MIFTAH - Ambient Death in Palestine

Date posted: June 24, 2003

Before her murder by the Israeli army, Rachel Corrie referred almost casually to the conditions at a refugee camp in Gaza as being beset by “ambient gunfire” [1]. Today the problem isn’t necessarily the gunfire, but it is the “ambient death and destruction”. In fact, Palestinian death has become so routine that it simmers at a level not meant to enter “Western” consciousness at all. It has been a long time now since we even saw the names of Palestinian victims in The New York Times or similar newspapers, but now even death as a statistic is disappearing. If anyone wonders how terrible mass crimes occurred in the past and no one intervened, then Israel’s relentless dispossession of the Palestinians provides a case study in how this happens.

Some Statistics

A brief perusal of the usual newspapers reveals that most don’t mention the daily death toll in the Occupied Palestinian Territories (OPT). It is only when the Israeli Occupation Forces (IOF) engage in some particularly egregious act that there may be some mention, but it disappears in a matter of days. As long as the death toll remains below a magical threshold, it is not deemed important enough to bother Western readers with deaths happening elsewhere. The regularity of the death toll indicates that this is something that the IOF may be exploiting on purpose. The statistics reveal that some very sinister and criminal acts are perpetrated against the Palestinians regularly, and it is a chronic condition. The graphs below aim to give a better perspective of what is happening on the ground and what is the true nature of the occupation.

Graph #1 shows the average number of killings per day during the course of the intifada. At the beginning of the intifada, about two Palestinians were killed every day, but now this has steadily increased to 2.6 p/day (see trend line). There have been some spikes, e.g., during the destruction of Jenin (Apr. 2002) when the average killings reached 8.2 p/day [2]. NB: these numbers do not include the resistance fighters (yes, lets dispense with the tainted word “militants”) killed by the IOF. The average killings for June 2003 stand as of June 16th at 3.4 p/day; this is the death toll after the Road Map negotiations were launched. Even without scaling this up to the implied death toll in a larger US population, these numbers would easily have caused outrage and would have been found intolerable in the US. When it happens elsewhere and where it suits the Israelis, then death can be ignored. Chomsky and Herman call victims of friendly state terror “undeserving” victims, those whose plight is not deemed important enough to appear in the newspapers of record like the NYT. In the current context, it is clear that Palestinians are “undeserving” victims. [Data Source]

Graph #2 shows the percentage of injuries caused by live ammunition, and it shows a clear upward trend. The use of “plastic or rubber” bullets has declined and Israeli repression has become more lethal. Today in Gaza, Israeli snipers arbitrarily shoot Palestinians of all ages and often claim victims.

This graph also shows several declines in the “live ammo ratio”, for example in June 2003. The explanation for this is that during this period most of the injuries are from helicopter gunship attacks on the refugee camps – during the so-called targeted killings. These attacks occur in densely populated refugee camps and bystanders are often killed or injured – on occasion, e.g., in Khan Yunis on Oct. 7, 2002, even bystanders were targeted. The NYT will refer to these injuries as “caught in the crossfire” if they are mentioned at all.

Graph #3 shows the ratio of the number of injuries to the number of fatalities per month. This has gone from 43 to about five injuries per fatality in the course of the intifada. This reflects the changing nature of the resistance against the Israeli occupation, and the changing nature of the IOF’s response to the Palestinian resistance. At the beginning of the intifada, large numbers of Palestinian youngsters would confront the army – many of them would be injured, and today there are tens of thousands of Palestinians maimed by an array of lethal weaponry. These days, large demonstrations confronting the army are rare occasions – people do get tired of being killed or maimed. But a more sinister, and perhaps realistic interpretation is that the Israeli army is more determined to kill directly. This is certainly supported by Graph #1, which shows a steady increase in the death rate. Graph #2 is even more blunt: it shows that the IOF’s tactics have changed decisively; the use of rubber/plastic bullets has given way to live ammunition aimed at the head or torso – the way most people are killed today. However, it is a serious mistake to think that the innocuous sounding “plastic” bullets are meant only for crowd control. These bullets have a zinc and glass core enveloped in a plastic coating – these are plastic coated bullets. Within the first 100 meters, these bullets are faster than “high velocity” regular bullets, and therefore the impact of these “plastic” bullets is catastrophic to the victim. Another pernicious aspect of the plastic bullets is that soldiers feel less inhibited using them.

Just to make sure you know…

The IOF has a proclivity of shooting ambulances, abusing medical staff and ambulance personnel. If any proof is needed, see Daymon Hartley’s photo of Israeli soldiers beating paramedics when they came to rescue a wounded youngster.

Caption: Israeli soldiers beat health workers who are attempting to transport an injured Palestinian youngster. Jabalya refugee camp, Gaza during intifada #1. Photo: ©daymonjhartley.com.

Since the beginning of intifada through June13, 2003
Total attacks on ambulances	253
Total ambulances damaged	118
Total personnel injured	192
Total ambulance personnel killed	3
Denial of access to ambulances logged	920

Source: PRCS; www.palestinercs.org

And we thought things couldn’t get worse…

We may be lulled into thinking that the situation in the Occupied Territories may improve now that President Bush has officially launched the “road map” negotiations. However, at the same time the IOF is doing its best to eliminate witnesses to its actions from the OPT. That is, it is becoming increasingly difficult for volunteers to witness and to resist the actions of the IOF. All foreigners are finding it increasingly difficult to enter the OPT. If things were about to improve, then why is the IOF so intent on removing potential witnesses?

There they go again!

Amnesty International, the Mother Theresa of Human Rights organizations, is notorious for its long spells of silence and meek statements about Israel/Palestine. Graph #4 shows the number of days and number of deaths since the previous report, e.g., as of June 18th it has been 227 days since its previous report and there have been 528 killings since then [3]. Given the severe, massive and flagrant abuse of human rights, it would seem incumbent on Amnesty to highlight the situation. It is troubling to find that there is an upward trend in the number of fatalities between reports. That is, given the chronic and severe nature of the situation one would expect to find constant monitoring, and thus a proportional number of reports. Also given the very large number of Palestinians imprisoned without charges, trial, and for indefinite periods, it is remarkable to find only a handful of Palestinian cases that Amnesty asks its volunteers to do anything about. Whereas one finds a long list of Cuban “prisoners of conscience”, there are only two Palestinians found in this category [4].

Amnesty is also strangely silent on the de facto abrogation of the Fourth Geneva Conventions by the US and Israel. Although there hasn’t been a formal declaration by the Americans or Israelis that the Geneva Conventions are no longer operative, it is clear from the actions of both countries that the Geneva Conventions are being routinely flouted. Israel has violated all but one of the Geneva Conventions provisions.

AI’s latest press release (June 5, 03) is better than most, and therein one finds: “The Israeli and Palestinian sides have a duty to respect fundamental rights, regardless of whether or not they are engaged in a peace process. Their obligation to abide by international law must not rest on the implementation of such a process or on other political considerations. […] Both sides are bound by the principles of international human rights and humanitarian law which prohibit the killing of civilians.” Amnesty continues to postulate equal responsibility for the conflict and its consequences. Never mind that Israel is the occupying power and has specific obligations under the Geneva Conventions. The same report also states: “Taking concrete measures to end such abuses, some of which constitute war crimes and crimes against humanity is a requirement of international law and cannot be made conditional to the implementation of the ‘roadmap’ or other political processes…”. Off hand, this seems like a clear statement, but it highlights Amnesty’s propensity of not proffering clearly directed condemnations or accusations. In most instances, Amnesty gives the impression that the accusation of war crimes may apply to both Israelis and Palestinians; again neglecting the fact that Israel is the occupying power. Finally, the far more serious crime: “crime against humanity” has never been leveled clearly against Israel, this accusation only appears clearly when referring to Palestinian violence [5].

(For a further discussion of Amnesty see: Say It Isn’t So)

The undeserving underdog

Despite the fact that the situation on the ground for the Palestinians is desperate, and that they have endured decades long occupation and dispossession of their land, it is remarkable to find legions of apologists willing to whitewash Israeli actions on many levels. The list of offending aspects of media discourse that apologist groups pursue is surprising, and a web search reveals many such pressure groups. It is curious that some groups attack any portrayal of Palestinians as victims and a portrayal of their victimhood as different from that of Israelis. They rail against weighing the death of a Palestinian by IOF violence differently from the death of an Israeli killed by a Palestinian. In their jargon, they are objecting to an “immoral equivalence”. They want Israel to be considered the victim, and if this fails, then in the very least they equate the moral standing of Israelis to that of Palestinians. When a Palestinian has been portrayed as a victim these apologists lobby/harass media in order to obtain “balance”.

