UN Human Rights head sees possible Mideast war crimes

From Reuters UK

The scale of killing and maiming of civilians in Lebanon, Israel and the Palestinian territory of Gaza could constitute war crimes, the United Nations human rights chief said on Wednesday.

U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights Louise Arbour said international humanitarian law was clear on the need to protect non-combatants in any conflict. "This obligation is also expressed in international criminal law, which defines war crimes and crimes against humanity," she said.

"The scale of the killings in the region, and their predictability, could engage the personal criminal responsibility of those involved, particularly those in a position of command and control," she said, without directly accusing anyone.

In a statement, Arbour expressed "grave concern over the continued killing and maiming of civilians in Lebanon, Israel and the occupied Palestinian territory".

Arbour, a former Canadian Supreme Court judge and war crimes prosecutor, said the "indiscriminate shelling" of cities and the bombing of sites where civilians would suffer were unacceptable.

Israeli air strikes have accounted for most of the 293 deaths in Lebanon in the eight-day-old war which began after Hizbollah guerrillas kidnapped two Israeli soldiers.

Lebanon is made to pay

Lebanon is made to pay

Israel, the US and key Arab regimes are now determined to crush the widely popular Hizbullah

Charles Harb
Monday July 17, 2006
The Guardian

The story reported in much of the western media in the past few days has painted a straightforward picture: Hizbullah's militants suddenly decided to launch an attack against Israel, killed some of its soldiers, kidnapped two, and has bombed Israeli cities. Israel, acting on its right to self-defence, retaliated by bombing the "infrastructure of terror" in Lebanon. The crisis will end when Israel's terms are implemented: the kidnapped soldiers are returned, Hizbullah is disarmed, and the Lebanese army protects Israel's northern border. This narrative borders on the dangerously naive.

Since Israel's 1996 massacre of Lebanese refugees at Qana in Lebanon, and the end of the 22-year Israeli occupation of southern Lebanon in 2000, an agreement between the various parties - sponsored by France, the US, and the UN - has reflected the "balance of terror": Israel would refrain from bombing Lebanese civilian structures, and Hizbullah would not bomb civilian structures in northern Israel.

Although several military operations by the Israelis and by Hizbullah have occurred since 2000, neither side has violated this understanding. In 2004, Hizbullah secured the release of some prisoners held captive in Israeli jails in an exchange with Israel. And Hizbullah's military operation last week falls squarely within that framework.

Israel's immediate reaction broke the established rules of the game by bombing civilian structures across Lebanon, imposing a land, air and sea blockade, terrorising the population, and killing more than 100 civilians in a disproportionate display of power not seen since 1982. Hizbullah then retaliated by bombing northern Israel, in line with the "balance of terror" equations, and the escalation of the conflict has spiralled.

Israel's significant policy shift is linked to domestic politics, psychological factors and power plays. The wider geostrategic implications are more important then the operational details. For the first time in recent history, Saudi Arabian, Egyptian, Jordanian, Israeli and US interests now converge in an implicit alliance to quell Hizbullah. Reactions by these states in the past few days have been strongly indicative of such a stance, from the Saudi statement implicitly condemning Hizbullah, to the US president's explicit refusal to "rein in" Israel.

US rhetoric last year about spreading "democracy and freedom" in the Middle East was ended when the administration realised that the outcome might lead to governments more in tune with national interests than American ones. The complacent reaction by US (and, to some extent, European) officials to the widespread election fraud and repression in Egypt as well as the open war on the democratically elected Palestinian government reflect this change. The question is increasingly whether entire populations are being punished for making the "wrong" democratic choices.

The Islamic-led resistance movements are now the only credible forces resisting the US occupation forces in Iraq, the Israeli occupation forces in Palestine, and the dictatorial regimes in the Middle East. They have come of age, and are ready to fill the void left by Arab nationalists of the 1950s and 1960s. Attempts to divide the movement along sectarian and geographic lines have been given significant airtime in the media, but do not seem to fully reflect the reality on the ground. The Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas and Hizbullah are far from being the fanatics some in the west would like to believe they are. They have displayed an increasingly complex and pragmatic discourse, moderated over time and appealing to wider sections of Arab public opinion.

Hizbullah is at a crossroads. It faces a massive Israeli onslaught, hostile international media and Arab regimes, and a potentially hostile Lebanese government. On the other hand, it has broad support among the Arab population across the region. As one Lebanese analyst argued, Hizbullah's leader, Hassan Nasrallah, will either come out of this a hero the like of which the Arab world hasn't seen since Nasser or he will have to step down.

What is happening in Lebanon is a tragedy for a people who have been made to suffer a great deal in the past three decades. A tiny country with a war-weary population and great pride is being made to pay once more for the incompetence of Arab rulers, the arrogance of a superpower and the self-righteousness of the Israeli state.

· Professor Charles Harb teaches social psychology at the American University of Beirut

charles.harb@aub.edu.lb

Israeli gunships kill 18 civilians

EIGHTEEN civilians, including nine children, were burnt alive in an Israeli helicopter gunship attack today on residents fleeing border villages in south Lebanon, UN peacekeepers and hospital sources said.

They were killed when a missile struck a car and a minibus near Shamaa, hospital sources said. Rescue workers said the minibus took a direct hit.

At the hospital in the southern port city of Tyre, an official said five more bodies were evacuated from the scene. Nine of the 18 civilians were children, he said.

A total of 30 civilians were killed and 45 others wounded in a series of Israeli raids across the country today.

