Support Indy
Media

Popularise CC

Join News Letter

Read CC In Your
Own Language

CC Malayalam

Mumbai Terror

Iraq

Peak Oil

Alternative Energy

Climate Change

US Imperialism

US Elections

Palestine

Latin America

Communalism

Gender/Feminism

Dalit

Globalisation

Humanrights

Economy

India-pakistan

Kashmir

Environment

Book Review

Gujarat Pogrom

WSF

Arts/Culture

India Elections

Archives

Links

Submission Policy

About CC

Disclaimer

Contact Us

Subscribe To Our
News Letter

Name: E-mail:

 

Printer Friendly Version

The Degree Of US Responsibility
In Gaza Bloodbath

By Max Kantar

06 January, 2008
Countercurrents.org

Anybody in the world who has paid even the slightest bit of attention to Israeli-Gaza relations over the past few months and years knows that the only immediate way to stop the slaughter in Gaza and crude rockets from falling into Israel's south is not by violence, but through a cease-fire agreement. [1]

High ranking Israeli officials have few illusions about overthrowing Hamas' rule in the Gaza Strip—an implausible feat--which would require a massive and permanent Israeli military redeployment in Gaza. [2] Furthermore, no evidence exists suggesting that Israeli military violence is in any way effective in curbing Gaza-based rocket fire. [3]

Specifically with these elementary and uncontroversial facts in mind, let us briefly explore the origins and causes of this past week's failures in the attempts to bring about the only realistic immediate solution—a cease-fire agreement--to halting the violence in Israel-Palestine.

On December 29th, three days into Israel's air strikes on Gaza and several hundred Palestinians dead or wounded, Hamas advisor to Prime Minister Haniyeh, Ahmed Yusuf told NPR's Robert Siegel that Hamas was "willing to keep the cease-fire, and…willing to extend it to another six months" pending an Israeli commitment to comply with international law by halting its aggression in Gaza and ending its illegal siege of Gaza's 1.5 million residents. [4]

Israel responded to Hamas' offer the next day by continuing to bomb mosques and other civilian centers, in one instance resulting in the murder of five sisters as they slept in their beds, ranging in age from four to seventeen. [5] Meanwhile Israel's interior minister shot down the prospect of a cease-fire agreement by announcing that "there is no room for a cease-fire" with Hamas. [6]

The French proposal

After five days of unforgiving aerial bombardment of the densely populated Gaza Strip, with full US-backing, Israel rejected a French proposal for a 48 hour humanitarian cease-fire agreement [7] on the grounds that "there is no humanitarian crisis in the Strip," that a "renewal of a truce" would grant Hamas "legitimacy," and for fear that Hamas would "exploit" the agreement to "restock its weapons." [8]

The merit of these justifications (provided by Israeli Foreign Minister, Tzipi Livni) for rejecting the cease-fire proposal can be refuted in less than a minute by a literate 6th grader. Hamas' 'legitimacy' is not established through cease-fire agreements; it has already been established by it's electoral victory via the Palestinian people in 2006, in an election deemed "free and fair" by international monitors. Livni's assertion that "there is no humanitarian crisis" in Gaza doesn't deserve additional space to be discussed as the mainstream human rights documentary record is unchallenged and well established. [9] As for the validity of Livni's concern that Hamas might "exploit" an agreement to rearm itself, Israel's true face is shown if the concern is reversed, i.e. does anyone care that Israel is likely to "exploit" a period of calm in order to rearm and prepare for a future confrontation with Hamas, as it clearly did during the last cease-fire agreement?

Furthermore, the Los Angeles Times reported the same day that Hamas was "interested" in the 48 hour cease-fire if Israel was willing to "lift [its] blockade" of the Gaza Strip. The Israeli blockade, or siege, has been widely denounced by the UN and international human rights groups as "collective punishment," a war crime under the 4th Geneva Convention. [10]

United Nations Security Council December 31st—January 3rd

Later that same evening (December 31st) the United States blocked a UN Security Council draft resolution calling for "an immediate cease-fire and for its full respect by both sides." [11] The US blocked a vote on the resolution under the threat of a veto. [12]

The draft resolution was "an attempt by the Arab League to push a legally binding" [13] cease-fire agreement while also specifically calling on Israel "to scrupulously abide by all of its obligations under international humanitarian law." [14]

The US objected to the resolution because it was "unbalanced" as it did not make specific comments regarding Hamas rockets, although the proposal did call for a cessation of violence from both Israel and Hamas. It is notable that well over 100 Palestinians in Gaza have been killed since the US blocked the potentially legally binding draft cease-fire resolution. [15]

