Brief van moeder Hofland, september 1947: 'Je moet, Henk, als iemand je eens nodig heeft, ook eens klaar staan. Probeer het eens. Het doet jezelf ook goed als je niet altijd alleen voor jezelf leeft.'
Brief van Hofland, november 1948, waarin hij vertelt lid te zijn geworden van de communistenbond Spartacus: 'De hele zaak is volstrekt niet populair, uiterst links en op het anarchistische af, zodat ik voorlopig tamelijk geestdriftig ben.'
Al vanaf zijn adolescentie is Henk Hofland een streber, in de strikte zin van het woord, een carrièrejager die 'alleen voor' zichzelf leeft en daarom onvermijdelijk een conformist is geworden die koketteert met het afwijkende, maar die als het erom spant eieren voor zijn geld kiest. Immers, vooral de streber weet dat de 'moderne wereld onverbiddelijk [is]. Ze verdraagt het bijzondere niet,' zoals de Duitse journalist/auteur/historicus Joachim Fest in zijn schitterende reisverslag Tegenlicht. Een Italiaanse reis (1990) noteerde. Hoewel de postmoderne mens zichzelf graag op de borst slaat bestond '[v]roeger een domheid die lijdelijk bleef en waarvan de trage rust toch een soort levenswijsheid verried. Tegenwoordig echter kom je steeds meer een domheid tegen die met nimmer aflatende energie, rusteloos zwoegend, alles aanvalt en te gronde richt,' aldus onderrichtte de Siciliaanse schrijver Leonardo Scascia zijn lezers. De hedendaagse domheid valt de mens van alle kanten aan, er is geen ontsnappen mogelijk, werkelijk overal treft men het stupide gezever aan van mainstream-opiniemakers als Henk Hofland en Geert Mak, tot wie ik mij in deze serie beperk omdat ze zo kenmerkend zijn voor de rest van de zelfbenoemde 'politiek-literaire elite' in de polder. Wijlen Joachim Fest had gelijk toen hij vaststelde dat
wij voor de eerste maal getuige [zijn] van een decadentie-proces dat niet begeleid wordt door verfijningen, dat grootsheid noch stijl afleidt uit het bewustzijn van de eigen vergankelijkheid, en waarbij de instellingen samen met de goede smaak in verval raken... Bij het beeld van cultureel late tijdperken, van het hellenisme tot in het begin van deze eeuw, hoort de cultus van het individuele en wat daar voor doorgaat: scepsis en ironie, het gevoel voor maskerade, spel met ideeën en citaten, en de algemene transformatie van al het reële tot literatuur. In plaats daarvan overheersen nu de overtuigingen. In het koor van als oerkreet uitgestoten opvattingen, waarvan de straten weergalmen, verdrinkt elke mogelijkheid tot intelligente omgang met de tegenstellingen, het geluk van de radeloosheid, zonder dat het gehoord wordt. En een alternatieve cultuur, die alles loochent wat bij het begrip cultuur hoort, namelijk het streven naar vorm in alle opzichten, vindt ontelbare aanhangers. Men kan jammeren over dergelijke verschijnselen. Opvallend is hierin dat de geschiedenis dergelijke regressieprocessen steeds verbindt met de beelden van geestelijke ondermijning of van geweld dat van buiten komt, terwijl de verwoesters in dit geval uit de coulissen van de verouderde cultuur zelf te voorschijn komen: een avant-garde van de verveling, vol verachting voor het traditionele en open voor elke afbrekende neiging; zonder ware kracht echter, ondanks alle voorkeur voor het vulgaire en haveloze.