In all likelihood, they have successfully lobbied Amnesty on this issue, because it equates the nature of the violence perpetrated against Israelis and Palestinians. That is, AI will condemn to the same degree when an Israeli or a Palestinian is killed. It also calls on “both parties to respect human rights...”. Prof. Honderich’s answer to this is revealing: “Everyone should object to the terrible “even-handedness” of such statements as the Amnesty one. Everyone should choke on such attempts at “balance”. In an ordinary sense of the words, there is no place at all for even-handedness and balance in actually dealing with the rapist engaged in the rape of the woman with a knife at her throat. The rapist has no rights that bear significantly on the question of whether he should stop or be stopped. The analogy with Israel is not a wild one, but exact.” [6]

Moral turpitude

People once asked how genocide could happen without sparking mass outrage. Yet there is no mystery as to why there is virtually no reaction. We’ve witnessed many sordid events in the recent past like the genocide in Rwanda, and it barely disrupted the liberals’ cocktail parties -- it even engendered a new term: compassion fatigue. June 5th marked the 36th year of occupation of the West Bank and Gaza, the relentless and gradual campaign to drive the Palestinians off the land. Scores are killed every month, even more are wounded or maimed, and several houses demolished every day. A grotesque eight meter high wall is being built that has all to do with quartering what little land could form the basis of a negotiated solution. NB: this is not a fence. The wall isolates tens of thousands of Palestinians from neighboring villages – again, a ploy to drive even more people off the land, and this includes Palestinians living in what is now Israel. As Jeff Halper, the coordinator of the Israeli Committee Against House Demolitions, recently stated: “the bulldozers are working 24 hours a day” [7], and we are talking about 500+ bulldozers [12]. So, horrible things can happen to millions of people, yet instead of moral outrage we encounter the classic three-monkey hear-see-say no-evil situation.

Meanwhile, there are some sanctimonious weasels busy looking the other way or chastising others for raising their voices. The king of the pack is perhaps Elie Wiesel, the professional holocaust survivor. He is not willing to witness or say anything about what is happening to the Palestinians, and when confronted with the dubiousness of his stance he squirms out stating that it is not up to him to criticize Israel. What Wiesel preaches has all to do with the “cult of remembrance” – an inert look at history that doesn’t draw the crucial lessons that can be carried forward in a universal manner. People like him risk trivializing the lessons of history, and to transform the message from one dealing with the lessons of the holocaust to one only dealing with the hollow-caust.

Last year Jonathan Sacks, London’s chief rabbi, uttered a meek statement about the Palestinians. That is, he stated that the occupation was having morally corrosive effects on Israeli Jews; interestingly, he didn’t mention what was being done to the Palestinians. As soon as he had uttered it, he faced some criticism, and retracted his statement forthwith [8]. Never mind, a month later, he was lobbying Tony Blair, the British prime minister, to quash criticism of Israel at universities around the UK. Here is someone barely willing to raise his own voice lobbying the prime minister to censor speech at universities across the UK. If one wonders how the Church kept quiet about the Nazis, then one only has to look at these moral frauds to see why. A singular unwillingness to raise their voices about the daily outrages is the main part of the problem; ingratiating themselves with those in power is the other part of the problem.

Cherie Blair, the British prime minister’s wife, is an intelligent woman and a lawyer, but one rarely hears any statement coming from her. However, last year when referring to the Palestinians she stated: “As long as young people feel they have got no hope but to blow themselves up, you are never going to make progress.” A barrage of criticism immediately ensued from the right wing and pro-Israeli press in the UK, and Tony Blair’s office retracted this statement the next day without an explanation. Blair, who is portrayed as church-going, moral (is passionate about moral issues), and “blue eyed”-sincere, retracted his wife’s meek statement. The only fault of the statement was that it helps understand why people engage in desperate actions. As soon as one attempts to understand the causes of violence, then one also humanizes the Palestinians. But that crossed the line -- it is simply unacceptable to the pro-Israeli apologists. A more important question arises pertaining to Tony Blair’s action. As Jack Straw, the foreign minister, recently acknowledged: “a lot of problems we are having to deal with now are a consequence of our colonial past” and “… it is not an entirely honorable history”. If Blair is not willing to stand by the meekest statement his wife has made, then how can we expect him to side with the Palestinians to obtain meaningful negotiations let alone uphold some meaningful principles? Alas, Tony Blair is more concerned about his image in the right wing press than in standing up for principles and paying an historical debt to the Palestinian people [9].

An interesting case study of corporate morals is that of Caterpillar. One should visit Caterpillar’s website to admire the “Social Responsibility” section, or to view its extended “code of conduct” – obviously they have gone through the motions of incorporating business ethics into their corporate ethos (at least the website). While upholding these lofty ideals, Caterpillar is still willing to supply the 60-ton D9 and D11 armored bulldozers that are wreaking havoc in the occupied territories [10]. Every day these bulldozers demolish several houses on the flimsiest of pretexts or with no justification at all [11], they flatten and uproot more olive groves or orchards, and in general, Caterpillar has a hand in creating mass misery and destruction. Caterpillar also supplies some of the key equipment required to build the hideous 1,000km-long and 8m-high wall [12] – its equipment is creating a wall to imprison an entire people in the 21st century.

Caterpillar also has on its conscience the murder of Rachel Corrie. A Caterpillar bulldozer crushed her while she was trying to defend a house. Perhaps Glen A. Barton, Caterpillar’s Chairman & CEO, may want to discuss the social responsibility of his company’s support of Sharon’s bloody enterprise. However, the shareholders’ meetings are closely guarded events, and emails/letters to company representatives are never answered. One can only suspect that Mr. Barton will not allow a bit of conscience stand in the way of some profit. The least Caterpillar can do is to remove the grossly hypocritical social responsibility section from its website.

The moral turpitude of many players, especially in the US, makes the occupation of Palestinian land possible, and guarantees the continued dispossession of masses. Many provide the intellectual backing for this enterprise, others extort the funding from the American taxpayer, hordes of apologists bully the media, and a plethora of companies provide the tools. Alas, it is unlikely that the legions of hypocrites will bear the consequences of any revenge by the dispossessed or those maligned for so many decades. Their violence will elicit from this same rotten gang the hollers of “terrorism” and similar disingenuous accusations. There is no violence without a cause, and for once one would hope our American friends would at least consider their responsibility in this long tragic episode. There is a singular need to stop the US bankrolling of the Israeli enterprise.

Associated with the ambient death in Palestine is an ambient fetid stench. And it surrounds us.

Notes

[1] “I asked Rachel [Corrie] what the nightly situation was like in Brazil camp. ‘Oh, theirs is a good deal of ambient gunfire usually. But nothing much,’ she casually described it.” -- Ben Granby, Nightmare in Rafah, CounterPunch March 7, 2003.

[2] Note that there never was an official and independent investigation of the number of Palestinians killed at the time of the Jenin massacre. Palestinians were killed in large numbers not only in Jenin, but elsewhere too. The death toll for this period may never be known because the UN was not permitted to investigate by Israel. Amnesty Int’l or Human Rights Watch’s reports on the Jenin event aren’t conclusive and speculate on the total number of fatalities and casualties. Both these organizations have had a dubious past, with a proclivity to whitewash all that Israel does, and therefore theirs cannot be taken as a final statement of what happened in Jenin and how many people were killed.
[Data Source] The data is available on the Palestinian Red Crescent Society website. It contains many reports and up to date statistics. One note though: there is a data gap in March/April 2002, at the height of the Israeli attack on Jenin and elsewhere. It means that the number of fatalities and casualties are actually understated. For the purposes of this report the gaps were zeroed out.

[3] Only the reports pertaining Palestinian human rights were included here. Its reports on the abuse of Israeli human rights was excluded. The reason for this is simple: this author thinks that it is inadmissible to equate the violation of the human rights of the occupier with those of the occupied/victim. In contrast, both Amnesty and HRW equate the human rights of both occupied/occupier.

[4] Amnesty’s website has only two references (MDE 15/047/2001; MDE 15/31/2001) to Palestinian Prisoners of conscience (POC), and there are a two “possible prisoners of conscience” (MDE 15/112/2002; MDE 15/082/2001;MDE 15/093/2002). For someone to be classed as a POC they must not be implicated in violence, association with certain groups, or even voicing a desire to resist occupation. There are many Palestinians rotting in jail now for the simple fact that they are community leaders, they are held arbitrarily, with no charges or trial, and often held for arbitrary sentences. For the most part, these people don’t feature anywhere in AI’s literature or campaigns.

[5] For example, Without Distinction, July 2002; stated in AI’s usual cautious way [referring to the Palestinians]: “… such violations meet the definition of crimes against humanity under international law.”

[6] See an interview with Ted Honderich.

[7] Jeff Halper stated that the aim of Sharon is to integrate the West Bank into Israel, to make this irreversible, and the “bulldozers are working 24 hours a day” to implement this plan. Statement made at a talk in London on May 29, 2003.

[8] This interview contains his statement: “You cannot ignore a command that is repeated 36 times in the Mosaic books: ‘You were exiled in order to know what it feels like to be an exile.’ I regard that as one of the core projects of a state that is true to Judaic principle. And therefore I regard the current situation as nothing less than tragic, because it is forcing Israel into postures that are incompatible in the long-run with our deepest ideals.” Yes, that is it! Please note that rabbi Sacks sent a letter to The Guardian retracting this statement (confirmed by Jonathan Freedland, the author of the Guardian article). This is not the first time Sacks has retracted a statement, but has done so a few times in the past (e.g., see Recantation).

