Antony Loewenstein

General Patreaus at last comes clean about what they can expect from the surge that was supposed to be working so well.

America’s top general in Iraq, David Petreaus, has noted that the “surge” has achieved “modest progress,” but is not convinced it will bring lasting success, reports the Washington Post.

And he has some advice for the Iraqis:

“I don’t think you’re ever going to get rid of all the car bombs,” conceded Petraeus to the Post. “Iraq is going to have to learn — as did, say, Northern Ireland — to live with some degree of sensational attacks.”

So there you have it. No one said liberation doesn’t come at a cost.

At least there’s a bright side.

“A more realistic goal, he said, but one that has eluded U.S. and Iraqi forces, is to prevent the bombers from causing ‘horrific damage,’” continues the article.

So you see, if everything goes according to plan, the bombs gong off will only be the ones that kill a handful of Iraqis at a time.  See how considerate we are?

The important thing is that we got rid of Saddam right?

Saturday’s report in the Washington Post by Josh White, describes a secret report, completed in June 2006, on the conduct of the 2nd Marine Division in the Haditha massacre:

Maj. Gen. Eldon A. Bargewell’s 104-page report on Haditha is scathing in its criticism of the Marines’ actions, from the enlisted men who were involved in the shootings on Nov. 19, 2005, to the two-star general who commanded the 2nd Marine Division in Iraq at the time. Bargewell’s previously undisclosed report, obtained by The Washington Post, found that officers may have willfully ignored reports of the civilian deaths to protect themselves and their units from blame. Though Bargewell found no specific coverup, he concluded that there also was no interest at any level in investigating allegations of a massacre.

White reports that Bargewell’s analysis shows that the chain of command consistently misrepresented or refused to investigate the massacre:

Then, no one asked any further questions, Bargewell wrote, despite gruesome photographs circulating among junior Marines that showed that women and children had been killed in their beds. He cited several opportunities to investigate that were not taken, such as when more than $40,000 in condolence payments went to Iraqis after the killings.

There are certain benefits that come with being judge and jury in your own trial, while being immune from the laws of the land you’re occupying.

Military prosecutors have granted immunity to at least seven Marines connected to an attack that killed 24 Iraqi civilians in Haditha, the deadliest criminal case against U.S. troops in the Iraq war.

Firedoglake has a solid theory:

Now, I don’t know the conditions of the legal case being built against the Marines in question but the idea that 7 or 8 of the alleged participants in the massacre including the commanding officer on the scene have been granted immunity certainly suggests yet another move to deny responsibility for the actions of our military. When will we see an investigation into the continuing slaughter of Iraqi civilians by US troops and the apparent inability or unwillingness of the US military command to enforce the Fourth Geneva Convention?

Then again, how can you expect US troops to treat Iraqi’s with any respect or regards for their human rights when female members of the military live in fear of being raped:

On March 18, the New York Times ran a lengthy cover story in its heralded Sunday Magazine about widespread sexual harassment and rape of female U.S. soldiers by their male colleagues in Iraq. Written by a reporter, Sarah Corbett, the article combined the available official studies, and statements of specialists, with poignant narratives by women soldiers whom she interviewed intensively.

I can’t for the life of me figure ut why those pesky Iraqis still reject our Western values.

It appears more and more Israelis are becoming disenchanted with Israel and looking for greener pastures elsewhere.

Meanwhile the Maariv newspaper reported that approximately a quarter of the Israeli population was considering emigration.

Almost half of the country’s young people were thinking of leaving the country, the report said. Their reasons included dissatisfaction with the government, the education system, a lack of confidence in the political ruling class and concern over the security situation.

The corruption on the Olmert government, who’s approval rating is even worse than that of George Bush, has become par for the course.

Israeli Finance Minister Abraham Hirchson stepped down temporarily on Sunday to battle allegations of fraud and embezzlement at a previous job.

Who could blame the youth for being concerned over the security situation?  Syria have been bending over backwards to establish a peaceful agreement with Israel, yet they have been rebuffed at every turn.

