Now
Available!
Dime's
Worth of Difference:
Beyond the
Lesser of Two Evils
Order Here!
Today's
Stories
October 13,
2004
Paul de Rooij
Amnesty
International: a False Beacon?
October 12,
2004
Roxanne Dunbar-Ortiz
"Indian
Country"
Greg Bates
The Year of Voting Dangerously: a Survey Request of Nader Voters
in Swing States
Steven Conn
Progressives as Pawns: Kerry's War on Nader
Jason Leopold
Under Cheney, Halliburton Helped Saddam Siphon Billions from
UN Oil-for-Food Program
Security Scholars
for a Sensible Foreign Policy
Time for a Change of Course
Timothy J. Freeman
Dying for a Mistake
Pierre Tristam
Deconstructing Bush
Niranjan Ramakrishnan
The 2nd Debate: the Blurring of Act and Audience
Bill and Kathleen
Christison
Israel as Sideshow
Website of the Day
John Kerry's Personal Off-Shore Tax Shelters
October 11,
2004
Robert Fisk
Iraq:
Unforgivable Betrayals and Broken Promises
Kevin Pina
The
Untold Story of Aristide's Departure from Haiti
Patrick Gavin
Rethinking
Columbus Day
Chris Floyd
Tribes with Flags in the New Afghanistan
Daniel Wolff
Radioactive Money: Entergy, Political Cash and America's Most
Dangerous Nuclear Plant
Walter Brasch
The Only Ones Who Believe Saddam Had WMDs are Bush, Cheney...and
40% of All Americans
Mike Whitney
The Phony Afghan Elections: Ballot of the Disappearing Ink
Ari Shavit
"He Talks to Condi Rice Every Day": an Interview with
Sharon's Lawyer
Paul Craig
Roberts
The
Debates and the Big Lie
Website of the Day
Dylan's Greatest Recording?
October 9 /
10, 2004
Alexander Cockburn
"There
Are No Innocents"
Paul de Rooij
Northern Ireland is Still the Issue: a Conversation with Gerry
Adams
M. Shahid Alam
Making Sense of Our Times
Laura Carlsen
Protest and Populism in Latin America
Fred Gardner
Pot Shots: ASA Goes to Court
Col. Dan Smith
Bush's Credibility Gap
Paul Craig
Roberts
Faith-Based Economics
Greg Bates
What If Nader Critics Get What They Demand?
Joshua Frank
Cobb, the Greens and the Collapse of the Left
Felice Pace
Wilderness, Politics and the Oligarchy: How the Pew Charitable
Trust is Smothering the Grassroots Environmental Movement
Walter A. Davis
Of Pynchon, Thanatos and Depleted Uranium
William A.
Cook
The Agony of Colin Powell
Phyllis Pollack
Twas No Crank Call Love Affair: London Calling, 25 Years Later
Poets' Basement
Klipschutz, Albert, Ford
Website of the Weekend
Abu Ghraib: the Taguba Annexes
October 8,
2004
Jennifer Loewenstein
The
Israeli Invasion of Gaza
Moshe Adler
Edwards' Gambit: He Hoped No One Would Notice the Similarities
David Swanson
Media Blackout: Press Continues to Ignore Labor's Opposition
to Iraq War
Dave Zirin
CounterPunch Contest: Let's Name the New DC Baseball Team!
Rep. Ron Paul
The Draft is a Form of Slavery
William S. Lind
Keeping Our SA Up
Samar Assad
Kerry v. Bush: No Difference When It Comes to Israel / Palestine
Jim Ingalls
and Sonali Kolhatkar
The Elections in Afghanistan
October 7,
2004
Dave Lindorff
All
Out of Volunteers: A Draft is in the Air
Masha Hamilton
Fear in Kandahar
Christopher
Brauchli
Master of Corruption: the Ripening Scandals of Tom Delay
Jason Leopold
Is There Still Time to Impeach Bush?
Bruce K. Gagnon
Bombing the Panhandle: Fighting the Pentagon in Rural Florida
Meredith Kolodner
Where
is the Urgency?: The Anti-War Movement's Election Year Challenge
October 6,
2004
Jeffrey St.
