Lies about Crimes in Gaza and Iraq

When the US military spokesman claims that its force in Iraq took "obligatory action" and Israel says it was acting in Rafah "in self-defence", words lose all credibility.

Transcribed from Guardian UK.



Lies about crimes
May 21, 2004
The Guardian

Two acts of carnage, one in Iraq and one in Gaza, competed for the world's horrified attention yesterday:

more than 40 people were killed by American fire in a village close to the Syrian border in western Iraq, and

at least eight Palestinians had died as a result of Israeli gunfire during a peaceful demonstration at Rafah.

There is no need here to be reminded that violent and indiscriminate death is not confined to one side.

When Iraqis are blown apart in Baghdad by a car bomb, or Israelis in Haifa by a suicide bomber, these are instantly and correctly labelled as terrorist attacks.

However when American helicopters or Israeli tanks cause death to innocent civilians on a similar scale, there is always an alternative version on offer.

• Iraq: The Pentagon's explanation of the attack on the village of Mukaradeeb is that the people killed were not taking part in a wedding party or firing their guns in the air in celebration, as the survivors have insisted. They were occupying a "foreign fighter safe house" and had fired on the coalition forces first.
  
  
• Palestinian Territory: The Israeli army's explanation for the deaths in Gaza is that its fire had been directed against an "abandoned structure" as a warning, and that this may have led to casualties when a tank shell went through a hole in the wall created by a previous shell.

Of course, no one has the monopoly of truth, yet on the facts so far reported in these two cases, as on too many recent occasions, the "official" version is simply not credible.

• Iraq: The US military admits that it probably killed 40 people at Mukaradeeb but says that none of them were civilians. So did the "foreign fighters" include the young girl, one of several children whose bodies were shown being buried on television? Or the Iraqi wedding singer and his musician brother, whose funeral in Baghdad was reported yesterday by Reuters?
  
  
• Palestinian Territory: In Rafah, it is not believable that casualties on such a large scale - including some 50 injured as well as the dead - were caused by "warning shots" directed towards an unoccupied area (and since when are tanks used to fire such shots anyhow?). As it happens, we carried yesterday evidence of another earlier evasion - or lie - in Rafah: our correspondent was shown the bodies of four dead children all with bullet wounds, , whom the Israeli army claimed had been killed on Tuesday not by its snipers but by Palestinian bombs.

There may be some argument whether these tragedies merely display a reckless disregard for civilian casualties (perhaps some "foreign fighters" were thought to be in the neighbourhood of the wedding party) or a deliberate design to intimidate unarmed opposition, as often seems more likely when civilians are killed by the Israeli forces.

What both incidents share is the view that the war on terror justifies extreme behaviour - a view long urged by Ariel Sharon that has now been endorsed by George Bush.

Wednesday's slaughter came one day after Mr Bush had drawn a direct parallel, in a speech to the pro-Israeli AIPAC lobby, between the two countries' "struggles against terrorism", while failing to repeat early criticism of the Rafah onslaught by secretary of state Colin Powell.

After the shelling, the White House was again more reluctant than the state department to condemn Israel.

When the US military spokesman claims that its force took "obligatory action" and Israel says it was acting in Rafah "in self-defence", words lose all credibility.

Another set of images of dead civilians and grieving relatives is transmitted across the Middle East, and the casual viewer is not even sure whether they are coming from Baghdad or Gaza.

On grounds of expediency alone, Mr Bush should ask what is gained by this - or rather how much is lost.

And if the president is not asking, then Tony Blair should be telling him - and telling the rest of us that he is doing so.

  Go to Latest Posting

---

Comments 0

---