[9] Tony Blair and his spinmeisters are particularly keen to appear in a good light in the right wing press, and in particular, in Murdoch-owned tabloids. The tabloids are a pernicious institution that debases anything we ever thought about the press. It is also ironic that a Labour prime minister, putatively on the Left, is defended by the right wing press and criticized by the centrist and left-wing press.

[10] The D9 weighs 47.2 tons, it is 3.9 m high and has a blade 1.8 m high and 4.2 m long, and it costs US$500,000. A newer version the D9R weights 50+ tons. However, the Israelis add several tons of armor plating to the D9 increasing its weight to about 60 tons. The D11 is an even larger monster – a large sized SUV fits comfortably in its blade. Caterpillar gets US$1.2m for each D11. The US taxpayer is most likely the one who foots the bill.

[11] See Amira Hass: We don't raze homes for no reason.

[12] Ran Ha’Cohen, The Apartheid Wall, DissidentVoice, May 21, 2003. This is an important article, and it provides a map that enables one to appreciate the scale and nature of this project. Note that the reported length of this wall changes every month – to accommodate the latest whims of Sharon & Co., to incorporate the latest punitive measure entering the planner’s head, or to cater to the wishes of the friendly settlers.
Also important is Neve Gordon’s, Land Theft & Confinement: The Bad Fence, CounterPunch, May 30, 2003. The best overview of the wall is Meron Rappaport’s On Israel’s Separation Fence. “…on any given day has 500 bulldozers at work, paving and building one of the largest projects in the history of the country, perhaps the largest.”

Paul de Rooij is an economist living in London and can be reached at proox@hotmail.com (NB: all attachments will be automatically deleted.)

Send Article

Printer Friendly

By: Amira Hass

Date: 27/05/2013

Abir Dandis, the mother of the two girls who were murdered in the Negev town of Al-Fura’a last week, couldn't find a police officer to listen to her warnings, neither in Arad nor in Ma’ale Adumim. Both police stations operate in areas where Israel wants to gather the Bedouin into permanent communities, against their will, in order to clear more land for Jewish communities. The dismissive treatment Dandis received shows how the Bedouin are considered simply to be lawbreakers by their very nature. But as a resident of the West Bank asking for help for her daughters, whose father was Israeli, Dandis faced the legal-bureaucratic maze created by the Oslo Accords.

The Palestinian police is not allowed to arrest Israeli civilians. It must hand suspects over to the Israel Police. The Palestinian police complain that in cases of Israelis suspected of committing crimes against Palestinian residents, the Israel Police tend not to investigate or prosecute them.

In addition, the town of Al-Azaria, where Dandis lives, is in Area B, under Palestinian civilian authority and Israeli security authority. According to the testimony of Palestinian residents, neither the IDF nor the Israel Police has any interest in internal Palestinian crime even though they have both the authority and the obligation to act in Area B.

The Palestinian police are limited in what it can do in Area B. Bringing in reinforcements or carrying weapons in emergency situations requires coordination with, and obtaining permission from, the IDF. If Dandis fears that the man who murdered her daughters is going to attack her as well, she has plenty of reason to fear that she will not receive appropriate, immediate police protection from either the Israelis or the Palestinians.

Dandis told Jack Khoury of Haaretz that the Ma’ale Adumim police referred her to the Palestinian Civil Affairs Coordination and Liaison Committee. Theoretically, this committee (which is subordinate to the Civil Affairs Ministry) is the logical place to go for such matters. Its parallel agency in Israel is the Civilian Liaison Committee (which is part of the Coordination and Liaison Administration - a part of the Civil Administration under the Coordinator of Government Activities in the Territories).

In their meetings, they are supposed to discuss matters such as settlers’ complaints about the high volume of the loudspeakers at mosques or Palestinians’ complaints about attacks by settlers. But the Palestinians see the Liaison Committee as a place to submit requests for permission to travel to Israel, and get the impression that its clerks do not have much power when faced with their Israeli counterparts. In any case, the coordination process is cumbersome and long.

The Palestinian police has a family welfare unit, and activists in Palestinian women’s organizations say that in recent years, its performance has improved. But, as stated, it has no authority over Israeli civilians and residents. Several non-governmental women’s groups also operate in the West Bank and in East Jerusalem, and women in similar situations approach them for help. The manager of one such organization told Haaretz that Dandis also fell victim to this confusing duplication of procedures and laws. Had Dandis approached her, she said, she would have referred her to Adalah, the Legal Center for Arab Minority Rights in Israel, which has expertise in navigating Israel’s laws and authorities.

John Kerry unveils plan to boost Palestinian economy

By: Phoebe Greenwood

Date: 27/05/2013

Isolation Devastates East Jerusalem Economy

By: Jillian Kestler-D'Amours

Date: 27/05/2013

Thick locks hug the front gates of shuttered shops, now covered in graffiti and dust from lack of use. Only a handful of customers pass along the dimly lit road, sometimes stopping to check the ripeness of fruits and vegetables, or ordering meat in near-empty butcher shops.

“All the shops are closed. I’m the only one open. This used to be the best place,” said 64-year-old Mustafa Sunocret, selling vegetables out of a small storefront in the marketplace near his family’s home in the Muslim quarter of Jerusalem’s Old City.

Amidst the brightly coloured scarves, clothes and carpets, ceramic pottery and religious souvenirs filling the shops of Jerusalem’s historic Old City, Palestinian merchants are struggling to keep their businesses alive.

Faced with worsening health problems, Sunocret told IPS that he cannot work outside of the Old City, even as the cost of maintaining his shop, with high electricity, water and municipal tax bills to pay, weighs on him.

“I only have this shop,” he said. “There is no other work. I’m tired.”

Abed Ajloni, the owner of an antiques shop in the Old City, owes the Jerusalem municipality 250,000 Israeli shekels (68,300 U.S. dollars) in taxes. He told IPS that almost every day, the city’s tax collectors come into the Old City, accompanied by Israeli police and soldiers, to pressure people there to pay.

“It feels like they’re coming again to occupy the city, with the soldiers and police,” Ajloni, who has owned the same shop for 35 years, told IPS. “But where can I go? What can I do? All my life I was in this place.”

He added, “Does Jerusalem belong to us, or to someone else? Who’s responsible for Jerusalem? Who?”

Illegal annexation

Israel occupied East Jerusalem, including the Old City, in 1967. In July 1980, it passed a law stating that “Jerusalem, complete and united, is the capital of Israel”. But Israel’s annexation of East Jerusalem and subsequent application of Israeli laws over the entire city remain unrecognised by the international community.

Under international law, East Jerusalem is considered occupied territory – along with the West Bank, Gaza Strip and Syrian Golan Heights – and Palestinian residents of the city are protected under the Fourth Geneva Convention.

Jerusalem has historically been the economic, political and cultural centre of life for the entire Palestinian population. But after decades languishing under destructive Israeli policies meant to isolate the city from the rest of the Occupied Territories and a lack of municipal services and investment, East Jerusalem has slipped into a state of poverty and neglect.

“After some 45 years of occupation, Arab Jerusalemites suffer from political and cultural schizophrenia, simultaneously connected with and isolated from their two hinterlands: Ramallah and the West Bank to their east, West Jerusalem and Israel to the west,” the International Crisis Group recently wrote.

Israeli restrictions on planning and building, home demolitions, lack of investment in education and jobs, construction of an eight-foot-high separation barrier between and around Palestinian neighbourhoods and the creation of a permit system to enter Jerusalem have all contributed to the city’s isolation.

Formal Palestinian political groups have also been banned from the city, and between 2001-2009, Israel closed an estimated 26 organisations, including the former Palestinian Liberation Organisation headquarters in Jerusalem, the Orient House and the Jerusalem Chamber of Commerce.

Extreme poverty

Israel’s policies have also led to higher prices for basic goods and services and forced many Palestinian business owners to close shop and move to Ramallah or other Palestinian neighbourhoods on the other side of the wall. Many Palestinian Jerusalemites also prefer to do their shopping in the West Bank, or in West Jerusalem, where prices are lower.

While Palestinians constitute 39 percent of the city’s population today, almost 80 percent of East Jerusalem residents, including 85 percent of children, live below the poverty line.

“How could you develop [an] economy if you don’t control your resources? How could you develop [an] economy if you don’t have any control of your borders?” said Zakaria Odeh, director of the Civic Coalition for Palestinian Rights in Jerusalem, of “this kind of fragmentation, checkpoints, closure”.

“Without freedom of movement of goods and human beings, how could you develop an economy?” he asked.

“You can’t talk about independent economy in Jerusalem or the West Bank or in all of Palestine without a political solution. We don’t have a Palestinian economy; we have economic activities. That’s all we have,” Odeh told IPS.

Israel’s separation barrier alone, according to a new report by the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTD), has caused a direct loss of over one billion dollars to Palestinians in Jerusalem, and continues to incur 200 million dollars per year in lost opportunities.

Israel’s severing and control over the Jerusalem-Jericho road – the historical trade route that connected Jerusalem to the rest of the West Bank and Middle East – has also contributed to the city’s economic downturn.