An AFP correspondent saw the torched bodies of a father and his four children, the oldest aged seven, at the government hospital in the southern port city of Tyre.

'A logistics team has retrieved 13 bodies,' an officer with the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL) told AFP. A rescue worker who transported the first bodies to Tyre said five more were left in the minibus.

Ten other people were transported to hospital for treatment for burns and fractures, medics said. Four of them were hit in the minibus and the six others - a couple and their four children - in a small car.

Thousands of Lebanese have been fleeing the border area after Israeli shelling and warnings to residents to leave in order to prevent Hizbollah guerrillas from hiding among civilians.

Three people were also killed in another raid today when Israeli jets struck the road leading to the main crossing of Masnaa between Lebanon and Syria, blocking passage across the border, police said.

And another three civilians were killed when Israeli jets fired missiles near a bridge on the outskirts of the north-eastern town of Hermel on the border with Syria.

An Iraqi was killed and three other workers were wounded in an attack at a fuel station near the southern coastal city of Sidon, police said.

At least 92 civilians have been killed and some 252 wounded since Israel began its assault on Lebanon after the capture of two soldiers and the killing of eight others by the Syrian-backed militant group Hizbollah early on Wednesday.

Israel said today its air force was also "bombing roads and bridges on the border between Lebanon and Syria to prevent Hizbollah from taking our captured soldiers out of the country".

"

Israel's show of force will backfire

Israel's show of force will backfire - Opinion - theage.com.au:

Israel's show of force will backfire

By Amin Saikal

The late Palestinian scholar Edward Said described the Palestinians as "the victim of the victim". The Jewish people suffered hugely at the hands of Europeans in history, but since the foundation of the state of Israel in 1948, the Israelis have subjected the Palestinian people to actions that have in some ways been reminiscent of their own suffering.

In the current crisis, Israel has re-invaded the Gaza Strip and turned it into an encampment, collectively punishing 1.3 million Palestinians.

This has generated an environment in which the Syrian and Iranian-backed Lebanese Islamic Hezbollah attacked an Israeli military post on the border with Lebanon, with Israel retaliating in yet another disproportionate manner. Israel has not only gone after Hezbollah targets, but as usual has sought to punish the state of Lebanon as a whole.

It has targeted the country's international airport and other infrastructure. Astonishingly, the US has supported Israel in all this. No wonder there is so much resentment of Israel and the US in the Arab-Muslim world.

The Palestinian killing of two Israeli soldiers and abduction of a third more than two weeks ago, and Hezbollah's subsequent similar actions, have ostensibly generated the present crisis. But such actions are not something new in the area. Israel has been involved in this kind of action against the Palestinians, and to a lesser extent against Hezbollah, for years.

Israel has eliminated, through targeted assassination, hundreds of Palestinians and jailed thousands more, including women and children, and hit and jailed many Hezbollah activists. In the process, it has killed hundreds of innocent Palestinians and many Lebanese.

Israel has justified all this in terms of self-defence, and collateral damage in what it has called a fight against terrorism, as defined by itself.

It has never paid the least attention to the fact that Palestinian violent actions against Israel have had their roots in Israel's colonial occupation of the Palestinian land and brutal suppression of the Palestinians as a people, who, like Israelis, have the right to live in independence, peace and security.

Similarly, Israel has ignored the reality that its occupation of southern Lebanon for 20 years - until withdrawing unilaterally in 2000 because it could no longer sustain the cost of this operation - contributed substantially to making Hezbollah the fighting force that it is today.

While promoting itself as a bastion of democracy, Israel has scorned all Palestinian efforts at democratisation when the outcome has not been according to Israeli preferences. It has denounced the Palestinians' democratically elected government as one led by a terrorist organisation, the radical Islamist Hamas, although this is very much reminiscent of its rejection of the PLO as a terrorist organisation in the 1970s and '80s.

Now that the Palestinians have turned to Hamas for salvation because the PLO proved to be ineffectual, Israel is punishing all Palestinians for exercising their democratic rights. In a similar vein, it has rejected Hezbollah's democratic participation in Lebanese politics as a legitimate force, and has continued to prosecute it as a terrorist group and to encourage Washington to maximise pressure on Syria and Iran so that Israel can be assured of its position as the most powerful and determining actor in the region.

Unfortunately, the Bush Administration has given Israel virtually unqualified support. When caught between supporting Israel and upholding its rhetoric about liberty, democracy and justice, it has sided with Israel. It has defended the country's actions in all political forums and cast most of its vetoes at the UN Security Council to protect Israel from any criticism. It has constantly demanded that the Palestinians in particular, and Arabs and Iranians in general, democratise and refrain from violence. But it has never asked Israel not to use American-supplied lethal weapons in violating the rights of the Palestinians and others in the area whenever it has been deemed appropriate.

This, together with US failures in Iraq, has made many Arabs and Muslims turn their backs on the US as a hypocritical power, too immersed in its war on terrorism to retain any sight of realities on the ground.

Neither Israel nor the US can any longer afford to bury their heads in the sand and pretend that the political challenges facing them do not exist. Their actions have increasingly played into the hands of radicals - whether of Islamist or secularist nature - in the Arab-Muslim domain, and, for that matter, in the wider world.

Both Israel and the US need to realise that the application of brute force cannot resolve the deep-seated problems in the region. What is required is a sound political strategy to address the plight of the Palestinians, defuse tension between Israel and its neighbours, and improve America's image among the Arabs and Muslims. Otherwise the long-term damage to both Israel and the US, as well as the region, may become beyond repair, seriously undermining the efforts to contain international terrorism.