Clair
"Please,
Dude, Can I Take Them Out?": Targeting Civilians in Fallujah
Ron Jacobs
Going
Nuclear: the Ghost of Edward Teller Lives
Michael Colby
The National Flip-Flop: Suddenly Bush is Unfit to Lead?
Tarif Abboushi
More of the Same: Israel Wins the Debates
Matthew Behrens
Canadian Firms Profit from Iraqi Blood
Mike Whitney
Rethinking WMDs
John Pilger
Stealing Diego Garcia
Ben Tripp
Kerry's "Triumph"
Kevin McKiernan
Cheney's Poison Lab: Wrong Time, Wrong Target
Patrick Cockburn
Elections
Will Not End the Fighting in Iraq
Website of the Day
Is There an Islamic Problem?
October 5,
2004
Anthony Loewenstein
Rupert
Murdoch and the Marginals: "Personally Creating Outcomes"
Mark Clinton
and Tony Udell
The
Suicide of an Iraq War Veteran
Greg Bates
Trading
Idiots: an Open Letter to Eric Alterman
Dave Lindorff
What's
the Frequency, Karl?
Norm Dixon
Why Washington Won't Save Darfur Villagers
Larry Kearney
God Talk and Burning Children
Bill Linville
Dirty Politics in the Land of "Clean" Government
Gary Leupp
What
Edwards Should Ask Cheney
Website of
the Day
A Guide to Halliburton for Tonight's Debate
October 4,
2004
Diane Christian
The
Gates of Hell
Joshua Frank
An Interview with David Cobb
Doug Giebel
Incurious George: What If Bush Didn't Lie?
John Chuckman
Strange Victory: Sen. Obvious and the Pathetic Lump
Ramzy Baroud
Reverse the Picture: Anatomy of a Palestinian Outrage
Julia Stein
Remembering Mario Savio and the FSM
Sean Donahue
Outsourcing
Terror: Kerry and Special Forces
Website of
the Day
Mapping
Mt. St. Helens as She Rocks
October 2 /
3. 2004
Paul Wright
John
Kerry on Criminal Justice
Kathleen and Bill Christison
An Exchange with Israeli Historian Bennie Morris
Kathie Helmkamp
My Son Trent: a Marine Who Doesn't Want to Kill
Phillip Cryan
Indigenous Mobilization in Colombia
Lenni Brenner
The First Ex-Catholic Saint: Memories of Mario Savio
Fred Gardner
Pot Shots: In Case You Missed "Montel"
Ron Jacobs
It Did Happen Here: When Neo-Nazis Terrorized Olympia
Ben Tripp
Sticker Shock
William S.
Lind
The Grand Illusion: Iraqi Security Forces
Dave Zirin
The Swindle of the Century: Baseball Comes to DC
Dave Lindorff
Lies from the Great Debate
Luscon Pierre-Charles
Haiti's Elections: a High-Tech Sham is Underway
Zoe Moskovitz
& Sasha Kramer
Separating Lies from Truth About Haiti
Nelson P. Valdes
Habana Night vs. Latin American Scholars in Vegas: 61 Banned
Cuban Academics
Alan Farago
The "Ownership Society" and the End of the Everglades
Nancy Haley
What is the Historical Jesus Trying to Tell Us?
Alex Billet
Long Live The Clash: London Still Calling After 25 Years
Steve Fesenmaier
Save and Burn: The War on Libraries
Poets' Basement
Smith, Holt, Albert
October 1,
2004
Steve Breyman
Kerry's
Missed Opportunities
Rose Gentle
My
Son Died for a Lie
Lee Sustar
Iran
in the Crosshairs
Ralph Nader
What
We Didn't Hear at the Debate: Where's the Exit Strategy?
Walter Andrews
We Are Less Secure Now Than Ever
Mike Whitney
Pandora's
Government
Mickey Z.
Debate
This
Saul Landau
The
Iraq Invasion: Lessons from the Pinochet Cases
Hot Stories
Alexander Cockburn
Behold,
the Head of a Neo-Con!
