Saturday, July 16, 2005
Iraqi Deaths
New Study Raises Iraq Death Toll
By Irwin Arieff
The Age (Australia)
14 July 2005
Nearly 40,000 Iraqis have been killed as a direct result of combat or armed violence since the US-led invasion. It is a figure considerably higher than previous estimates, a Swiss institute reported yesterday.
The public database Iraqi Body Count, by comparison, estimates that between 22,787 and 25,814 Iraqi civilians have died since the March 2003 invasion, based on reports from at least two media sources.
No official estimates of Iraqi casualties from the war have been issued, although military deaths in the US-led coalition forces are closely tracked and now total 1937.
The new estimate of more than 39,000 was made by the Geneva-based Graduate Institute of International Studies and published in its latest annual small arms survey.
It builds on a study published in The Lancet, a British medical journal, last October that said there had been 100,000 "excess deaths" in Iraq from all causes since March 2003.
The Swiss institute said it arrived at its estimate of Iraqi deaths resulting solely from combat or armed violence by re-examining the data gathered for the Lancet study and classifying, when it could, the cause of death.
Its 2005 small arms survey finds that conflict deaths from small arms have been vastly under-reported in the past, not just in Iraq but around the world.
The number of direct victims of such weapons was likely to have totalled 80,000 to 108,000 during 2003, compared to arlier estimates by other researchers of 27,000 to 51,000 deaths that year.
The under-counting is due mainly to a lack of hard data and an over-reliance by analysts on estimates based on government and media accounts of wars, which were often inaccurate. The number of indirect deaths around the world that can be blamed on small arms has also been underestimated, as these types of weapons typically trigger significant social disruption that leads to secondary causes of death, according to the survey.
Depending on the nature of the conflict, small arms caused between 60 per cent and 90 per cent of all direct war deaths, the study said.
Despite billions of dollars of improvements, thousands of jammers and tonnes of armour plate, the so-called improvised explosive devices in Iraq killed more Americans in May and June than in any previous months, US military figures show. Attacks in May alone reached 700, and the roadside bombs, car bombs and other devices are now the cause of more than half of US casualties in Iraq.
Another US soldier died of injuries he received when his vehicle hit a landmine west of Baghdad, the US military said yesterday. Iraqi insurgents killed 11 soldiers on Monday following a spate of seven suicide bombings on Sunday that killed at least 34 people.
Compiled from Reuters, AP, and Newsday.
By Irwin Arieff
The Age (Australia)
14 July 2005
Nearly 40,000 Iraqis have been killed as a direct result of combat or armed violence since the US-led invasion. It is a figure considerably higher than previous estimates, a Swiss institute reported yesterday.
The public database Iraqi Body Count, by comparison, estimates that between 22,787 and 25,814 Iraqi civilians have died since the March 2003 invasion, based on reports from at least two media sources.
No official estimates of Iraqi casualties from the war have been issued, although military deaths in the US-led coalition forces are closely tracked and now total 1937.
The new estimate of more than 39,000 was made by the Geneva-based Graduate Institute of International Studies and published in its latest annual small arms survey.
It builds on a study published in The Lancet, a British medical journal, last October that said there had been 100,000 "excess deaths" in Iraq from all causes since March 2003.
The Swiss institute said it arrived at its estimate of Iraqi deaths resulting solely from combat or armed violence by re-examining the data gathered for the Lancet study and classifying, when it could, the cause of death.
Its 2005 small arms survey finds that conflict deaths from small arms have been vastly under-reported in the past, not just in Iraq but around the world.
The number of direct victims of such weapons was likely to have totalled 80,000 to 108,000 during 2003, compared to arlier estimates by other researchers of 27,000 to 51,000 deaths that year.
The under-counting is due mainly to a lack of hard data and an over-reliance by analysts on estimates based on government and media accounts of wars, which were often inaccurate. The number of indirect deaths around the world that can be blamed on small arms has also been underestimated, as these types of weapons typically trigger significant social disruption that leads to secondary causes of death, according to the survey.
Depending on the nature of the conflict, small arms caused between 60 per cent and 90 per cent of all direct war deaths, the study said.
Despite billions of dollars of improvements, thousands of jammers and tonnes of armour plate, the so-called improvised explosive devices in Iraq killed more Americans in May and June than in any previous months, US military figures show. Attacks in May alone reached 700, and the roadside bombs, car bombs and other devices are now the cause of more than half of US casualties in Iraq.
Another US soldier died of injuries he received when his vehicle hit a landmine west of Baghdad, the US military said yesterday. Iraqi insurgents killed 11 soldiers on Monday following a spate of seven suicide bombings on Sunday that killed at least 34 people.
