — is as much a domestic affair as it is a foreign one. If you read the writings of neocon intellectuals like Christopher Caldwell or William Kristol, it�??s all about steeling America�??s domestic culture and making the population more resistant to pain, both ours and the pain we inflict on others. And it seems that it�??s not just that they look at America�??s political culture and see dissent or anti-militarism, but they really see a culture of weakness, and they expected that the war on terror would bring about a restoration of American strength.

I’ve ear-marked this book myself for future reading as it looks pretty interesting. I first stumbled across Greg Grandin while searching around for information of American involvement in South America during the Cold War. He’d given an interview to the University of Chicago about another book he wrote entitled The Last Colonial Massacre: Latin America in the Cold War, which argued that “the spread of Latin America’s guerrilla movements was driven by the frustration of efforts to consolidate post-World War II social democracies.” In particular, he points out that “The overthrow of Arbenz” in Guatemala “was an important milestone” in the transformation of Latin America from having “a degree of political liberalization” to US-backed repression of “domestic dissent”, whereby “The already cramped space for political negotiation became even more restricted.”

The overthrow of Arbenz convinced many Latin American reformers, democrats, and nationalists that the United States was less a model to be emulated than a danger to be feared. Che Guevara, for example, was in Guatemala working as a doctor and witnessed firsthand the effects of US intervention. He fled to Mexico, where he would meet Fidel Castro and go on to lead the Cuban Revolution. He taunted the United States repeatedly in his speeches by saying that “Cuba will not be Guatemala.” For its part, the United States promised to turn Guatemala into a “showcase for democracy” but instead created a laboratory of repression. Practices institutionalized there�??such as death squad killings conducted by professionalized intelligence agencies�??spread throughout Latin America in the coming decades.

He’s a fairly regular writer at The Nation, is a teacher of Latin American history (New York University), and also helped contribute to the UN report on human-rights violations in Guatemala during their civil war. You can read his articles for the Nation here.

In a recent report, Human Rights Watch condemned Hezbollah’s practice of packing their rockets with “hundreds of metal ball bearings that are of limited use against military targets but cause great harm to civilians and civilian property. The ball bearings lodge in the body and cause serious harm.” It’s worth looking at this point, to illustrate exactly why Hezbollah, Hamas and Israel are the same.

The accusation that this is a war crime is entirely legitimate, and is routinely mentioned and described in press reports. For the example, the BBC reported about casualties in the Israeli city of Haifa, commenting that “Many of the casualties have been wounded by some 14kg of ball-bearings packed into the missile warheads, designed to cause maximum damage.”

Alan Dershowitz, whom I’ve mentioned before, has referred to this terrible practice, stating that “Hezbollah and Hamas want to maximize civilian casualties on both sides” by “deliberately [operating] military wings out of densely populated areas”, “[launching] antipersonnel missiles with ball-bearing shrapnel, designed by Syria and Iran to maximize civilian casualties”. He concludes that “Israel must be allowed to finish the fight that Hamas and Hezbollah started, even if that means civilian casualties in Gaza and Lebanon. A democracy is entitled to prefer the lives of its own innocents over the lives of the civilians of an aggressor, especially if the latter group contains many who are complicit in terrorism.”

Firstly, it is highly questionable that Hezbollah do, in fact, use Lebanese civilians as shields. In a recent article for Salon.com about this “myth”, Mitch Prothero reports that “Hezbollah fighters — as opposed to the much more numerous Hezbollah political members, and the vastly more numerous Hezbollah sympathizers — avoid civilians … This is not for humanitarian reasons … but for military ones”, namely because they’re afraid of collaborators that can betray them.

“Israel” Prothero adds, “has chosen to treat the political members of Hezbollah as if they were fighters. And by targeting the civilian wing of the group, which supplies much of the humanitarian aid and social protection for the poorest people in the south, they are targeting civilians.” In comparison, this is the same as Hezbollah targetting and bombing all groups supplying “humanitarian aid and social protection” for people in Israel, something which no doubt would be condemned but, for Israel, it is considered entirely legitimate.