No tangible evidence exists, Israel told the U.S., that Damascus is planning an all-out war with Israel. But it is believed that Damascus has concluded that Israel might respond to various Syrian actions and that would be the cause of a full-blown confrontation.

Such an Israeli response might come following Syrian assistance to Hezbollah or Palestinian terror organizations like Islamic Jihad. Damascus would have no choice but to respond with a more extensive operation.

In other words, Israel is prepared to use any event as a causes belli to start a fight with Syria, most likely due to pressure from Washington.

It’s not without irony that Brandeis University, founded in 1948 as a nonsectarian university under the sponsorship of the American Jewish community, is fast becoming a beacon of enlightenment and open debate with regards to Israel and the Palestinian situation.

In January, Jimmy Carter was invited to give a speech about his latest book, “Palestine Peace Not Apartheid,” which urges Israel to turn away from a policy of creating “Bantustans” on the West Bank.

Carter, who took questions from the audience and promised to answer those unable to deliver their own, was given a standing ovation when he concluded his speech. Following the event, a number of pro Zionist donors declared that they would withhold donations (totaling 5 million dollar) to the university in protest over Carter’s appearance. It appeared as though this would stifle any further such discussions, but fortunately, this effort has proven fruitless because the university had since attracted new donors.

Last Thursday, Brandeis hosted a panel called “The Public Framing of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict: How the Holocaust Underlines Realities of Fear, Intimidation, and Denial”.

Here are some quotes from the summary of the panel discussion . I highly recommend reading it. As you will see, the conclusions were not only highly insightful, but also inspiring. It is enormously refreshing to hear from people directly affected by the Holocaust, speak of the event and it’s consequences so frankly and without the emotionally charged atmosphere it typically attracts.

Roy, whose parents are Holocaust survivors, said her parents “stood as a moral challenge among us.” But, she said, “Zionism has denigrated” the memory of the Holocaust. Roy, arguing that the Holocaust should be used to promote morality and justice, relayed her mother’s story of liberation from the concentration camps. According to Roy, after her mother and sister were liberated by the Russians, the prisoners were given free range to exact revenge upon the prison guards. However, Roy’s mother resisted the temptation to “ravage the guards.” Instead, Roy’s mother said, “we cannot do this. We must seek justice, not revenge.”

Roy also addressed the issue of intimidation and accusations of anti-Semitism. “Why is it anti-Semitic to argue against the misuse of the Holocaust? Why is it anti-Semitic…to defend the dignity and rights of all human beings? Why is it anti-Semitic to envision a future…that allows both peoples to live with dignity, equality, and peace.”

Rothchild followed Roy’s speech. “We’re all searching for meaning in the tragedy of the Holocaust,” she said. “How do [victims of the Holocaust] get to a place where they can do this to another people?” Rothchild asked. Moreover, “the Holocaust undermines and distorts the realities in the Israel-Palestine conflict.”

Rothchild then discussed issues of determination. She explained that “evoking the Holocaust” is a tool often used by what she deemed “right-wing” groups. As examples she pointed to the David Project Center for Jewish Leadership. According to Rothchild, the David Project has equated the threat of a nuclear Iran with Hitler’s Final Solution and the current times with the 1930s.

Rothchild then referenced the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), which she accused of employing similar rhetoric. Then, in particular reference to Brandeis, Rothchild cited the alleged loss of five million dollars in donations from Brandeis alumni as a result of Carter’s visit to campus. These acts of intimidation, Rothchild asserted, “muzzles the academic community” and the Jewish community in general.

Beit-Hallahmi gives a fascinating account of the notion of victim hood.

Last to speak was Beit-Hallahmi, who discussed at length the culture around victimization. “We all want to be victims,” he explained, “because it gives us the moral high ground.” In actuality he argued, “suffering does not ennoble anyone.” Moreover, he said, “being a victim is an objectionable reality. Victims should not be idealized or romanticized.” “We have to recognize that there are many victims,” Beit-Hallahmi argued that “victims should be given their rights without idealization or romanticization.”