Subcomandante
Marcos
The
Death Train of the WTO
Norman Finkelstein
Hitchens
as Model Apostate
Steve Niva
Israel's
Assassination Policy: the Trigger for Suicide Bombings?
Dardagan,
Slobodo and Williams
CounterPunch Exclusive:
20,000 Wounded Iraqi Civilians
Steve
J.B.
Prison Bitch
Sheldon
Rampton and John Stauber
True Lies: the Use of Propaganda
in the Iraq War
Wendell
Berry
Small Destructions Add Up
CounterPunch
Wire
WMD: Who Said What When
Cindy
Corrie
A Mother's Day Talk: the Daughter
I Can't Hear From
Gore Vidal
The
Erosion of the American Dream
Francis Boyle
Impeach
Bush: A Draft Resolution
Click
Here for More Stories.
|
October 13, 2004
Double Standards
and Curious Silences
Amnesty
International: A False Beacon?
By
PAUL de ROOIJ
Given the current escalation
of Israeli depredations in Gaza and the daily US bombings of
Falluja, it is interesting to examine Amnesty International's
(AI) statements on the situation. AI is widely viewed as an authority
on human rights issues, and thus it is of interest to analyze
its output on these recent events. Careful scrutiny of AI's record
reveals that, its typical response to the daily obscene deeds
by either Israeli or US armies is a few barely audible ruminations
with an occasional lame rebuke. The impotence of these responses
raises many questions.
Occupation
with human rights?
Consider
the title of a recent press release: "Israeli army must
respect human rights in its operations" [1]. According to
AI, the Israeli depredations on occupied land are acceptable
as long as they "respect" human rights. This is analogous
to recommending that a rapist should practice safe sex [2]. It
is also difficult to imagine that a military occupation could
ever be imposed while observing "human rights".
Consider
the context. During September 2004 the Israeli army killed on
average 3.7 Palestinians per day; it injured an average of 19.3
p/day; it demolished many houses affecting the lives of thousands;
it has transformed vast areas of Gaza into a denuded moonscape.
It is also clear that these gruesome statistics will be worse
in October. The Israeli Defense Minister Shaul Mofaz openly states
that the Palestinians should be punished, and the measures advocated
entail collective punishment. The entire Palestinian population
is taken hostage; pressure is exerted on them as a whole. Ethnic
Cleansing is on going, and the construction of the grotesque
wall stands as proof of the criminality of this policy.
Given
the devastation inflicted by the Israeli army and clear violations
of international law, one would expect at least a tiny condemnation.
However, this is the extent of AI's reaction:
"[AI]
is concerned that the Israeli army's use of excessive force in
this latest incursion in the Gaza Strip will result in further
loss of lives and wanton destruction of Palestinian homes and
property. Reprisals against protected persons and property are
prohibited by the Fourth Geneva Convention and Israel is obliged
to ensure that any measures taken to protect the lives of Israeli
civilians are consistent with its obligations to respect human
rights and international humanitarian law.
Israel should
immediately allow international human rights and humanitarian
organizations to enter the Gaza Strip. At present [AI] delegates
and staff members of other international organizations are denied
access to the Gaza Strip."
Note that this
lame statement was uttered in reaction to the attack on Jabalya,
an onslaught which Dr. Mustafa Barghouti described as follows:
"Sharon's tanks are rampaging through Jabalia and Beit Lahia,
just as they did in Khan Yunis, Rafah and Beit Hanun. The simple
fact is that Sharon is doing to Gaza what he did to the West
Bank in 2002." [3] AI's hypocrisy in issuing this limp statement
is evident when it is compared with the press release analyzed
below.
Double Standard?
In May 2004
AI issued a press release headed "AI condemns murder of
woman and her four daughters by Palestinian gunmen." The
body of the text contains the following condemnation:
"Such
deliberate attacks against civilians, which have been widespread,
systematic and in furtherance of a stated policy to attack the
civilian population, constitute crimes against humanity, as defined
by Article 7 (1) and (2)(a) of the 1998 Rome Statute of the International
Criminal."[4]
So, when Palestinians
kill some civilians, then it constitutes a "crime against
humanity" -- one of the most serious crimes under international
law, and a precursor to genocide. But, when Israel kills far
more civilians "in furtherance of a stated policy"
(the phrasing AI used against Palestinians) to "exact a
price" (to use the words of Israeli Defense Minister Shaul
Mofaz [5]), all that AI can do is to wring its hands and worry
about "the Israeli army's use of excessive force".
