I’D HAZARD a guess and say that Palestine
took a hit on the “life expectancy” and “freedom” quotients, though I’d thought
it would be lower on the scale. (It must be true that misery always seeks its
own level.) Next year's score will, no doubt, give Afghanistan a run for its money when they're tabulated. I’m also a little surprised that Israel is so high up the happiness
ladder, though a sunny Mediterranean coastline and ample resort facilities must
help boost levels significantly. It almost makes me want to buy a condo in the occupied West Bank, but I think I’ll wait for real estate developments to break ground in the Gaza Strip after the
Palestinians are gone. I’m sure deals there will be ones you could just die for!
 |
| My beach house will be 2nd from the end. What a view! |
TO BE HONEST, I almost forgot
about the genocide happening in Gaza. [Over 34,000 Palestinians killed, 65%
women and children; almost 77,000 injured, and 8,000 missing. In the occupied
West Bank: 468 murdered; 4800 injured since 8 October 2023.] Last week's media reports about a flare up between Israel and Iran dominated the news cycle and distracted from events in Gaza. What with Israel
bombing the Iranian consulate in Damascus on 1 April and Iran’s April 13 retaliatory
missile and drone barrage on Israel, and Israel’s (fortunately)
tepid 19 April tit-for-tat drone attack on Iran,
things seem a bit on tenterhooks in the Middle East. Israel’s attack on the
consulate is a most egregious breech of international law—there’s a reason why
embassy grounds are considered off-limits. They are legally seen as the soil of
the countries they represent. To attack an embassy is the same as attacking the
country. That’s why state actors' attacks on foreign embassies is such a rare
occurrence. During NATO’s intervention in the former Yugoslavia, China’s
embassy in Belgrade, was ‘accidentally’ bombed. Twenty-five years later, China has not forgotten. For centuries, embassies have been
considered inviolable and for good reason: conflicts large and small, at the
end of the day, require diplomacy to negotiate a peace and mark hostilities
“case closed”. Combatants need to speak with each other in negotiating
agreements. By its rash actions, Israel may have further
weakened the already battered system of international law and diplomacy. It is noted just days
after Israel’s “April Fools” attack in Damascus, Ecuadorian police raided the Mexican embassy in Quito where an opposition
politician had claimed asylum. That slippery slope is getting slipperier. [We recall that Julian Assange was evicted by police from the Ecuadorian embassy in London, in 2019, only after Ecuador revoked his political asylum. The Americans and their pit bull, Britain, were desperate, for years, to get their hands on Assange but even they did not invade the Ecuadorian embassy's 'territory' until the South American government gave them the go-ahead. Ed. ]
THE PURPOSE of Iran’s 19 April
retaliatory attack was multifold:
👉Firstly, Iran publicly stated their late night air strike
was in response to Israel’s attack on their embassy.
👉Secondly, the attack was launched to
send a message to Israeli leadership that Iran was fully capable of inflicting
catastrophic injury upon the Israeli state.
👉Thirdly, it collected data on
Israel’s defense capabilities as well as what the American, British, and French are capable of doing in their defense of Israel, such as their response times and targeting patterns.
👉Fourthly, and perhaps most importantly, Iran expected most of their drones
and missiles would be shot down because they had warned the Israelis ahead of
time about their intentions using Saudi Arabia as their messenger (who, in turn,
informed Israel and the Americans).
IT'S CLEAR that Israel wanted
Iran to retaliate with a much greater show of force to draw the Americans into
the fray and to fight Iran in a larger, regional war. But Iran is no push-over. It has thousands of drones
and missiles that could blanket Israel in wave of destruction, and it showed
remarkable restraint and a careful orchestration up on the “escalation ladder”, that didn’t provoke Israel or the
Americans into an all-out war. Iran made its point. It demonstrated its
power. And it diplomatically deemed the matter “closed”. Israel did respond with a mild, face-saving gesture, when it sent a few drones to attack an Iranian air base, all
of which were easily shot down. For the moment, both fighters have returned to
their respective corners and tensions between them has ratcheted down a notch or two.
ONE POSSIBLE reason for Israel’s
mild response to the Iranian 19 April attacks is disturbing: Did Israel curb its response
because of American pressure? Did the Americans tamp down on Israel starting a
larger regional war with Iran by giving it the green light to invade Rafah?
With nearly one million refugees in the southern Gazan city, any military
actions there will in all probability cause a major up tick in civilian casualties. Thus far,
Israel has held fire on major incursions into the densely packed city. We’ll
find out soon.
FUN FACT # 1—On 5 March this year, consumer
advocate and former presidential candidate Ralph Nader made the claim that “in my appraisal…at least 200,000
Palestinians must have perished by now and the toll is accelerating by the
hour.” (“Stop”, Nader) It’s a startling number, but Nader suggests that both
the Hamas-run Ministry of Health and the Israeli government deliberately downplay
the Palestinian casualty numbers: Hamas, in order to hide from its population the
true death rate to curb dissent and dissatisfaction among its people, and
the low ball death tallies made by Israel are done to mute growing international opprobrium over its slaughter military
campaign in the Gaza Strip. In the fog of war, it is difficult
to know where the truth lies, and it may be years before we know for certain
who did what when, how much, and why. Meanwhile, famine, disease and death are a daily occurrence in Gaza, with the assault on Rafah imminent. Perhaps Nader's numbers are more realistic, after all.
FUN FACT #3—On 18 April, at a United Nations
Security Council (UNSC), a meeting was held to vote on a draft
proposal to grant Palestine full membership in UN. The vote was 12 in
favour, two abstentions (Britain, Switzerland), and one "No" vote, with the United States
vetoing the proposal. Nice.... Caitlin Johnstone
puts it so much better than I can:
“The US doesn’t
support a two-state solution, [in Palestine] the US only supports saying the US
supports a two-state solution. We know this because the US just vetoed Palestine’s bid
to become a full UN member state, after lobbying other countries to
vote against the resolution — despite continually saying it supports the
foundation of a Palestinian state. Washington’s words say one thing, but its
actions say the opposite.”
Cheers, Jake.___________________________________________
No comments:
Post a Comment