Break the Siege, the folk who are planning to break the siege of Gaza next spring, by boat - their website's worth having a look at, or get in touch with them to support the audacious initiative. They've a benefit coming up too, on 20th (but I'm sure would appreciate others organised in other places, if you've the inclination...).

The media's silence on the issue was absolutely deafening, as was their silence on Israel's Collective Punishment of Gaza, and its plans for a massive military assault to follow Annapolis.

‘I Like This Violence’
Censoring the U.S. role in Gaza’s civil war

By Seth Ackerman

The big story from the Middle East last June was the factional fighting in Gaza that ended in a victory for the Hamas party and the routing of forces loyal to Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas’ Fatah movement. The violence made the front pages of the major papers—the New York Times (6/14/07), Washington Post (6/14/07), the Los Angeles Times (6/15/07)—and the cover of Newsweek (6/25/07). The overall message was simple: As the Washington Post’s Scott Wilson described it (6/15/07), the episode represented “a sharp escalation in intensity, brutality and ambition on the part of Hamas forces.”

As for the events that led up to Hamas’ takeover and the Bush administration’s role in them, these were hardly a secret—at least for the specialists who follow politics in the region closely. But Americans who rely on the mainstream media for their news were left in the dark as reporters did their best to keep any hint of the crucial background out of their coverage.

The facts are no mystery. The previous February, Hamas and Fatah had joined together in a national unity government in an effort to put an end to street fighting and factionalism within the Palestinian administration (Extra!, 9–10/06). The announcement of the power-sharing agreement, forged under Saudi auspices at a summit in Mecca, was greeted with nearly universal relief: “In the streets of Gaza, Palestinians broke out in celebration as the agreement was being announced, with members of Hamas and Fatah firing into the air,” the New York Times reported (2/9/07).

But while Hamas and much of Fatah were strongly supportive of the power-sharing deal, the U.S. and Israel were not. Since Hamas’ 2006 election victory, they had been unwilling to tolerate even Hamas’ presence in the government, much less the leading role the vote entitled it to. Former U.S. ambassador to Israel Martin Indyk, who largely supports the White House’s policy of isolating Hamas, reacted to news of the Mecca agreement by calling it a “considerable embarrassment” for the Bush administration (Time, 2/9/07): “They were expecting that [Abbas], backed by Egypt and Saudi Arabia, would be moving into a process of excluding Hamas. . . . They didn’t want him to compromise with Hamas.”

Since the whole idea behind the power-sharing agreement was to avert a potential Palestinian civil war, it may seem as if the Bush administration, by opposing the Mecca deal, was unwittingly making such a conflict more likely. In fact, there was nothing unwitting about it. The Americans had candidly sketched their strategy at a November meeting of the International Quartet (made up of diplomats from the U.S., the European Union, the United Nations and Russia), where the American security envoy, Lt. Gen. Keith Dayton, had argued that Abbas should be supported “by whatever means necessary to help him take on Hamas,” as the Economist put it (11/16/06). The other three Quartet envoys “balked at this idea as ‘tantamount to backing one side in a future civil war,’” according to the magazine’s diplomatic source. But the U.S., in conjunction with a reluctant Israel, went ahead and executed the policy on its own.

Over the months that followed, reports rolled in of weapons being shipped to Fatah forces with an Israeli green light (Ha’aretz, 12/28/06); the arrival in Gaza of hundreds of fighters trained under U.S. auspices in neighboring countries (Washington Post, 5/18/07); and a White House request for $83 million from Congress to finance “non-lethal aid” to Fatah forces (AP, 1/19/07).