On January 3rd, hundreds of dead and wounded Palestinian civilians later, the US again rejected a UN Security Council statement calling for a cease-fire, this time making specific reference to rocket fire in Israel's south, as well as the Israeli offensive in Gaza. [16] Although the statement appeared to be altered in response to previous US complaints, it was subsequently written off by US deputy ambassador, Alejandro Wolff, as having "no underpinning for success." [17] The US reportedly "objected to 'any outcome'" during the closed Security Council discussions. [18]

An American war

In addition to not only expressing its tacit approval of Israel's assault on Gaza, but also systematically and unilaterally blocking the only available means of bringing an immediate end to violence in Israel and Gaza, the United States is also providing the tangible, military means for Israel's illegal war.

In a recent press release, Amnesty International calls on the US to "suspend the transfer of weapons to Israel immediately," noting "[deep] concern" that Israel's attacks on civilian targets in Gaza have been carried out with US-supplied "weaponry and military equipment." [19]

Israel's largely "American-made" military includes "thousands of TOW, Hellfire, and 'bunker buster' missiles" as well as massive fleets of U.S. F-16 fighter jets and Apache helicopters—all crucial to Israel's murderous air strikes. Additionally, Israel has been dropping an array of American "GBU-39 small diameter bombs" on Gaza—bombs that "contain uranium oxide and [are known to leave] behind radioactive contamination." [20]

US weapons are being used by Israel in strict violation of international law. In a report issued after Israel began it's attack on Gaza, UN Special Rapporteur for Human Rights in the Occupied Territories, Professor Richard Falk deplored Israeli "violations of international humanitarian law" and "crimes against humanity" in the Gaza Strip, among them "targeting civilians" by carrying out "air strikes aimed at civilian areas in one of the most crowded stretches of land in the world." Falk also noted that Israel's "collective punishment" of 1.5 million civilians had resulted in "severe shortages of medicine, fuel, and food" creating "severe and massive violations" of human rights.

Falk also placed responsibility for Gaza's inflicted "catastrophic human toll" on "countries that have been and remain…directly complicit" including "countries [who are] knowingly providing the military equipment…used in these illegal attacks, as well as… countries who have supported and participated in the siege of Gaza that…has caused a humanitarian catastrophe." [21]

Interestingly, US federal law regarding the sale of weapons to foreign countries explicitly states "that when credible evidence of human rights violations exists, U.S. aid must stop." [22] US law is also clear in that it "prohibit[s] arms transfers to countries that do not observe certain fundamental values of human liberty, peace, and international stability" which includes countries that "persistently engage in gross violations of internationally recognized human rights" including "grave breaches of international laws of war" and the engagement of "acts of armed aggression in violation of international law." [23]


While Israel should be held fully accountable for its ongoing "crimes against humanity" in the Gaza Strip, we should not have illusions about the degree of US responsibility in the deaths of (currently) over 512 Palestinians and the gross human rights violations of the entire (1.5 million) Gaza population. [24] The US is not a simply "supporter" or "friend" of Israel; the US is carrying out a war on civilians through Israel, in stark violation of international law as well as American law.

By unilaterally blocking the only measures that could potentially bring the cross border violence to a halt while also providing the irreplaceable military equipment for the aggression on Gaza, the United States is every bit as responsible as Israel for the persistent rejection of peace and ongoing suffering of Palestinian and Israeli civilians.

Max Kantar is a freelance writer and undergraduate. He can be reached at [email protected]


Notes

[1] see my "The Politics and Propaganda of the US-Israeli War on Gaza," Jan. 5, 2009, (http://www.countercurrents.org/kantar050109.htm)

[2] Keinon, Herb "Gov't: We won't take over Gaza Strip" Jerusalem Post, Jan. 4, 2009. Additionally, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, Defense Minister Ehud Barak, Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni, as well as Chief of General Staff Lt.-Gen. Gabi Ashkenazi have all made clear that Israel's war aim is not to topple Hamas or redeploy long term troops back into Gaza. It has also been widely recognized that Kadima's 2005 so called "disengagement" of Gaza was economically, politically, and militarily necessary to continue consolidating Israel's expansionist programs in the West Bank. Reversing the "disengagement" would be at odds with virtually every sector of Israeli politics, aside from fascist extremist settler elements, a small minority.


