Gaza: Scientific Mission Finds Evidence of Israeli Use of Depleted Uranium and White Phosphorous

In April 2009 a four-person mission including Jean-François Fechino, an international specialist in the effects of banned weapons upon the environment and sustainable development, visied Gaza under the auspices of the Arab Commission for Human Rights. The samples of earth and dust that they brought back from Gaza were analyzed by a specialist laboratory.

While a United Nations committee under Richard Goldstone, the former International War Crimes Prosecutor, has not been authorized by the Israeli government to investigate such incidents in Gaza, the findings of the ACHR team raises the possibility that the use of depleted uranium, in addition to white phosphorous bombs, by the Israeli military during Operation Cast Lead will be confirmed.

The report concluded that Palestinian fighters had only unsophisticated weapons, such as Qassam and Grad rockets, while Israel was able to employ the most modern weaponry to bombard the population of Gaza from the air, land, and sea.

Israel initially denied it had used white phosphorous in the offensive; it later admitted its use but denied this was unlawful. The Committee was satisfied on the available evidence that white phosphorous was used as an incendiary weapon in densely populated areas.

The Committee found that the Israeli Defense Forces were responsible for the killing, wounding, and terrorizing of civilians. The Committee based this finding on the number of civilians killed by 22 days of intense bombardment by air, sea, and land. The Committee also found the weapons used by the IDF, particularly white phosphorous and flechettes, caused superfluous and unnecessary suffering.

The Committee echoed the assertions of other reports on white phosphorous, for example, the Amnesty Report which several instances of its use in carrier shells “throughout Gaza”, including:

The United Nations Relief and Works Administration primary school in Beit Lahiyeh, where approximately 1,600 people were seeking shelter from the ongoing fighting. Two brothers, aged 5 and 7, were killed and 14 others were injured when a white phosphorous shell landed in a second-floor classroom;

The UNRWA field operations headquarters where tens of tons of medicines, food and non-food items were destroyed;

The residential areas in and around Gaza City and in the north (at Jabalya refugee camp) and the south (at Khuzaa, east of Khan Younis) of the Gaza Strip.

In March 2009, Human Rights Watch (HRW) published a report entitled “Rain of Fire. Israel’s Unlawful Use of White Phosphorous in Gaza.” The report detailed the confirmed uses of white phosphorous in Gaza during the conflict “in densely populated areas”, at the “edges of populated areas", and “in open areas.”

HRW reported six cases where white phosphorous was allegedly used in urban and outlying areas.

• In the Tel al-Hawa Neighborhood, Gaza City on 15 and 16 January 2009;
• At the Al-Quds Hospital, Tel al-Hawa Neighborhood, Gaza City on 15 January 2009;
• At the UNRWA Headquarters Compound, Gaza City on 15 January 2009
• At the Beit Lahiyeh UNRWA School on 17 January 2009;
• Siyafa Village, Beit Lahiyeh on 10 January 2009;
• Khuza’a Village, between 11 and 13 January 2009.

HRW concluded that the use of white phosphorous in “densely populated neighborhoods, including downtown Gaza City, violated international humanitarian law (the laws of war), which requires taking all feasible precautions to avoid civilian harm and prohibits indiscriminate attacks.”

Turkey: Manoeuvring Against Israel Over Palestine

Last Friday, Istanbul hosted the International Conference on Palestinian Solidarity. Amongst those present were the International Union for Muslim Scholars run by Yusuf Al-Kardavi, many members of Parliament and the Turkish Assembly, and the Palestine Friendship Group.

Journalists who focused on the separate seating of men and women at the meeting missed these important developments:

One of the MPs of the ruling Justice and Development Party, Zeyid Arslan, who is also the Chairman of the TBMM-Palestine Friendship Group, said, ‘As long as Hamas, which came to power through its people, is not seen as the representative of its people but as a terrorist group, solution of the Palestinian question is impossible.’ Indeed, he went further and accused Israel of committing genocide against Palestinians: “Everyone who is silent over Israel’s committing genocide is going to pay the price before history.”

So three years after the leader of the JDP, Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan met Hamas political director, Khalied Meshaal, this is important because after Erdogan-Mashal meeting in 2006 and four months after Erdogan’s walk-out on Israeli President Shimon Peres at the Davos summit, the Justice and Development Party is still standing against Israel's line on Palestine and Hamas..

Other political leaders joined in. Yusuf Al-Kardavi called on Muslims to boycott American and Israeli goods. Raid Salah, head of the Islamic Movement, said: “We are going to maintain our struggle until we form the Palestinian state and declare Jerusalem as its capital.” Emanuel Musellem, head of the Catholic Church in Palestine, joined via teleconference to blame Israel for pressing of Muslims and Christians into a "Jewish" existence.

Thus, the political dance --- hastened by Israel's invasion --- continues. Is Turkey, led by Erdogan, prepared to step away from Israel or, given its long-term strategic links, will it continue to discreetly hold Tel Aviv's hand?

May Plan C on the Israeli-Arab Peace Process Work?

My colleague Scott Lucas wondered for weeks whether the Obama Administration has a Plan A for the Middle East before, last Friday, he finally wrote of an American "grand design".