Een treffendere beschrijving van Hoflands platte, onverzadigbare egoïsme is nauwelijks denkbaar. In plaats van het besef dat 'we' in een ingrijpende overgangstijd leven probeert de ouwe baas te redden wat er te redden valt voor hemzelf en zijn kleinburgerlijke achterban. Daarom 'moet [meer] worden gedaan om te voorkomen dat' de armen en berooiden in de wereld 'onze' kant opkomen. 'Ja, dat is de kern van het probleem.' En nadat hij met een verbijsterend simplisme de oorzaak heeft benoemd van het probleem dat de toekomst zal tekenen, voegt hij hier snel aan toe: '[m]aar nog altijd blijft het de vraag hoe we het effectief moeten aanpakken. Er nadert een antwoord, het is er nog niet.' Hier is inderdaad sprake van een 'decadentie-proces dat niet begeleid wordt door verfijningen, dat grootsheid noch stijl afleidt uit het bewustzijn van de eigen vergankelijkheid,' maar van een vergeefse poging de status quo te handhaven, om op die manier de 'regressieprocessen' zo langdurig mogelijk te kunnen rekken. Vandaag de dag 'overheersen de overtuigingen,' de voorgekookte opinies van de speciaal hiervoor aangestelde opiniemakers, die zichzelf de avant-garde van de goede smaak beschouwen, maar die in de consumptiecultuur niet meer zijn dan de 'avant-garde van de verveling' en derhalve geen 'scepsis en ironie,' kent en dus geen 'gevoel voor maskerade, spel met ideeën en citaten, en de algemene transformatie van al het reële tot literatuur.' Voor de Nederlandse intelligentsia bestaat alleen het eigen materiële welzijn, de pens en de onderbuik. Hoflands moeder sprak uit ervaring, toen zij in het jaar waarin ik geboren werd, haar zoon adviseerde: 'Je moet, Henk, als iemand je eens nodig heeft, ook eens klaar staan. Probeer het eens. Het doet jezelf ook goed als je niet altijd alleen voor jezelf leeft.' Zijn moeder besefte kennelijk niet dat altruïsme als een belachelijke houding wordt gezien door degenen die rotsvast in het moderne kapitalisme blijven geloven, een systeem dat zich alleen via onverzadigbare begeerte overeind weet te houden. Het siert Hoflands moeder dat zij niet begreep hoe fundamenteel anders haar zoon was dan zij. Twee jaar na Henk's geboorte, in 1929, beschreef de Spaanse filosoof Ortega Y Gasset in De Opstand der Horden hoe de technologische samenleving wordt gedomineerd door de middelmatigheid van de moderne mens, die in zijn geconditioneerde angsten en verlangens volstrekt gelijk geschakeld reageert. Hij stelde:
De zoon der kleine luiden heeft sinds de tweede helft van de negentiende eeuw geen maatschappelijke versperringen meer op zijn weg. Dat wil dus zeggen, dat hij… vrij van banden en beperkingen is… De wereld waarin deze nieuwe mens van zijn geboorte af geplaatst is, noodzaakt hem op geen enkele manier tot beperking, zij legt hem geen enkel verbod op en dwingt hem tot geen enkele onthouding. Integendeel, zij zweept zijn begeerten op, die in beginsel tot in het oneindige kunnen toenemen. Want een feit is, en dit is van groot belang, dat deze wereld… niet alleen de volmaaktheden en wijdten heeft die ze inderdaad bezit, maar bovendien nog haar bewoners de waan geeft dat zij morgen nog rijker, nog volmaakter en nog wijder zal zijn, alsof zij plotseling was gaan groeien en er aan haar expansiemogelijkheden geen grenzen waren gesteld… Dat wat men vroeger als een weldaad van het lot zou hebben beschouwd en waardoor men dankbaar gestemd zou zijn geweest ten opzichte van de verborgen bestiering van het leven, veranderde in een recht dat men niet dankbaar aanvaardt maar driest opeist.
