Are Segregation and Loyalty to the State Solutions to Conflict?

Last week we got a rather explicit perspective on what exactly is the driving ideological and political force driving Israeli policies of territory and statehood with Palestinians through the deputy speaker of the Israeli Knesset who unabashedly rejected the notion that Palestinians have any right to a state or to equal rights.

Unabashed is also the word used in this State Department diplomatic cable from the US Embassy in Tel Aviv to describe the Israeli right-wing’s intentions for grabbing more land and for establishing separate but ‘equal’ systems of segregation between Jews and Arabs.

Right-wing Yisrael Beiteinu party leader Avigdor Lieberman told the Ambassador January 31 that separation of Israeli Jews from Israeli Arabs is necessary in order to promote Israeli security and maintain Israel’s Jewish identity.

…Lieberman underlined his view that to avoid conflict, a separation of Israeli Jews from Israeli Arabs must occur.  He said his proposal for such a separation is based on the Cyprus model, where, he said, the island’s Turks are separated territorially from the island’s Greeks. Lieberman said that the roadmap makes a mistake by advocating a two-state solution, wherein Israel retains two peoples within its borders, Jewish and Arab, while the Palestinian state retains only Palestinians.

…Asked about the status of Israeli Arabs living throughout Israel and in mixed cities, Lieberman acknowledged that this is “more complicated.” He advocated that all Israelis be required to take a loyalty oath, and that those who refuse be stripped of their citizenship.

Update: Also see this summary of a 2005 cable  from the WikiLeaks site on institutionalized discrimination against Negev Bedouin Palestinians (some specifics of which you can read about here):

A cable describes institutionalised discrimination and the denial of public services to its own Bedouin citizens. Despite their citizenship and the fact that Bedouins “continue to serve voluntarily in the IDF and otherwise support the state, media commentators and Israeli politicians often refer to the threat of a second ’intifada’ coming from the Negev Bedouin.” The 70’000 Bedouins of the Negev community have never been included in GOI land planning, do not qualify for provision of any public services, and therefore do not officially exist on Israeli maps. Many Bedouin are life-long residents of these communities, but are considered squatters by the government. Without legal status, these communities receive no government resources, including municipal services and infrastructure development. The cable describes squalor and poverty of one of the villages under the heading “Is this Israel?”. The Government of Israel decided to forcibly relocate Bedouin communities in order to create a ’buffer zone’ around an airbase because they feared Bedouins may acquire anti-aircraft missiles for use against Israeli aircraft, or to prevent vandalism and theft.

Meanwhile, the US, with unbridled support for Israel, is doing everything in its power to prevent Palestinians from gaining UN recognition for statehood next month.

The Maintainence Costs of Gitmo

We’ve done a good amount here at Antiwar on Guantanamo, the torture, and the legal black hole that has kept people there without charge or trial for years on end. Not to mention the lies and corruption that came with it. But here’s Amnesty International, as if we needed another reason to close the torture prison.

The main detention facility at Gitmo cost about $220 million to build and, according to the White House, estimated annual operating expenses come in at around $150 million.

To give you an idea of the kind of value for money this investment represents, the Bureau of Prisons noted last year that it cost $27,251 to incarcerate someone in the federal prison system for a year, as compared to an estimated cost of $650,000 per inmate at Guantanamo.

Add to that the development of courtrooms for the Military Commissions at a cost of $13.4 million, Department of Defense spent $2.2 million renovating accommodation for staff and observers involved in the trials, and the Naval Station itself worth an estimated $500 million in part because it’s all spoofed up with sports fields, go-cart tracks, and playgrounds.

Last year, the Washington Post estimated that the total post-9/11 bill for spending on Guantanamo comes close to $2 billion. Yes, that’s $2 billion with a ‘b’ for a prison camp that currently holds around 170 prisoners, more than half of whom the administration would release tomorrow if a suitable country could be found to take them.

In the scheme of America’s budgetary problems, these are paltry sums. The US debt has surpassed the gross domestic product, fast approaching $15 trillion. But it’s a good reminder of how expensive are all the horrible things the warfare state does. What if we added to these costs the cost of all the black sites around the world that we’re not supposed to know about? What about our empire of bases? Certainly the unnecessary, criminal wars would begin to make a dent

Libya’s Future: Much Less Certain than Death and Taxes

Moammar Gaddafi, the Libyan leader desperate to maintain the little power he has left, was said to have arrived in Algeria in a convoy of Mercedes. He must have done so after finding the personal jet of Robert Mugabe and Zimbabwe to not be luxurious enough for his flamboyant self. Or he’s in the Sahara desert with his adopted daughter who arose from the dead 25 years after her death. Or he’s floating around in space.