Amin Saikal is professor of political science and director of the Centre for Arab and Islamic Studies at the Australian National University.

Bush Defends Israeli Attacks in Lebanon

News from The Associated Press: "President Bush strongly defended Israel's attacks in Lebanon on Thursday but worried they could weaken or topple the fragile government in Beirut. The Mideast violence exposed divisions between the United States and allies and raised fears of a widening war.

'Israel has a right to defend herself,' Bush said at a news conference with German Chancellor Angela Merkel. 'Every nation must defend herself against terrorist attacks and the killing of innocent life.'"
.....

In Paris, French Foreign Minister Philippe Douste-Blazy said the Israeli air campaign - its heaviest against Lebanon in 24 years - could "plunge Lebanon back into the worst years of the war with the flight of thousands of Lebanese who ... were in the process of rebuilding their country."

Bush, at the news conference, voiced fears about the survival of Lebanese Prime Minister Fuad Siniora's government. "The concern is that any activities by Israel to protect herself will weaken that government ... or topple that government. And we've made it clear in our discussions.

"Having said all that," Bush continued, "people need to protect themselves. There are terrorists who will blow up innocent people in order to achieve tactical objectives."

Do you think he is referring to the Israelis?

Israeli Loonies the New Nazis?

Apologies for the title, but the last few weeks has made me wonder what the difference is now between the Israeli government and the Nazi government of WWII.

Are they insane? What is the world doing? Is everyone worried about being seen as anti-semetic if they criticise Israel? Well, unless people speak out against Israel, the Jewish people are in the long run going to be tarnished by the actions of these loonies.

Here's another article that is spot on target - hard to find in the media.

Has Israel's Absolute Power Corrupted Absolutely?
by Genevieve Cora Fraser

“Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.”

The 19th century historian, Lord Acton and his famous quote came to mind this week as Israel’s response to Palestine reached unprecedented levels of aggression. Operation Summer Rains led off with the abduction of Hamas legislators and mayors in an attempt to destroy the elected government of Palestine. The bombing of the Gaza power plant has left many of the 1.4 million Gaza residents without electricity, running water and sewers as the heat of the summer soars. The bridge attacks within Gaza has made transportation impossible, except for armed battalions and giant bulldozers. The guided missile assault on the Palestinian Ministry of Interior, which has left it in charred ruins, was justified with the claim that the building was the “meeting place to plan terror activities.” And once again food and medicine is blockaded and hospitals left in chaos with rolling blackouts as Gaza residents await further onslaughts by Israeli Occupation Forces.

Since Olmert was elected in March, tens of thousands of shells have been fired on Gaza and over 85 men, women and children have died due to non-stop assaults throughout Palestine. Hundreds of others have been maimed for life. To put things in perspective, since the year 2000, the Quassam rockets, which can be compared to high school or college experiments, have been responsible for the deaths of eight (8) Israelis. Since the year 2000, Israeli guided missile assaults have killed several thousand Palestinians. Justifications for this wholesale slaughter – by land, sea and air - have often times focused on the Quassams.

Israel’s Operation Summer Rains are presented as a direct response to the killing of two Israeli soldiers and the abduction of the IDF tank gunner on Israeli soil. However, Haaretz reports that plans to abduct the Hamas government leaders were made weeks in advance. In contrast, the Palestinian militant actions were a response to the Gaza Beach massacre and other attacks that have left dozens dead, many of them children. Lost in all the noise and carnage is the Palestinian militants’ demand for the release of over 300 Palestinian children and hundreds of women and elderly that are staved, tortured and abused in Israeli jails. Most are held without charge, or charges are filed after the detainees have been tortured into signing confessions. In total, there are now close to 10,000 Palestinian prisoners in Israeli jails.

In April, Israeli forces were so bold as to sweep into the northern West Bank village of Tura al-Gharbiya and abduct five-year old Motaz Qabha from his father’s lap. The father, Samer was talking to a neighbor in front of his house when the soldiers arrived in hummers and jeeps and attempted to grab the terrified child. Samer held tight to his small son, until the soldiers beat him to the ground, tied his hands behind his back, blindfolded and threw him in the jeep. The Israelis then “arrested” the little boy and shoved him into the jeep next to his father. They were driven to the Shakeed military base where they were put in a cell, further abused, and the child was formally charged with throwing stones. Late in the evening, father and son were released and spent the next hour walking home in the pitch darkness.

The Samer and Motaz Qabha story had a relatively happy ending. A month or so ago, I attended the New York City showing of the Palestinian art exhibit, “Made in Palestine.” One of the artists memorialized, in a series of paintings, the Israeli Occupation Forces “sport” of shooting out the eyes of Palestinian children caught in the act of throwing stones, as the Israelis rampage their communities in deadly assault.

Lord Acton’s words also came to mind this week when a US Supreme Court ruling attempted to put the brakes on the “Israel First,” NeoCon-controlled, Bush-Cheney administration’s unquenchable thirst for power. The Court upheld the “due process” rights of detainees and reiterated the validity of the War Crimes Act, asserting that violations of Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions are deemed to be war crimes.

Acording to Common Article 3, “Detained persons ‘shall in all circumstances be treated humanely,’ and that ‘to this end,’ certain specified acts ‘are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever’--including ‘cruel treatment and torture,’ and ‘outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment.’

