Showing posts with label Blockade. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Blockade. Show all posts

Sunday, August 28, 2011

Palestine Needs A Political Solution, Not Aid


Activists can often emphasise aid to Palestinians over fighting for their political freedom [GALLO/GETTY]


The Funds Recieved By The Palestinian Authorities Have Cast A Shadow Over The Liberation That People Are Demanding.

By Ben White
Last Modified: 16 Aug 2011 13:50
Courtesy Of "Al-Jazeera"


Part of the Israeli government's response to critics of its Gaza policy is to deny that there is a "humanitarian crisis" in the coastal territory. The implication being that participants in initiatives such as the flotilla are not concerned with "aid" but seek to cause a political "provocation". In a similar vein, recent news of the opening of a five star hotel in Gaza prompted Israel lobby group AIPAC to suggest that the flotilla's real aim was to "delegitimise Israel".

Rather than go into the specifics of Gaza's socio-economic plight - excellent resources can be found at Gisha/Gaza Gateway, PCHR-Gaza, and OCHA - it is important to emphasise a point missing from Israel's propaganda and also neglected by some rights activists: Palestinians are seeking liberation, not aid. The conditions Palestinians are suffering from have political origins and political solutions. This is not a natural disaster; for more than 40 years, Palestinians in the Gaza Strip and West Bank have been subject to a military regime shaped by the priorities of colonial settlement and apartheid control.

Pro-Israel lobby groups in the West like to explain Israel's Gaza policies as first and foremost a response to "terror", and aimed at preventing arms smuggling. Unexplained is why Israel almost entirely prevents Palestinians from exporting goods out of Gaza, why the military enforces a "buffer zone", targeting farmers and fishermen, and why Israel continues to separate Gaza from the West Bank in contravention of their designation as a "Single Territorial Unit".

Furthermore, Israeli officials are on record as framing the siege as a form of collective punishment. In 2008, then PM Ehud Olmert said that there was "no justification" for allowing "residents of Gaza to live normal lives while shells and rockets are fired from their streets and courtyards [at Israel]". The year before, an official in Israel's National Security Council said that the goal of the blockade was to "damage Hamas economic position in Gaza and buy time for an increase in Fatah support". In September 2007, Israeli newspaper Ha'aretz reported on the Israeli military's plans "to limit services to the civilian population in Gaza" in order "to compromise the ability of Hamas to govern".

So this is no secret. Israeli newspaper Ha'aretz noted in May that "the Israeli closure was directed mainly at merchandise, rather than at weapons smuggling". The New York Times wrote that Israel's "goal" meant deliberately "suppressing economic growth in Gaza". A Wikileaks cable described how US officials were repeatedly told by the Israelis that the intention is "to keep the Gazan economy on the brink of collapse without quite pushing it over the edge". Famously, in early 2006, an advisor to Israel's prime minister said that "the idea is to put the Palestinians on a diet".

In other words, the conditions facing Palestinians in the Gaza Strip are a deliberate result of Israeli policies. A similar logic is at work in the West Bank, where economic gains in recent years are built on the weak foundations of foreign aid and conditional Israeli "concessions".

Over the past 20 years, the Palestinian Authority has received around $20bn in donor funds, and in 2010, development assistance accounted for over one third of GDP. In fact, figures for 2009 show that humanitarian aid to the occupied Palestinian territories was US$1.3bn - just behind Sudan. The money disbursed in the oPt between 1993 and 2003 was "the highest sustained rate of per capita disbursements to an aid recipient in the world since the Second World War".

Thus, even after a (modest) "relaxing" of Israeli restrictions and years of Fayyadism and Tony Blair's pet projects, the World Bank can still say - like it did in April - that "the sustainability of economic growth" in the oPt "remains bleak". Aid, the body said, "is what keeps many Palestinians above the poverty line", and - according to the World Bank Country Director for the West Bank and Gaza: "[Israel's] closure regime remains the most substantial obstacle to Palestinian economic viability."

Pouring money into the coffers of a permanently transitional "Authority" is an alternative for Western and Arab powers to actually challenging Israel - enabling the latter "to maintain its occupation and apply security measures, which are the cause of the demise of the Palestinian economy, knowing that donors will relieve the human costs".

Aid not only subsidises Israel's colonial occupation, it also helps perpetuate "the situation in which the Palestinians are a nation of consumers who are unable to produce and unable to compete with the Israeli economy," according to the authors ofAid, Diplomacy And Facts On The Ground.

In the aftermath of the Nakba, Israel was keen for the expelled Palestinians to be seen as a "humanitarian", rather than a "political" issue. Now, the IDF Spokesperson proudly tweets about how many goods Israel "allows" into Gaza. There is no doubt that many Palestinians are in desperate need of assistance - whether in terms of medication, housing, or the basic financial provision to make ends meet. But human rights campaigners and activists should take care not to emphasise aid over freedom.

Ben White is a freelance journalist and writer, specialising in Palestine and Israel. His first book, Israeli Apartheid: A Beginner's Guide, was published by Pluto Press in 2009, receiving praise from the likes of Desmond Tutu, Nur Masalha and Ghada Karmi.