Secondly, as I’ve stated before, even if Hezbollah are using civilians as shields - a terrible act - this does not remove the character of the civilian population under international law, yet Israel clearly disregards this, viewing civilian infrastructure as a legitimate target and that the killing of civilians is morally legitimate, too. Since both Hamas and Hezbollah consider the targeting of civilians as legitimate, the terrorist tag is equally applicable to Israel. In comparison, it would be laughable to consider reading in the press no criticism over Hamas and Hezbollah’s claims that their attacks on civilians in Haifa in Israel are “morally justified” because they had “warned the civilians and gave them enough time to leave, and that the civilians who remained chose, themselves, not to leave” before raining rockets down on them (quotes from Professor Asa Kasher, the author of the Israeli Defense Force’s code of ethics). It’s also worth asking, if all the transportation networks had been destroyed preventing Israelis to leave Haifa, would the media also have no comment about whether or not they could actually leave?

Thirdly, if we are to condemn Hezbollah’s practice of filling their missiles with ball-bearings and use this as evidence of their terrorism and barbarism seperating them from the Israelis who do “everything reasonable to minimize civilian casualties” (Dershowitz), what are we to make of the accusation made by the General Manager of Ambulances and Emergencies for the Ministry of Health in Gaza, Dr. Muawiya Hassanei, that “The Israeli forces are using internationally prohibited missiles that contain chemical materials and burning metals and in addition, have shrapnel in the shape of nails”.

He pointed out that the injuries received in the hospitals as a result of these missiles are very dangerous because the human tissues and muscles are torn and in addition, the injured suffer from severe bleeding, loss of limbs and broken bones.

The International Middle East Media Center (IMEMC) gained interviews with several doctors working in different hospitals in the Gaza strip, and all confirmed the use of non-conventional weapons. One of the doctors, Dr. Saeed Jodah, said, “When the Shrapnel hits the body, it causes very strong burns that destroy the tissues around the bones. When this shrapnel enters the body, it burns and destroys internal organs, like the liver, kidneys, the spleen and other organs, and makes saving the wounded almost impossible. As a surgeon, I have seen thousands of wounds during the Intifada, but nothing was like this weapon.”

The latest case that matched these symptoms was Muhammad Muhra, 17, from Al Bureij refugee camp. He was killed on Thursday. His body arrived at the hospital in an almost unrecognizable condition.

This went unreported in Western media, and a search on Google News showed this mentioned only in the International Middle East Media Center (see also Google Cache).

Where are the voices of condemnation from Dershowitz and others who (rightly) complain about Hezbollah’s “antipersonnel missiles with ball-bearing shrapnel” being designed “to maximize civilian casualties”? And, since Palestinians voted in a democratic election (but are still under occupation) and the Lebanese voted in a democratic election, while Israel clearly supports terrorism against Lebanese and Gazian civilians, does this then justify Hamas and Hezbollah in using Dershowitz’s argument to say they “prefer the lives of its own innocents over the lives of the civilians of an aggressor, especially if the latter group contains many who are complicit in terrorism”?

I’ve expanded a bit more on some of the themes I wrote about in my recent article, Israel’s Rational Prospect. You can read it here.

As Lebanon is bombed by Israel, I was shocked (but not surprised) to watch the BBC talk calmly on TV a few days ago - with computer generated graphics to demonstrate - how Israel was conducting war crimes (not said as such, obviously) by targetting Lebanon’s civilian infrastructure, a mirror image of Hizbollah’s repeated war crimes against Israel in Haifa and elsewhere.

Israel have so far targetted: “highway bridges, residential buildings, and an electrical sub-station“; Beirut airport, “the fuel stores of the Jiyyeh power plant”; three factories producing household goods; “production facilities of at least five companies in key industrial sectors - including the country’s largest dairy farm, Liban Lait; a paper mill; a packaging firm and a pharmaceutical plant” that “will cripple the economy for decades to come”; churches; a hospital; apparent Hezbollah TV and radio stations; highways, and more. This mimics the usual Israeli strategy of collective punishment, as carried out in the recent Gaza attacks which “included the cutting off of water and power supplies, the destruction of bridges and damaged sanitation for local Palestinians.” As Amnesty International pointed out, “The wanton destruction of civilian infrastructure and property and the disproportionate restrictions imposed on civilians by Israeli forces amount to collective punishment on the entire population of the Gaza Strip, a violation of Article 33 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, which prohibits punishing protected persons for offences they have not committed.”
Continue reading »