Compiled from Reuters, AP, and Newsday.
Friday, July 15, 2005
The "Jerusalem Envelope"
The disgrace outside their windows
by Meron Benvenisti
14 July 2005
Among the initial reactions to Tuesday's murderous attack in Netanya, there were references to the "Jerusalem envelope" fence: Islamic Jihad reportedly says that the motive for the attack was the fence's construction, while security experts did not rule out the possibility that the terrorist infiltrated Netanya via an uncompleted section in Jerusalem.
When these hints (at least the second of which has not yet been confirmed) are added to the cabinet decision earlier this week regarding the completion of the "envelope," while giving breaks to the Arab residents who find themselves outside the fence, it is hard to shake off the impression that the government is vigorously engaged in creating an alibi for a hasty and unfortunate act, since these are all excuses after the fact. The fence was about to be completed in any case, and there was no new situation, except for the need to respond to 13 petitions pending in the High Court of Justice, and to provide "explanations" for the wave of condemnations and threats of sanctions coming from the international community.
Suddenly, the need arose to demonstrate compassion for the tens of thousands of Jerusalem residents whose daily routine has suffered due to the construction of the fence. Deputy Prime Minister (and former Jerusalem mayor) Ehud Olmert suddenly discovered his unfortunate citizens and appointed himself super-mayor, who in 50 days will do something that he did not do during his 10-plus years as mayor. He is relying on people's short memories, mainly when it comes to plans for the Arab population.
Only three days after presenting the cabinet with the plan - whose main feature is an "upgrading" of 12 crossings that will have centers for various services(municipal, government, postal, health care and so on), and the provision of advanced "screening methods" that will make crossing easier - Olmert himself has already torpedoed it. Together with Prime Minister Ariel Sharon and Finance Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, he has made its implementation dependent on international funding, "since the crossings serve the Palestinians"; first he surrounds them with a fence, and then he cynically claims that the crossing is "in the interest" of those who are imprisoned.
An alibi has to look as though it is based on reliable data, and numbers have the appearance of inarguable facts. That is why Olmert mentioned the number 55,000 as representing the population that is being harmed. Even if we assume that this is, in fact, the number of residents in the northern neighborhoods that are included in the municipal area and have been moved outside the fence - this number does not represent all the residents who are directly harmed by the fence. We have to add about another 50,000 people who have Israeli identity cards, who live in satellite communities of East Jerusalem and migrated to them because they could not find housing inside the city, due to the expropriation of land and building restrictions. This means that the fence harms over 40 percent of East Jerusalem's 240,000 Arab residents.
But even this figure does not adequately reflect the extent of the damage: The connection between the city and its built-up metropolitan area is two-way, and just as hundreds of thousands want to visit its center, hundreds of thousands want to maintain an uninterrupted connection with the periphery. The fence rends this urban fabric and harms hundreds of thousands of people; its destructive consequences are not limited to the areas of the "envelope," but undermine the heart of the city, and indirectly the Jewish population as well, which the fence is ostensibly supposed to protect.
A particularly strong alibi is necessary to justify such acts of destruction, so the most solid alibi must be invented: The fence and the misfortune of tens of thousands are actually positive, peace-loving steps; after all, this is "the beginning of the partition of the city," which will be followed by an increasing denial of services to the city residents, along with "subtracting" their neighborhoods, which will be separated from the Jewish city.
It is true, as MK Haim Ramon said, that "the fence makes Jerusalem more Jewish." And the Arab residents, who were once included "hastily and arbitrarily" (in the words of yesterday's editorial on these pages) in the area of Jerusalem and granted residential rights can now be thrown to the winds, because the political fashion has changed. As to the health and education of their children, let them turn to Palestinian Authority Prime Minister Mahmoud Abbas (Abu Mazen).
In the present situation, in which the left is providing the alibi to the right, and the Israeli government is showing disdain for any expression of protest, there is a chance that the "soft transfer" - which is an unavoidable result of the "fence" surrounding Jerusalem - will achieve its goal, and that Jerusalem will in fact be "more Jewish," at the expense of the disintegration of the Palestinian community. For the first time since East Jerusalem was annexed, and after repeated and unsuccessful attempts to break the spirit of the Palestinian community in the city, there is now a real danger to the future of this community as a vital and vibrant body.
The fence, and the human disaster it will bring about, are liable to turn hundreds of thousands of people into a sullen community, hostile and nurturing a desire for revenge. The Jewish community will not escape the effects of the Palestinian communal breakdown, and the fence will herald Jerusalem's return to the pre-1967 years, when it was a besieged border town.