In Israel, it was obvious what was going on. Ha’aretz’s chief diplomatic correspondent, Akiva Eldar, noted (4/24/07) that “arming the [pro-Abbas] Palestinian Presidential Guard is part of Elliott Abrams’ plan to bury the Mecca agreement.” (See The Return of Elliott Abrams)

The Israeli paper’s Palestinian affairs reporter, Danny Rubinstein (4/24/07), discussed the “preparations that Fatah is making for renewing the bloody battles between the organizations” and pointed out that Fatah strongman Mohammed Dahlan was “getting a lot of money from the United States and is training thousands of recruits.” Israeli opposition leader Yossi Beilin, an architect of the Oslo accords, warned (Ha’aretz, 4/17/07) that “arming one element in the PA due to the intention to see Fatah twist Hamas’ arm soon could end up as a terrible boomerang.”

If any proof were needed that the U.S. was trying to foment a civil war, it arrived just as the violence in Gaza was reaching a crescendo—in the form of an internal report by Alvaro De Soto, the U.N. envoy to the Quartet, that was leaked to the London Guardian (6/13/07). In De Soto’s report, the full text of which can be found at the Guardian’s website, the Peruvian diplomat wrote:


The U.S. clearly pushed for a confrontation between Fatah and Hamas —so much so that, a week before Mecca, the U.S. envoy [presumably Assistant Secretary of State David Welch] declared twice in an envoys’ meeting in Washington how much “I like this violence,” referring to the near–civil war that was erupting in Gaza in which civilians were being regularly killed and injured, because “it means that other Palestinians are resisting Hamas.”


To summarize: At a moment when violence in Gaza was a top story in the world media, it was disclosed by a U.N. diplomat who worked closely with the U.S. that a leading American policymaker in a private meeting had openly rejoiced at the violence and saw it as proof that American policy was working.

One might think that would count as major news. Not for the U.S. media. Although a handful of outlets mentioned the leaked De Soto report, including AP (6/13/07), NPR (6/13/07), CNN (6/13/07) and the L.A. Times (6/14/07), all of these omitted any reference to the anecdote about the U.S official—even though it had been specifically highlighted in the Guardian article that was the source of the story.

The McClatchy News Service did report the quote in a July 4 dispatch, but the story ran in only two papers found in the Nexis database, and both of them removed the line about the American envoy’s remarks (San Jose Mercury News, 7/5/07; Newsday, 7/8/07). Only Newsweek (in a June 25 story about the flight of the Gazan middle class) and the Washington Post (near the end of a brief June 14 story on the inside pages) reported the comment in passing.

The events in Gaza represented a failure of U.S. policy, of course, but only because of the way they ended. Washing-ton officials had sought to foment a civil war in hopes that Fatah would prevail. In the end, they succeeded in bringing on the conflict—but the wrong side won. Hamas had essentially carried out a preemptive counter-coup against elements of Fatah that the U.S. had been helping to prepare for a civil war. The former director of the Mossad, Efraim Halevy, put it very simply (New Republic Online, 7/3/07): “An American plan to create a viable Fatah force in the Gaza Strip to crush Hamas backfired.”

This was the simple truth that virtually no American journalist was willing to disclose. In the wave of reporting and commentary that followed the Gaza fighting, journalists felt free to describe Hamas’ victory as “a massive setback for the United States, which backs Fatah leader and Palestinian Authority president Mahmoud Abbas” (CNN, 6/14/07), but they scrupulously avoided any allusion to the fact that the U.S. had sought the Palestinian confrontation in the first place.

In a typical article analyzing how the Hamas victory illustrated the “failure of Bush’s Middle East vision,” the Washington Post (6/15/07) rehearsed the recent history of U.S. policy while carefully airbrushing out the Bush administration’s barely concealed machinations for a coup d’etat: Following Hamas’ 2006 election victory, the article explained, Washington “organized a financial boycott” in an “effort to showcase Abbas as a moderate.” But then Abbas “agreed to a unity government” with Hamas. Just as the U.S. had “begun delivering nonlethal aid” to bolster Abbas’ forces, “Hamas decided to strike and seize Gaza.”

Wait: If the parties had reconciled, why was the U.S. aiding one side’s fighters? The Post article tactfully declined to explain.