Beit-Hallahmi commented that Jews have little reason to feel like victims in current times in light of the prominent positions to which Jews have risen. “There is a psychological gap between reality and a tradition of insecurity.” He then addressed the concept that Zionism came out of the Holocaust. This is the not case, he said, as “Zionism…was around long before the Holocaust.” He also discussed the need for changes in thinking. “Changes in consciousness come slowly…but they’re coming [in Israel]. Changes come about because of many, many small struggles.”

And from all Panelists.

The discussion was then opened to questions. The first came from a man who said “even paranoids have enemies.” He then asked how Israel ought to deal with “avowed enemies of the state.” All three panelists agreed that “the occupation” is responsible for violence. Beit-Hallahmi said “the rules of the game create oppression…it’s not surprising that you have resistance.” Roy commented, “we are occupying another people. We have engaged in a process of oppression that is quite severe…there is a humanitarian denial of a people. If you take away all possibility…what do you expect…giving unabated oppression?” She added, “allow people to live as we live…then the violence will stop.”

Another audience member asked, “how do we break through the Holocaust inflected barrier?” Rothchild explained, we must “constantly challenge stereotypes and reframe issues. We must get people to ask different questions.” Moreover, “we must humanize the other…we must try to reproduce the situation for students…give it a context that is denied. De-educate, re-educate.”

Beit-Hallahmi said, “you can see a lot of movement [in opinion in Israel] even if the government is not.” There is a recognition that the “present situation is too costly.”

Such openness would have been unthinkable a decade ago. This surely signals a new era in discussion over the subject of the Israeli/Palestinian problem.

So what am I missing back home? The Sydney Morning Herald, Australia’s self-described finest newspaper, features on its homepage a story about Beyonce’s curves. Really.

Here in Cuba, I continue to be amazed at the profound disconnect between the propaganda pumped-out by the Left and Right about this small island. Meeting a growing number of dissidents certainly provides a damning perspective on the realities of Castro’s rule. The ideology of the revolution has never been exactly consistent (especially if you didn’t always share Fidel’s fervour.) And the rise of Chavez in Venezuela is not warmly welcomed by all, as he is seen as prolonging the anti-democratic nature of the regime.

The country is also beautiful, its people charming, the women seemingly taught from a young age to walk in catwalk style and the weather a balmy constant.

I wasn’t sure what to really expect before I arrived, and in many ways I’ve been surprised. Of course, many Cubans ideal future isn’t necessarily an American-style capitalist system. Far from it.

I obviously can’t yet go into detail about all my experiences here, but that will come soon enough.

(PS. On an entirely unrelated point, check out Uri Avnery’s latest article about the Left, apartheid South Africa and the one or two state solution for the Israel/Palestine conflict.)

Melanie Phillips has uncovered a vast right and left wing conspiracy theory. A guy called Dave Gaubatz told her he found massive underground bunkers in mid 2003.

Saddam’s WMD did exist. He should know, because he found the sites where he is certain they were stored. And the reason you don’t know about this is that the American administration failed to act on his information, ‘lost’ his classified reports and is now doing everything it can to prevent disclosure of the terrible fact that, through its own incompetence, it allowed Saddam’s WMD to end up in the hands of the very terrorist states against whom it is so controversially at war. . . .

Between March and July 2003, he says, he was taken to four sites in southern Iraq — two within Nasariyah, one 20 miles south and one near Basra — which, he was told by numerous Iraqi sources, contained biological and chemical weapons, material for a nuclear programme and UN-proscribed missiles. He was, he says, in no doubt whatever that this was true.

To sum up this ground breaking article, she claims that (via Gaubatz):

(a) WMDs really were found in Iraq after the invasion,
(b) they were located in vast underground bunkers
(c) which contained “nuclear, chemical and biological materials”, but
(d) the U.S., through negligence, failed to secure those sites and, as a result,
(e) the WMDs were stolen by The Terrorists and/or Syrian agents, who now have them and are actively plotting (along with China, Russia and North Korea) to use them against the West, but –
(f) because the Bush administration is so embarrassed by their failure to prevent the theft of all these dastardly weapons, and because Democrats are embarrassed by this discovery because it proves that Saddam really did have WMDs all along, they have all jointly created a vast conspiracy where they conceal the discovery of WMDs in order to cover up for their negligence.