Friday, July 15, 2011

The Blockade Is The Problem

The Economic Pressure Of The Blockade Has Not Brought About Moderation In Hamas' Positions, and Stopping Protesters En Route To Gaza Will Not Change The Military Balance.

Haaretz Editorial
Published 02:21 04.07.11
Latest update 02:21 04.07.11
Courtesy Of "Haaretz Newspaper"

All signs indicate that the government of Israel has taken steps to receive the present Gaza flotilla in a manner much more systematic than last year's actions. Instead of relying entirely on the use of force, diplomatic measures were taken this time, and friendly states, first and foremost Greece, mobilized to help Israel and hampered the flotilla's departure. This diplomatic action proved that there are alternatives less violent than Israel's predilection for discharging armed soldiers to suppress civilian protests.

Yet the industriousness and creativity which Benjamin Netanyahu and his government have displayed merely underscore the folly that serves as the foundation of their policy. Israel removed its settlements and soldiers from the Gaza Strip six years ago, and withdrew to the Green Line in order to end its occupation of a strip of land densely populated by Palestinians. The move was taken so that they could conduct their own lives. Since then, it appears as though Israel became addicted to occupation and is unable to liberate itself, even after it declared a "pull-out." Hearing the cabinet's statement about how Israel will act "with determination" to stop the flotilla, as well as the defense minister's declaration yesterday about Israel's intention to "defend its borders," sufficed as evidence that the government still views the Gaza Strip as part of Israel, and insists on monitoring every entry and exit to and from Gaza.

The blockade, which was eased but not eliminated as a result of the fatal entanglement with the first flotilla, is unethical, and also mistaken on diplomatic grounds. Placing stiff restrictions on movement and commerce, in an embargo policy affecting one and a half million Palestinians, does not contribute anything. It only perpetuates the conflict and the hatred, and casts light on Israel as a cruel, occupying power.

The government justifies the blockade on Gaza by pointing to the hostility of Hamas, the organization which rules Gaza; Hamas, the government points out, refuses to recognize Israel and the Oslo Accords. In fact, the naval embargo is justifiable, in terms of the need to prevent the entry of heavy weaponry. Yet the economic pressure has not brought about moderation in Hamas' positions, and stopping protesters en route to Gaza will not change the military balance. Dealing with Hamas necessitates the use of diplomatic methods which might bring about change in the organization's approach; the military effort should concentrate on stopping the smuggling of arms.

Halting the second flotilla does not compensate for the total failure of Israel's policy toward Gaza.

Monday, August 02, 2010

Making Gaza A 'European ghetto'

By Lamis Andoni
UPDATED ON: Sunday, August 01, 2010
11:27 Mecca time, 08:27 GMT
Courtesy Of "Al-Jazeera"




Israel's foreign minister is advocating international monitoring of the Gaza Strip [GALLO/GETTY]


While most Israeli leaders are resistant to fully lifting the blockade of Gaza, Avigdor Lieberman, the right-wing foreign minister, is advocating that Israel abandon the Strip to international monitoring and economic rehabilitation.

The proposal, recently leaked to the Israeli press, does not amount to freeing Gaza but rather to placing it under European sea and land inspections and a reconstruction plan.

If implemented, it will permanently sever the Gaza Strip from the West Bank, transforming the Strip into an internationally supervised ghetto - with the dual purpose of ensuring Israeli security and reigning in the Palestinian population.

The isolation of Gaza would further undermine the vision of a contiguous Palestinian state or any form of equitable coexistence between Palestinians and Israelis. It would also divide those families with members in the West Bank, creating a permanent schism in Palestinian society and deepening the sense of fragmentation.

Hamas would effectively be ruling a development project with no meaningful ties to the rest of the Palestinian people.


The Gaza Burden


Lieberman's plan would effectively turn the Strip into a European protectorate [AFP]
Lieberman's proposal is interlinked with the calls by his right-wing Yisrael Beituna party for the eviction of Israel's Arab minority and Palestinians in the West Bank and East Jerusalem as it serves the same vision of an exclusively Jewish state and the elimination of the national rights and aspirations of the Palestinian people.

As such it cannot be fully dismissed - not only because Yisrael Beituna is a partner in the current government, with 15 seats in the 120-seat Knesset, but also because Israeli leaders have previously sought to isolate Gaza and its population.

While Israel has always firmly held on to its direct occupation of the West Bank - and sought to annex parts of it - in contrast, many Israeli leaders consider - and have treated - the Gaza Strip as a burden.

In Israel, the West Bank and Jerusalem are presented and perceived as part of the historic homeland of Israel, with many Israelis calling the West Bank by its biblical name, Judea and Samaria. Israeli leaders have always wanted to reach a deal with the Palestinians over the West Bank and Jerusalem - partly to legitimate the annexation of East Jerusalem and parts of the West Bank.

But Gaza presents a demographic nightmare for Israel. As one of the most densely populated areas in the world - about 1.6 million people in 360 square kilometres - it is almost impossible for Israel to transfer enough settlers to the Strip to ensure a Jewish majority.