Separation of Jerusalem from West Bank

Before the First Intifada (Arabic for “uprising”) began in the late 1980s, East Jerusalem contributed approximately 14 to 15 percent of the gross domestic product (GDP) in the Occupied Palestinian territories (OPT). By 2000, that number had dropped to less than eight percent; in 2010, the East Jerusalem economy, compared to the rest of the OPT, was estimated at only seven percent.

“Economic separation resulted in the contraction in the relative size of the East Jerusalem economy, its detachment from the remaining OPT and the gradual redirection of East Jerusalem employment towards the Israeli labour market,” the U.N. report found.

Decades ago, Israel adopted a policy to maintain a so-called “demographic balance” in Jerusalem and attempt to limit Palestinian residents of the city to 26.5 percent or less of the total population.

To maintain this composition, Israel built numerous Jewish-Israeli settlements inside and in a ring around Jerusalem and changed the municipal boundaries to encompass Jewish neighbourhoods while excluding Palestinian ones.

It is now estimated that 90,000 Palestinians holding Jerusalem residency rights live on the other side of the separation barrier and must cross through Israeli checkpoints in order to reach Jerusalem for school, medical treatment, work, and other services.

“Israel is using all kinds of tools to push the Palestinians to leave; sometimes they are visible, and sometimes invisible tools,” explained Ziad al-Hammouri, director of the Jerusalem Centre for Social and Economic Rights (JCSER).

Al-Hammouri told IPS that at least 25 percent of the 1,000 Palestinian shops in the Old City were closed in recent years as a result of high municipal taxes and a lack of customers. “Taxation is an invisible tool…as dangerous as revoking ID cards and demolishing houses,” he said. “Israel will use this as pressure and as a tool in the future to confiscate these shops and properties.”

By the Same Author

Pots and Black kettles: Powell utters the G-word

Date: 14/09/2004

On September 9, 2004, in front of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Colin Powell, the US Secretary of State, accused the government of Sudan of genocide as follows:

“When we reviewed the evidence compiled by our team, we concluded – I concluded – that genocide has been committed in Darfur and that the Government of Sudan and the Janjaweed bear responsibility, and that genocide may still be occurring.”

Consider the context of this statement. The US conducted a war of aggression against Iraq, and it has therefore committed a supreme international crime [1]. Therefore, American leaders – including General Powell – “are guilty of having committed the supreme international crime in Iraq [2].” Furthermore, even while Powell was accusing the Sudanese government, the US military in Iraq were engaged in actions that can only be considered war crimes or worse. So here is General Powell, a mass criminal, accusing the Sudanese government of some retail barbarity. It is not an issue of whether or not such crimes are occurring, but what is revolting is to find Powell sanctimoniously accusing the Sudanese. It is another case of the “pot calling the kettle black.”

About Darfur

It is likely that some awful things are occurring in the Darfur region, but it may not fall neatly into Powell's characterization. First, part of the conflict in the area was caused due to the changing climate. The desertification of the region, the expanding Sahel, has created a conflict between the “camel herders” and farmers [3]. Second, the characterization of the conflict as one between “Africans” and “Arabs” is stretched by any standard. As Alex de Waal stated: “Despite talk of 'Arabs' and 'Africans', it is rarely possible to tell on the basis of skin color which group an individual Darfurian belongs to. All have lived there for centuries and all are Muslims” [4]. Finally, several countries have been interfering in the region, and it is likely that the US or its surrogates have been arming groups in the region [5]. It is likely that the US may be a party to the crimes occurring in the area. In sum, any claims and accusations about mass crimes occurring in Sudan should be treated with caution, especially when uttered by the US at a time when it may be useful to deflect attention of its own depredations in Iraq. The initial admonishments against Sudan occurred a few days after the main revelations about the US-conducted torture in Iraq.

A matter of speed

It is of interest to compare General Powell's response to the Darfur “crisis” to his intervention in Israel in April 2002. After issuing his initial warnings about the situation in Darfur, Powell flew in a matter of a few days directly to Sudan to confer with government officials. Even while in Sudan, Powell issued stern public warnings and threats about the alleged mass abuses. In contrast, in 2002 Powell's reaction to Ariel Sharon's depredations in the West Bank, including the flattening of the Jenin refugee camp, was very different. Here Powell's reaction entailed making several stops in Morocco, Syria… en route to Jerusalem, arriving only after Sharon had finished his gory deeds in Jenin. While ostensibly Powell went to Israel to convey president Bush's message that Israel should “stop its military action immediately”, after his arrival in Jerusalem, Powell suspended his mission for a few days because of a suicide bombing! Even though Powell's mission should have dealt with serious business and possibly issue stern warnings against Sharon, what we witnessed instead was Powell engaged in jovial exchanges with Sharon and his coterie – it was an all-smiles affair. Upon his return, Powell didn't appear in front of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, he didn't pressure the United Nations to threaten sanctions, but instead colluded with the Israelis to sabotage the possibility of a UN fact-finding commission to Jenin – eventually this commission was aborted. Again, Powell demonstrated that double standards apply.

Genocide, where have you been?

It is also astonishing to see that Powell actually uttered the word “genocide”. A bit of context will be helpful to appreciate the hypocritical heights Powell has scaled. After the Second World War, the United Nations sought to enact a convention against genocide, but the United States did everything in its power to sabotage this convention. First, in the late 1940s, the US sought to wreck and postpone the UN convention on genocide. It managed to have the principal architect of the convention (Raphael Lemkin) removed; it then reduced the scope of the convention thereby eliminating its effectiveness in preventing future genocides. Even after watering-down the convention, the US didn't ratify it, but delayed until 1988 when it ratified it conditionally, and the long list of appended provisos rendered the convention toothless [6]. With this history in mind, it is therefore dubious to find Powell leveling accusations of genocide today.

It seems that the US only uses the accusation of genocide when it is useful for its own political gain, and will use this accusation even if there are no indications of genocide under way. (Or alternatively, ignore genocides when they do occur.) During the wars in Bosnia or Kosovo, the accusation of “genocide” was also used, but it is doubtful whether it applied [7]. Some of the alleged mass crimes seem to have been perpetrated by the Bosnians or Kosovars themselves! The tribunal set up to deal with the crimes in ex-Yugoslavia also attests to the US's cynicism in this matter. The tribunal was set up to deal specifically with Bosnia/Kosovo, but not within a framework where future mass crimes could be prosecuted; it is another case where selective justice is diminished justice.

Attention deficits

Journalists or editors often claim that the public can only pay attention to one or two issues at a time. When an event occurs in say, Sudan, it means that the coverage of events in Iraq will be reduced. And here we see the real reason Powell has sought to level the accusation of genocide against Sudan. Powell seems to have lent himself for a propaganda campaign to divert the public's attention from the on-going war in Iraq and the Israeli depredations in the occupied territories. In February 2003, he played along with the grotesque leveling of fraudulent accusations against Iraq at the Security Council, and now he is doing it again to deflect attention from unsavory aspects of the US-wars. The US election is also upon us, and it is important to divert the electorate's attention from the key issue in the election.

Oh, hatred!

An often-heard question in the US is “why do they hate us?” The answer is becoming increasingly clear to Americans [8]. Performances like Powell's indicate that US foreign policy is a mix of cynicism, hypocrisy and sadism. It is not an issue of perceptions, but the on-going war in Iraq, the continuous bombing of Fallujah, the assassination of hundreds of Iraqi intellectuals…, all show that there is a concrete basis to assess American actions around the world. There are ample reasons why people may hate the United States. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

For a detailed discussion of Colin Powell's recent history see: Paul de Rooij's A Political Obituary: Colin Powell, D.O.A., CounterPunch, May 22, 2004.

Paul de Rooij can be contacted at proox@hotmail.com (NB: all attachments will be automatically deleted). ©2004 Paul de Rooij --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Endnotes

1. Michael Mandel, How America Gets Away With Murder: Illegal wars, collateral damage and crimes against humanity, Pluto Press 2004, p. 5. This is a very important book clarifying many of the issues about the applicability of international law and the American implication in major crimes.

2. Mandel, ibid, p. 6.

3. Alex de Waal, Counter-Insurgency on the Cheap, London Review of Books, Vol. 26 No. 15 dated 5 August 2004. This is an excellent article demonstrating that the situation is not “black & white” as depicted by Powell, but one with a degree of complexity and a long history.

4. de Waal, ibid.

5. Pierre Abramovici, United States: the new scramble for Africa, Le Monde Diplomatique, July 2004. (unfortunately, the web version [paid subscription] doesn't contain the map).

6. Ward Churchill, A Little Matter of Genocide, City Lights Books, 1997. For an excellent discussion of the American machinations surrounding the genocide convention see pp. 363 – 393.

7. Diana Johnstone, Fools' Crusade, Pluto Press, London, 2002.

8. See for example: Paul J. Balles, Why does the rest of the world hate you and me?, Sept. 9, 2004.

Palestinian Misery in Perspective

Date: 28/07/2004

This article first appeared on www.dissidentvoice.org on June 5, 2004

The media usually focuses on the latest casualty and quickly forgets those who died even a few days before. The American media in particular has a Dracula-like predilection for warm bodies, and no interest in cases where blood has already dried. Unfortunately this ahistoric focus on the last victim hides the scale of mass crimes and the responsibility of various perpetrators. Whether in Iraq, Palestine, Colombia, or Haiti, it is necessary to locate human rights abuses in a wider context to appreciate the scale of what is occurring on the ground.