Vandaar dat nu de grenzen onmiddellijk hermetisch gesloten dienen te worden van H.J.A. Hofland. De leer van het oneindige egoïsme, de doctrine van de eeuwige begeerte is niet in staat van de werkelijkheid te leren. Elke ideologie probeert de realiteit naar haar hand te zetten, en zodra dit niet meer lukt stort het ineen. In zijn boek Is There Hope For Uncle Sam? (2008) analyseert professor Jan Nederveen Pieterse deze ontwikkeling als volgt:
Greenspan (van 1986 tot 2006 voorzitter van de centrale bank van de VS, de Federal Reserve. svh) endorsed the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy and helped Bush economics along with low interest rates. The Federal Reserve's policies furthered the deindustrialization (Greenspan wondered why industry is necessary) and financialization of the economy and set the US firmly on its course of foreign borrowing. The massive deficits built during the G.W. Bush administration are the crowning achievement of this era. Under the motto 'deficits don't matter' state and local debt rose to $1.7 trillion and the savings rate, which had been around 10 percent in the 1970s, dwindled to -o.5 percent in 2005 and -1 percent in 2006, a negative rate that was only matched during the debt of the Depression in 1933. Mortgage debt stood at $ 4.4 trillion in 2000 and rose steeply to $7.5 trillion in 2004, while total household debt rose from $6.5 trillion in 2000 to $10.2 trillion in 2004 -- both almost double in four years.
In 2005 the national debt stood at $13.5 trillion, 115 percent of GDP. In 2007 the current account deficit was $800 billion per year and the US borrowed $70 billion per month and $3 billion each trading day. In 2006 alone the US borrowed 60 percent of all global credit. The interest on the debt is $7 billion per week. This means that poorer countries are funding American assets.
Foreign credit enables the US to keep interest rates low. The Federal Reserve's low interest rates (at 1 percent during 2003-04, below the rate of inflation) turned the boom into a bubble -- 'the credit bubble, the mortgage finance bubble, the hedge-fund bubble, and the systemic liquidity (money supply) bubble.' Low interest rates folded the market with liquidity and enabled companies to borrow to buy other companies (leveraged buyouts), which ushered a wave of mergers and acquisitions that, in turn, pushed the Dow Jones index over 13.000, lifting Wall Street to unprecedented levels at a time when the 'real economy' of American workers was shrinking. The second effect of low interest rates was that it made mortgages cheap, which lead to rising house prices; rising real estate enabled home owners to refinance their mortgages, which supported consumer spending and rising debt. Paul Krugman noted in 2005, 'the fact is that the U.S. economy's growth over the past few years has depended on two unsustainable trends: a huge surge in house prices and a vast inflow of funds from Asia. Sooner or later, both trends will end, possibly abrupt.'
Minder dan drie jaar later was het zover, de kredietcrisis brak in alle hevigheid uit, zeer tot de verbazing van degenen die geloofden dat door te gokken met niet bestaand geld het hele Westen net zo rijk zou als een casino in Las Vegas. Zo beweerde de huidige adjunct-hoofdredacteur van de 'kwaliteitskrant' NRC Handelsblad, Egbert Kalse, in oktober 2008 als economisch redacteur:
Jij vraagt je natuurlijk af waarom jouw bank in Nederland in hemelsnaam in Amerikaanse hypotheken gaat beleggen? Dat komt omdat ze dachten daar meer geld mee te kunnen verdienen dan met andere beleggingen. Iedereen (dan bedoel ik voor de verandering maar weer eens echt iedereen) dacht dat de huizenprijzen in Amerika altijd zouden blijven stijgen. Dom natuurlijk, maar zo was het wel. En omdat iedereen dat dacht, dacht ook iedereen dat het wel veilig was daarin te beleggen. Niet dus.
'Iedereen' betekent voor de Nederlandse mainstream-pers 'echt iedereen' in de polder die tot Hoflands geborneerde 'politiek-literaire elite' behoort, want zelfs de waarschuwingen van de New York Times econoom Krugman waren te hoog gegrepen voor het slag journalisten dat hier het hoogste woord voert. De mainstream-journalistiek dacht dat in een geglobaliseerde wereld zowel de Amerikaanse staat als de Amerikaanse burger onbeperkt op de pof konden blijven leven en dat anderen, het liefst in de Derde Wereld, de rekening zouden blijven betalen. Hoewel ook de Europese politici het desastreuze neoliberale model invoerden, omdat er geen 'alternatief' zou zijn, meldde de jurist en journalist Geert Mak in zijn vuistdikke In Europa (2004) tot volle tevredenheid van de hoog geplaatsten, als ik een mainstream-begrip mag lenen, dat ‘Europa als economische eenheid' een 'eind op weg’ was, niet bewust van de neoliberale revolutie die zich onder zijn neus voltrok. Op zijn beurt probeerde Henk Hofland in 2009 in De Groene Amsterdammer zijn publiek te bedriegen door te beweren dat geen enkel land zonder zijn 'politiek-literaire elite' kan, en dat
Redacties van de serieuze media, instituten [zijn] waar honderden specialisten werken. Met onverbiddelijke regelmaat leveren ze het product op basis waarvan de burgerij tot een gefundeerd politiek oordeel komt.