At stake was the continuation of the CIA's interrogation regime which included the use of torture of detainees being held at Guantanamo Bay, and elsewhere. The ruling also outlaws President Bush’s plans to set up a special War on Terror commission that would disregard basic rights normally afforded in civilian court and in a military court martial. If allowed to proceed, the special commission would have sweeping powers for any offense committed by any offender, anywhere, pertaining to the so-called War on Terror.

The Supreme Court decision comes in the nick of time for those of us who actually believe in democracy and human rights. It provides a handhold for us to “get our country back.” It should also serve as a warning to the “Israel First” Neo-Cons who have infiltrated the halls of American power and currently hold absolute sway over the current administration and much of Congress. Indeed, NeoCons in key Pentagon and State Department positions created the network of lies and misrepresentations that plunged the US and its allies into the chaos of the war on Iraq. Today, AIPAC and dozens of organizations that comprise the Israeli Lobby have a stranglehold on both the Democrat and Republican parties. They punish or politically destroy those who oppose them, and lavishly fund those who support them. In light of this reality, will the Supreme Court decision impact Israel’s despotic rule over the Palestinians?

Currently, the United States, and the European Union, has followed Israel’s lead in determining that the entire democratically elected Hamas government and Palestinian Authority are terrorists. This list includes not only legislators and mayors, but doctors, nurses and other health workers, municipal workers such as street sweepers and garbage collectors, secretaries, clerks, police and fire fighters. All 160,000 employees of the Palestinian Authority, as well as the entire charitable network created by Hamas that serves the humanitarian needs of the Palestinian people are officially designated as terrorists. It should be noted that the Hamas charity network is what has kept many Palestinians alive during the past months – proving food, medicine and other essentials for life. But according to the Western Powers, these people are terrorists and their charitable deeds are so-called acts of terrorism. If you are an American and caught making contact with any of these outcasts, you may be subject to prosecution. The rhetoric blinds the world to the fact that for 16 months the Hamas truce with Israel was upheld by Hamas, while Israel killed at will and continued to steal Palestine’s water resources and their most fertile farm lands.

Former Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin “Bibi” Netanyahu recently appeared before the 35th Zionist Congress in Jerusalem. “The IDF has the firepower to wipe out an entire population if we wanted. We could wipe out all of Gaza,” he bragged. Then he quickly added, “But we are not doing this.”

Shortly after the January 25th election that brought Hamas to power, the then Israeli Defense Minister, Shaul Mofaz defended the shelling and raids that had resulted in 31 Palestinian deaths and hundreds of injuries. He explained that it was Israel’s retaliatory strategy in response to the elections. Mofaz claimed that the Palestinian people had made their government part of the “Axis of Evil,” along with Syria and Iran. As a result, “punitive measures” would be taken by Israeli forces against all the Palestinian people. The newly appointed Israeli Defense Minister, Amir Peretz is walking in Mofaz's footsteps - the government of Israel continues to trample on the articles of the Geneva Conventions, as if international law was trash beneath their feet.

05.07.2006
http://www.zaman.com/?bl=commentary&alt=&hn=34526

British Media And The Invasion Of Gaza

Kidnapped By Israel
The British Media And The Invasion Of Gaza

by Jonathan Cook; Media Lens; July 07, 2006

Few readers of a British newspaper would have noticed the story. In the Observer of 25 June, it merited a mere paragraph hidden in the "World in brief" section, revealing that the previous day a team of Israeli commandos had entered the Gaza Strip to "detain" two Palestinians Israel claims are members of Hamas.

The significance of the mission was alluded to in a final phrase describing this as "the first arrest raid in the territory since Israel pulled out of the area a year ago". More precisely, it was the first time the Israeli army had re-entered the Gaza Strip, directly violating Palestinian control of the territory, since it supposedly left in August last year.

As the Observer landed on doorsteps around the UK, however, another daring mission was being launched in Gaza that would attract far more attention from the British media - and prompt far more concern.

Shortly before dawn, armed Palestinians slipped past Israeli military defences to launch an attack on an army post close by Gaza called Kerem Shalom. They sneaked through a half-mile underground tunnel dug under an Israeli-built electronic fence that surrounds the Strip and threw grenades at a tank, killing two soldiers inside. Seizing another, wounded soldier the gunmen then disappeared back into Gaza.

Whereas the Israeli "arrest raid" had passed with barely a murmur, the Palestinian attack a day later received very different coverage. The BBC's correspondent in Gaza, Alan Johnstone, started the ball rolling later the same day in broadcasts in which he referred to the Palestinian attack as "a major escalation in cross-border tensions". (BBC World news, 10am GMT, 25 June 2006)

Johnstone did not explain why the Palestinian attack on an Israeli army post was an escalation, while the Israeli raid into Gaza the previous day was not. Both were similar actions: violations of a neighbour's territory.

The Palestinians could justify attacking the military post because the Israeli army has been using it and other fortified positions to fire hundreds of shells into Gaza that have contributed to some 30 civilian deaths over the preceding weeks. Israel could justify launching its mission into Gaza because it blames the two men it seized for being behind some of the hundreds of home-made Qassam rockets that have been fired out of Gaza, mostly ineffectually, but occasionally harming Israeli civilians in the border town of Sderot.

So why was the Palestinian attack, and not the earlier Israeli raid, an escalation? The clue came in the same report from Johnstone, in which he warned that Israel would feel compelled to launch "retaliations" for the attack, implying that a re-invasion of the Gaza Strip was all but inevitable.