In 1992, during the first intifada, Yitzhak Rabin, the late Israeli prime minister, expressed his wish that Gaza would just "sink into the sea". A year later, convinced that Israel could not continue to control the Palestinian people, he signed the Oslo Accords with Yasser Arafat, the late Palestine Liberation Organisation leader.

But Ariel Sharon, the former Israeli prime minister who remains in a persistent vegetative state after suffering a stroke in 2006, found a way of transforming Gaza from an Israeli burden into a Palestinian problem. In 2005, he ordered a unilateral withdrawal of Israeli troops and the evacuation of 7,000 settlers from the Gaza Strip, without giving up Israeli control of Gaza's sea and land crossings.

Fuelling The Rift


Internal divisions have helped to sever Gaza from the Palestinian entity [GALLO/GETTY]
The former general, who did not believe in dealing with the Palestinians, did not coordinate this with the Palestinian Authority (PA), thus successfully widening the already growing rift between Hamas and Fatah.

Hamas, who five months earlier had won parliamentary elections, hailed the "liberation" of the Strip as "a victory for armed resistance", contrasting its "success" in freeing Gaza with the "failure" of Fatah's negotiations with Israel.

But Gaza has, in effect, remained under Israeli occupation, enabling Israel to impose a sea and land blockade for the past three years and to further weaken the ties between the Strip and the West Bank.

Israel would not have been able to achieve this without Palestinian assistance - for while Israel fuelled the division, Hamas and Fatah failed dismally to maintain national unity.

Hamas' military takeover of Gaza in 2007 - motivated in part by its fear that Fatah would try to overrun it with American help - effectively turned the West Bank and Gaza Strip into two separate entities with different governments.

Seen in this context Lieberman's plan would be the completion of what Sharon started and Palestinian divisions helped to augment - the physical and political severing of the Gaza Strip from the Palestinian entity.

European Protectorate


IN depth
More from Lamis Andoni:
  PA 'must not bow to blackmail'
  New tensions test old allies
  Jordan is not Palestine
  The two faces of Lebanon
  Erdogan 'is no Gamal Abdel Nasser'
  Time to end, not 'ease' the siege
  The myth of Israeli morality
  Abbas must stand by his decision
  What now for Fatah?
  Empowering the powerless
Lieberman's proposal includes several elements, which together or separately pose a serious threat to the Palestinians and the cause of peace.

The plan proposes that Israel seal its border with Gaza and leave it to the European Union (EU) to check Gaza-bound vessels for weapons in Cyprus or Greece. It also calls for a European military force to be stationed on the Israel-Gaza border and for European military assistance in preventing weapon smuggling.

It also calls for the EU to finance the building of a new power plant, a seawater desalination plant and a wastewater purification plant to end Gaza's dependence on Israel for electricity and water.

The international community, according to the plan, will be required to support the construction of homes for Gazans, presumably including those destroyed by Israel during its war on the Gaza Strip in 2009.

So while Gaza might become more prosperous under such a plan, it would essentially be transformed into a European protectorate and placed under the military and financial control of a European monitoring body that would guarantee Israeli "security needs" are met while keeping Gazans caged in their small strip of land.

Breaking Palestinian Will


Gazans might witness economic improvements at the cost of freedoms and aspirations [EPA]
This proposal not only limits the vision of Palestinian statehood, but is also designed to break the will of the Palestinian people - reducing them to a population consumed by the immediate needs of living at the expense of their freedoms and aspirations.

While it might provide a deceptive sense of peace and calm for Israelis in the short-term, and temporarily subdue the Gazan population, it will ultimately obstruct chances for a viable, long-term peace and lead to further hostilities in both the Gaza Strip and the West Bank.

Gazans may witness an improvement in their economic status, but this will be at the expense of their freedoms and aspirations, which cannot be satisfied by prosperity alone. Gazans are part of a larger nation and any attempt to deny this will only further radicalise Palestinians.

The proposal may serve Lieberman's right-wing, racist agenda, in which Palestinians are viewed not as people with human rights and national aspirations but as an obstacle to be either marginalised, or better still, removed. But it will permanently submit Palestinians to the mercy of others and irreversibly alter any vision for peace.

But the Palestinians are not guiltless or powerless in this - it is in their hands to achieve the Palestinian national reconciliation that would make such proposals meaningless.

Lamis Andoni is an analyst and commentator on Middle Eastern and Palestinian affairs.


The views expressed in this article are the author's own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera's editorial policy.

Monday, June 28, 2010

Embargoes & Blockades Used As Methods Of Warfare

Project For Pitiless Centuries

By Felicity Arbuthnot
June 17, 2010
Courtesy Of "Global Research"

"I listen to the blackbird. A song for those who died.

Now it is still all left to do. So as not to lose sight of the goal, which is to lift the brutal blockade of Gaza. That will happen.

Beyond that goal, others are waiting. Demolishing a system of apartheid takes time. But not an eternity." (Swedish Author Henning Mankell, Mavi Marmara Survivor, diary entry, 2nd June 2010.)