In the case of Palestinian casualties, it is all too evident that CNN, BBC, and most other major media are mostly interested in today's casualties: they seem to studiously ignore precedents, and above all, they will not refer to the pattern of killings as systematic in nature. Of course, admitting that such killings are systematic would imply that Israel is committing “crimes against humanity”, a precursor to genocide. When the media seeks to whitewash “friendly” mass crimes, there is a tendency to fixate on specific instances to the exclusion of broad patterns. Even when a pattern of killings and other abuses is chronic and systematic, the BBC/CNN will tend to focus on specific cases without reference to broader trends. When referring to Palestinian conditions, what we find is that reports of casualties, house demolitions, and dispossession in these media outlets pertain to specific cases and not to general patterns. [1] Incidentally, the opposite is true when there is an incident of Palestinian violence; here lists and charts are available to highlight their context.

The chosen context can be used to obfuscate the reality on the ground. The tools at the media's disposal can be likened to an instrument of variable magnification ranging from a wide-angle lens to a telescope. Informative journalism requires using the most appropriate level of magnification for the story under investigation. On the other hand, propaganda requires contextual blurring and the use of inappropriate tools. Thus, it is best to use a telescope to view the stars, and clearly, a wide-angle lens is the wrong tool. In the case of Palestinian casualties, it is evident that the mainstream media are intent on presenting news using a telescope (preferably out of focus), when a wide-angle lens should be used.

The tables and graphs below put the Palestinian casualty toll into perspective over the course of the second intifada. These graphs speak for themselves, revealing a pattern that is all too evident. These graphs are meant to fill a gap in the available data pertaining to the casualty toll during the second intifada.

Average death tolls and an interpretation

During the course of the second intifada, the average number of Palestinians killed stands at 2.26 per day. The total killed between September 29, 2000 and May 31, 2004 is 3,023. To interpret these numbers one must scale these figures to make them comparable to understand what they would mean in the context of our own countries. This is the purpose of the table below.

Average and total Palestinian fatalities during intifada II, Sep. 29, 2000 — May 31, 2004. Actual and population scaled numbers
	Av. Fatalities/day	Total fatalities	scale factor	Population size (m)
Palestine	2.26	3,023	1	3.7
US	177	236,938	78	290.0
UK	37	49,022	16	60.0
Spain	25	32,844	11	40.2
Explantion:
Column (1) The average fatalities per day for the Palestinians is an actual number. The numbers below this have been scaled using the scale factor in column #3.
Column (2) is analogous to column #1, but refers to the total fatalities.
Column (3) is the scaling factor derived from the population numbers in column #4

An average daily fatality rate of 2.26 would proportionally equate to 177 deaths per day in the US. Similarly, the total Palestinian fatalities of 3,023 would equate to 236,938 in the US. One wonders how Americans would react if they experienced such a fatality rate, i.e., they would suffer a 9-11 death toll every two weeks. One suspects that there would be a level of mass hysteria, and rightly so. Actually, Americans are prone to suffer from mass hysteria with far less provocation. The Washington DC snipers killed ten and wounded three during a three-week “killing spree”; this is relatively minuscule when compared with the Palestinian experience. However, the media stoked a level of mass hysteria about these killings; Americans were even afraid to fill up their SUVs at the gas station — heavens! Americans are entitled to their hysteria about sniper killings, but then they should be aware that they finance the Israel military machine and support Ariel Sharon to the hilt, and therefore they have direct responsibility in the killing of 2.26 Palestinians per day (on average), something that would translate to 177 deaths per day in their society. While in the US such numbers would be abhorrent, when it comes to Palestine, Americans even provide the bullets and untold billions of dollars in funding. While the US justifies “preventive” wars, the abrogation of democracy, etc., after suffering 3,000 fatalities during 9-11, it lambastes and demonizes a brutalized Palestinian population which is suffering a death toll that is several orders of magnitude higher in terms of a scaled fatality rate.

Before anyone objects to the use of these scaled numbers, consider that Israel has frequently used such statistics for its own ends – referring exclusively to Israeli casualties. [2]

Average fatalities per month

Graph 1 plots the average death toll per month during the second intifada. It has fluctuated depending on Sharon's willingness to play along with “peace processes” and temporarily alternating with his proclivities to demolish Palestinian hopes for an independent state. Thus during the attack on the West Bank in April 2002, about eight Palestinians were killed every day. [3] While it was convenient for Sharon to play along with the Aqaba peace negotiation appearances, only 0.3 Palestinians were killed per day – the lowest level during the intifada.

What is also evident is the escalation of the fatality rate after July 2003. After the Aqaba summit, it was not possible to obtain any meaningful negotiations due to the inexorable building of the land-grab wall. Inevitably, the on-going ethnic cleansing and dispossession gave rise to an increasing death toll. From the graph it seems that the Israeli military increase the level of dispossession or killings in a gradual fashion. If they can get away with killing four Palestinians per day now, then we can expect a gradual increase in the following months. While killings, destruction, and dispossession remain under a magic threshold level, the media will not consider this to be “news”. Even human rights organizations aren't much bothered if the killings remain below this threshold. Of course, if some egregious killings take place, then Amnesty International, the Mother Theresa of the human rights organizations, will suggest that the killings “were not proportionate”, and occasionally it will utter a condemnation. Killings under the magic threshold are presumably “proportionate” and thus can be ignored.

And the wounded

Even when the mainstream media will say something about fatalities, the wounded are mostly ignored. However, consider that Israel uses heavy-duty battlefield weaponry against a mostly defenseless population in densely populated civilian neighborhoods, where the effect of these weapons on their victims is devastating. Even the so-called non-lethal bullets create harrowing wounds; even tear gas can be fatal or cause permanent lung damage. There are tens of thousands of wounded with permanent disabilities: blindness, paraplegia, as well as loss of limbs. These numbers are staggering, and a tremendous burden for a society already on the edge.

The average number of injured Palestinian victims stands at 19.6 per day (the US scaled equivalent would be 1,540). This number includes victims shot with military high velocity bullets, the so-called plastic or rubber bullets, tear gas and other unidentified gases with neurological effects, helicopter gunfire, and other large military ordnance. One must also remember that at the beginning of the intifada 193 Palestinians were injured on average every day. The Israeli army used millions of bullets during the first month of the intifada – and their effects were all too evident. [4]

The nature of the wounds

While at the beginning of the intifada a significant percentage of the casualties were shot with so-called non-lethal bullets, the ratio of casualties due to this type of weaponry has fallen significantly. It is increasingly rare to find Israeli soldiers using “plastic bullets” (in reality plastic-coated-bullets); the predilection today is to use “high-velocity bullets”. Graph 3 shows that the percentage of injuries due to “live ammunition” has increased steadily. In other words, this implies that the use of “non-lethal” bullets/weapons has fallen over time. However, the graph hides some increasing trends. Someone wounded by a missile fired by an Apache helicopter enters the “other” category, and hence it doesn't register as “live ammunition”. The reason why the “live ammo” ratio has fallen during the past few months is directly attributable to wounds caused by helicopter or tank fire. The graph (not shown) with the “other” category as a ratio of total injuries shows a steady increase.

Injuries and deaths

Graph 4 shows the number of injuries in relation to deaths over the same period. Thus at the beginning of the intifada there were a large number of injuries for each fatality, and this ratio has fallen steadily. The reason behind the dropping trend is the changing nature of the confrontation. Whereas at the beginning there were many popular demonstrations with a large number of ensuing wounded victims, this has steadily given way to sniper fire, helicopter or tank fire. The latter is more lethal, and the resulting ratio of injuries to fatalities tends to be lower. A reduction in this ratio sometimes implies an increase in the lethality of the Israeli tactics: they are increasingly shooting to kill.

Interference with medical treatment

A clear crime committed against Palestinians is the destruction of ambulances, abuse of ambulance staff, and the impediment of access to medical treatment. The summary statistics during the intifada are the following:

Obstruction and destruction of ambulances in Palestine. Data refers to the second intifada up to May 28, 2004
Attacks on ambulances to date	302
Total ambulances damaged	126
Total ambulance personnel injured	198
Total ambulance personnel killed	12
Denial of access to ambulances (recorded instances)	1,376
Number of ambulances damaged beyond repair	28
Source: Palestine Red Crescent Society

The Palestine Red Crescent Society, keeps meticulous statistics and it is worth studying this graph. If one found that the most of the damage occurred during the April 2002 attack, then maybe this would be understandable. However, the recurrent pattern is a steady interference and destruction of Palestinian ambulances; the graph makes this very clear. Even though a so-called peace process was kicked off in July 2003, the level of ambulance destruction continued unabated. One could easily imagine the howls of indignation and disgust if Palestinians were to shoot up an Israeli ambulance or just impede its access. However, destruction of these increasingly important vehicles, or even their commandeering by the Israeli military is a media nonevent.

Is it Genocide?