Who will refute the alibi cooked up by the Israeli government concerning the Jerusalem envelope? Perhaps the High Court of Justice, perhaps the international community, and perhaps even Jerusalemites who cannot bear the disgrace that can be seen from the windows of their homes.
by Meron Benvenisti
14 July 2005
Among the initial reactions to Tuesday's murderous attack in Netanya, there were references to the "Jerusalem envelope" fence: Islamic Jihad reportedly says that the motive for the attack was the fence's construction, while security experts did not rule out the possibility that the terrorist infiltrated Netanya via an uncompleted section in Jerusalem.
When these hints (at least the second of which has not yet been confirmed) are added to the cabinet decision earlier this week regarding the completion of the "envelope," while giving breaks to the Arab residents who find themselves outside the fence, it is hard to shake off the impression that the government is vigorously engaged in creating an alibi for a hasty and unfortunate act, since these are all excuses after the fact. The fence was about to be completed in any case, and there was no new situation, except for the need to respond to 13 petitions pending in the High Court of Justice, and to provide "explanations" for the wave of condemnations and threats of sanctions coming from the international community.
Suddenly, the need arose to demonstrate compassion for the tens of thousands of Jerusalem residents whose daily routine has suffered due to the construction of the fence. Deputy Prime Minister (and former Jerusalem mayor) Ehud Olmert suddenly discovered his unfortunate citizens and appointed himself super-mayor, who in 50 days will do something that he did not do during his 10-plus years as mayor. He is relying on people's short memories, mainly when it comes to plans for the Arab population.
Only three days after presenting the cabinet with the plan - whose main feature is an "upgrading" of 12 crossings that will have centers for various services(municipal, government, postal, health care and so on), and the provision of advanced "screening methods" that will make crossing easier - Olmert himself has already torpedoed it. Together with Prime Minister Ariel Sharon and Finance Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, he has made its implementation dependent on international funding, "since the crossings serve the Palestinians"; first he surrounds them with a fence, and then he cynically claims that the crossing is "in the interest" of those who are imprisoned.
An alibi has to look as though it is based on reliable data, and numbers have the appearance of inarguable facts. That is why Olmert mentioned the number 55,000 as representing the population that is being harmed. Even if we assume that this is, in fact, the number of residents in the northern neighborhoods that are included in the municipal area and have been moved outside the fence - this number does not represent all the residents who are directly harmed by the fence. We have to add about another 50,000 people who have Israeli identity cards, who live in satellite communities of East Jerusalem and migrated to them because they could not find housing inside the city, due to the expropriation of land and building restrictions. This means that the fence harms over 40 percent of East Jerusalem's 240,000 Arab residents.
But even this figure does not adequately reflect the extent of the damage: The connection between the city and its built-up metropolitan area is two-way, and just as hundreds of thousands want to visit its center, hundreds of thousands want to maintain an uninterrupted connection with the periphery. The fence rends this urban fabric and harms hundreds of thousands of people; its destructive consequences are not limited to the areas of the "envelope," but undermine the heart of the city, and indirectly the Jewish population as well, which the fence is ostensibly supposed to protect.
A particularly strong alibi is necessary to justify such acts of destruction, so the most solid alibi must be invented: The fence and the misfortune of tens of thousands are actually positive, peace-loving steps; after all, this is "the beginning of the partition of the city," which will be followed by an increasing denial of services to the city residents, along with "subtracting" their neighborhoods, which will be separated from the Jewish city.
It is true, as MK Haim Ramon said, that "the fence makes Jerusalem more Jewish." And the Arab residents, who were once included "hastily and arbitrarily" (in the words of yesterday's editorial on these pages) in the area of Jerusalem and granted residential rights can now be thrown to the winds, because the political fashion has changed. As to the health and education of their children, let them turn to Palestinian Authority Prime Minister Mahmoud Abbas (Abu Mazen).
In the present situation, in which the left is providing the alibi to the right, and the Israeli government is showing disdain for any expression of protest, there is a chance that the "soft transfer" - which is an unavoidable result of the "fence" surrounding Jerusalem - will achieve its goal, and that Jerusalem will in fact be "more Jewish," at the expense of the disintegration of the Palestinian community. For the first time since East Jerusalem was annexed, and after repeated and unsuccessful attempts to break the spirit of the Palestinian community in the city, there is now a real danger to the future of this community as a vital and vibrant body.
The fence, and the human disaster it will bring about, are liable to turn hundreds of thousands of people into a sullen community, hostile and nurturing a desire for revenge. The Jewish community will not escape the effects of the Palestinian communal breakdown, and the fence will herald Jerusalem's return to the pre-1967 years, when it was a besieged border town.
