Israeli crimes in Gaza
Thursday, 17 Sep, 2009
IT took the UN eight months to tell us what the world already knew — that Israeli forces committed war crimes and possible crimes against humanity on a wide scale in the Gaza Strip during their December-January blitz. In early January, while Israeli forces were continuing their slaughter of Palestinian civilians, Human Rights Watch revealed that Israeli troops were firing shells containing white phosphorus on civilian population centres. This incendiary agent sets fires and burns the skin, and HRW said its workers watched “hours of artillery bombardment” by Israeli troops on the Jabaliya refugee centre. As with their periodic invasions of Lebanon, where Israeli forces as a matter of policy attack refugee centres, especially Qana, the Israelis attacked places where Gazans had gathered to seek refuge. On the whole, the 22-day blitz by Israel damaged or destroyed 22,000 buildings and left 1,300 people dead, 40 per cent of whom, according to impartial observers, were women and children. Also attacked was a mosque at prayer time. The UN body also accused Palestinian militias of war crimes, and possible crimes against humanity, for their rocket attacks on non-military targets in Israeli cities.
Israel, which did not cooperate with the UN’s fact-finding commission headed by a man who is himself a Jew from South Africa, rejected the report. Such censure by the UN is not going to make Israel think and behave responsibly. The Jewish state is immune to criticism, because it knows it is the region’s most powerful state militarily and can get away with all manner of crime because it enjoys America’s support. Washington’s Middle East policy is hostage to its domestic politics, for Tel Aviv knows the powerful Jewish lobby in the US will always bail it out of trouble, no matter what crime Israel commits.
************************************************** ********
Communal tensions
Thursday, 17 Sep, 2009
THE religious chauvinism that has become rampant in the country is nowhere in better evidence than in the case of Fanish Masih. On Friday, in village Jaithikey near Sialkot, allegations spread that Masih and four other young men had desecrated a copy of the Quran. Requiring no proof, a slavering mob burnt down a church and ransacked nearby houses. The terror felt by the area’s Christian residents was such that the entire community — some 30 Christian households amongst over a 100 Muslim homes — abandoned their dwellings and fled. Masih was found dead in his cell on Tuesday, with jail officials claiming he had committed suicide. The exact circumstances of Masih’s death are shadowy and merit a thorough inquiry: the method of ‘suicide’ described so far by the jail authorities raises many questions. Moreover, having taken him into custody, it was the duty of the authorities to keep Masih safe. The protection of all citizens is a fundamental responsibility of the state and its subsidiaries.
Outbreaks of communal tension — especially that stoked by allegations of blasphemy — can have a snowball effect. This incident comes on the heels of the tragedy in Gojra, where several Christians were killed and many homes were torched by a similarly enraged mob. The country cannot risk these attacks turning into a pogrom against minorities, particularly given suspicions that certain banned sectarian outfits had a hand in the Gojra violence. By neglecting to protect minority community members and failing to take action against rampaging mobs, the law stands in danger of signalling that such violence is tolerated by the state. As the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan pointed out in a recent statement, “allegations of blasphemy and defiling of religious scriptures … do not warrant vigilante attacks. Nor do they absolve the government of its primary duty to protect all citizens.” In the Jaithikey incident, a case has been registered against unknown people for burning down the church. Effective prosecution would serve as a deterrent to future attacks of this nature. The majority Muslim community must also learn to adhere to the law and demonstrate self-restraint.
************************************************** ********
Militancy and the law
Thursday, 17 Sep, 2009
ACCORDING to a report in this paper, the government is preparing to amend anti-terrorism laws to eliminate loopholes that may allow terrorists and militants to walk free on technicalities and/or lack of evidence. Operation Rah-i-Rast in Swat may have been the catalyst for the impending changes, but there is a general problem with the law and its implementation is found wanting when it comes to punishing militants. Undoubtedly there is a social and political element in this debate, for it is demoralising and frightening for the people when the state seems unable to prosecute and punish those involved in terrorism. Yet laws must not be tinkered with in haste and every effort should be made to ensure that changes are thoroughly thought out and well designed. At the moment though it is not clear if the proposed amendments to the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997 meet those criteria.
Firstly, the primary stamping ground of the militants lies outside Pakistan proper in Fata and Pata, areas where the applicability of the 1997 act is not clear. And in the case of Malakand specifically, the latest Nizam-i-Adl regulation may have displaced anti-terrorism laws. Secondly, even if the militants are captured elsewhere and then moved within the jurisdiction of anti-terrorism courts, that very process may create legal loopholes that defence lawyers could exploit. For example, state prosecutors would have to rely on evidence gathered by the security forces in a war zone rather than on police investigators who are trained in such matters. Thirdly, the proposed reversal of the burden of proof, so that militants under trial are presumed guilty and have to prove their innocence, is unlikely to pass muster with the courts. When such ‘special laws’ have been enacted in the past, the courts have found ways to either water down the reversal of the burden of proof or ignore it altogether. This makes sense, for whatever the urgency in seeing that militants are punished there is little doubt that the country’s judicial system does accidentally, and sometimes wilfully, net the innocent.
We suggest therefore that the government seek the input of legal and constitutional experts and thoroughly debate the proposed changes before implementing them. There is also the option of directly referring the matter to the Supreme Court under its advisory jurisdiction set out in Article 186 of the constitution. We remain mindful that in the bigger picture it is essential that militants be prosecuted successfully and not walk free. Whatever the balance that needs to be struck, it must be done sooner rather than later.
************************************************** ********
OTHER VOICES - Middle East Press RAND report
Thursday, 17 Sep, 2009
… A CASE in point of international diplomacy at its arrogant worst is the new RAND Corporation report…. The … research … urges the US Obama administration to threaten Turkey with “negative consequences” to its European Union bid should any incursion into northern Iraq impede American withdrawal from that … war-torn country….
… [W]e have consistently and vigorously supported the government’s initiatives to resolve the long-suppressed issue of Turkey’s Kurds who have been denied many civil rights.
So we take great offence that RAND believes Turkey should be muscled into continuing this policy as insurance against a military incursion by Turkey in the wake of an Iraqi civil war sparked by the American exit. Such a report … is simply a guarantee that the legitimacy of the “Kurdish opening” will be … probably derailed.…
… RAND should “understand” Turkish sentiment. It is clear this institution does not. And this is why we can only summon contempt for a report that reeks of arrogance. — (Sept 13)
Fumbling at the bureau
… AHEAD of the Knesset elections Netanyahu boasted of his ‘First 100 days’ team’, which was meant to prepare his smooth takeover…. … It’s been more like 100 horrors….
The Netanyahu bureau is divided and caught in the chaos of factions, infighting, battling for a position close to the prime minister and access to information — including the lie detector that hangs like a sword over their heads. Except the polygraph test is meant to reveal when lies are told, but apparently in Netanyahu’s bureau it is necessary to check when someone is actually telling the truth.
The most characteristic example of the raucous in his bureau was provided by the prime minister himself during his secret trip abroad, which was so classified that even the air force could not be relied on.
The same air force whose pilots may be asked to risk their lives and fly to Iran could not be trusted — thus a great deal of money was spent on a private jet to transport the prime minister to Moscow… — (Sept 11)