De propaganda van de Nederlandse intelligentsia zal de burger niet wijzer maken. Daarom opnieuw Jan Nederveen Pieterse, hoogleraar 'Global Studies and Sociology in the Global & International Studies Program at the University of California, Santa Barbara':
According to Kevin Phillips (Amerikaanse auteur en politiek commentator. svh), 'the evidence is that once a great economic power goes so far down the deficit-and-debt route, Pandora's fiscal box cannot be closed. The Spanish, the Dutch, and the British, each in turn, proved unable to turn back their public debt once it gained momentum because the vested interests involved were too great.' Also in the US, 'For most firms, federal debt has meant gravy, not hardship.' Hence 'As massive debt becomes a major national problem, it also becomes a financial opportunity and vested interest.'
Dit soort eenvoudige logica is voor de Nederlandse 'vrije pers' even onbegrijpelijk als hogere wiskunde, en dus kan ze niet voorzien wat de toekomst in petto heeft wanneer eenmaal een bepaalde koers is ingeslagen. De cultureel antropoloog, professor Nederveen Pieterse:
Easy money is the foundation of what has been called the 'borrower-industrial complex' but should be termed the 'lender-borrower service complex' for it accompanied the transformation of the American economy into a service economy. Greenspan's legacy, according to The Economist, 'will be the biggest economic imbalances in American history.' Greenspan's low interest rates ushered in a phase in which part of America's economic prosperity 'is based not on genuine gains in income, nor on high productivity growth, but on borrowing from the future.' When Greenspan left the Federal Reserve, Princeton economists called him 'the greatest central banker who ever lived,' whereas Senate minority leader Harry Reid called him 'one f he biggest political hacks (zwendelaar. svh) in Washington,' only to be shushed by fellow Democrats.
Extreme capitalism is built in many layers, but easy money connect most of them. While easy money made corporations awash with funds it didn't improve their productivity, efficiency, capacity utilization, or profitability. It did change corporate governance and reinforced the financialization of corporations and the rise of the chief financial officer alongside the chief executive officer. In 1950 profits from the financial sector accounted for 8 percent of total US corporate earnings, for 20 percent in 1990, and for 31 percent in 2006. Another assessment notes, 'The money that's made from manufacturing stuff is a pittance (een schijntje. svh) in comparison to the amount of money made from shuffling money around. Forty-four percent of all corporate profits in te U.S. come from the financial sector compared with only 10% from the manufacturing sector.' Leading American manufacturers such as the automakers made their profits no longer from selling cars but from selling finance. These changes eroded cohesion within firms. According to the CEO of Costco (postorderbedrijf svh), 'obscene salaries send the wrong message through a company. The message is that all brilliance emanates from the top; that the worker on the floor of the store or the factory is insignificant.' The super salaries at the top, the growing role of the Chief Financial Officer and the financial department, and the cost-cutting exercises of the new incoming Masters of Business Associations all combine to concentrate corporate power at the top. The mergers and acquisitions that prop up stock values do not necessarily improve corporate efficiency but in some cases erode productivity.