All of this confusion, chaos, and senseless chatter about Gaddafi’s whereabouts mimics much of Libya’s Big Picture: the future is constantly changing, subject to the ever blowing Saharan winds, and will most likely be far from a democratic dreamland.

Fareed Zakaria, a member of the foreign policy elite, has heralded the Libyan intervention (not a war, of course) as “a new era in U.S. foreign policy.” Most of his praise was directed at the multilateral effort of the UN and the legitimacy that nearby Arab countries provided. He ended his propaganda piece with a self addressed question and answer:

The question before Libya was: Could such interventions be successful while keeping costs under control – both human and financial. Today’s answer is: Yes.

This same short sighted nonsense was said about Iraq as well. Seared into every American’s head was President George W. Bush’s “Mission Accomplished” speech that declared the end of major combat operations. Years later, Iraq experienced civil war, and religious and sectarian strife. Money and blood flowed quicker than Kuwaiti crude. And as I write, the US is developing plans for keeping troops in Iraq well past the 2011 year end deadline.

The problem with  Zakaria and other like minded thinkers is that they’re caught up in the moment. They tend to think that just because Gaddafi is in his last days as the “Brotherly Leader,” the work is done. But that’s not how the US and their fellow supreme rulers in the UN and NATO operate. They’ve got motives other than protecting the Libyan people, and it reeks of oil. After all, what’s so different about Bahrainis and Yemenites?

Besides dithering over who gets what oil field and protecting them from sabotage, the US risks getting sucked into yet another Iraq like quagmire. Analyst Scott Stewart from world renowned Stratfor is dead on when he writes:

As the experiences of recent years in Iraq and Afghanistan have vividly illustrated, it is far easier to depose a regime than it is to govern a country. It has also proved to be very difficult to build a stable government from the remnants of a long-established dictatorial regime. History is replete with examples of coalition fronts that united to overthrow an oppressive regime but then splintered and fell into internal fighting once the regime they fought against was toppled. In some cases, the power struggle resulted in a civil war more brutal than the one that brought down the regime. In other cases, this factional strife resulted in anarchy that lasted for years as the iron fist that kept ethnic and sectarian tensions in check was suddenly removed, allowing those issues to re-emerge.

As Libya enters this critical juncture and the National Transitional Council (NTC) transitions from breaking things to building things and running a country, there will be important fault lines to watch in order to envision what Libya will become.

One has to wonder if Zakaria and others took such realities into account while proclaiming “Mission Accomplished.” As divisions continue to deepen and fault lines begin to show, the prospect of an embattled Libya is almost a near certainty. Couple the grim prospect of civil war with America’s eagerness to fight the War on Terror –Islamic extremists, al-Qaeda, and other Islamic fundamentalists are said to make up the ranks of Libya’s ragtag rebels– and a protracted American involvement does not at all seem out of the picture.

While the media and Establishment would have you believe that the Libyan Transnational Council represents the interest of the Libyan people, this could not be farther from the truth. Besides not even being democratically elected and full of former Gaddafi supporters, the council will have tremendous difficulty in putting forth a coherent agenda, let alone making it a reality. Will Libya, in the spirit of the Arab Spring, move towards democracy and a freer society? Or will Islamists get their dream and turn Libya into the seedlings of the Caliphate? Or, like in Egypt, could only symbolic changes take place to appease the people? Other than ideological divisions, Libya will still have to cope with ethnic and tribal divisions. Stewart explains:

These [divisions] include ethnic differences in the form of Berbers in the Nafusa Mountains, Tuaregs in the southwestern desert region of Fezzan and Toubou in the Cyrenaican portion of the Sahara Desert. Among the Arabs who form the bulk of the Libyan population, there are also hundreds of different tribes and multiple dialects of spoken Arabic.

It must also be remembered that Libya is awash with weapons of all sorts: chemical weapons, small arms, military grade explosives, artillery, and worst of all man-portable air defense systems, or MANPADS. Many small arms are already in circulation and being used in battle, looted from Gaddafi’s arm depots. But more worrisome are the bigger weapons. These weapons run a high risk of getting on the black market or in terrorists’ hands, which could then be used as they were in Iraq to fight the Western powers and the puppet government. Many Islamists who had their throats stepped on by Gaddafi are now free to breathe, plan, attack, and seek revenge in the new, Gaddafi almost-free Libya. The CIA is most likely on alert and, if not already, is eager to dive into Libya to keep waging the hopeless War on Terror.