So, in fact, the "escalation" and "retaliation" were one and the same thing. Although Johnstone kept repeating that the Palestinian attack had created an escalation, what he actually meant was that Israel was choosing to escalate its response. Both sides could continue their rocket fire, but only Israel was in a position to reinvade with tanks and ground forces.

There was another intriguing aspect to Johnstone's framework for interpreting these fast-moving events, one that would be adopted by all the British media. He noted that the coming Israeli "retaliation" -- the reinvasion -- had a specific cause: the escalation prompted by the brief Palestinian attack that left two Israeli soldiers dead and a third captured.

But what about the Palestinian attack: did it not have a cause too? According to the British media, apparently not. Apart from making vague references to the Israeli artillery bombardment of the Gaza Strip over the previous weeks, Johnstone and other reporters offered no context for the Palestinian attack. It had no obvious cause or explanation. It appeared to come out of nowhere, born presumably only of Palestinian malice.

Or as a Guardian editorial phrased it: "Confusion surrounds the precise motives of the gunmen from the Islamist group Hamas and two other armed organisations who captured the Israeli corporal and killed two other soldiers on Sunday. But it was clearly intended to provoke a reaction, as is the firing of rockets from Gaza into Israel." ('Storm over Gaza,' 29 June 2006)

It was not as though Johnstone or the Guardian had far to look for reasons for the Palestinian attack, explanations that might frame it as a retaliation no different from the Israeli one. In addition to the shelling that has caused some 30 civilian deaths and inflicted yet more trauma on a generation of Palestinian children, Israel has been blockading Gaza's borders to prevent food and medicines from reaching the population and it has successfully pressured international donors to cut off desperately needed funds to the Palestinian government. Then, of course, there was also the matter of the Israeli army's violation of Palestinian-controlled territory in Gaza the day before.

None of this context surfaced to help audiences distinguish cause and effect, and assess for themselves who was doing the escalating and who the retaliating.

That may have been because all of these explanations make sense only in the context of Israel's continuing occupation of Gaza. But that context conflicts with a guiding assumption in the British media: that the occupation finished with Israel's disengagement from Gaza in August last year. With the occupation over, all grounds for Palestinian "retaliation" become redundant.

The Guardian's diplomatic editor, Ewen MacAskill certainly took the view that Israel should be able to expect quiet after its disengagement. "Having pulled out of Gaza last year, the Israelis would have been justified in thinking they might enjoy a bit of peace on their southern border." ('An understandable over-reaction,' Comment is Free, 28 June 2006)

Never mind that Gaza's borders, airspace, electromagnetic frequencies, electricity and water are all under continuing Israeli control, or that the Palestinians are not allowed an army, or that Israel is still preventing Gazans from having any contact with Palestinians in the West Bank and East Jerusalem. Meetings of the Palestinian parliament have to be conducted over video links because Israel will not allow MPs in Gaza to travel to Ramallah in the West Bank.

These factors might have helped to explain continuing Palestinian anger, but in British coverage of the conflict they appear to be unmentionables.

Arrested, Detained Or Kidnapped?

There was another notable asymmetry in the media's use of language and their treatment of the weekend of raids by the Palestinians and the Israelis. In the Observer, we learnt that Israel had "detained" the two Palestinians in an "arrest raid". These were presented as the legitimate actions of a state that is enforcing the law within the sphere of its sovereignty (notably, in stark contrast to the other media assumption that the occupation of Gaza is over).

So how did the media describe the Palestinians' seizure of the Israeli soldier the next day? According to Donald MacIntyre of the Independent, Corporal Gilad Shalit was "kidnapped" ('Israel set for military raid over kidnapped soldier, Independent,' 27 June 2006). His colleague Eric Silver considered the soldier "abducted" ('Israel hunts for abducted soldier after dawn raid by militants,' 26 June 2006). Conal Urquhart of the Guardian, referred to him as a "hostage" ('Palestinians hunt for Israeli hostage,' Guardian, 26 June 2006). And BBC online believed him "abducted" and "kidnapped" ('Israel warns of "extreme action",' 28 June 2006)

It was a revealing choice of terminology. Soldiers who are seized by an enemy are usually considered to have been captured; along with being killed, it's an occupational hazard for a soldier. But Britain's liberal media preferred to use words that misleadingly suggested Cpl Shalit was a victim, an innocent whose status as a soldier was not relevant to his fate. The Palestinians, as kidnappers and hostage-takers, were clearly not behaving in a legitimate manner.

That this was a deviation from normal usage, at least when applied to Palestinians, is suggested by the following report from the BBC in 2003, when Israel seized Hamas political leader Sheikh Mohammed Taha: "Israeli troops have captured a founder member of the Islamic militant group Hamas during an incursion into the Gaza Strip." This brief "incursion" included the deaths of eight Palestinians, including a pregnant woman and a child, according to the same report. ('Israel captures Hamas founder,' BBC online, 3 March 2003).

But one does not need to look back three years to spot the double standard being applied by the British media. On the Thursday following Sunday's Palestinian attack on Kerem Shalom, the Israeli army invaded Gaza and the West Bank to grab dozens of Palestinian leaders, including cabinet ministers. Were they being kidnapped or taken hostage by the Israeli army?

This is what a breaking news report from the Guardian had to say: "Israeli troops today arrested dozens of Hamas ministers and MPs as they stepped up attempts to free a soldier kidnapped by militants in Gaza at the weekend. The Israeli army said 64 Hamas officials, including seven ministers and 20 other MPs, had been detained in a series of early morning arrests." (David Fickling and agencies, 'Israel detains Hamas ministers,' 29 June 2006).