Thus, we see that AI does not hesitate to use against Palestinians
terms, such as "crime against humanity", which it has
never unambiguously leveled against Israel.
Note that the
Israeli woman killed by Palestinians in the above episode was
a settler. Thus, AI was stretching a point a to call her a civilian
-- settlers are armed and they consider themselves, when they
feel like it, the shock troops of an expansionist zionism whose
stated goal is to ethnically cleanse the Palestinians from, at
least, all the land west of the River Jordan.
Regarding the
Palestinian attack, AI also states: "deliberate attacks
against civilians, which have been widespread, systematic and
in furtherance of a stated policy to attack the civilian population."
Whoa! It is astonishing that such a description was added to
its accusation pertaining a Palestinian attack, but at the same
time, it is not willing to classify any Israeli actions as "systematic,
deliberate and widespread [etc.]". AI portrays Palestinian
violence as worse than Israeli violence, and this amounts to
a clear double standard.
Neglecting
settler violence?
On Sept. 27,
2004 a settler from the Itamar settlement killed a Palestinian
in cold blood, and the Israeli authorities even sought to exempt
the settler from house arrest; at most -- though not likely --
he will be charged with manslaughter [6]. While AI was willing
to issue a press release about the settler woman and her kids
who were killed, it was not willing to issue any statement about
this incident. What makes this neglect curious is that around
the same time it issued a press release regarding an abducted
CNN stringer -- someone who was eventually released unharmed
[7].
Researching
AI's public record reveals an odd sense of proportion in selecting
which events it chooses to discuss.
It seems that
AI regards settlements as mere misplaced suburbs, and its residents
as just some Western suburbanites. For some settlements, this
may be the case, but several settlements are home to racist zionist
fanatics. Jeff Halper, the director of the Israel Committee Against
House Demolitions, observes that there is now a second generation
of settlers, those born in the settlements; he calls them the
"clockwork orange" settlers who are more extreme, racist
and violent than their predecessors [8]. The clockwork orange
settlers frequently violently harass Palestinians, demolish homes,
and occasionally kill with impunity. This context raises questions
about AI's repeated calls to exempt settlers from Palestinian
retribution.
During the
second intifada, AI has not issued any statement about settler
violence.
What happened
to the supreme crime?
AI is not an
anti-war organization, and this stance creates numerous contradictions.
With the onset of the US war against Iraq, it issued statements
about the means the US would employ in warfare, but curiously,
AI didn't condemn the war! This is particularly curious given
that the war was one of aggression and thus constitutes a supreme
international crime. This is what Prof. Michael Mandel (Prof.
of Law at York Univ., Toronto) had to say about the matter:
When the attack
was launched, stern warnings were issued to all the 'belligerents'
by Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International [...], reminding
them of their duties under the laws and customs of war. But neither
said a single word about the illegality of the war itself or
the supreme criminal responsibility under international law of
the countries that had started it. [9]
And pertaining
to the press releases AI issued during this period:
Amnesty also
questioned whether the required precautions were being taken
to protect civilians, and called for investigations into civilian
deaths like those at the Karbala checkpoint, and the shooting
of demonstrators in Falluja. But never once did Amnesty International
[...] mention the fundamental reason why none of the incidents
really had to be investigated at all -- namely that all of this
death and destruction was legally, as well as morally, on the
heads of the invaders, whatever precautions they claimed to take,
because it was due to an illegal, aggressive war. Every death
was a crime for which the leaders of the invading coalition were
personally, criminally responsible. [10]
Again, AI ruminations
amount to recommending the "rapist to engage in safe sex"
-- no mention of the crime! Even though AI often refers to international
law to issue its statements, when it comes to US depredations,
then even supreme crimes are not mentioned.
Another
double standard?