In 1990, in arguably some of the most chilling lines written in recent history, Gary Clyde Hufbauer, et al., wrote, regarding embargoes, in an advisory document for the George H.W. Bush Administration: ": ... We present our short list of 'do's and don'ts' for the architects of a sanctions policy designed to change the politics of the target country ... (3) Do pick on the weak and helpless ...(5) Do impose the maximum cost on your target ..." (1) On Hiroshima Day 1990, the most comprehensive embargo ever imposed by the UN., was imposed on Iraq.

This silent, comprehensive weapon of mass destruction is increasingly used as a method of warfare, often under a supine United Nations, arm twisted by the US, or on behalf of the friends it has left. The men, women and children who are victims of this unique deprivation, denying, or debilitating all life's norms, are thus targeted by a United Nations established to :

" ... reaffirm human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small ...

to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom ... the promotion of the economic and social advancement of all peoples ... "

As Hufbauer pointed out: one hundred and seventy cases of economic sanctions have been imposed since World War 1. Fifty of these cases were launched in the 1990's.

Since might is, as ever, right, only target countries are required to scrupulously observe international legalities. In reality, what is demanded of them is a bewildering array of moving goal posts.One demand is complied with, only for another, formerly unmentioned, to hove in to view.The marauding powerful, however, ride rough-shod over all.

Geneva Protocol 1, Article 54, is unequivocal as to the illegitimacy of laying siege to populations:

1: "Starvation as a method of warfare is prohibited.

2: It is prohibited to attack, destroy, remove or render useless objects indispensable to the civilian population ... foodstuffs, crops, livestock, drinking water installations and supplies and irrigation works, for the specific purpose of denying them for their sustenance value to the civilian population."

Iraqis, as the relentless, embargoed years ground on, blamed Israel. "Israel is behind this ..." was the repeated refrain. Since Israel is blamed for near all the Middle East's woes, it was a claim I, as other correspondents and visitors, dismissed repeatedly, as a conspiracy too far, to be met with a pitying look, which translated: "There's stupid and - there's really stupid."

Less than four years after imposition of the Iraq embargo, in Kuala Lumper, in May 1994, The Malaysian Conference against Economic Sanctions on Iraq, issued a Resolution which noted that the "severest economic sanctions ever witnessed in (UN) history" had been imposed "on Iraq." (2) The Resolution continued :

"... these murderous economic sanctions against Iraq already claimed at least 400,000 lives, many of them children and women, while hundreds of thousands of others suffer from malnutrition, disease and hunger, brought about by inadequate medical facilities and rapidly deteriorating health conditions." Hufbauer's "weak and helpless" were paying the "maximum cost", at the rate of over 100,000 a year, in the name of: "We the people of the United Nations."

The Kuala Lumper Conference also recorded, that Iraq (as Palestine now) was "deprived of scientific, medical, educational and cultural materials." Further, inspite of: "Iraq's compliance with all relevant Security Council Resolutions (sanctions continued) under the influence of the United States and its ally Great Britain ..." and that the real aim of the embargo was: " ... to control the immense oil wealth of Iraq and the Gulf region (and to bring about) "a power structure in the region which favours the United States, the West and Israel ..."

Exactly two years later, in May 1996, Madeleine Albright, then US., Ambassador to the the UN., was asked (on "60 Minutes"`) by Lesley Stahl : " We have heard that more than half a million children have died ... more children than died in Hiroshima ... and you know, is the price worth it?"

In unhesitating, pitiless, words, Albright, herself a grandmother, unforgettably replied: "I think this is a very hard choice, but the price, we think the price is worth it."

Comparing the blockade of Gaza, by Israel, with that of Iraq, similarities are chillingly stark. Iraq, seventy percent reliant on imports from fertilizer to pharmaceuticals, building materials, to medical maintenance, was bombed back "to a pre-industrial age" in 1991. All wherewithal, for not alone rebuilding was denied, but foods, soft drinks, paper, books, newspapers, toiletries, pens, pencils, blackboards, toys, musical instruments, sheet music, trade and professional literature (including the New England Journal of Medicine and the Lancet) ping pong balls. Items hardly "dual use" to morph in to weapons of mass destruction - or even play yard destruction.

The schools for blind and deaf children closed - specially adapted items for their needs, as braille books, hearing aids and the batteries for them, also vetoed.

Requests for ambulances, bombed in 1991, or collapsed for want of spare parts, were also refused. When, after a decade, a few were allowed in, the usual built-in means of communication were denied - incase they were diverted for "military use." The weakest and most helpless, were indeed targeted, at the maximum cost. Mr Hufbauer's words were followed to - and beyond - the letter.

In Gaza, largely destroyed in December-January 2008/9 by Israeli bombardment, goods blocked by Israel (3) include all rebuilding materials (cement, iron, wood, tar, plaster) tea, coffee, sage, cardamom, cumin, coriander, ginger, jam, halva, vinegar, nutmeg, sweets, chocolate, fruit preserves, seeds, sage, cardamom, cumin, coriander, ginger, jam, halva, vinegar, nutmeg, chocolate, fruit preserves, seeds and nuts, biscuits and sweets, potato chips, gas for soft drinks, dried fruit, fresh meat, plaster, tar, wood for construction, cement, iron, glucose, industrial salt, plastic/glass/metal containers, industrial margarine, tarpaulin sheets for huts, fabric for clothing, light bulbs, shoes, sheets, toys, crayons, mattresses, blankets, shampoo, conditioner. All infact, items formerly vetoed for Iraq.