It is evident that Israel under Ariel Sharon is pursuing relentless campaign that aims to drive the Palestinians off the land and dispossess an ever-greater number of people. The construction of the wall is proof that this policy is being implemented. Driving armored Caterpillar bulldozers through refugee camps obviously entails a casualty toll. Similarly, the usually violent suppression of the demonstrations against this policy conjures its own grim statistics. From the graphs we detect a pattern: the repression is systematic and gradually increases the severity of its methods – this is especially apparent after July 2003. In Ariel Sharon's calculus, and with American blessing, the dispossession and repression of the Palestinians can continue as long as it is performed gradually with a slowly increasing rate. So, mass abuses are occurring in the occupied territories today; these are chronic, and indeed systematic. When the scale, intent and period are taken into account, then one can only conclude that Israel's policy is genocidal. [5]

Please note that this is not a conclusion that could only have been reached recently. In December 2, 2000, Francis Boyle, a professor of International Law at Univ. Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, stated:

I am sure we can all agree that Israel has indeed perpetrated the international crime of genocide against the Palestinian People. [6]

So, who will take responsibility for blowing the whistle and classifying Israeli actions as genocide? Unfortunately, this has to be determined by the UN Commission on Human Rights or the General Assembly, and the legal basis for the classification of genocide is the UN convention against Genocide. [7] There are numerous obstacles before the UN will take any action because of this arrangement. Via a private communication with senior UN personnel, we discover that there has been no movement whatsoever at the UN to determine if Israel's policies are genocidal, confirming that the UN's role in preventing genocide is hopeless. It is very likely that the UN will not move at all regarding Palestine.

The explanation for the UN's inaction has much to do with the US's role at the UN; this has been less than constructive, and it will pressure member countries to avoid issuing a “genocide” warning. [8] One only has to remember the US efforts prior to February 2004 to block the International Court of Justice's hearings on the land-grab wall; to defend its client it attempted to obstruct this international legal body. Furthermore, the UN convention against genocide is very narrowly defined and it is almost the case that genocide can only be determined after the fact. The convention almost guarantees that there will be no action to prevent genocide or stem an on-going genocide. Finally, the insufferable Kofi Annan is known for his callousness and inaction in the face of mass slaughter. As head of UN peacekeeping forces during the Rwandan genocide, he was instrumental in delaying and obstructing UN action. As Michael Hourigan, a UN war crimes investigator in Rwanda, stated: “consistently, repeatedly people like Kofi Annan failed to act.” And the UN's Carlson Commission, an internal inquiry about the Rwandan genocide, actually blamed Kofi Annan and the unit he led. [9] Annan's record of inaction bodes ill for the UN to engage in any action to lend international protection to the Palestinians, a population that has been brutalized for many decades.

Data Sources

The data used in this article originates from the Palestinian Red Crescent Society – with one small modification discussed below. This is a high quality database and the origin of its data is from the PRCS hospitals and medical staff. The numbers are conflict-related deaths and injuries, which includes all Palestinian killed or injured irrespective of cause. PRCS numbers are closely related to the Health Ministry numbers, but they are not the same. The Palestine Authority is now publishing its numbers on its website, and data quality has improved over time. The PA's statistics can be found here. Finally, the Palestine Monitor also publishes good quality data and can be found here. The total casualty numbers of these three sources are not equal, yet there is only a minor discrepancy. Part of the reason for the discrepancy has to do with the reported numbers during the April 2002 attack. In many instances, there was no access to hospitals, victims were buried without adequate record keeping, or victims were removed by the Israeli army. PRCS's approach has been to zero out most of the entries of this period, and thus understates the total casualty figures. The Palestine Monitor has imputed some numbers to this period based on interviews with residents and victim exhumations. The approach taken in this article was to use Palestine Monitor data for the months that were zeroed out by PRCS. This makes a difference of 19 fatalities.

Endnotes

[1] The opposite also happens. That is, if confronted by a particularly egregious Israeli crime, this can be whitewashed by placing it in a wider context. Alternatively, Israeli actions can be juxtaposing with Palestinian violence – thus the Israelis are only responding.

[2] See Israel's Campaign of Misinformation, The Palestine Monitor, January 14, 2004.

[3] Please note that the statistical record during the April 2002 military assault on the West Bank is incomplete. For example, not withstanding the UN or Amnesty International reports, it is not known how many people were killed in Jenin or the West Bank during this month. NB: Because the investigation was vetoed by the US, there was no in-depth investigation of the killings in Jenin.

[4] Source: Raji Sourani, Lawyer and Director of the Palestinian Center for Human Rights in Gaza. Data provided during his “The worst yet to come from Occupied Palestine” lecture in London, October 11, 2002.

[5] Mass killings don't need to occur before mass abuses can be classed as genocide. See Ward Churchill, A Little Matter of Genocide, City Lights Books, 1997, pp. 399 – 444.

[6] Francis Boyle, Palestine Should Sue Israel for Genocide before the International Court of Justice, MediaMonitors, December 2, 2000.

[7] The official name of the convention is: The International Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, UN, 1948.

[8] In the late 1940s, the US sought to wreck and postpone the UN convention on genocide. It managed to have the principal architect of the convention (Raphael Lemkin) removed; it then reduced the scope of the convention thereby eliminating its effectiveness in preventing future genocides. Even after wrecking the convention, the US didn't ratify it but delayed until 1988 when it gave a conditional ratification, and ratified it only after adding many provisos that rendered the convention toothless. For an excellent discussion of the American machinations surrounding the convention see Ward Churchill, A Little Matter of Genocide, City Lights Books, 1997, pp. 363 – 393.

[9] Judi Mcleod, “One minute for 100 days of Rwandan hell”, CanadaFreePress.com, April 5, 2004. Also important: Per Ahlmark, “UN chief's career clouded”, The Australian, May 3, 2004. Finally, this article also contains important info: Max Teichman, “UN: Kofi Annan and the Rwanda genocide,” NewsWeekly, April 24, 2004.

"You are going to be the proud owner of 25 million people. You will own all their hopes, aspirations and problems. You'll own it all."

- Powell statement to US President George Bush as quoted by Woodward [1].

Sometimes it is worth writing someone's obituary ahead of schedule. In the case of politicians, the purpose of an obituary is to serve as a warning against the political zombies – those politicians who are politically spent or have lost their souls. There are many of them around today, e.g., Jose M^a Aznar, Tony Blair, Jack Straw, Kofi Annan, Javier Solana… and Colin Powell, the US Secretary of State.

One could almost feel sorry for General Powell. In 2000, Powell had the useful face and the useful stars, attractive attributes required for electoral purposes. Recruited into office amidst much fanfare, he has duly proven a useful political fig leaf over a foreign policy determined by others. Today he is a discredited spokesman of a bankrupt foreign policy, a token captain remote from the rudder of a foundering ship.

Murky beginning

Early on in his career, Powell specialized in whitewash and ass-cover-up operations. Remember My Lai? Well, in 1968 Major Powell was instrumental in whitewashing that sordid episode. During his stint at the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Powell was responsible for pressing ahead with the 1991 Gulf War, a war that was entirely avoidable and against the judgment of the general staff. We know the disastrous consequences of that operation and much has been revealed of his murky past. This article will focus on his record as Secretary of State. (For critical background, see Parry and Solomon's excellent “Behind Colin Powell's Legend” [2].)

The Big Lie unravels

Powell's recent admission that the evidence he presented in front of the UN Security Council on Feb. 5, 2003 had not been “solid” was the nadir of an increasingly pathetic career. For Powell to admit that there were flaws in his presentation at this late stage of the game, after thousands lay dead and Iraq had been ravaged, is like someone caught in a lie – a mighty big lie – and then only sheepishly admitting that it may have been false. Powell has proven that he doesn't just have thick skin, but skin calloused by experience into a carapace.

The admission by David Kay, the US chief weapons inspector, that Iraq did not possess any WMD pulled the rug right out from under Powell's feet. Before this, Powell had insisted that his accusations leveled against Iraq in front of the UN Security Council had been based on sound intelligence [3]. As late as the end of Feb. 2004, Powell was still defending his position and reacted angrily when he was challenged in front of a Congressional hearing concerning his claims of Iraqi WMDs. What made this event memorable was his angry outburst, punctuated by a disaffected pimp scowl, against a Congressional staffer who had been shaking his head. At that time, Powell was still bluffing it out.

But Kay's revelation made Powell's position untenable, and admissions of error had to be made. On April 2nd, in what turned out to be an exercise in minimalism, Powell finally admitted to having relied on evidence that “was not solid” [4]. This admission is curious; it refers only to a small fraction of the litany of accusations he had leveled in front of the Security Council. The “mobile factories” claim officially hit the dust, but the remaining claims (many of which were by now also discredited) were not mentioned. In fact, the veracity scorecard of all the accusations has proven to be abysmally low: many were just transparent lies, and even the smallest details were either false or deliberately distorted. Even at the time, only the most gullible would have thought that Powell's presentation contained a smoking gun, let alone a justification for war [5]. It is unimaginable that Powell made this presentation without realizing that most of his statements were lies or fabrications. Never mind, it is part of the job, and it has been part of General Powell's job description for the past few decades; selling and pushing wars has been his specialty.