Consider AI's
statement issued regarding the situation in Darfur:
"The United
Nations Security Council should stop the transfer of arms being
used to commit mass human rights violations in Darfur [AI] urged
today while releasing a report based on satellite images showing
large-scale destruction of villages in Darfur over the past year."[11]
The situation
may be awful in Darfur, and the measure suggested may be warranted.
However, the curious aspect of this statement is that AI has
never called on the UN or any other body to impose an arms embargo
on Israel, although there are ample grounds for such a recommendation.
An American
academic inquired about this double standard, and she received
the following answer from Donatella Rovera, AI's principal researcher
on Israel-Palestine:
"The situations
in Sudan and in Israel-Occupied Territories are quite different
and different norms of international law apply, which do not
make it possible to call for an arms embargos on either the Israeli
or the Palestinian side. The West Bank and Gaza Strip are under
Israeli military occupation (not the case for the Darfour region
in Sudan). Hence, certain provisions of international humanitarian
law, known as the laws of war (notably the 1907 Hague Convention
and the Fourth Geneva Convention) apply in the Occupied Palestinian
Territories (and not in the Darfour region)." (email communication
July 5, 2004).
AI is couching
its double standards in dubious legalese, but consider what Prof.
Francis Boyle (Professor of International Law at Univ. of Illinois
Champaign) has to say about Rovera's statement:
This is total
gibberish. When I was on the Board of Directors of Amnesty International
USA near the end of my second term in 1990-92, we received the
authority to call for an arms embargo against major human rights
violators, which Israel clearly qualified for at the time and
still does -- even under United States domestic law. Of course
no one at AI was going to do so because pro-Israel supporters
were major funders of Amnesty International USA, which in turn
was a major funder of Amnesty International in London. He who
pays the piper calls the tune -- especially at AIUSA Headquarters
in New York and at AI Headquarters in London.
What about
the prisoners?
The core of
AI's efforts have to do with "prisoners of conscience",
prison conditions, and torture. So, it is of some interest to
determine how this issue is dealt with pertaining Palestinian
prisoners and the Abu Ghraib torture scandal [12]. The table
below provides some context for the Palestinian prisoners.
Number of
Palestinian Prisoners (July 8, 2004)
| Total |
5,892 |
| Children
(age < 18) |
351 |
| Women |
75 |
| Age
> 50 |
42 |
| 42
Violation of accords [1] |
433 |
| Pct
of prisoners put on trial |
25% |
| Administrative
detention [2] |
786 |
Notes: [1]
All prisoners held prior to the signing of the Oslo Accords should
have been released. [2] Administrative detention is illegal under
international law. Administrative detention orders may last for
up to six months, with Palestinians held without charges or trial
during this period. Israel routinely renews the detention orders
thereby holding Palestinians without charge or trial indefinitely.
During this period, detainees are often denied legal counsel.
Source: http://www.nad-plo.org/faq1.php
The Palestinian
case
Technically,
AI doesn't publish the lists of prisoners of conscience [POC],
and one must trawl through its public record to determine if
there are Palestinian POCs. During the second intifada, its record
indicates two POCs and two "possible" POCs, and no
other information on Palestinian prisoners is evident. There
are many Palestinian "administrative detainees" --
those held without charges, without trial, and for indefinite
terms -- yet AI doesn't deem fit to bestow on them its magic
POC label. The contrast with the treatment of Cuban POCs is stark:
here even people paid by the US embassy for subversive activities
earned a POC status, and simple search of the AI-USA website
or some of the right-wing Cuban-American websites reveal 88 POCs
[13]. This implies that a large percentage of "political"
prisoners in Cuba are POCs [14]. While the Palestinian POC list
is not made public, when it comes to Cuba, a different standard
applies [15].
In the case
of Cuba AI issues stern statements and calls to release the prisoners.
Such statements may be justified given that there are 88 Cuban
POCs. However, AI has not issued a similar statement about the
much larger number of political prisoners held by Israel. Maybe
the mere "four" Palestinian POCs do not warrant this
effort.