As Iraq, musical instruments and strings for them are also banned. Are Brahms and Beethoven, the haunting, or joyous sound of the piano, violin, flute, lute and its Middle East musical relative, the oud, now a terrorist act?

Hearing aids and batteries for the children at the school for the deaf are denied. As Iraq, water remains a biological weapon through lack of purifying chemicals and parts to repair. Schools, hospitals, sewage plants, mosques and homes continue to lie in ruins for want of construction materials.

The Israeli Human Rights organization, B'tselem in a 45 page Report released this week, notes: 95% of factories are closed and 93% of water is polluted. Article 54 of the Geneva Convention, like the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, lie on history's bonfire.

The majority of Iraq's livestock was killed in the bombing, with all commercial chicken production targeted and destroyed. Importation of livestock was vetoed. In Palestine, denied importation are: horses, donkeys, goats, cattle, chickens - and heaters for commercial chicken production. Along with planters for saplings. If fishermen are not shot by Israeli patrol boats, they are anyway denied fishing nets and fishing rods - as Iraq.

In Iraq, US and British 'planes, (illegally) patrolling the farcically named (by them) "safe havens" of the north and south (1992-2003) routinely dropped flares on harvested wheat and barley, incinerating the precious crops. In Palestine, women harvesting wheat have been attacked by Israeli forces, using live ammunition, as this is being written. Destruction of Palestinian farms, olive and citrus groves, commercial flower fields, vegetables and apricot groves, are repeatedly recorded.

Surgeon David Halpin, founder of UK., Charity, Dove and Dolphin (www.doveanddolphin.org.uk) explains the condition goods arrive in from the port of Ashdod, when finally delivered to Gaza. One Dove and Dolphin consignment, taken by ship via Cyprus, included numerous boxes of donated clothes, carefully laundered, ironed by his wife - and packed by them both over many weeks - medical catheters, computers, sewing and knitting machines, basis for the genesis of a few home businesses.

They sat on the docks as Ashdod from August until December. When finally delivered the plastic catheters had perished, and none of the computers, sewing and knitting machines worked. The several dozen boxes containing the lovingly laundered, folded, clothes, had been opened by the Israeli authorities with box cutters, shredding many of them beyond repair.

Wheelchairs are finally delivered - without the batteries to operate them. Machiavellian mendacity.

Since the 31st May massacre on the Mavi Marmara, Israel announced an "easing" of the Gaza blockade. Were Gaza's plight not a gaping wound on the face of humanity, this pathetic attempt at international public relations would be comical. The territory, in need of intensive care, can now import such luxuries as shaving cream, jam - and potato chips. Rebuilding materials to begin repair of last year's blitz, still blocked, as they might be used: ".. to build bunkers." Whether true or not, the sane would think they may well need them. Ironically, as David Halpin points out, Palestinians with an (Israel granted) permit by to live in Jerusalem, are required by law, to build a bunker in their homes, at a sum of around $20,000 - a regional fortune.

The catch all phrase, that building materials "might be used for military purposes", is also straight out of the siege of Iraq handbook, as is: "Israel's blockade of Gaza, includes a complex and ever changing list of goods ..."

The world, arguably, is regressing. Geoff Simons, writes that the "..most celebrated early (blockade) example ... was the Megrarian decree in ancient Greece, enacted by Pericles, in 432 BC., (responding) to the kidnapping of three Aspasian women."

The Megrarians " .. denied the necessities of life ... were spurned (and it was declared) they will not be on our land, in our market, on the sea .." (4) The disputed facts regarding the alleged taking, by Hamas, of IDF soldier, Gilad Shilat, nearly two and a half millenia later, is a given reason for Gaza's peoples collective punishment.

Simons further analogy, related to Iraq, is of a twelfth century English siege, when, if water running out did not result in capitulation: " ... cutting off supplies and starving the garrison ..." became the option. In the case of Iraq, as Gaza, the "garrison", becomes the country.

Two final comparisons are worth noting. In 1996, Iraq's population had hit a humanitarian low of enormity. The so called UN "Oil for Food" deal, had been agreed a year earlier, thus aid agencies had withdrawn, but as UN games continued, no moneys came though. With Iraq's bank accounts frozen, worldwide, deprivation ruled - in a country sitting on oil reserves which some experts still maintain are possibly the world's greatest.

The Iraqi authorities gave permission for a flight of humanitarian provision offered by USAID. On returning to the United States, media outlets were regailed with stories of how these "aid givers" had found stories of the embargo's deprivations false, Iraq awash with money and goods, and a joyous population, which largely partied in expensive night spots, until the early hours.