Contrary to claims by the government and its Presstitutes who consistently lie, exaggerate, or are just plain wrong, the Libyan mission is far from over. The ever elusive Gaddafi is still on the run. The governing Transnational Council must develop a working plan for a functioning government. Civil divisions must be dealt with, as will the likelihood of civil war even if Gaddafi is once and for all ousted. An upshot of terrorism is also likely and would be devastating to any hopes of establishing a free and peaceful society.

A turbulent future remains for Libya.

WikiLeaks: UN query into never-prosecuted civilian deaths in Iraq

Amid the release of 35,000 new cables by WikiLeaks this week comes new and tragic, but perhaps not so surprising news about the five deaths of Iraqi civilians, reportedly at the hands of U.S forces in the early to mid-2000’s. In each case the military investigated, but declined to prosecute the perpetrators, therefore resigning these Iraqi killings to the grimy dustbin of the war’s history.

Until now. This May 2007 cable from Philip Alston, U.N  Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, to the U.S Secretary of State, which at the time would have been Condoleezza Rice, sheds light on how alleged  “accidents” and extrajudicial killings by U.S soldiers and Marines may have been adjudicated internally, punishments waived and the truth summarily cordoned off from public view. Whatever became of these cases, and how many there ultimately were, we may never know.  They call it the fog of war. If what is in this cable is true, we can call it obstruction, a deterrence of justice, and one huge reason why we were never destined to “win” the Iraq war in the first place.

As for the memo, it includes the story of a journalist who was killed outside Abu Ghraib in 2003 when his camera was supposedly mistaken for a rocket launcher, and a wounded Iraqi who was shot repeatedly by a Marine as he lay dying in front a mosque. The second incident was apparently captured on video, where the  marine, sounding unhinged, kept repeating, “He’s f-cking faking he’s dead! He’s faking he’s f-cking dead!” After shooting him several times, another Marine is heard saying, “he’s dead now.”

Antiwar.com’s Week in Review | August 26, 2011

Antiwar.com’s Week in Review | August 26, 2011

Help us meet our fund-raising goal! Help keep the War Party at bay and make a tax-deductible donation today!

Don’t forget to sign the open letter to Obama and Congress to end the wars: ComeHomeAmerica.us

IN THIS ISSUE

Empire expands in Libya?
Yemen and Pakistan, on the periphery
Assad warns against intervention
WikiLeaks releases new cables
Assorted news from the empire
What’s new at the blog?
Columns
Antiwar Radio
Events

Continue reading “Antiwar.com’s Week in Review | August 26, 2011”

The Tangled Web of American Interventionism

Julian Assange and Team Wikileaks are at it again. Using Twitter and their own website, the organization released some 35,000 cables after months of only a handful being released each day.

Perhaps one of the most amusing and telling cables comes from way back in 1987. It begins:

AFGHANS SELL US STINGERS TO KHOMEINI

THE UNITED STATES HAS CUT OFF SUPPLIES OF STINGER
ANTI-AIRCRAFT MISSILES TO AN AFGHAN GUERRILLA GROUP
AFTER DISCOVERING THAT AT LEAST 16 OF THE WEAPONS WERE
SOLD BY THE RESISTANCE TO IRAN.

A mere 24 years later, the tables have turned as the US is accusing Iran of supplying arms to the Taliban. While these accusations have faltered tremendously under intense scrutiny, the back and forth movements of American supplied weapons, from ally to enemy and back again, highlight how reactionary and near sighted American foreign policy is.

As Onion-esque as all of this may sound, the cable gets even better:

UNCOMFIRMED REPORTS EARLIER THIS YEAR MAINTAINED THAT
THE IRANIANS HAD USED STINGERS TO SHOOT DOWN IRAQI
AIRCRAFT IN THE GULF WAR.

The United States denied these reports, and while their veracity may be debated, that misses the point.

The point is that the United States has become so nosy and imperialist that weapons provided to the Taliban in Afghanistan, now our enemies, were used to fight the Soviets, now our allies (unless we invade Georgia to establish a beacon of democracy, or something like that), which were sold to the Iranians, still our enemies, to fight against an American backed Saddam, who ultimately fell out of grace with the US in 2003 that resulted in a war in which the US is still involved in today.

Providing arms to proxy groups in hope of defeating an enemy is never a safe bet and liable to many, many changes. This is especially the case when American foreign policy seems to bipolar (condemning human rights abuses in Iran while turning a blind eye to the slaughter in Bahrain, etc. ad nauseam) and subject to constant change.

As dizzying as this maze of deceit and backstabbing may be, there is just one more spectacle of irony:

THE US… IS CONCERNED THAT THE WEAPONS WILL FALL INTO
TERRORIST HANDS, OR WILL BE COPIED AND SUPPLIED IN
LARGE NUMBERS TO OTHER HOSTILE STATES SUCH AS LIBYA.

That should speak volumes by itself.