In a news analysis the day after the Gaza takeover (6/14/07), New York Times reporter Helene Cooper wrote without irony that “America’s options are limited in part because its role has been limited, with the Bush administration pursuing what for the most part has been a hands-off policy toward the Palestinians.” As evidence of the hands-off policy, Cooper pointed to a statement from White House spokesperson Tony Snow, who with a straight face had “said that the hope of averting a wider civil war remained largely in the Palestinians’ hands.”

The specialists who did not have to rely on the mainstream U.S. media for their information knew better. “Everybody knew a force was being trained in the Gaza Strip to confront Hamas,” a former senior Israeli government official told McClatchy (7/4/07) in the story that was run by only two papers. “To assume that Hamas would sit idly by and wait for this to culminate in success was very short-sighted.” Reading the coverage of the Gaza takeover, however, what “everybody knew” seemed to be one of Washington’s most closely guarded secrets.

 http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=3184

The Return of Elliott Abrams

By Seth Ackerman


A key Bush administration architect of the policy of arming elements of Fatah to attack Hamas was Elliott Abrams, whose current White House title is deputy national security advisor for global democracy strategy.

Abrams has a long history of such operations, and seems to be pursuing them today in areas far beyond Palestine. As a State Department official for Latin America in the Reagan administration, Abrams promoted the strategy of “low-intensity warfare”—that is, arming death squads and guerrillas—against the Nicaraguan Sandinistas and the Salvadoran insurgents, ultimately pleading guilty to withholding information about these efforts from Congress in the Iran/Contra affair.

Currently, according to reporting by Seymour Hersh (New Yorker, 3/5/07), Abrams is among those spearheading a set of covert operations, using Saudi Arabia as a proxy, that are aimed at supporting Sunni extremist groups in Lebanon and Syria to counter the Shiite militants of Hezbollah and the Alawite regime in Damascus. Since some members of Congress might feel uneasy about supporting armed extremists with an ideology resembling Al-Qaeda’s, Abrams and others have been careful to arrange the activities in such a way that Congress does not find out about them, Hersh reported.

In 2005, Abrams led a meeting of Iran/Contra veterans to hash out the “lessons learned” in the affair. Their conclusions, according to Hersh’s article: “One, you can’t trust our friends. Two, the CIA has got to be totally out of it. Three, you can’t trust the uniformed military, and four, it’s got to be run out of the vice president’s office.” They might have added a fifth lesson: An incurious media always helps.

 http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=3187

This excellent documentary provides more insight into the US media's reportage of the conflict:

Peace, Propaganda, and the Promised Land
 http://www.freedocumentaries.org/film.php?id=169

Red Cross demands Mid-East action

Red Cross workers negotiate access for an injured Palestinian in Gaza

The International Committee of the Red Cross has called for immediate political action to contain the "deep crisis" in the West Bank and Gaza.

The statement was an unusual departure from its normally non-political stance.

The ICRC said the measures imposed by Israel had denied the Palestinian population the right to live a normal and dignified life.

But the Israeli government insisted it was co-operating with the Red Cross to ensure the flow of humanitarian aid.

"We are committed to making sure that the people of Gaza continue to receive vital humanitarian and medical support," Israeli government spokesman Mark Regev said.

But the Israeli government also said restrictions could not be eased too quickly, because Palestinian militants would then try to carry out more attacks.

The ICRC says humanitarian assistance cannot possibly be the solution in Gaza and the West Bank.

Its statement comes just days before a major donor conference in Paris.

Why do we call for political action? Because actually we do not think that humanitarian aid can solve the problem

Beatrice Megevand Roggo
ICRC

The BBC's Imogen Foulkes in Geneva says politics is not usually a word which features in the language of the international Red Cross - the famously neutral organisation tends to work quietly in conflict zones, and when it does speak, it speaks of numbers of injured treated, or numbers of detainees visited.