Conditions
for Palestinian prisoners in Israel and the occupied territories
are appalling, and torture of prisoners is common. Earlier this
year, Palestinian political prisoners went on hunger strike to
protest these conditions. Israeli prison authorities engaged
in awful tactics to disrupt the hunger strike, e.g., prison staff
barbecued meat in the prison courtyard to unnerve the hunger
strikers, confiscated salt, etc. [16]. Given AI's interest in
prison conditions, torture, and denial of medical treatment,
when it came to the Palestinian hunger strike there was no statement
whatsoever. A request for a position on this issue revealed a
similar unwillingness to utter a peep. A comparison with the
treatment of Cuban POC would be instructive, but beyond the scope
of this article.
The Iraqi
case
There is no
doubt that US forces in Iraq are engaged in the systematic use
of torture -- contrary to initial US reports aimed to minimize
the damage, it was not a case of "a few rotten apples,"
and the evidence for the most perverse forms of torture --and
indications that responsibility for them goes up the chain of
command-- is damning. Furthermore, it is also clear that many
prisoners were killed while in detention-- several deaths clearly
due to torture. So, what does AI have to say about this?
AI wrote a
letter to "His Excellency Mr. John D. Negroponte" to
ask under which legal framework the prisoners would be treated.
First, it is odd to see AI deferring to Negroponte in such an
abject manner. Negroponte has a sinister past and it is odd to
refer to him as "His Excellency". The letter then requests
a clarification of the legal framework applying to the prisoners
-- and this in the face of the torture revelations:
"Recalling
reports of torture of Iraqis not only by the occupying powers
but also by the Iraqi police, [AI] would welcome information
about the legal and practical safeguards that will apply to arrest,
detention and internment; what access international and Iraqi
organizations will have to those held; and whether prisons and
detention centres will be placed under Iraqi government or other
control. The international community should know what measures
are in place to ensure that the absolute prohibition of torture
and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment will
be strictly observed by Iraqi, US and other forces. In this respect,
we would appreciate knowing your views about our recommendation
that the United Nations should have a specific monitoring mandate
to supervise all places of detention." [17]
It is curious
that AI has to inquire about the rights of prisoners in Iraq
by appealing to a representative of the country that launched
an illegal war of aggression. The abject tone of the letter is
disturbing -- it also means that AI has no desire to confront
serious US crimes in a forceful manner. Whereas in the past AI
reports could cause trepidation among some dictators, today AI's
statements hardly make mass human rights abusers take notice.
For this type of preferential service AI received a Nobel Peace
Prize.
All other AI
press releases are of a similar nature. For example:
[AI] calls
on the MNF to take all necessary precautions to protect civilians
and respect the principles of necessity and proportionality,
and to take measures to ensure that they comply fully with their
obligations under international law. [18]
It sounds familiar
because AI is using the template which they have used to report
on Israeli "abuses".
A right
to "defend itself"?
AI, just like
the US government, issues ritual statements that "Israel
has a right to defend itself". AI accepts military intervention
in the occupied territories to make sure that Israel obtains
its elusive "security". The only difference between
AI's position and that of the US is that AI urges the military
intervention to "respect human rights" or for it not
to be "excessive" [19]. Both accept Israel's right
to build the Apartheid Wall, AI just urges that it be built on
the Green Line [20].
Prof. Mandel
offers an interesting view on this so-called right to self-defense:
"An aggressor
has no right to self-defense. If you break into someone's house
and hold them at gunpoint and they try to kill you but you kill
them first, they're guilty of nothing and you're guilty of murder."
[21]
Israel is the
aggressor in the region, and its actions are meant to hold on
to land it conquered by force. Ethnic cleansing has been on going
since 1948 until the present day, and it is irrational to suggest
that Israel has a right to repress those whom it seeks to dispossess.
Today Israel tries to repress Palestinians who happen to have
kept the keys to their houses that were stolen from them since
1948; so, Mandel's analogy is appropriate.
AI statements
about measured violence to obtain "security" also flies
in the face of a history of ethnic cleansing. Israeli policy
has been one of stealing the land and dispossessing the population.
Given this history, it is outrageous to suggest that Israel has
a right to "defend" itself since its actions have amounted
to continued aggression.