BBC World took the same view. In its late morning report, Lyse Doucet told viewers that in response to the attack in which an Israeli soldier had been "kidnapped", the Israeli army "have been detaining Palestinian cabinet ministers". In the same broadcast, another reporter, Wyre Davies, referred to "Thirty Hamas politicians, including eight ministers, detained in the West Bank", calling this an attempt by Israel at "keeping up the pressure". (BBC World news, 10am GMT, 29 June 2006)

"Arrested" and "detained"? What exactly was the crime committed by these Palestinian politicians from the West Bank? Were they somehow accomplices to Cpl Shalit's "kidnap" by Palestinian militants in the separate territory of Gaza? And if so, was Israel intending to prove it in a court of law? In any case, what was the jurisdiction of the Israeli army in "arresting" Palestinians in Palestinian-controlled territory?

None of those questions needed addressing because in truth none of the media had any doubts about the answer. It was clear to all the reporters that the purpose of seizing the Palestinian politicians was to hold them as bargaining chips for the return for Cpl Shalit.

In the Guardian, Conal Urquhart wrote: "Israeli forces today arrested more than 60 Hamas politicians in the West Bank and bombed targets in the Gaza Strip. The moves were designed to increase pressure on Palestinian militants to release an Israeli soldier held captive since Sunday." ('Israel rounds up Hamas politicians,' 3.45pm update, 29 June 2006)

The BBC's Lyse Doucet in Jerusalem referred to the "arrests" as "keeping up the pressure on the Palestinians on all fronts", and Middle East editor Jeremy Bowen argued that the detention of the Hamas MPs and ministers "sends out a very strong message about who's boss around here. The message is: If Israel wants you, it can get you." (BBC World News, 6pm GMT, 29 June 2006)

Siding With The Strong

So why have the British media adopted such differing terminology for the two sides, language in which the Palestinians are consistently portrayed as criminals while the Israelis are seen as law-enforcers?

Interestingly, the language used by the British media mirrors that used by the Israeli media. The words "retaliation", "escalation", "pressure", "kidnap" and "hostage" are all drawn from the lexicon of the Israeli press when talking about the Palestinians. The only Israeli term avoided in British coverage is the label "terrorists" for the Palestinian militants who attacked the army post near Gaza on 25 June.

In other words, the British media have adopted the same terminology as Israeli media organisations, even though the latter proudly declare their role as cheerleading for their army against the Palestinian enemy.

The replication by British reporters of Israeli language in covering the conflict is mostly unconscious. It happens because of several factors in the way foreign correspondents operate in conflict zones, factors that almost always favour the stronger side over the weaker, independently of (and often in opposition to) other important contexts, such as international law and common sense.

The causes of this bias can be divided into four pressures on foreign correspondents: identification with, and assimilation into, the stronger side's culture; over-reliance on the stronger side's sources of information; peer pressure and competition; and, most importantly, the pressure to satisfy the expectations of editors back home in the media organisation.

The first pressure derives from the fact that British correspondents, as well as the news agencies they frequently rely on, are almost exclusively based in Israeli locations, such as West Jerusalem and Tel Aviv, where they share the daily rituals of the host population. Correspondents have Israeli neighbours, not Palestinian ones; they drink and eat in Israeli, not Palestinian, bars and restaurants; they watch Israeli, not Palestinian, TV; and they fear Palestinian suicide attacks, not Israeli army "incursions".

Another aspect of this assimilation - this one unmentionable in newsrooms - is the long-standing tendency, though admittedly one now finally waning, by British media organisations to prefer Jewish reporters for the "Jerusalem beat". The media justify this to themselves on several grounds: often a senior Jewish reporter on the staff wants to be based in Jerusalem, in some cases as a prelude to receiving Israeli citizenship; he or she may already speak some Hebrew; and, as a Jew living in a self-declared Jewish state, he or she is likely to find it easier to gain access to officials.

The obvious danger that Jewish reporters who already feel an affinity with Israel before their posting may quickly start to identify with Israel and its goals is not considered an acceptable line of inquiry. Anyone raising it is certain to be dismissed as an anti-Semite.

The second pressure involves the wide range of sources of information foreign correspondents come to rely on in their daily reporting, from the Israeli media to the Israeli army and government press offices. Most of the big Israeli newspapers now have daily editions in English that arrive at reporters' doors before breakfast and update all day on the internet. The Palestinians do not have the resources to produce competing information. Israeli officials, again unlike their Palestinian counterparts, are usually fluent in English and ready with a statement on any subject.

This asymmetry between Israeli and Palestinian sources of information is compounded by the fact that foreign correspondents usually consider Israeli spokespeople to be more "useful". It is, after all, Israeli decision-makers who are shaping and determining the course of events. The army's spokesperson can speak with authority about the timing of the next Gaza invasion, and the government press office knows by heart the themes of the prime minister's latest unilateral plans.

Palestinian spokespeople, by contrast, are far less effective: they usually know nothing more about Israeli decisions than what they have read in the Israeli papers; they are rarely at the scene of Israeli military "retaliations", and are often unreliable in the ensuing confusion; and internal political disputes, and a lack of clear hierarchies, often leave spokespeople unsure of what the official Palestinian line is.

Given these differences, the Israeli "version" is usually the first one to hit the headlines, both in the Israeli media and on the international TV channels. Which brings us to the third pressure.