With respect, I differ. The President and his advisors not only have a Plan A. They are ready with a Plan B and a Plan C.

Obama put Plan A for a two-state Israel-Palestine outcome and general Arab-Islamic agreements to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. The Israelis made clear, and let the press know they had made clear, that this was not acceptable. So Plan B is working groups with the Israelis while encouraging regional leaders, such as Jordan's King Abdullah, Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak and Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan, to maintain the call for an Israeli-Palestinian peace process.

Then there is Plan C. The Associated Press reported last week that the Obama Administration may set a deadline of the end of 2009 on talks with Iran if they are not producing result.

The immediate reading was that Washington might be siding with Tel Aviv on the need for an eventual showdown with Iran. The reality could be more nuanced: the Obama Administration may use Tehran’s uncompromising position to pull Arabs and Israelis together for a regional process including Israel-Palestine.

Although some claim that this Plan C will never work, since Arabs and Israelis have different fears with regards to Iran’s policies, others argue that it is the best path. "The administration has to find the best path," says Anthony Cordesman of the Center for Strategic and International Studies. "Is this the best path? Given the opportunities, yes. They may not produce success but they offer the best alternative available."

The key to full Arab participation may be Syria, which has recently been in talks with Iran on a possible common approach. Here George Mitchell, Obama's Middle East envoy and a legendary negotiator, comes into play. Washington's ploy may be for Mitchell talks in Damascus to open the doors both to a diminishing of Iran’s influence and Israeli-Syrian talks.

Because Israel wants to see the Iranian threat "dealt with" before any peace deals with the Arabs, this subtle move by the Obama Administration could bring success. Instead of Israel’s insistence on clearing Tehran's nuclear facilities, Washington can change the context of the Tehran issue by adding the more political yet still forthright policies of Arab states into a broad-based coalition against Tehran. This approach may be enough to allay Tel Aviv’s concerns.

The Power Politics Surrounding Iran

Shirvin Zeinalzadeh, who writes on Iranian affairs for Enduring America, evaluates the significance of Tehran's firing of a solid-fuel missile last week:

Iran last week successfully test-fired the controversial solid fuel ‘Sejjil 2’ missile, ahead of the upcoming Iranian Presidential elections and with prominent publicity and international attention.

The immediate reaction from Israeli and US outlets went farther, speculating that Iran would use this as a platform for nuclear weapons. Israeli foreign minister Avidgor Lieberman said, "Israel and the US share an understanding on strategic goals, first and foremost dismantling Iran from the ability to attain non-conventional arms."

The reality, however, is that the nuclear issue is peripheral to both the symbolic and military importance of the test-firing. This is once a statement by Iran , both to its own people and to the world, that a nationalist rallying around the flag will lead to self-sufficient military power.

Iran has no power whatsoever in its arsenal to reach the US mainland. Instead, Tehran's initiaitive is in the context of the creation of NATO and US strategic bases in the Middle East, Afghanistan, and Diego Garcia.

Iran's justification, therefore, is that it is balancing the power in the region with its missile development A range of 2000 kilometres ensure that Iran can deter the US or Israel from attacking it through with the possibility of a counterstrike against any forces based in the area within the Sejjil’s range.

This notion was put forth in President Ahmadinejad's statement, "Today Iran has the power to turn any base that fires a bullet at Iran into hell." He added, "Today we declare that no country has the power to threaten Iran."

The power politics are in play, as Iran seeks to defend its sovereignty and territorial rights by boosting its defence system. As Ahmadinejad said, "Unfortunately today there are some people who think that compromise with enemies will remove threats, but experience has shown that whenever Iran softens its stance the enemies are emboldened."

Iran's Elections: Ahmadinejad Plays His Israel-US Cards

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has been working flat-out to maximize his vote before the Iranian Presidential election on June 12. His ‘hard-line’ stand against the West was subtly elaborated when he referred to Israel with the words of Ayatollah Khomeini, the founder of the Islamic Revolution: , when on Friday. Referring to Israel, he quoted Khomeini’s words: "They are like dogs. If you attack them, they retreat; if you retreat they attack."

Ahmadinejad’s verbal salvos against the West are part of an effort to criticise his opponents, linking them to the "concessionary" policies of the previous reformist government, led by Mohammad Khatami. According to Ahmadinejad, Khatami "could not show resistance against pressures", whereas the current government succeeded in "deflecting" pressures and “burying the sanctions in the cemetery of history".

However, if Ahmadinejad’s rhetorical attacks are primarily in a domestic arena, they are bolstered by external foes. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s National Security Adviser, Uzi Arad, said last Thursday: “Israel maintains its liberty to operate against Iran.” He added that on past occasions, Israel had not updated the US on military options.

Arad may have been shaky in his historical references, comparing Ahmadinejad to Egypt's President Nasser in 1956 and 1967, but this did not deter the United States from dropping its own hints. US Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, stated on Friday that President Obama had asked him to update the plans for the use of military force against Iran, prepared during former President George W. Bush’s terms in office.

It is irrelevant whether Gates and Obama are opposing the use of military force against Iran at this point; what matters is what Iranians perceive on the eve of the elections. Indeed, Amadinejad is countering on such perceptions in the next three weeks. That is what does matter in determining the ‘retreat-attack’ game…