En 'Iedereen (dan bedoel ik voor de verandering maar weer eens echt iedereen)' in dit virtuele en besloten wereldje van speculanten en hun woordvoerders in de mainstream-pers gelooft nog steeds dat alleen door gokken op de beurs en niet door het produceren van goederen of diensten tot in lengte van dagen het neoliberalisme almaar hogere winsten zal genereren. Dat is tevens de voornaamste reden waarom westerse politici van links zowel als rechts zelfs na de kredietcrisis van 2008 blijven weigeren het gokken met niet-bestaand geld aan banden te leggen. Tot straks deze schijnwereld opnieuw implodeert met nog ernstigere consequenties dan tot nu toe het geval is geweest. Duidelijk is nu al dat de VS niet alleen moreel maar zeker ook financieel volkomen failliet is. Desondanks schreef Henk Hofland onder de kop 'Hillary’s nieuwe wereld' in De Groene Amsterdammer van 15 april 2015 dat 'het Westen zich [zal] moeten aanpassen, nog altijd bij voorkeur onder Amerikaanse leiding, als het een Democraat is.'
Lloyd Blankfein, CEO of Goldman Sachs, greets Hillary Clinton
Dat 'Hillary,' of welke andere politicus die president zal worden van de VS, absoluut niet in staat is 'leiding' te geven aan een historische aanpassing 'aan de rest van de wereld,' is iets dat de hoogbejaarde Koude Oorlogsprofeet niet weet, omdat zijn ideologische kijk op de wereld hem belet te zien wat er voor zijn ogen in het Westen is gebeurd sinds de val van de Sovjet Unie. Het triomfalisme van het einde van de geschiedenis is niets anders dan een Pyrrusoverwinning geweest. 'Since the funny money bubble of the new millennium has been accompanied by growing economic apartheid, it has been described as 'class warfare by the rich.' The implication is that increasingly social inequality is the foundation of the new American economy and not a mere sideshow,' aldus professor Jan Nederveen Pieterse, maar deze constatering zult u nooit vernemen van de parasitaire elite die de macht heeft veroverd, en eveneens niet van haar woordvoeders als Henk Hofland en Geert Mak, om slechts twee mainstream-opportunisten te noemen. Hoe kan het ook anders, want als de moeder van eerst genoemde nog op zijn twintigste erop moest wijzen dat 'Je moet, Henk, als iemand je eens nodig heeft, ook eens klaar staan. Probeer het eens. Het doet jezelf ook goed als je niet altijd alleen voor jezelf leeft,' dan begin je je volwassen leven met een onoverbrugbare achterstand. Meer later.
Israeli soldiers cast doubt on legality of Gaza military tactics
Testimonies of Israeli combatants about last year’s war show apparent disregard for safety of civilians
Testimonies provided by more than 60 Israeli soldiers who fought in last summer’s war in Gaza have raised serious questions over whether Israel’s tactics breached its obligations under international law to distinguish and protect civilians.
The claims – collected by the human rights group Breaking the Silence – are contained in dozens of interviews with Israeli combatants, as well as with soldiers who served in command centres and attack rooms, a quarter of them officers up to the rank of major.
They include allegations that Israeli ground troops were briefed to regard everything inside Gaza as a “threat” and they should “not spare ammo”, and that tanks fired randomly or for revenge on buildings without knowing whether they were legitimate military targets or contained civilians.
In their testimonies, soldiers depict rules of engagement they characterised as permissive, “lax” or largely non-existent, including how some soldiers were instructed to treat anyone seen looking towards their positions as “scouts” to be fired on.
The group also claims that the Israeli military operated with different safety margins for bombing or using artillery and mortars near civilians and its own troops, with Israeli forces at times allowed to fire significantly closer to civilians than Israeli soldiers.
Phillipe Sands, professor of law at University College London and a specialist in international humanitarian law, described the testimonies as “troubling insights into intention and method”.
“Maybe it will be said that they are partial and selective, but surely they cannot be ignored or brushed aside, coming as they do from individuals with first-hand experience: the rule of law requires proper investigation and inquiry.”
Describing the rules that meant life and death in Gaza during the 50-day war – a conflict in which 2,200 Palestinians were killed – the interviews shed light for the first time not only on what individual soldiers were told but on the doctrine informing the operation.
Despite the insistence of Israeli leaders that it took all necessary precautions to protect civilians, the interviews provide a very different picture. They suggest that an overarching priority was the minimisation of Israeli military casualties even at the risk of Palestinian civilians being harmed.