Powell's less-than-candid admission of having relied on shaky intelligence was calculated to signal to the media to lay off this issue. Any further questions about Powell's testimony will be met with hostility and the questioner will be referred to the previous admission about the dubious evidence. The public at large was put on notice: they too would be expected to move on and ignore the gaping omissions in this sordid chapter.

The rats are masters of the ship

Powell should have held ultimate authority over foreign policy, yet he was not allowed the final say in the appointment of reputable diplomats nor to develop a coherent foreign policy. The Secretary of State should also have played an important role in moderating Bush's rash impulses — the man demonstrates a weaponized obtuseness and requires constant monitoring. Instead, Powell has been relegated to a secondary role and merely mouths policy concocted by others. Paul O'Neill, the former Secretary of Treasury, recently described the cabinet meetings chaired by president Bush as ones chaired by a mute and attended by the deaf. A compliant Powell fits in perfectly.

It is clear that Powell didn't have much voice in the appointment of the neocons to policy positions. Appointing the arch-Zionist Elliot Abrams to oversee Middle East policy was as appropriate as appointing a pyromaniac to the fire brigade [6]. The same can be said about John Bolton, Roger Noriega, John Negroponte and other Cheney cronies who can only be described as a wrecking crew, as Powell must have been aware. In addition, Powell faced the ultimate indignity when, for crucial negotiations and foreign policy advice, James Baker, the former Secretary of State, was given an office in the White House.

Powell has often uttered statements about US policy only to be contradicted by one of the rats aboard his ship. Immediately after the coup in Haiti, Powell uttered some statements about respecting a democratically elected government, only to be contradicted the same day by Roger Noriega. Despite Powell's statement, a death squad leader was appointed to head the new Haitian government.

Only indirectly, via rumors, or through the Woodward exposé, does one hear that Powell had no input in these appointments, and disagreed with the selection of these people, but yet he continues in his token post [7]. A principled response would have required blocking such appointments or resigning; yet, his clinging on to the job is revealing.

War is Necrophilia by Robbie Conal (www.robbieconal.com)

Searing memories

Powell's term as Secretary of State has produced some searing memories. His role in putting the US on course for a war against Iraq, pushing (or not opposing) the neocon agenda, the undermining of international law, and the signaling of “green lights” to whatever Ariel Sharon sought to do, are infamous for the craven and callous role the “head diplomat” chose to play.

1. Green light #1: Ariel Sharon crushes Jenin

In April 2002, Ariel Sharon sought once again to smash any possibility for the emergence of a Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza. This was accomplished by a massive military onslaught against Palestinian cities in the West Bank and Gaza. Throughout the Occupied Territories, the Palestinian Authority was uprooted, destroyed, and its security apparatus dismantled. The operation culminated in the bloody siege of Jenin where an unknown number of Palestinians were killed, and significant portions of the Jenin refugee camp were flattened. Prof. Ilan Pappe called this onslaught “an unprecedented episode of cruelty in the unsavory history of the occupation” [8].

The international outcry about the Israeli offensive against the civilian population forced the United States to react, but only in a way that made it abundantly clear that it had granted a de facto “green light”. Instead of proceeding to Jerusalem immediately and firmly, Powell proceeded at a snail's pace, taking a circuitous route via Morocco, Egypt… and only arrived in Jerusalem after Israeli troops had flattened Jenin and killed many throughout the occupied territories. The King of Morocco even asked Powell why he was visiting him instead of going straight to Jerusalem! Once in Jerusalem, Powell didn't demand a cessation of hostilities, and his cordial public relations with Sharon signaled no opprobrium. In a grotesque gesture, Powell even suspended his mission for some days following a suicide bombing. Powell's role was not one aiming to constrain America's client or one that would have given credibility to Bush's call for restraint. Powell was playing the role that has served him so well over the years, that is, whitewashing and covering up the Israeli depredations.

To make matters worse, the US effectively sabotaged the UN commission charged with investigating the mass killings at Jenin. First, the US attempted to stack the commission in such a way that it would be favorable to Israel, e.g., appointing military experts and some dubious diplomats. Finally, it vetoed the commission altogether. Powell thus signaled that no one would have legal recourse or even obtain an investigation into Israeli mass human rights abuses. Thus, once again, Israel obtained a “green light” and a free “get out of jail card”.

2. More ass-cover-up operations.

The US has sanctioned the building of the massive land-grab wall inside the West Bank, even funding most of its construction. When international outcry protested the wall as a violation of basic international law, Israel did its best, with American assistance, to stop the International Court of Justice (ICJ) hearings about it. Powell's role in sabotaging the ICJ hearings and the eventual muzzling of these proceedings are another dark blot on the American reputation. First, the US sought to pressure many countries to submit advance objections to the ICJ hearing on the specious grounds that this would “politicize” the issues surrounding the construction of the wall. Second, Israel requested a delay in the issuance of the State Dept.'s human rights report until after the ICJ hearings. Israelis feared that the report could contain criticism of the wall, and sought to prevent this information's inclusion in the proceedings. True to form, Powell was complicit in delaying the publication of the report; it was finally released a week after the ICJ hearings, more than a month after it was originally scheduled for publication. Finally, the US is currently attempting to delay the ICJ's rulings on the matter until it will be useless, i.e., months after the wall has been completed.

3. Blessing Sharon's unilateral plan, and the second “green light”.

On April 14, 2004, Sharon's unilateral “disengagement” plan received Bush's official blessing. Bush accepted Israel's unilateral annexation of West Bank land, the removal of the Palestinian refugees' right to return, and veto power over future negotiations with Palestinian representatives. Furthermore, although Israelis will claim to “withdraw” from Gaza, the proposals are nothing of the sort. Gaza will remain the world's largest concentration camp, with no access to neighboring countries, no ports, no airports, and even an Israeli veto on the Palestinian leadership.

The Washington meeting of Bush and Sharon must be viewed in the context of the assassination of Sheik Yassin, Hamas' quadriplegic spiritual leader, on March 22, 2004. Sharon personally directed the assassination! No problem, the US vetoed a very mild UN rebuke against the assassination, and Sharon was still welcome in Washington a few days later. With Washington's official blessing for his unilaterally imposed plan, Sharon returned to Israel on April 16, 2004; the next day the newly appointed leader of Hamas, Dr. Rantisi, was assassinated. Nothing could make clearer the tacit collusion between the US and Israel in elimination of the Palestinian leadership. Powell signaled a green light and warded off any UN and/or international condemnation.

Once again, Powell's role in these events has been appalling. Intermittently before and after Bush's blessing of Sharon's unilateral plan, Powell berated Palestinians for not clamping down on “terrorism”. Arafat and his cronies barely control one outhouse in Ramallah, so any demand to clamp down on “terrorism” is exceptionally cynical. Powell also stated that the Palestinian Authority should not share power with Hamas. Given that Hamas is a legitimate political group that may now represent the views of the majority of the Palestinians, it is callous for Powell to threaten a veto of the composition of Palestinian representation.

Powell's dismal performance continued early in May seated next to the insufferable Kofi Annan and Javier Solana. This “Quartet” meeting was meant to revive the defunct “road map”, but from Powell's statements, it is clear that this is another cruel hoax. Powell suggested that Palestinians should view Sharon's plan as an opportunity, and that they should embrace it. NB: Powell was suggesting that Palestinians should see the bright side of unilateral annexation of their land, the construction of the land-grab wall, the forfeiture of the refugees' right to return, and the imposition of a malevolent apartheid solution! Powell revealed a few more details about the Sharon's US-anointed plan. Israel and the US would from now on negotiate with Jordan and Egypt about control over Palestinian interests and affairs. These countries would be drawn in as partners in the imposition of the new plan, and they would supplant Palestinian representation. Finally, with a straight face, Powell concurred with Kofi Annan's statement that UNSCR 242 and 194 would remain the basis for the “road map” negotiations. However, one can only interpret Annan and Powell's statements to be correct in the following perverse sense. While previous attempts at negotiating peace between Israel and Palestinians suggested that UNSCR 242 (1967 occupied areas) would be a minimum basis for a solution, the current suggestion by US/Israel is that the West Bank and Gaza will represent a maximal solution to the “Palestinian question”. Powell's statements are steeped in hypocrisy.

It seems that every time president Bush utters the word “vision” he chuckles. It must be a private joke similar to Bush Senior's disdainful reference to the “vision thing”. Some months ago Bush stated that he had a “vision of a Palestinian state”. Given his endorsement of the unilaterally imposed plan, Bush stated on May 8^th that his vision had slipped a bit behind schedule, and of course, this was due to the Palestinians' own fault, i.e., due to “terrorism”. Taking Powell's statements into account one can only infer that a Palestinian state, or any meaningful rights for the Palestinians, is permanently off the agenda. Another vision postponed – permanently.