[3] see note 1 for explanations, chronicling, and commentary on cease-fire agreements and the nature of violent exchange between Hamas and the IDF. For additional commentary, see note 12 the source cited in note 1 above

[4] "Hamas official blames rockets on collaborators," All Things Considered, NPR, December 29, 2008

[5] "Five sisters killed in Gaza as they slept" Macintyre & Ghazali, The Independent, December 30, 2008


[6] Hider, James and Hines, Nico "Israel warns attack on Gaza just begun" The Times, Dec. 30, 2008
(http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/
world/middle_east/article5418172.ece
)

[7] Bronner, Ethan "Israel Rejects Cease-Fire, but offers Gaza aid" New York Times, Dec. 31, 2008. Note: the proposed 48 hour cease-fire was meant to serve not only as a brief opportunity for allowing sufficient humanitarian goods into the Gaza Strip, but also potentially as a starting point or trial run for a longer, more sustainable truce.


[8] Ravid, Barak, "Livni: Cease-fire in Gaza would grant Hamas legitimacy," Ha'aretz, Jan. 1, 2009.


[9] For exhausting documentation of the "catastrophic" humanitarian effects of Israel's siege on Gaza, using mainstream sources and prestigious human rights groups see "The Facts about Israel's war on Gaza" by Adam Sheets
(www.creative-i.info/?p=3402)

[10] Boudreaux, Richard, "Israel indicates interest in Gaza truce proposal" Los Angeles Times, Dec. 31, 2008

[11] Couturier, Herve "UN Security Council takes up Arab resolution on Gaza," Yahoo! News, Jan. 1st, 2009

[12] As one of five permanent members of the UN Security Council the United States (along with Britain, France, China, and Russia) has veto power over any UN Security Council Resolution. To become legally binding, Security Council Resolutions must be unanimous among the permanent member states.


[13] "US Foils Draft UN Resolution to Stop Gaza Attacks" (http://news.antiwar.com/2009/01/01/us-
foils-draft-un-resolution-to-stop-gaza-attacks/
) All the sources for the details of the US rejection of the efforts to create a legally binding resolution to stop the violence are provided within the article in the form of direct links


[14] See note 11

[15] See LA Times article, note 10. In the article it notes that at the time of discussing the Dec. 31st 48 hour cease-fire proposal, at least 384 Palestinians had been killed by the Israeli aerial assault. At the time of writing (Jan. 4, 2009) at least 512 Palestinians (see note 23) have been killed. Had the US not blocked international diplomatic efforts to bring about a legally binding truce and end to the violence, perhaps those 128 Palestinians (largely civilians) that have died since then would still be alive. Sadly, we won't know.

[16] Lederer, Edith "US blocks UN Security Council action on Gaza," (AP) The Huffington Post, January 3rd, 2009.

[17] "US said to block UN Gaza statement," (AP) New York Times, Jan. 4, 2009.


[18] The Libyan Ambassador to the UN commented after the "closed council discussions" that the US "objected to any outcome" in the discussions. See note 16 above

[19] Amnesty International Press Release, Jan. 2, 2009 (www.amnestyusa.org)

[20] "Take Action: End Israel's attacks on Gaza" US Campaign to End the Occupation, Jan. 2, 2009 (http://www.endtheoccupation.org)


[21] Falk, Richard "Statement by Prof. Richard Falk, United Nations Special Rapporteur for Human Rights in the Occupied Territories," United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, Dec. 27, 2008. (http://www.unhchr.ch/huricane/huricane.nsf/
0/F1EC67EF7A498A30C125752D005D17F7?opendocument
)

[22] "The Leahy Law on Human Rights" (http://leahy.senate.gov/issues/humanrights/law.html) Note that the "Leahy Law," while claiming to be "an essential tool for protecting human rights" is staunchly undemocratic in that it "gives the Secretary of State the authority to determine when the law applies." On the other hand, the Department of Defense Appropriations Bill version of the "Leahy Law" states that "None of the funds made available by this Act may be used to support any training program involving a unit of the security forces of a foreign country if the Secretary of Defense has received credible information from the Department of State that the unit has committed a gross violation of human rights…" Given the fact that the US government, the State Department, the Secretary of Defense, and the Secretary of State have all surely been made aware of the widely documented "gross violation of human rights" committed by Israel, the US is clearly in violation of its own laws.

[23] "International Arms Sales Code of Conduct Act of 1999," (http://www.fas.org/asmp/campaigns/code/intlcodetext.html)


[24] "Fear, shortages for civilians caught in Gaza fight" (AP) MSNBC World News, Jan. 4, 2009, (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28493387/).

Leave A Comment
&
Share Your Insights

Comment Policy


 

Share This Article



Here is a unique chance to help this article to be read by thousands of people more. You just share it on your favourite social networking site. You can also email the article from here.



Disclaimer

 

Feed Burner
URL

Support Indy
Media

 

Search Our Archive

 



Our Site

Web