News is not an independent category of information journalists search for; it is the information that journalists collectively decide is worth seeking out. So correspondents look to each other to determine what is the "big story". This is why reporters tend to hunt in packs.

The problem for British journalists is that they are playing second fiddle to the largest contingent of English-language correspondents: those from America. What makes the headlines in the US papers is the main story, and as a result British journalists tend to follow the same leads, trying to beat the American majors to the best lines of inquiry.

The effect is not hard to predict: British coverage largely mirrors American coverage. And given the close identification of US politicians, business and media with Israel, American coverage is skewed very keenly towards a pro-Israel agenda. That has direct repercussions for British reporting. (It does, however, allow for occasional innovation in the British media too: for example, whereas American reporters were concerned to promote the largely discredited account by the Israeli army of how seven members of a Palestinian family were killed during artillery bombardment of a beach in Gaza on 9 June, their British colleagues had a freer hand to investigate the same events.)

Closely related to this sympathy of coverage between the British and American media is the fourth pressure. No reporter who cares about his or her career is entirely immune from the cumulative pressure of expectations from the news desk in London. The editors back home read the American dailies closely; they imbibe as authoritative the views of the major American columnists, like Thomas Friedman, who promote Israel's and Washington's agenda while sitting thousands of miles away from the events they analyse; and they watch the wire services, which are equally slanted towards the American and Israeli interpretation of events.

The reporter who rings the news desk each day to offer the best "pitch" quickly learns which angles and subjects "fly" and which don't. "Professional" journalists of the type that get high-profile jobs, like Jerusalem correspondent, have learnt long ago the predilections of the desk editors. If our correspondent really believes in a story, he or she will fight the desk vigorously to have it included. But there are only so many battles correspondents who value their jobs are prepared to engage in.

Collective Punishment

Within this model for understanding the work of British correspondents, we can explain the confused sense of events that informs the recent reporting of the Independent's Donald MacIntyre.

He points out an obvious fact that seems to have eluded many of his colleagues: Israel's reinvasion of Gaza, its bombing of the only electricity station, and disruption to the water supply, its bombing of the main bridges linking north and south Gaza, and its terrifying sonic bombs over Gaza City are all forms of collective punishment of the civilian Palestinian population that are illegal under international law.

Derar Abu Sisi, who runs the power station in Gaza, tells MacIntyre it will take a "minimum of three to six months" to restore electricity supplies. ('Israeli missiles pound Gaza into a new Dark Age in "collective punishment", 29 June 2006). The same piece includes a warning that the petrol needed to run generators will soon run out, shutting off the power to hospitals and other vital services.

This is more than the Guardian's coverage managed on the same day. Conal Urquhart writes simply: "Israel reoccupied areas of southern Gaza yesterday and bombed bridges and an electricity plant to force Palestinian militants to free the abducted soldier." Blithely, Urquhart continues: "In Gaza there was an uneasy calm as Israeli aircraft and forces operated without harming anyone. Missiles were fired at buildings, roads and open fields, but ground forces made no attempt to enter built-up areas." ('Israel rounds up Hamas politicians,' 11.45am, 29 June 2006)

In MacIntyre's article, despite his acknowledgment of Israel's "collective punishment" of Gaza (note even this statement of the obvious needs quotation marks in the Independent's piece to remove any suggestion that it can be attributed directly to the paper), he also refers to a Hamas call for a prisoner swap to end the stand-off as an "escalation" of the "crisis", and he describes the seizure of a Hamas politician by Israel as an "arrest" and a "retaliation".

In a similarly indulgent tone, the Guardian's Ewen MacAskill calls Israel's re-invasion of Gaza "an understandable over-reaction": "Israel has good cause for taking tough action against the Palestinians in Gaza" - presumably because of their "escalation" by firing Qassam rockets. MacAskill does, however, pause to criticise the invasion, pointing out that "Israel has to allow the Palestinians a degree of sovereignty." ('An understandable over-reaction,' Comment is Free, www.guardian.co.uk, 28 June 2006)

Not full sovereignty, note, just a degree of it. In MacAskill's view, invasions are out, but by implication "targeted assassinations", air strikes and artillery fire, all of which have claimed dozens of Palestinian civilian lives over the past weeks, are allowed as they only partially violate Palestinian sovereignty.

But MacAskill finds a small sliver of hope for the future from what has come to be known as the "Prisoners' Document", an agreement between the various Palestinian factions that implicitly limits Palestinian territorial ambitions to the West Bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem. "The ambiguous document agreed between Hamas and Fatah yesterday does not recognize Israel's right to exist but it is a step in the right direction," writes MacAskill. (ibid)

A step in which direction? Answer: Israel's direction. Israel has been demanding three concessions from the Palestinians before it says it will negotiate with them: a recognition of Israel's right to exist; a renunciation of violence; and a decision to abide by previous agreements.

A Guardian editorial shares MacAskill's assessment: "Implicit recognition [of Israel] coupled with an end to violence [by the Palestinians] would be a solid basis on which to proceed." ('Storm over Gaza,' 29 June 2006)

If the Palestinians are being faulted for their half-hearted commitment to these three yardsticks by which progress can be judged, how does Israel's own commitment compare?

First, whereas the long-dominant Palestinian faction Fatah recognised Israel nearly 20 years ago, and Hamas appears ready to agree a similar recognition, Israel has made no comparable concession. It has never recognised the Palestinians right to exist as a people or as a state, from Golda Meir's infamous dictum to Ehud Olmert's plans for stealing yet more Palestinian land in the West Bank to create a series of Palestinian ghettos there.