4. A Black man promoting apartheid

Last month some black Brazilian students traveling through Europe were astonished to find out that Powell is an African American, and one of them asked if he had been afflicted by Michael Jackson's skin disease. Perhaps even more astonishing is that a black man has been instrumental in giving the green light for an extreme apartheid solution to be imposed on the Palestinian people. As Ronnie Kasrils, the South African Minister for Water, stated recently, South African apartheid seems benign when compared to the Israeli occupation and the dispossession of the Palestinians throughout the area. What Israel is currently implementing is a malevolent apartheid solution. That is, though the walls are meant to demarcate Palestinian areas, their intent is to create such harsh conditions that they will drive people off the land [9]. When Ranaan Gissin, Sharon's spokesman, was asked about the wall recently, he laughed while suggesting that this was “a temporary measure.” It can only be interpreted as temporary, if the wall will be torn down after the Palestinian population has been driven off the land.

5. Oh, he favors democracy!

The neocons have suggested that Middle Eastern countries have to modernize, and to become democracies. Powell also played along with this charade and the State Department issued a report on what countries in the Middle East need to do, and US officials attended a meeting in the area to push the same theme. The State Dept. even coined a grand title for this rather empty initiative, i.e., the Greater Middle East Initiative. Note, that while the US was “encouraging” Middle Eastern countries to democratize the US was involved in the overthrow of the democratically elected government in Haiti. It is clear the US armed and trained a Haitian gang led by notorious death squad leaders of yesteryear. How could Powell square the US's desire for “democracy” in the Middle East when it is at the same time promoting coups against democratically elected governments in Latin America?

6. And now the Europeans must shut up!

The US recently instigated an OSCE meeting, and on April 29, 2004, it issued a call to fight anti-Semitism in Europe. Of course, Powell was on hand to reinforce the message that criticism of Israel may be construed as anti-Semitism. Mr. Powell stated: “It is not anti-Semitic to criticize the state of Israel, but the line is crossed when the leaders of Israel are demonized or vilified by the use of Nazi symbols.” It seems that pointing out serious Israeli crimes against Palestinians, and Ariel Sharon's role in directing them may come under the OSCE's scrutiny. But what is worse, for president Bush to call Sharon a “man of peace” or for critics to call Sharon a war criminal?

Most of the OSCE countries have become ethnically diverse, and it is likely that in many of the member countries racism, religious intolerance, and even violence may be manifest. It is also likely that the discrimination and violence against Muslim/Arab people is rife and more acute than anti-Semitism. So, it is odd that the OSCE meeting focused on discrimination and violence that may be less acute and chronic than that directed against Muslim/Arab minorities. In the very least, the OSCE working group should have demanded an inclusion of all groups that are currently threatened in the coverage of its statement. However, due to US pressure, the OSCE has focused exclusively on anti-Semitism, and European critics of Israeli depredations have been put on notice that their condemnation of Israel could one day be labeled anti-Semitism. Powell delivered this veiled threat against those opposed to the Israeli occupation and its violence against Palestinians.

7. The token captain attacks a fat rat!

The occupation of Iraq is a major disaster and the situation is unraveling before our eyes. Of course, the justifications for the war were absurd, and now the cost of the occupation is becoming astronomical. Add to this an unprecedented level of hostility against the US throughout the world, and suddenly the position of the promoters of this war is becoming increasingly tenuous. We already detect infighting among the cheerleaders of the war, and Powell even attacked Wolfowitz, albeit indirectly. Of course, any critical statement must be deniable, and it was up to one of Powell's aides to compare Wolfowitz to “Lenin”! [10] It seems that Powell wants to dissociate himself from the neocon warmongers, but it may be a little too late.

Generals and diplomacy

Military officers aren't trained in the intricacies and nuances of diplomacy which comprises a very different form of warfare. The military are trained to follow orders and accomplish tasks that are very narrow in scope. It is for this reason that military officers, not withstanding the brilliance of their careers, must not be appointed to the top diplomatic post. In Powell's case, one must remember that his only contribution to military doctrine was to advocate the “overwhelming use of force” – notice the genius required to suggest such a strategy! His background certainly didn't indicate that he would be a suitable candidate for the top foreign policy position. His appointment may have much to do with the subsidiary role given to diplomacy during the current Bush regime.

Just like the previous General appointed as a Secretary of State, Alexander Haig, Powell's term in office has been a disaster. Instead of leading and creating a coherent foreign policy, working actively within a multilateral framework, Powell allowed himself to be dragged along into a policy of confrontation, unilateralism, disdain for international law, and predisposed to engage in “preventive wars”. The consequence is evident for all to see. At the UN, the only countries siding with the US at the General Assembly are Israel, Nauru and the Marshall Islands (even Dominica abstains these days!). Now, any architect of American diplomacy must be proud of this accomplishment! Fairly soon, Americans will not be able to travel in the Middle East and significant portions of Africa without an element of fear.

Homo tragi pathetico

On April 27^th Powell stated that he was not going to resign, but his aide, Mr. Wilkerson, revealed that Powell is unlikely to seek a second term if Bush is reelected, and “said the Secretary of State had spent much of his time doing damage control around the world for the actions of his colleagues […] and he was physically and mentally tired” [11]. Powell went from presidential hopeful to a faded star in less than four years. What is in store for him now? Sell armaments for the Carlyle group; write another tome of his memoirs receiving a handsome sum in advance; or will he go on the lecture circuit to receive a deferred bribe?

If Powell had played a part in a tragicomedy, then one would at least have found something to laugh about. Alas, there is nothing comical about Powell's entire career, and the man can best be described as a tragipathetic character. That is, the tragedy has to do with the many corpses in Vietnam, Iraq, Palestine and Haiti; the pathetic part has to do with Powell's willingness to play along in these sordid affairs. One would almost like to say R.I.P., though this would not be well deserved, especially since he was D.O.A, dead on arrival.

Endnotes

It is difficult to know what to make of Woodward's books. He is certainly used by the major players to spin their side of the story, and any attribution that may cause trouble can be denied. As an historical record Woodward's books are of questionable value.
Robert Parry and Norman Solomon, Behind Colin Powell's Legend, ConsortiumNews.com
Powell even stated that he had spent days at the CIA obtaining a thorough briefing.
Powell admits Iraq evidence mistake, BBC Online, April 3, 2004. Note that Powell is only referring to a few elements of his presentation. The “mobile factories” part was “not solid”, but by implication that leaves the rest of accusation untouched.
If proof is needed, see my comments on Powell's accusations on Feb. 6, 2003. Paul de Rooij, A Riposte to Gen. Powell: Where are the incubators?, Feb. 6, 2003. This essay was written immediately after Powell's UN performance, and published three hours afterwards. Even early on, it was evident that most of his statements were – to use diplomatic terminology – baloney.
A charge often leveled against the neocon Zionists (an admitted pleonasm) is that they have a “dual loyalty” or that they are “Israel Firsters”. This would imply that they would uphold US interests to the same or to a similar degree as their defense of Israeli interests. However, it is increasingly evident that a better label for this gang is “Israel exclusivists”, implying that they will manipulate US political process to push Israeli interest first. It is difficult to imagine that their pursuit of a US-Iraq war and occupation has fostered American interests in the area. However, it is clear that in their calculus Israel's interests have been promoted.
About Bolton, see Uri Avnery, Vanunu: The Terrible Secret, April 24, 2004.
Ilan Pappe, As long as the plan contains the magic term 'withdrawal', it is seen as a good thing, London Review of Books, May 6, 2004.
Noam Chomsky, The Wall as a Weapon, New York Times, 23 February 2004.
John Leyne, Powell aide takes swipe at rivals, BBC Online, May 6, 2004.
Ibid.

Paul de Rooij can be contacted at proox@hotmail.com (NB: all attachments will be automatically deleted).

Slain Bedouin girls' mother, a victim of Israeli-Palestinian bureaucracy Date posted: May 27, 2013 By Amira Hass

John Kerry unveils plan to boost Palestinian economy Date posted: May 27, 2013 By Phoebe Greenwood

Isolation Devastates East Jerusalem Economy Date posted: May 27, 2013 By Jillian Kestler-D'Amours

Pots and Black kettles: Powell utters the G-word Date posted: September 14, 2004 By Paul de Rooij

Palestinian Misery in Perspective Date posted: July 28, 2004 By Paul de Rooij

Average death tolls and an interpretation

Average fatalities per month

And the wounded

The nature of the wounds

Injuries and deaths

Interference with medical treatment

Is it Genocide?

Further reading

Data Sources

A Political Obituary: Powell, D.O.A. Date posted: May 13, 2004 By Paul de Rooij

Glossary of Occupation Date posted: April 20, 2004 By Paul de Rooij

Slain Bedouin girls' mother, a victim of Israeli-Palestinian bureaucracy
Date posted: May 27, 2013
By Amira Hass

John Kerry unveils plan to boost Palestinian economy
Date posted: May 27, 2013
By Phoebe Greenwood

Isolation Devastates East Jerusalem Economy
Date posted: May 27, 2013
By Jillian Kestler-D'Amours

Pots and Black kettles: Powell utters the G-word
Date posted: September 14, 2004
By Paul de Rooij

Palestinian Misery in Perspective
Date posted: July 28, 2004
By Paul de Rooij

A Political Obituary: Powell, D.O.A.
Date posted: May 13, 2004
By Paul de Rooij

Glossary of Occupation
Date posted: April 20, 2004
By Paul de Rooij