This month, Israel, under pressure after the flotilla bloodbath and an international population increasingly checking that the bar codes on items in their shopping do not include "729", that of Israel, produced for the world's media, "menus" from Gaza restaurants, mouth watering, delicious fare, which proved the siege of Gaza was a non-happening. As women continue to give birth at Israeli manned check-points, and normality denied, farcically, promoter Shuki Weiss, declared the pulling out of a number of international acts, from appearances in Israel, in protest at Gaza's treatment: "cultural terrorism."

"I am full of both sorrow and pain in light of the fact that our repeated attempts to present quality acts and festivals in Israel have increasingly been falling victim to what I can only describe as a form of cultural terrorism which is targeting Israel ... " he wrote.

Has some dreadful psychological ague struck a country in which such hopes of their own safe haven lay? Sometimes the smaller actions speak louder than the near incomprehensible.

When author Henning Mankell, having survived the Mavi Marmara, finally boarded a flight home, he wrote:

"On board the plane, the air hostess gives me a pair of socks. Because mine were stolen by one of the commandos who attacked the boat I was on.

The myth of the brave and utterly infallible Israeli soldier is shattered. Now we can add: they are common thieves. For I was not the only one to be robbed of my money, credit card, clothes, MP3 player, laptop; the same happened to many others on the same ship as me, which was attacked early one morning by masked Israeli soldiers, who were, thus, in fact nothing other than lying pirates."

Gaza has natural gas, Iraq oil. Perhaps it is not alone socks and personal belongings which fall prey to "piracy", but, as further sanctions are slammed on another oil rich state, Iran, within the last week, countries fall prey to political piracy as well.

Notes

1. Gary Clyde Hufbauer, Jeffrey J. Schott and Kimberly Ann Elliot, Economic Sanctions Reconsidered: History and Current Policy (Washington, D.C.: Institute for international Economics, 1990, p.114.) Quoted in Geoff Simons : "The Scourging of Iraq", MacMillan, updated 1998.

2. Quotes referenced in Geoff Simons invaluable resource, as above.

3. http://www.gisha.org/UserFiles/File/publications/Products060610_Eng.pdf

4. Simons, as above.

5. http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=19680


Felicity Arbuthnot is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Global Research Articles by Felicity Arbuthnot

Saturday, May 29, 2010

The Blockade & Starvation Of Germany

By Ralph Raico
Friday, May 07, 2010
Courtesy Of "The Ludwig von Mises Institute"

[The Politics of Hunger: Allied Blockade of Germany, 1915-1919 • By C. Paul Vincent • Ohio University Press (1985) • 185 pages. This review was first published in the Review of Austrian Economics 3, no. 1.]

The Politics  of Hunger: Allied Blockade of Germany, 1915-1919

States throughout history have persisted in severely encumbering and even prohibiting international trade. Seldom, however, can the consequences of such an effort — the obvious immediate results as well as the likely long-range ones — have been as devastating as in the case of the Allied (really, British) naval blockade of Germany in the First World War. This hunger blockade belongs to the category of forgotten state atrocities of the twentieth century. (Similarly, who now remembers the tens of thousands of Biafrans starved to death during the war of independence through the policy of the Nigerian generals supported by the British government?) Thus, C. Paul Vincent, a trained historian and currently library director at Keene State College in New Hampshire, deserves our gratitude for recalling it to memory in this scholarly and balanced study.

Vincent tellingly recreates the atmosphere of jubilation that surrounded the outbreak of the war that was truly the fateful watershed of the twentieth century. While Germans were overcome by an almost mystical sense of community (the economist Emil Lederer declared that now Gesellschaft [Society] had been transformed into Gemeinschaft [Community]), the British gave themselves over to their own patented form of cant. The socialist and positivist utopian H.G. Wells, for instance, gushed: "I find myself enthusiastic for this war against Prussian militarism. … Every sword that is drawn against Germany is a sword drawn for peace." Wells later coined the mendacious slogan "the war to end war."

As the conflict continued, the state-socialist current that had been building for decades overflowed into massive government intrusions into every facet of civil society, especially the economy. The German Kriegssozialismus that became a model for the Bolsheviks on their assumption of power is well known, but, as Vincent points out: "the British achieved control over their economy unequaled by any of the other belligerent states."

Everywhere state seizure of social power was accompanied and fostered by propaganda drives unparalleled in history to that time. In this respect, the British were very much more successful than the Germans, and their masterly portrayal of the "Huns" as the diabolical enemies of civilization, perpetrators of every imaginable sort of "frightfulness,"[1] served to mask the single worst example of barbarism in the whole war, aside from the Armenian massacres.

This was what Lord Devlin frankly calls "the starvation policy" directed against the civilians of the Central Powers (particularly Germany),[2] the plan that aimed, as Winston Churchill, First Lord of the Admiralty in 1914 and one of the framers of the scheme, admitted, to "starve the whole population — men, women, and children, old and young, wounded and sound — into submission."[3]

The British policy was in contravention of international law on two major points.[4] First, in regard to the character of the blockade, it violated the Declaration of Paris of 1856, which Britain itself had signed, and which, among other things, permitted "close" but not "distant" blockades. A belligerent was allowed to station ships near the three-mile limit to stop traffic with an enemy's ports; it was not allowed simply to declare areas of the high seas comprising the approaches to the enemy's coast to be off-limits.

