Antiwar.com Blog

The Erez Industrial Zone in Gaza is notorious as a borderline industrial slave labor camp (on occupied land), though of course its creation has long been touted as a supreme act of benevolence by Israel, which of course wishes only to show how much it wants friendship and
cooperation with the Palestinians. Erez is one of the last places where Gazans can earn a few shekels so that they don’t starve to death, though it is not by choice that they work there. Now its factories are closing and moving to Israel, AP and AFP report.

Anyone who has bothered to read the 4-stage “disengagement” plan by Sharon will also note that Israel hopes to phase out having any workers from Gaza enter Israel in the future – another act of benevolence, no doubt, though I haven’t heard how this is going to be presented to the media to highlight Israel’s desire for peace.

Meanwhile, with a Rafah Sister City Project proposal before the Madison city council, Kavanna — “the progressive Jewish voice” on the UW Campus — has suggested in its oozingly liberal way that a better choice for a sister city than Rafah (a terrorists’ nest) would be the Erez Industrial Zone, since it displays such cooperation between Palestinians and Israelis.

Now that the Erez “island of sanity” option has been precluded, maybe the “progressive Jewish voice” on campus will break ranks with the fear exploiters (e.g., the Madison Jewish Community Council, Bush, Sharon) and join the many Jews who are supporting the Rafah project.

Christopher Hitchens apparently ran out of booze and got mad, launching a vicious 4298 word attack on Michael Moore, and his new flick Fahrenheit 9/11 – and a defence of the Iraq war. Hitchens believes that, if not for the good ol’ USA, Hussein would have systematically massacred every Iraqi, even to the last child. Hitchens’s world – and the neocons’ – is one where the entire non-democratic world is populated by hideous, unstoppable totalitarians, endlessly evil, endlessly resourceful. The powerless masses of these nations being unable to stop them, only Uncle Sam can. The world is more complex in the average comic book. Stare very closely into Hitchens’s eyes and you’ll see a tiny American flag blowing in the vapors of his mind – perhaps that’s also what he sees.

Hitchens accuses Moore of making an anti-war propaganda flick, not an “even-handed” one. What a shock! That was Moore’s purpose from the start, and it’s a valid one. As Roger Ebert pointed out recently:

“Most documentaries, especially the best ones, have an opinion and argue for it. Even those that pretend to be objective reflect the filmmaker’s point of view. Moviegoers should observe the bias, take it into account and decide if the film supports it or not.”

With that in mind, here’s Hitchens:

“At no point does Michael Moore make the smallest effort to be objective.”

Translation: At no point does Michael Moore make the smallest effort to agree with Christopher Hitchens. Why should Moore make an effort to take the War Party’s side? He thinks it’s disastrously wrong, and he’s not trying to report on history, he’s making a documentary. Hitchens has some advice for the flick’s potential audience:

“By all means go and see this terrible film, and take your friends, and if the fools in the audience strike up one cry, in favor of surrender or defeat, feel free to join in the conversation.
However, I think we can agree that the film is so flat-out phony that "fact-checking" is beside the point.”

I shall fact check the dreary ol “Hitch” rant. Hitchens criticizes Moore for pointing out that Bush spent a good deal of his time until 9/11 on vacation, and asks “Isn’t he [Bush] supposed to be an unceasing planner for future aggressive wars?”

No, he isn’t. He’s a nincompoop, and this website has already gone into laborious detail about who the war planners are.
Hitchens may also be misrepresenting what may be an equivocal moment captured on video, of Bush just after he’s learned of the second plane crashing into the WTC. Hitchens writes:

“Bush is shown frozen on his chair at the infant school in Florida, looking stunned and useless for seven whole minutes after the news of the second plane on 9/11.” That’s not what Ebert thought. He wrote:

“The look on his face as he reads the book, knowing what he knows, is disquieting.” Continue reading “Hitchens Rant”

Billmon says this picture is the perfect metaphor:

A crowd of Iraqis gather to watch as a U.S. armored vehicle is stuck in sewage after is slipped into a ditch during a patrol in Baghdad, Iraq Monday June 21, 2004. (AP Photo/Khalid Mohammed)

From a representative of People’s Action Against the Dispatch of Korean Combat Troops to Iraq:

An Appeal by 365 Korean Organizations to the Iraqi Group Holding a Korean National

We appeal for the release of the Korean national Kim Seon Il.