While the Israel Defence Forces Military Advocate General’s office has launched investigations into a number of individual incidents of alleged wrongdoing, the testimonies raise wider questions over policies under which the war was conducted.
Post-conflict briefings to soldiers suggest that the high death toll and destruction were treated as “achievements” by officers who judged the attrition would keep Gaza “quiet for five years”.
The tone, according to one sergeant, was set before the ground offensive into Gaza that began on 17 July last year in pre-combat briefings that preceded the entry of six reinforced brigades into Gaza.
“[It] took place during training at Tze’elim, before entering Gaza, with the commander of the armoured battalion to which we were assigned,” recalled a sergeant, one of dozens of Israeli soldiers who have described how the war was fought last summer in the coastal strip.
“[The commander] said: ‘We don’t take risks. We do not spare ammo. We unload, we use as much as possible.’”
“The rules of engagement [were] pretty identical,” added another sergeant who served in a mechanised infantry unit in Deir al-Balah. “Anything inside [the Gaza Strip] is a threat
The area has to be ‘sterilised,’ empty of people – and if we don’t see someone waving a white flag, screaming: “I give up” or something – then he’s a threat and there’s authorisation to open fire ... The saying was: ‘There’s no such thing there as a person who is uninvolved.’ In that situation, anyone there is involved.”
“The rules of engagement for soldiers advancing on the ground were: open fire, open fire everywhere, first thing when you go in,” recalled another soldier who served during the ground operation in Gaza City. The assumption being that the moment we went in [to the Gaza Strip], anyone who dared poke his head out was a terrorist.”
Soldiers were also encouraged to treat individuals who came too close or watched from windows or other vantage points as “scouts” who could be killed regardless of whether there was hard evidence they were spotting for Hamas or other militant groups. “If it looks like a man, shoot. It was simple: you’re in a motherfucking combat zone,” said a sergeant who served in an infantry unit in the northern Gaza strip.
“A few hours before you went in the whole area was bombed, if there’s anyone there who doesn’t clearly look innocent, you apparently need to shoot that person.” Defining ‘innocent’ he added: “If you see the person is less than 1.40 metres tall or if you see it’s a lady ... If it’s a man you shoot.”
In at least one instance described by soldiers, being female did not help two women who were killed because one had a mobile phone. A soldier described the incident: “After the commander told the tank commander to go scan that place, and three tanks went to check [the bodies] ... it was two women, over the age of 30 ... unarmed. They were listed as terrorists. They were fired at. So of course they must have been terrorists.”
The testimonies raise questions whether Israel fully met its obligations to protect civilians in a conflict area from unnecessary harm, requiring it not only to distinguish between civilians and combatants but also ensure that when using force, where there is the risk of civilian harm, that it is “proportionate”.
“One of the main threads in the testimonies,” said Michael Sfard, an Israeli human rights lawyer and legal adviser to Breaking the Silence, “is the presumption that despite the fact that the battle was being waged in urban area – and one of most densely populated in the world – no civilians would be in the areas they entered.”
That presumption, say soldiers, was sustained by virtue of warnings to Palestinians to leave their homes and neighbourhoods delivered in leaflets dropped by aircraft and in text and phone messages which meant – in the IDF’s interpretation – that anyone who remained was not a civilian.
Even at the time that view was deeply controversial because – says Sfard and other legal experts interviewed – it reinterpreted international law regarding the duty of protection for areas containing civilians.
Sfard added: “We are not talking about a [deliberate] decision to kill civilians. But to say the rules of engagement were lax gives them too much credit. They allowed engagement in almost any circumstances, unless there was a felt to be a risk to an IDF soldier.”
If the rules of engagement were highly permissive, other soldiers say that they also detected a darker mood in their units that further coloured the way that soldiers behaved. “The motto guiding lots of people was: ‘Let’s show them,’ recalls a lieutenant who served in the Givati Brigade in Rafah. “It was evident that was a starting point. Lots of guys who did their reserve duty with me don’t have much pity towards [the Palestinians].”
He added: “There were a lot of people there who really hate Arabs. Really, really hate Arabs. You could see the hate in their eyes.”