This is what Britain did on November 3,1914, when it announced, allegedly in response to the discovery of a German ship unloading mines off the English coast, that henceforth the whole of the North Sea was a military area, which would be mined and into which neutral ships proceeded "at their own peril." Similar measures in regard to the English Channel insured that neutral ships would be forced to put into British ports for sailing instructions or to take on British pilots. During this time they could easily be searched, obviating the requirement of searching them on the high seas.

This introduces the second and even more complex question: that of contraband. Briefly, following the lead of the Hague Conference of 1907, the Declaration of London of 1909 considered food to be "conditional contraband," that is, subject to interception and capture only when intended for the use of the enemy's military forces. This was part of the painstaking effort, extending over generations, to strip war of its most savage aspects by establishing a sharp distinction between combatants and noncombatants. Among the corollaries of this was that food not intended for military use could legitimately be transported to a neutral port, even if it ultimately found its way to the enemy's territory. The House of Lords had refused its consent to the Declaration of London, which did not, consequently, come into full force. Still, as the US government pointed out to the British at the start of the war, the declaration's provisions were in keeping "with the generally recognized principles of international law." As an indication of this, the British admiralty had incorporated the Declaration into its manuals.

The British quickly began to tighten the noose around Germany by unilaterally expanding the list of contraband and by putting pressure on neutrals (particularly the Netherlands, since Rotterdam more than any other port was the focus of British concerns over the provisioning of the Germans) to acquiesce in its violations of the rules. In the case of the major neutral, the United States, no pressure was needed. With the exception of the beleaguered secretary of state, William Jennings Bryan, who resigned in 1915, the American leaders were amazingly sympathetic to the British point of view. For example, after listening to complaints from the Austrian ambassador on the illegality of the British blockade, Colonel House, Wilson's intimate advisor on foreign affairs, noted in his diary: "He forgets to add that England is not exercising her power in an objectionable way, for it is controlled by a democracy."[5]

The Germans responded to the British attempt to starve them into submission by declaring the seas around the British Isles a "war zone." Now the British openly announced their intention of impounding any and all goods originating in or bound for Germany. Although the British measures were lent the air of reprisals for German actions, in reality the great plan was hatched and pursued independently of anything the enemy did or refrained from doing:

The War Orders given by the Admiralty on 26 August [1914] were clear enough. All food consigned to Germany through neutral ports was to be captured and all food consigned to Rotterdam was to be presumed consigned to Germany. … The British were determined on the starvation policy, whether or not it was lawful.[6]

The effects of the blockade were soon being felt by the German civilians. In June 1915, bread began to be rationed. "By 1916," Vincent states, "the German population was surviving on a meager diet of dark bread, slices of sausage without fat, an individual ration of three pounds of potatoes per week, and turnips," and that year the potato crop failed. The author's choice of telling quotations from eye witnesses helps to bring home to the reader the reality of a famine such as had not been experienced in Europe outside of Russia since Ireland's travail in the 1840s. As one German put it: "Soon the women who stood in the pallid queues before shops spoke more about their children's hunger than about the death of their husbands."

An American correspondent in Berlin wrote:

Once I set out for the purpose of finding in these food-lines a face that did not show the ravages of hunger. … Four long lines were inspected with the closest scrutiny. But among the 300 applicants for food there was not one who had had enough to eat for weeks. In the case of the youngest women and children the skin was drawn hard to the bones and bloodless. Eyes had fallen deeper into the sockets. From the lips all color was gone, and the tufts of hair which fell over the parchmented faces seemed dull and famished — a sign that the nervous vigor of the body was departing with the physical strength.

Vincent places the German decision in early 1917 to resume and expand submarine warfare against merchant shipping — which provided the Wilson administration with its final pretext for entering the war — in the framework of collapsing German morale. The German U-boat campaign proved unsuccessful and, in fact, by bringing the United States into the conflict, aggravated the famine.

"Soon the women who stood in the pallid queues before shops spoke more about their children's hunger than about the death of their husbands."

"Wilson ensured that every loophole left open by the Allies for the potential reprovisioning of Germany was closed … even the importation of foodstuffs by neutrals was prevented until December 1917." Rations in Germany were reduced to about one thousand calories a day. By 1918, the mortality rate among civilians was 38 percent higher than in 1913; tuberculosis was rampant, and, among children, so were rickets and edema. Yet, when the Germans surrendered in November 1918, the armistice terms, drawn up by Clemenceau, Foch, and Pétain, included the continuation of the blockade until a final peace treaty was ratified.

In December 1918, the National Health Office in Berlin calculated that 763,000 persons had died as a result of the blockade by that time; the number added to this in the first months of 1919 is unknown.[7] In some respects, the armistice saw the intensification of the suffering, since the German Baltic coast was now effectively blockaded and German fishing rights in the Baltic annulled.