Today the Korean people were overcome with shock at the news the Korean Kim Seon Il has been kidnapped in Iraq. His seizure and the threat against the life of this private citizen is already a source of unspeakable sadness for his family and the Korean people. This sadness and shock is the same for the many Koreans who have opposed the United States’ unjust invasion and the deployment of Korean troops to Iraq.

The Korean people are well aware of the fact that the US invaded Iraq for domination and oil, and not for the freedom and peace of the Iraqi people. We know also that the US occupation of Iraq has denied the Iraqi people their sovereignty and that there have been widespread human rights abuses by US forces there, leading to Iraqi pain and loss of life. For this reason we have done all that is humanly possible to prevent the deployment of Korean troops, as they will in no way contribute to the peace and security of the Iraqi people.

Kidnapping and threatening a private citizen with death, however, will not contribute to Iraqi peace. The Iraqi people are right to resist the US’s unjust invasion, occupation, and carnage. Nevertheless, kidnapping and threatening a private citizen with death cannot be justified. Doing so will only lead to a vicious cycle of blood and revenge.

Again we make an earnest appeal. Please make your claims known through dialogue and release Kim Seon Il to his family as he is of no relation to government policy.

21 June 2004

Seoul, Korea

Now, here’s a really bizarre story.

(06-21-2004) – Four U.S. service members were killed Monday – shot repeatedly in the head during an ambush while they were on patrol in the Sunni Muslim stronghold of Ramadi.
[…]
The four Americans killed in Ramadi had failed to check in at an appointed time, and a search was launched, Kimmitt said, declining further comment until relatives could be notified.

Videotape delivered to Associated Press Television News showed the four, still in uniform, lying dead near what appeared to be a walled compound.

So, four Marines were on patrol and whoever jumped them took them all out, shot them repeatedly in the head, lined their bodies up in a macabre display, took a video of them and delivered it to the AP. When I first read this terse account, which is all that any news outlets are carrying so far, I thought they might have been beheaded, which would account for Kimmitt’s reluctance to tell what happened. It still may turn out that they were – then again, it may never be publicly announced either way. Maybe the video will be shown or at least an acount will be written of what it shows.

Anyway, this story stinks. Where was/is the vehicle the Marines were driving? How did they manage to be so completely overwhelmed? Are four person patrols normal in Ramadi, probably the most dangerous city in Iraq for Americans next to Fallujah? Why were they not found rapidly, after they failed to check in? Why didn’t they call for help at the first sign of an attack? Who made the videotape?

Too many unanswered questions surround this odd incident.

UPDATE: The AP reports a few more details:

A videotape delivered Monday to Associated Press Television News showed four Americans in uniform lying dead in what appeared to be a walled compound in Ramadi, an insurgent stronghold 60 miles west of Baghdad. One of the Americans was slumped in the corner of a wall.

The bodies had no flak vests _ mandatory for U.S. troops operating in contested areas _ and at least one was missing a boot. One fieldpack was left open next to a body as if the attackers had looted the dead before fleeing.

UPDATE: Information ClearingHouse has stills from the AP video. Click to enlarge this photo:

Thanks for the tip on the photos from poster Raincoast!

How come the more wars we fight to defend freedom, the less there is left to defend? I’m just now trying to imagine what my new identity patch will look like. How to depict a cheese-eating surrender monkey? The patches needn’t all be ethnic, of course. Sure, Arab-Americans will probably have to wear red crescents, but maybe the pink triangle could be resurrected for all war opponents.