AI's position
is riven with contradictions. On the one hand, it seeks to defend
"human rights", but on the other, it "understands"
war or weapons of war, or accepts the right of "self-defense"
of an aggressor. AI also attempts to equate the violence of the
oppressor with that of the oppressed; the latter it tries to
de-legitimize, while the former it tries to contain so that it
"respects human rights". Without addressing the underlying
injustice, AI's position is simply absurd. The implication of
AI's stance is that it does not promote a solution with a modicum
of justice; it seems to accept the status quo, but with "human
rights" -- whatever that means in AI's warped lexicon.
A false
beacon
Anyone concerned
with justice for the Palestinian cause or seeking to end the
obscene war in Iraq will be disappointed with Amnesty International's
stance. It is no use appreciating the bits of its reports that
are useful; the problem is that its overall position on key issues
is at best contradictory. Many of the well-intentioned and idealistic
volunteers working on AI's campaigns may be wasting their efforts
given that the AI framework adopts a blinkered understanding
of the problems. Donating to AI doesn't translate into effective
action for these causes, and given AI's record, the Palestinians
certainly cannot expect fair coverage or representation. Will
AI ever clearly and categorically condemn Israel for the large
number of killings and the havoc and destruction it has caused
in Jabalya or Beit Hanoun? Don't count on it.
Each Israeli
assault on Palestinian refugee camps, each US bombing of cities
in Iraq, and each assassination of yet more Palestinians or Iraqis
reveals AI's dubious stance. Today, most AI pronouncements range
between moral flatulence and moral fraudulence.
Paul de
Rooij
is a writer living in London. He can be reached at proox@hotmail.com
(NB: all emails
with attachments will be automatically deleted.)
Paul de Rooij
© 2004
Further
Reading
1. Nabeel Abraham,
et al.; International Human Rights Organizations and the Palestine
Question, Middle East Report (MERIP), Vol. 18, No. 1, January-February
1988, pp. 12 -- 20. Available online: www.corkpsc.org/db.php?aid=4388
2. Dennis Bernstein
and Francis Boyle, "Amnesty on Jenin": an interview,
CAQ, Summer 2002, pp. 9 -- 12, 27. Available online www.corkpsc.org/db.php?aid=4573.
3. Michael
Mandel, How
America Gets Away with Murder, Pluto Press 2004. (important book).
4. Paul de
Rooij, "AI:
Say It Isn't So,"
CounterPunch, Oct. 31, 2002
5. Paul de
Rooij, "Ambient
Death in Palestine," CounterPunch, June 26, 2003.
6. Paul de
Rooij, "AI:
The Case of a Rape Foretold," CounterPunch, Nov. 26, 2003.
7. Sara Flounders,
"Massacre in Jenin, Human Rights Watch and the Stage-Management
of Imperialism," CAQ, Fall 2002. Available online: www.corkpsc.org/db.php?aid=3220.
Endnotes
[1] Amnesty
International, "Israeli army must respect human rights in
its operations", MDE 15/094/2004, October 1, 2004.
[2] A very
similar statement was issued in its "Excessive use of force"
[MDE 15/095/2004, October 5, 2004] press release, where it demanded
that Israel "put an immediate end to the use of excessive
lethal force" [2]. The implication is that a lower level
of violence is acceptable. Again, AI didn't condemn the continued
occupation of Palestinian land. Another point must be made about
its press releases regarding Israeli violence. Invariably these
contain some finger pointing against Palestinians. However, the
opposite is not the case, i.e., statements about Palestinian
violence don't contain condemnation of Israeli violence. Yet
another double standard.
[3] Mustapha
Barghouti, Occupation as withdrawal (http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2004/711/op3.htm), Al Ahram, Oct. 7,
2004.
[4] AI, "AI
condemns murder of woman and her four daughters by Palestinian
gunmen", MDE 15/049/2004, May 4, 2004.
[5] Ha'aretz,
1 October 2004, http://www.corkpsc.org/db.php?aid=8944
[6] Arnon Regular,
Court: Settler to stay under house arrest over killing driver,
Haaretz, Sept. 29, 2004.