Who will refute the alibi cooked up by the Israeli government concerning the Jerusalem envelope? Perhaps the High Court of Justice, perhaps the international community, and perhaps even Jerusalemites who cannot bear the disgrace that can be seen from the windows of their homes.
Monday, July 11, 2005
Winners Write History, Identify War Crimes AND Pinpoint Conspiracies
[I am amused that I now have the reputation of a "conspiracy theorist." Hitler's conspiracy against democracy in staging the Reichstag Fire is admitted - why do we baulk at similarly categorizing acts which advance the neocon's Project for the New American Century?]
Once again we are confronted with the obscene spectacle of an Anglo-Celtic intelligence agency slaughtering its own citizens to further the ambitions of power-mad leaders.
Well, why not? Support for the “War against Terror” is rapidly ebbing, even in the Imperial heartland of the USA. So what better way to restore the berserker spirit of the Imperial legions and their allies than to stage another atrocity, and blame it on a convenient crop of “foreigners”? Those at the controls of the Empire have indeed learned from history — there has been a “Reichstag Fire” every year since, and including, 11 September 2001.
Such shenanigans will continue until ordinary people of good will throughout the world confront their fanatical leaders, secular and religious, and flush the Bushes, Blairs, Howards AND Ariel Sharons and Osama bin Ladens down the S-bend of history.
Well, why not? Support for the “War against Terror” is rapidly ebbing, even in the Imperial heartland of the USA. So what better way to restore the berserker spirit of the Imperial legions and their allies than to stage another atrocity, and blame it on a convenient crop of “foreigners”? Those at the controls of the Empire have indeed learned from history — there has been a “Reichstag Fire” every year since, and including, 11 September 2001.
Such shenanigans will continue until ordinary people of good will throughout the world confront their fanatical leaders, secular and religious, and flush the Bushes, Blairs, Howards AND Ariel Sharons and Osama bin Ladens down the S-bend of history.
Sunday, July 10, 2005
American Exceptionalism
The Power and the Glory: Myths of American Exceptionalism
Howard Zinn
The notion of American exceptionalism - that the United States alone has the right, whether by divine sanction or moral obligation, to bring civilization, or democracy, or liberty to the rest of the world, by violence if necessary-is not new. It started as early as 1630 in the Massachusetts Bay Colony when Governor John Winthrop uttered the words that centuries later would be quoted by Ronald Reagan. Winthrop called the Massachusetts Bay Colony a "city upon a hill." Reagan embellished a little, calling it a "shining city on a hill."
The idea of a city on a hill is heartwarming. It suggests what George Bush has spoken of: that the United States is a beacon of liberty and democracy. People can look to us and learn from and emulate us.
In reality, we have never been just a city on a hill. A few years after Governor Winthrop uttered his famous words, the people in the city on a hill moved out to massacre the Pequot Indians. Here's a description by William Bradford, an early settler, of Captain John Mason's attack on a Pequot village.
Those that escaped the fire were slain with the sword, some hewed to pieces, others run through with their rapiers, so as they were quickly dispatched and very few escaped. It was conceived that they thus destroyed about 400 at this time. It was a fearful sight to see them thus frying in the fire and the streams of blood quenching the same, and horrible was the stink and scent thereof; but the victory seemed a sweet sacrifice, and they gave the praise thereof to God, who had wrought so wonderfully for them, thus to enclose their enemies in their hands and give them so speedy a victory over so proud and insulting an enemy.
The kind of massacre described by Bradford occurs again and again as Americans march west to the Pacific and south to the Gulf of Mexico. (In fact our celebrated war of liberation, the American Revolution, was disastrous for the Indians. Colonists had been restrained from encroaching on the Indian territory by the British and the boundary set up in their Proclamation of 1763. American independence wiped out that boundary.)
Expanding into another territory, occupying that territory, and dealing harshly with people who resist occupation has been a persistent fact of American history from the first settlements to the present day. And this was often accompanied from very early on with a particular form of American exceptionalism: the idea that American expansion is divinely ordained. On the eve of the war with Mexico in the middle of the 19th century, just after the United States annexed Texas, the editor and writer John O'Sullivan coined the famous phrase "manifest destiny." He said it was "the fulfillment of our manifest destiny to overspread the continent allotted by Providence for the free development of our yearly multiplying millions." At the beginning of the 20th century, when the United States invaded the Philippines, President McKinley said that the decision to take the Philippines came to him one night when he got down on his knees and prayed, and God told him to take the Philippines.