A second lieutenant echoed his comments. “You could feel there was a radicalisation in the way the whole thing was conducted. The discourse was extremely rightwing ... [And] the very fact that [Palestinians were] described as ‘uninvolved’ rather than as civilians, and the desensitisation to the surging number of dead on the Palestinian side. It doesn’t matter whether they’re involved or not … that’s something that troubles me.”
And the testimonies, too, suggest breaches of the IDF’s own code of ethics – The Spirit of the IDF – which insists: “IDF soldiers will not use their weapons and force to harm human beings who are not combatants or prisoners of war, and will do all in their power to avoid causing harm to their lives, bodies, dignity and property.”
Contrary to that, however, testimonies describe how soldiers randomly shelled buildings either to no obvious military purpose or for revenge.
One sergeant who served in a tank in the centre of the Gaza Strip recalls: “A week or two after we entered the Gaza Strip and we were all firing a lot when there wasn’t any need for it – just for the sake of firing – a member of our company was killed.
“The company commander came over to us and told us that one guy was killed due to such-and-such, and he said: ‘Guys, get ready, get in your tanks, and we’ll fire a barrage in memory of our comrade” … My tank went up to the post – a place from which I can see targets – can see buildings – [and] fired at them, and the platoon commander says: ‘OK guys, we’ll now fire in memory of our comrade’ and we said OK.”
How Israeli forces used artillery and mortars in Gaza, says Breaking the Silence, has raised other concerns beyond either the rules of engagement or the actions of specific units.
According to the group’s research during the war, the Israeli military operated two different sets of rules for how close certain weapons could be fired to Israeli soldiers and Palestinian civilians.
Yehuda Shaul, one of the founders of Breaking the Silence, and himself a former soldier, explains: “What our research during this project uncovered was that there were three designated ‘Operational Levels’ during the conflict – numbered one to three. What the operational level was was set higher up the chain of command. Above the level of the Gaza division. What those levels do is designate the likelihood of civilian casualties from weapons like 155mm artillery and bombs from ‘low’ damage to civilians to ‘high’.
“What we established was that for artillery fire in operational levels two and three Israeli forces were allowed to fire much closer to civilians than they were to friendly Israeli forces.”
Ahead of the conflict – in which 34,000 shells were fired into Gaza, 19,000 of them explosive – artillery and air liaison officers had been supplied with a list of sensitive sites to which fire was not to be directed within clear limits of distance. These included hospitals and UN schools being used as refugee centres, even in areas where evacuation had been ordered.
“Even then,” explains Shaul, “we have a testimony we took that a senior brigade commander issued order how to get around that, instructing that the unit fired first outside of the protected area and then calling for correction fire on to the location that they wanted to hit.
“He said: “If you go on the radio and ask to hit this building, we have to say no. But if you give a target 200 metres outside then you can ask for correction. Only thing that is recorded is the first target not the correction fire.”
And in the end, despite the high number of civilian casualties, the debriefings treated the destruction as an accomplishment that would discourage Hamas in the future.
“You could say they went over most of the things viewed as accomplishments,” said a Combat Intelligence Corps sergeant. “ “They spoke about numbers: 2,000 dead and 11,000 wounded, half a million refugees, decades worth of destruction. Harm to lots of senior Hamas members and to their homes, to their families. These were stated as accomplishments so that no one would doubt that what we did during this period was meaningful.
“They spoke of a five-year period of quiet (in which there would be no hostilities between Israel and Hamas) when in fact it was a 72-hour ceasefire, and at the end of those 72 hours they were firing again.”
Without responding to the specific allegations, the Israeli military said: “The IDF is committed to properly investigating all credible claims raised via media, NGOs, and official complaints concerning IDF conduct during operation Protective Edge, in as serious a manner as possible.
“It should be noted that following Operation Protective Edge, thorough investigations were carried out, and soldiers and commanders were given the opportunity to present any complaint. Exceptional incidents were then transferred to the military advocate general for further inquiry.”