[7] AI, "[AI]
calls for immediate release of journalist Riad Ali", MDE
15/093/2004, Sept. 28, 2004.
[8] Jeff Halper,
A deeper look into the unfolding crisis in Palestine, http://www.corkpsc.org/db.php?aid=7884, July 19, 2004. This
is an important interview.
[9] Michael
Mandel, How America Gets Away With Murder, Pluto Press 2004,
p. 7.
[10] ibid,
p. 8. NB: this book contains more examples of AI's inconsistencies
and other problems with its moral backbone.
[11] Amnesty
International, "Sudan: The UN Security Council should stop
arms transfers to Sudan and the Janjawid militia", AFR 54/074/2004,
July 2, 2004.
[12] NB: the
propaganda compliant term is "abuse scandal" -- it
is clearly more serious than that.
[13]See for
example: AI-USA, "Amnesty International Urges Release of
Prisoners of Conscience in Cuba on One-Year Anniversary of Arrests",
March 16, 2004.
[14] It is
difficult to classify prisoners in Cuba, and there is some discussion
about this on the web. For their own ends right-wing Cuban-Americans
claim large numbers, but these claims are doubtful. However,
the same groups use AI's POC with relish. NB: many of the prisoners
in AI's Cuba POC list were paid by the US embassy to engage in
black propaganda, and several were caught red-handed receiving
money from embassy staff. Never mind that these people may be
thus tainted, AI raised no questions about their "embassy"
business to bestow a POC status.
[15] Source:
personal communication with the principal AI researcher on Israel-Palestine.
[16] As an
example of the measures taken against the prisoners see: Arnon
Regular, Jonathan Lis, and Jackie Khoury, "Prisons Service
will set up barbecues to combat hunger strike by Palestinian
security prisoners", Ha'aretz, Aug. 16, 2004. Here is one
quote:
"Barbecues
have been set up to grill meat near the cells of Palestinian
security prisoners in an effort to combat a hunger strike that
the prisoners launched yesterday. Prisons Service guards confiscated
cigarettes and candy, along with large quantities of salt, which
the prisoners had hidden in their mattresses apparently to provide
themselves with minerals during the strike. The guards also removed
pens and newspapers. In addition to setting up barbecues to whet
the appetite of security prisoners, the Prisons Service is halting
all family visits for the strikers, while radios and televisions
have been removed from their cells."
[17] AI, "Clarification
needed on status of prisoners after 30 June", MDE 14/031/2004,
June 18, 2004.
[18] AI, "End
bloodshed and killing of children", MDE 14/050/2004, Oct.
1, 2004.
[19] AI, "Excessive
use of force" MDE 15/095/2004, October 5, 2004.
[20] AI, "The
fence/wall violates international law," MDE 15-018-2004,
Feb. 189, 2004.
[21] Mandel,
op. cit., p. 9.
Weekend
Edition Features for September 18 / 19, 2004
Alexander Cockburn
Forgeries,
Fingerprints and Forensic Fakery
Jeffrey St. Clair
High Plains Grifter: Bush's Mask of Anarchy
Patrick Cockburn
Into the Abyss: the Week Iraq's Dream of Peace Fell Apart
Fred Gardner
Pot Shots: Financial Torture (Asset Forfeiture)
Joe Allen
The Comrades Kerry Abandoned: the Real Story of Vietnam Vets
Against the War
George Corsetti
Poletown Revisited: Finally, Some Vindication
Scott Handleman
The Knock-Knock of a Sledgehammer: Sequestered in Nablus
Richard Ward
Two Weeks in Beit Arabiya
Conn Hallinan
Ashcroft and Indonesia
Lori Smith
Health Care in America: And Then I Got Sick...
Dave Zirin
Hold the Booyah!: SportsCenter Out of the Middle East
John L. Hess
Rather Will Take the Heat, As Bush's War Deteriorates
Brian J. Foley
W is for Wimp: So Why do Manly Men Love Him?
Mickey Z.
Pat Tillman and Osama bin Laden: Odd Juxtapositions
Poets' Basement
Vest, Landau & Albert
Website of the Weekend
Eye on the NYTs
/
|