I guess we all owe George Bush, Dick Cheney and all the neocons an apology.

So what does the right wing punditry have to say about this vindication? Seems they are treading very carefully. Poor Melanie has gone so far out into the ether, that even her fellow travelers fear to go there, but that didn’t stop her from going a step further with her investigation.  You see, there are also those evil Chinese to worry about.

On her blog today, Phillips expounds on her article by printing a lengthy Memorandum which claims that:

(a) John Negroponte is persecuting various groups which are trying to bring the WMD conspiracy to light because

(b) Negroponte is part of what they call the “Red Team” in the U.S. government, which is exceedingly loyal to China, which is crucial given that

(c) the stolen-WMD-plot involved the subsequent transfer of “Saddam’s WMD technology to Syria and Iran” and that all happened

(d) “because the Chinese Army created an international consortium of rogue states to develop the Islamic Bomb” (and Negorponte, it implies, is concealing that by persecuting these groups because he is an agent of China).

For those interested in this hero in the making, here is what Dave Gaubatz has been up to:

The project to which Dave Gaubatz is currently devoting his time is called “Mapping Sharia in America”, the purpose of which is to create a comprehensive map of every mosque and Islamic school in the U.S.

He sounds like he’s Melanie’s long lost twin.

What does American defeat in Iraq look like for the region, and Israel specifically?

Chaos (and any word on this from the Zionist lobby? Of course not.)

With a distinct lack of media options here in Cuba, and relying almost solely on CNN for international news, this Guardian article rings true:

Thirty-two die in American university shooting. Result? Huge media coverage in the US and Britain. In Iraq, almost 200 die, arguably the worst day of carnage in that beleaguered country since the coalition invasion. Result? Coverage so restrained as to be, in many cases, totally negligible. Could you even find it in the Times this morning? Why?

General reasons first. The media operate what amounts to a hierarchy of death. Here are the criteria: foreign deaths always rank below domestic deaths. Similarly, on the basis that all news is local, deaths at home provide human interest stories that people want to know about, while the deaths of foreigners are merely statistics.

Sure, the victims and their families are human beings, too, but if they are thousands of miles away they cannot – in the eyes of the media’s editorial controllers – generate the same sympathy and interest as deaths near at hand.

Deaths in ongoing conflicts always receive less coverage than unexpected deaths elsewhere (because the latter are, by their nature, unpredictable and news values always rate new-ness above old-ness).

Now let’s get down to some other controversial home truths. The deaths of non-white people in foreign parts – and, I would contend, often at home - are never accorded equal status by the white, western media. The deaths of Arabs and Muslims (and, in many media eyes, there is no difference) are overlooked because they are, variously, anti-western, anti-Christian or anti-capitalist, or all three, and are therefore undeserving of sympathy. By virtue of their religion and their ethnicity they cannot expect the same treatment as the people in the west (who, of course, are also more civilised, better educated and altogether more wholesome). In other words, it’s racist.

Finally, specific reasons. Iraq is considered to be a basket case.

The massacre at Virginia Tech was horrific and deserves coverage but the almost pornographic pleasure in analysing every detail, and therefore ignoring the rest of the world in the process, shows the sickness at the heart of the American media (perhaps the Australian media is currently the same.) It’s not surprising that many people I’m speaking to here correctly claim that the American media shows a lack of interest in non-white deaths around the world.

Yesterday I spoke to a number of Cuba’s leading dissidents, some of whom have been in jail, some of whom have just been released from jail (due to bad health) and many of whom risk returning to jail. They have spent their entire lives fighting the Castro regime and often being ignored by the world for their pains. Of course, they have their own agendas – and some remain very close to Miami and Washington, and some do not – but their detailing of human rights abuses here was chilling.