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/may/04/israeli-soldiers-cast-doubt-on-legality-of-gaza-military-operation
The Choice Before Europe — Paul Craig Roberts
The Choice Before Europe
Paul Craig Roberts
Washington continues to drive Europe toward one or the other of the two most likely outcomes of the orchestrated conflict with Russia. Either Europe or some European Union member government will break from Washington over the issue of Russian sanctions, thereby forcing the EU off of the path of conflict with Russia, or Europe will be pushed into military conflict with Russia.
In June the Russian sanctions expire unless each member government of the EU votes to continue the sanctions. Several governments have spoken against a continuation. For example, the governments of the Czech Republic and Greece have expressed dissatisfaction with the sanctions.
US Secretary of State John Kerry acknowledged growing opposition to the sanctions among some European governments. Employing the three tools of US foreign policy–threats, bribery, and coercion–he warned Europe to renew the sanctions or there would be retribution. We will see in June if Washington’s threat has quelled the rebellion.
Europe has to consider the strength of Washington’s threat of retribution against the cost of a continuing and worsening conflict with Russia. This conflict is not in Europe’s economic or political interest, and the conflict has the risk of breaking out into war that would destroy Europe.
Since the end of World War II Europeans have been accustomed to following Washington’s lead. For awhile France went her own way, and there were some political parties in Germany and Italy that considered Washington to be as much of a threat to European independence as the Soviet Union. Over time, using money and false flag operations, such as Operation Gladio, Washington marginalized politicians and political parties that did not follow Washington’s lead.
The specter of a military conflict with Russia that Washington is creating could erode Washington’s hold over Europe. By hyping a “Russian threat,” Washington is hoping to keep Europe under Washington’s protective wing. However, the “threat” is being over-hyped to the point that some Europeans have understood that Europe is being driven down a path toward war.
Belligerent talk from the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, from John McCain, from the neoconservatives, and from NATO commander Philip Breedlove is unnerving Europeans. In a recent love-fest between Breedlove and the Senate Armed Services Committee, chaired by John McCain, Breedlove supported arming the Ukrainian military, the backbone of which appears to be the Nazi militias, with heavy US weapons in order to change “the decision calculus on the ground” and bring an end to the break-away republics that oppose Washington’s puppet government in Kiev.
Breedlove told the Senate committee that his forces were insufficient to withstand Russian aggression and that he needed more forces on Russia’s borders in order to “reassure allies.”
Europeans have to decide whether the threat is Russia or Washington. The European press, which Udo Ulfkotte reports in his book, Bought Journalists, consists of CIA assets, has been working hard to convince Europeans that there is a “revanchist Russia” on the prowl that seeks to recover the Soviet Empire. Washington’s coup in Ukraine has disappeared. In its place Washington has substituted a “Russian invasion,” hyped as Putin’s first step in restoring the Soviet empire.
Just as there is no evidence of the Russian military in Ukraine, there is no evidence of Russian forces threatening Europe or any discussion or advocacy of restoring the Soviet empire among Russian political and military leaders.
In contrast Washington has the Wolfowitz Doctrine, which is explicitly directed at Russia, and now the Council on Foreign Relations has added China as a target of the Wolfowitz doctrine. http://carnegieendowment.org/files/Tellis_Blackwill.pdf
The CFR report says that China is a rising power and thereby a threat to US world hegemony. China’s rise must be contained so that Washington can remain the boss in the Asian Pacific. What it comes down to is this: China is a threat because China will not prevent its own rise. This makes China a threat to “the International Order.” “The International Order,” of course, is the order determined by Washington. In other words, just as there must be no Russian sphere of influence, there must be no Chinese sphere of influence. The CFR report calls this keeping the world “free of hegemonic control” except by the US.
Just as General Breedlove demands more military spending in order to counter “the Russian threat,” the CFR wants more military spending in order to counter “the Chinese threat.” The report concludes: “Congress should remove sequestration caps and substantially increase the U.S. defense budget.”
Clearly, Washington has no intention of moderating its position as the sole imperial power. In defense of this power, Washington will take the world to nuclear war. Europe can prevent this war by asserting its independence and departing the empire.
Geen opmerkingen:
Een reactie posten