Second, whereas the Palestinians have a right under international law to use violence to liberate themselves from Israel's continuing occupation, the various factions are now agreeing in the Prisoners' Document to limit that right to actions within the occupied territories. Israel, meanwhile, is employing violence on a daily basis against the general population of Gaza, harming civilians and militants alike, even though under international law it has a responsibility to look after the occupied population no different from its duties towards its own citizens.

Third, whereas the Palestinians have been keen since the signing of the Oslo accords to have their agreements with Israel honoured -- most assume that they are their only hope of winning statehood -- Israel has flagrantly and consistently ignored its commitments. During Oslo it missed all its deadlines for withdrawing from Palestinian territory, and during the Oslo and current Road Map peace negotiations it has continued to build and extend its illegal settlements on Palestinian land.

In other words, Israel has not recognised the Palestinians, it has refused to renounce its illegitimate use of violence against the population it occupies, and it has abrogated its recent international agreements.

Doubtless, however, we will have to wait some time for a Guardian editorial prepared to demand of Israel an "implicit recognition [of the Palestinians] coupled with an end to violence as a solid basis on which to proceed."

Jonathan Cook is a former journalist with the Observer and Guardian newspapers, now based in Nazareth, Israel. He has also written for the Times, the International Herald Tribune, Le Monde diplomatique, and Aljazeera.net. His book "Blood and Religion: The Unmasking of the Jewish and Democratic State" was recently published by Pluto Press. His website is www.jkcook.net

All Blacks outclass limp Wallabies

Sports news of the weekend: The New Zealand Rugby Union team hammered the Aussies.

From a news service in the United Arab Emirates:

NEW ZEALAND 32
AUSTRALIA 12

New Zealand skipper Richie McCaw delivered an ominous warning to their Tri-Nations opponents, by insisting his side can only get better.

The All Blacks got their campaign off to a flying start, crushing arch-rivals Australia 32-12 in Christchurch. Their forward power was simply too much for the Wallabies, despite the visitors taking an early lead through a converted Lote Tuqiri try.

US Marines a bunch of trigger happy xenophobic psychopaths

There are many stories popping up in the media trying to isolate the actions of the US Marines at Haditha to just being the actions of a few rogue Marines. I have seen a number of Storeis about what good the marines are doing in Iraq for the people if Iraq etc, and how shocked all Marines are at the actionsd at Haditha.

There is a reason why the British Army thinks that US Marines a bunch trigger happy xenophobic psychopaths with no empathy for the citizens of the country they have invaded.

Don't believe that Marines are percieved like that?

Read Coalition divided over battle for hearts and minds. This was back in 2003!
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,926957,00.html

Also, Don't forget Fallujah
This was a siege and massacre of the inhabitants of a city in Iraq. This one was conducted by thousands of troops under command, so of course it must be OK.
Guardian Unlimited Special Report on the Falluja siege and massacre and murder.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1638829,00.html

Here are a few snippets (each paragraphs is a sperate snip - see the link for the full article)

US-led occupying forces launched a devastating assault on the Iraqi city of Falluja. The mood was set by Lt Col Gary Brandl: "The enemy has got a face. He's called Satan. He's in Falluja. And we're going to destroy him."

The assault was preceded by eight weeks of aerial bombardment. US troops cut off the city's water, power and food supplies, condemned as a violation of the Geneva convention by a UN special rapporteur, who accused occupying forces of "using hunger and deprivation of water as a weapon of war against the civilian population".

As the siege tightened, the Red Cross, Red Crescent and the media were kept out, while males between the ages of 15 and 55 were kept in.

US sources claimed between 600 and 6,000 insurgents were holed up inside the city - which means that the vast majority of the remaining inhabitants were non-combatants.

The city's main hospital was selected as the first target, the New York Times reported, "because the US military believed it was the source of rumours about heavy casualties".

"An AP photographer described US helicopters killing a family of five trying to ford a river to safety."

"There were American snipers on top of the hospital shooting everyone. With no medical supplies, people died from their wounds. Everyone in the street was a target for the Americans."

"The US also deployed incendiary weapons, including white phosphorous. "Usually we keep the gloves on," Captain Erik Krivda said, but "for this operation, we took the gloves off"."

"The US claims that 2,000 died, most of them fighters. Other sources disagree. When medical teams arrived in January they collected more than 700 bodies in only one third of the city."

Iraqi NGOs and medical workers estimate between 4,000 and 6,000 dead, mostly civilians - a proportionately higher death rate than in Coventry and London during the blitz.

Like Jallianwallah Bagh, Guernica, My Lai, Halabja and Grozny, Falluja is a place name that has become a symbol of unconscionable brutality. As the war in Iraq claims more lives, we need to ensure that this atrocity - so recent, so easily erased from public memory - is recognised as an example of the barbarism of nations that call themselves civilised.

Think of this next time you see an American movie glorifying the good 'ol USMC.

Better still, watch Full Metal Jacket.

Australian Refugee Review Tribunal defines refugee as "oogabooga"

A Burmese dissident has successfully fought a decision refusing her asylum in Australia because the word "oogabooga" was typed into the Refugee Review Tribunal's ruling.

The word appeared next to the heading "Definition of 'Refugee' " in a document outlining a tribunal member's findings in the case of Burmese woman Khin Wut Hmon Win.

A federal magistrate ruled that its appearance in the document would cause a "fair-minded" observer to conclude the tribunal was biased in its deliberations, and so overturned the decision.