One of the most notable points in Vincent's account is how the perspective of "zoological" warfare, later associated with the Nazis, began to emerge from the maelstrom of ethnic hatred engendered by the war. In September 1918, one English journalist, in an article titled "The Huns of 1940," wrote hopefully of the tens of thousands of Germans now in the wombs of famished mothers who "are destined for a life of physical inferiority."[8] The "famous founder of the Boy Scouts, Robert Baden-Powell, naively expressed his satisfaction that the German race is being ruined; though the birth rate, from the German point of view, may look satisfactory, the irreparable harm done is quite different and much more serious."

Against the genocidal wish-fantasies of such thinkers and the heartless vindictiveness of Entente politicians should be set the anguished reports from Germany by British journalists and, especially, army officers, as well as by the members of Herbert Hoover's American Relief Commission. Again and again they stressed, besides the barbarism of the continued blockade, the danger that famine might well drive the Germans to Bolshevism. Hoover was soon persuaded of the urgent need to end the blockade, but wrangling among the Allies, particularly French insistence that the German gold stock could not be used to pay for food, since it was earmarked for reparations, prevented action.

In early March 1919, General Herbert Plumer, commander of the British Army of Occupation, informed Prime Minister Lloyd George that his men were begging to be sent home; they could no longer stand the sight of "hordes of skinny and bloated children pawing over the offal" from the British camps. Finally, the Americans and British overpowered French objections, and at the end of March, the first food shipments began arriving in Hamburg. But it was only in July, after the formal German signature to the Treaty of Versailles, that the Germans were permitted to import raw materials and export manufactured goods.

Besides the direct effects of the British blockade, there are the possible indirect and much more damaging effects to consider. A German child who was ten years old in 1918, and who survived, was twenty-two in 1930. Vincent raises the question of whether the miseries and suffering from hunger in the early, formative years help account to some degree for the enthusiasm of German youth for Nazism later on. Drawing on a 1971 article by Peter Loewenberg, he argues in the affirmative.[9] Loewenberg's work, however, is a specimen of psychohistory and his conclusions are explicitly founded on psychoanalytic doctrine.

Although Vincent does not endorse them unreservedly, he leans toward explaining the later behavior of the generation of German children scarred by the war years in terms of an emotional or nervous impairment of rational thought. Thus, he refers to "the ominous amalgamation of twisted emotion and physical degradation, which was to presage considerable misery for Germany and the world" and which was produced in large part by the starvation policy.

But is such an approach necessary? It seems perfectly plausible to seek for the mediating connections between exposure to starvation (and the other torments caused by the blockade) and later fanatical and brutal behavior in commonly intelligible (though, of course, not thereby justifiable) human attitudes generated by the early experiences. These attitudes would include hatred, deep-seated bitterness and resentment, and a disregard for the value of life of "others" because the value of one's "own" life had been so ruthlessly disregarded.

A starting point for such an analysis could be Theodore Abel's 1938 work, Why Hitler Came into Power: An Answer Based on the Original Life Stories of Six Hundred of His Followers. Loewenberg's conclusion after studying this work is that "the most striking emotional affect expressed in the Abel autobiographies are the adult memories of intense hunger and privation from childhood."[10] An interpretation that would accord the hunger blockade its proper place in the setting for the rise of Nazi savagery has no particular need for a psychoanalytical or physiological underpinning.

Occasionally Vincent's views on issues marginal to his theme are distressingly stereotyped: he appears to accept an extreme Fischer-school interpretation of guilt for the origin of the war as adhering to the German government alone, and, concerning the fortunes of the Weimar Republic, he states: "That Germany lost this opportunity is one of the tragedies of the twentieth century. … Too often the old socialists seemed almost terrified of socialization."

The cliché that, if only heavy industry had been socialized in 1919, then German democracy could have been saved, was never very convincing.[11] It is proving less so as research begins to suggest that it was precisely the Weimar system of massive state intervention in the labor markets and the advanced welfare-state institutions (the most "progressive" of their time) that so weakened the German economy that it collapsed in the face of the Great Depression.[12] This collapse, particularly the staggering unemployment that accompanied it, has long been considered by scholars to have been a major cause of the Nazi rise to power in 1930–33.

These are, however, negligible points in view of the service Vincent has performed both in reclaiming from oblivion past victims of a murderous state policy and in deepening our understanding of twentieth-century European history. There has recently occurred in the Federal Republic of Germany a "fight of historians" over whether the Nazi slaughter of the European Jews should be viewed as "unique" or placed within the context of other mass murders, specifically the Stalinist atrocities against the Ukrainian peasantry.[13] Vincent's work suggests the possibility that the framework of the discussion ought to be widened more than any of the participants has so far proposed.

Sunday, August 16, 2009

Gaza Blockade Violated Rules Of War

Source: The Associated Press
Published: August 14, 2009, 13:20
Courtesy Of The Gulf News

Geneva: UN human rights chief Navi Pillay has accused Israel of violating the rules of war with its blockade stopping people and goods moving in and out of the Gaza strip.

Pillay says in a 34-page report on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict that the blockade amounts to collective punishment of civilians under the Geneva Conventions.

She says Israel should ease restrictions on Gaza immediately and move toward a complete lifting of the blockade and other restrictions.

The UN high commissioner for human rights said Friday that both Palestinians and Israelis committed breaches of international humanitarian law in their war last December and January.