Displaying a healthy sense of scepticism is always important in these situations, but their criticisms of the state-run media and the lack of freedom of speech was hard to argue with. They told me that the younger generations simply didn’t believe in the revolutionary Castro-style fervour anymore, and wanted change. What form that could take, of course, greatly depended on the ways in which the US and Latin America reacted after Fidel’s death.

In the evening, I went to an orchestral concert at one of the country’s finest cultural centres. An original concert of Latin American music, and a young crowd that jumped to its feet at any available opportunity, gave the sense that music was indeed one form of expression that had thrived over the years. Some of the pieces sounded a little like Gorecki – that ominous and driving tone – but the spirit in which the night proceeded was actually not dissimilar to a rock concert in Sydney or New York.

Spending time in Cuba, one quickly appreciates the depth of love and hate towards the US. Many people I’m meeting declare a great deal of warmth towards the American people and believe that successive governments are simply punishing Castro for purely ideological and economic reasons (they’re right, of course.) This latest news – milked for all its worth here in the less-than-subtle state media – doesn’t help:

A 79-year-old anti-Castro Cuban exile and former C.I.A. operative linked to the bombing of a Cuban airliner was released on bail yesterday and immediately returned to Miami to await trial on immigration fraud charges.

It’s interesting to note that the Bush adminitration regards Cuba as a state-sponsor of terror. This charge would be hilarious, if it weren’t so tragic. Luis Posada Carriles is nothing more than a terrorist, pure and simple. He will, of course, receive American protection for his activities. One’s man terrorist…

Otherwise, Havana is the kind of place that slowly creeps under one’s skin. Sure, the pollution and food aren’t exactly ideal, but the people – a fascinating mix of colours and races, all seemingly decked out in the brightest clothes imaginable – are welcoming (aside from the almost-daily negotiation of wily scammers.)

It’s not hard to feel here that many Cubans are anxiously waiting for the post-Castro era, unsure what their country will look like in five years time. As with so many struggling nations around the world, it all depends if the US decides to embrace a (possibly) fledging democracy, or subvert from within. The initial signs aren’t promising.

According to Mahmoud Abbas, BBC reporter Alan Johnston is still alive. Nothing confirmed, but the news is promising.

Meanwhile, Israel have demonstrated yet again, how justice and due process works in the Middle East’s only democracy.

Israeli Occupation Forces (IOF) extra-judicially executed a member of the al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades (an armed wing of Fatah movement) near Jenin town in the northern West Bank. IOF shot him dead after having arrested him.

Jimmy Carter continues to attract large crowds wherever he speaks.  His book, Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid, became a best seller in spite of efforts from the Israeli lobby to defame him. At a recent appearance, he made clear the pitfalls of the current US policy in the Middle East.

The American friends of Israel, who demand such subservience, are in many cases sincere and well-intentioned people; I know them,” Carter said. “But on this crucial issue, they are tragically mistaken. Their demands subvert America’s ability to bring to Israel what she most desperately needs, and wants — peace and security within recognized borders.

Carter received a standing ovation for his 25-minute speech, which did not ignore the controversy around his most recent book.

“In the course of my life I have done these and other things that have sometimes provoked controversy, and in some cases I must admit that the criticisms may have been justified. But that would have to be the subject of another and much longer speech,” he said with a smile, as audience members laughed.

The kind humility and wisdom we rarely see in world leaders these days.

Olmert is nervous about U.S. plans to sell arms to Saudi Arabia and other moderate Gulf states, fearing it would damage Israel’s deterrent capabilities in the Middle East.  By deterrent, does he mean, not being able to seize even more land?

Naturally, that shouldn’t mean Israel has to consider the security of the US when trying to make a buck.

As always, Israel wants both to limit the supply of American armaments to countries that endanger it and to have the freedom to sell Israeli weapons to countries that directly endanger the United States 

What better example of gratitude for the billions it gets annually in aid and military hardware?