Invoking God has been a habit for American presidents throughout the nation's history, but George W. Bush has made a specialty of it. For an article in the Israeli newspaper Ha'aretz, the reporter talked with Palestinian leaders who had met with Bush. One of them reported that Bush told him, "God told me to strike at al Qaeda. And I struck them. And then he instructed me to strike at Saddam, which I did. And now I am determined to solve the problem in the Middle East." It's hard to know if the quote is authentic, especially because it is so literate. But it certainly is consistent with Bush's oft-expressed claims. A more credible story comes from a Bush supporter, Richard Lamb, the president of the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention, who says that during the election campaign Bush told him, "I believe God wants me to be president. But if that doesn't happen, that's okay."
It seems that the idea of American exceptionalism is pervasive across the political spectrum.
The idea is not challenged because the history of American expansion in the world is not a history that is taught very much in our educational system. A couple of years ago Bush addressed the Philippine National Assembly and said, "America is proud of its part in the great story of the Filipino people. Together our soldiers liberated the Philippines from colonial rule." The president apparently never learned the story of the bloody conquest of the Philippines.
Howard Zinn
The notion of American exceptionalism - that the United States alone has the right, whether by divine sanction or moral obligation, to bring civilization, or democracy, or liberty to the rest of the world, by violence if necessary-is not new. It started as early as 1630 in the Massachusetts Bay Colony when Governor John Winthrop uttered the words that centuries later would be quoted by Ronald Reagan. Winthrop called the Massachusetts Bay Colony a "city upon a hill." Reagan embellished a little, calling it a "shining city on a hill."
The idea of a city on a hill is heartwarming. It suggests what George Bush has spoken of: that the United States is a beacon of liberty and democracy. People can look to us and learn from and emulate us.
In reality, we have never been just a city on a hill. A few years after Governor Winthrop uttered his famous words, the people in the city on a hill moved out to massacre the Pequot Indians. Here's a description by William Bradford, an early settler, of Captain John Mason's attack on a Pequot village.
Those that escaped the fire were slain with the sword, some hewed to pieces, others run through with their rapiers, so as they were quickly dispatched and very few escaped. It was conceived that they thus destroyed about 400 at this time. It was a fearful sight to see them thus frying in the fire and the streams of blood quenching the same, and horrible was the stink and scent thereof; but the victory seemed a sweet sacrifice, and they gave the praise thereof to God, who had wrought so wonderfully for them, thus to enclose their enemies in their hands and give them so speedy a victory over so proud and insulting an enemy.
The kind of massacre described by Bradford occurs again and again as Americans march west to the Pacific and south to the Gulf of Mexico. (In fact our celebrated war of liberation, the American Revolution, was disastrous for the Indians. Colonists had been restrained from encroaching on the Indian territory by the British and the boundary set up in their Proclamation of 1763. American independence wiped out that boundary.)
Expanding into another territory, occupying that territory, and dealing harshly with people who resist occupation has been a persistent fact of American history from the first settlements to the present day. And this was often accompanied from very early on with a particular form of American exceptionalism: the idea that American expansion is divinely ordained. On the eve of the war with Mexico in the middle of the 19th century, just after the United States annexed Texas, the editor and writer John O'Sullivan coined the famous phrase "manifest destiny." He said it was "the fulfillment of our manifest destiny to overspread the continent allotted by Providence for the free development of our yearly multiplying millions." At the beginning of the 20th century, when the United States invaded the Philippines, President McKinley said that the decision to take the Philippines came to him one night when he got down on his knees and prayed, and God told him to take the Philippines.
Invoking God has been a habit for American presidents throughout the nation's history, but George W. Bush has made a specialty of it. For an article in the Israeli newspaper Ha'aretz, the reporter talked with Palestinian leaders who had met with Bush. One of them reported that Bush told him, "God told me to strike at al Qaeda. And I struck them. And then he instructed me to strike at Saddam, which I did. And now I am determined to solve the problem in the Middle East." It's hard to know if the quote is authentic, especially because it is so literate. But it certainly is consistent with Bush's oft-expressed claims. A more credible story comes from a Bush supporter, Richard Lamb, the president of the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention, who says that during the election campaign Bush told him, "I believe God wants me to be president. But if that doesn't happen, that's okay."
It seems that the idea of American exceptionalism is pervasive across the political spectrum.
The idea is not challenged because the history of American expansion in the world is not a history that is taught very much in our educational system. A couple of years ago Bush addressed the Philippine National Assembly and said, "America is proud of its part in the great story of the Filipino people. Together our soldiers liberated the Philippines from colonial rule." The president apparently never learned the story of the bloody conquest of the Philippines.