But the ICRC now says that life in the West bank and Gaza Strip has become so dreadful that no amount of humanitarian aid can really help.

'Situation perpetuated'

"Why do we call for political action? Because actually we do not think that humanitarian aid can solve the problem," said Beatrice Megevand Roggo, ICRC director of operations for the Middle East.

READ THE ICRC REPORT IN FULL at link below.

"In Gaza the whole strip is being strangled, economically speaking, life there has become a nightmare. And for that there is no solution that can be provided by humanitarian organisations.

"We can try to put patches on problems, but we do not have the key to a lasting solution that would address the roots of the problem."

In fact the Red Cross and other UN aid agencies are pouring money into Gaza; senior aid officials, our correspondent says, privately fear they may be perpetuating a situation which really should not continue.

'Dignity denied'

Together with its statement calling for political action, the Red Cross has issued a report called Dignity Denied which paints a harrowing picture of life for the Palestinians - suffering an economic blockade which denies them jobs, medical care, and even food.

"The 1.4 million Palestinians living in the Gaza Strip continue to pay for conflict and economic containment with their health and livelihoods," the report says.

"In the West Bank, the establishment of Israeli settlements affects every aspect of Palestinians' lives and leads to the loss of much land and income, together with recurrent violence by settlers. Exhausting movement restrictions hinder access to work and have led to unprecedented levels of unemployment and poverty.

"Only prompt, innovative and courageous political action can change the harsh reality of this long-standing occupation, restore normal social and economic life to the Palestinian people, and allow them to live their lives in dignity."

The ICRC says it recognises Israel's right to take measures to defend itself.

"[But this] needs to be balanced against the Palestinians' right to live a normal and dignified life," said Ms Roggo.

Also on Thursday, the World Bank said increased aid and Palestinian government reforms will have no real effect unless Israel eases restrictions on travel and trade.

At the donors conference on Monday in Paris, governments are being asked to provide the Palestinians with US $5.6bn over the next three years.

 http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7141875.stm

In other words, it's time for the world to stop sitting idly and watching the Zionists enact their 'final solution' to the 'Palestinian question'.

Palestinian civilians 'hostage' to worsening conflict: Red Cross
Published: Thursday December 13, 2007


Palestinians have become a "hostage to the conflict" between militants and the Israeli armed forces and are bearing the brunt of the hostilities, the international Red Cross warned on Thursday.

"The Palestinian people are paying an exceedingly high price for the continuing hostilities between Israel and Palestinian factions," said Beatrice Megevand Roggo, head of Middle East operations for the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC).

"Their situation is made even more difficult by intra-Palestinian rivalries. The Palestinian population has effectively become a hostage to the conflict," she said.

The ICRC said the situation in the Gaza Strip, which has been run by the Islamist Hamas militia since June, is "alarming," with Israel's decision to cut fuel supplies adding further hardship to the beleaguered population.

"The (Gaza) Strip has been progressively sealed off since June: imports are restricted to the bare minimum and essential infrastructure, including medical supplies and water and sanitation systems, is in an increasingly fragile state," it noted.

The ICRC said that immediate political action was needed to resolve the crisis and that humanitarian aid on its own was not sufficient.

It urged Israel to "respect its obligations under international humanitarian law, to ease restrictions on movement in the Gaza Strip and West Bank and to lift the retaliatory measures that are paralysing life in Gaza."

Israeli troops killed six militants in Gaza on Tuesday during a military incursion, with the chief of staff warning that the time was "approaching" for a major offensive in the coastal strip.


 http://rawstory.com/news/afp/Palestinian_civilians_hostage_to_wo_12132007.html

Another Cancer Patient Dies Due to Israeli Gaza Siege
Medicine, Water and Fuel Shortages
Mohammed Omer, BBSNews
bbsnews.net/index.php?topic=mideast

Collective Punishment Violates Israeli Law, Not Just International Law
 http://winnipeg.indymedia.org/item.php?11540C