One-Finger Salute

SF Chronicle Punishes Anti-War Reporter

The San Francisco Chronicle, a part of the establishment that is supposed to help protect American free speech, has suspended one of its reporters for getting arrested in the big unauthorized anti-war actions on 20 March 2003. This is despite the fact that the journalist took a one-day sick leave to protest and attended in a private capacity, not as a representative of the newspaper.

This raises some important journalistic questions. Should journalists be required to be absolutely free of all political views? Or should they simply pretend that they are, thus misleading themselves and their readers? Why should this anti-war reporter be suspended, while the Chronicle's most notable resident idiot, Debra Saunders, is given column space each week to shamelessly plug partisan positions? What's the difference? Isn't this even worse in terms of "conflict of interest", since Saunders is clearly promoting her own political agenda as an official member of the press, in an "establishment" forum, while the suspended journalist simply acted as a concerned citizen?

Baghdad: The Next Jenin, Stalingrad, Beirut, or Berlin?

Experts continue to discuss what will happen if and when US-British forces attempt to enter Baghdad. The general conclusion is that an ugly episode of urban warfare is in store. These experts and those who will be involved in the projected "Battle of Baghdad" have drawn "lessons" and/or inspiration from several notable cases of modern urban warfare: Jenin, Stalingrad, Beirut, and Berlin.

• Jenin: Jenin is the most recent case on the list. In April 2002, Israeli soldiers stormed the Jenin refugee camp in the West Bank, killing at least 52 Palestinians, half of them civilians, and demolishing an entire neighborhood during their 12-day rampage. Israel suffered 23 dead in the assault.

  A recent report indicates that Israel has been training US soldiers in urban warfare, in particular using lessons taken from the battle of Jenin. As the article notes, this does not bode well for the residents of Baghdad. The Israeli army made indiscriminate use of bulldozers to demolish and damage homes so that its armor could fit through the narrow streets of the camp. Israeli soldiers targetted Palestinian civilians and used them as human shields. And again, about 50% of the people killed were unarmed and not fighting against the Israelis in any way.

  Israel continually stated that it exercised "restraint" during its attack against Jenin (as if Palestinians should be grateful that Israel did not carpet bomb or bulldoze the entire area). Jenin is a small town-sized camp of a few thousand people. If we project the devastation resulting from such tactical "restraint" onto Baghdad, a city of over 5 million residents, we can expect tens of thousands of dead Iraqis and the end of urban Baghdad. Just more for Dick Cheney's company Halliburton to rebuild, I suppose. As an aside, it should be recalled that the Jenin assault came several months after an Israeli general urged the army to apply "lessons" from any source in fighting the Palestinians - even from the Nazi suppression of the Warsaw ghetto uprising. Should the US - whose supposed goal is the "liberation" of Iraqis - adopt tactics inspired by this kind of mindset?

  One final note: there has already been a suicide attack against US soldiers in Iraq. Since the US is now apparently taking tips from the Israeli army, one has to wonder if the Anglo-American forces will send in bulldozers to demolish the houses of everyone even remotely connected to the suicide bomber, or whether cruise missiles and bombs will suffice.

• Stalingrad: Former Soviet dictator Josef Stalin is said to be the hero of Saddam Hussein. Therefore, there is talk, amongst "experts" and the forces on both sides of this conflict, that Baghdad could become the next Stalingrad (if you read German, look at this article from the Financial Times Deutschland).

  There are numerous major differences, of course. It is highly unlikely that the Iraqi forces will be able to break out of Baghdad and encircle the US-British forces, as the Soviets did against the Germans in early 1943 after withstanding a five-month siege. Other considerations include dissimilarities in terrain and urban morphology. But in terms of civilian deaths and large-scale urban destruction, there could be some terrible parallels. Over 40,000 civilians died in Stalingrad, and much of the city was completely destroyed. Again, it seems that the US would attempt to avoid tactics that would invite comparison with the German army, which was fighting before the era of the Geneva Conventions and which wasn't too troubled by civilian deaths in any event.

• Beirut: The Lebanese capital was the scene of the heaviest fighting during the country's 1975-1990 civil war, a conflict that left over 100,000 dead. A large section of the city, along the "Green Line" dividing the Christian eastern and Muslim western sectors, was virtually uninhabitable for much of the war. Despite the presence of the Syrian army on the side of the Christian militias, no faction could gain a decisive advantage in the urban environment.

  In 1982, the Israeli army laid siege to Beirut during its invasion of Lebanon. Around 10,000-15,000 people died in the first month of the invasion, many of them due to the indiscriminate Israeli bombardment of the capital. The Israelis also supported the Christian militias, but the Israeli army was forced to withdraw from the city after its henchmen massacred up to 2,000 refugees under its watch. Note to adherents of the "history repeats itself" theory: 241 US and 58 French soldiers, part of a multi-national peacekeeping force, died in simultaneous suicide bomb attacks against their barracks in Beirut in 1983. They also came to help "liberate" a people.

• Berlin: Finally, we get to what may be the most appropriate parallel in some ways: Berlin in 1945. Berlin was the site of the last, futile stand of a dying regime. The German army was reduced to conscripting teenagers and senior citizens, while the Soviets approached with an overwhelming force.

  Still, over 80,000 Soviet soldiers were killed in the nearly one-month assault on the city. Every building and every street was bitterly contested, not by elite German soldiers, who were all dead by this point, but largely by "conscripted" children (i.e., they were forced to fight), who had lived under the most brutal government in history (and let's cut the crap - Saddam Hussein is a tyrant, but he's not Hitler). There was no hope for the Germans, nowhere to run; perhaps this is why they fought so hard and inflicted such casualties on the Soviets.

  Again, there are numerous important differences; I need not recount them here. Doubtless whatever happens in Baghdad will follow a course determined by the local situation, not historical precedents of urban warfare. But there are some similarities between Berlin 1945 and Baghdad 2003 that should be considered by those projecting a virtual Sunday afternoon stroll for American soldiers and Iraqi civilians.

There is a famous picture from the battle for Berlin showing a Soviet soldier raising the red banner over the Reichstag. I have it on my wall, and I look at it frequently these days. This picture, along with the photograph of the raising of the American flag over Iwo Jima earlier in 1945, symbolizes what can only be called the (though I hate the term in general) "heroism" of the Allied forces in WWII. But I also think about what the Soviet presence in Germany and Eastern Europe meant during the half century following the victorious moment captured in that photograph. Though I have no doubts that the American flag will eventually fly over Baghdad and that the Saddam Hussein-led regime will be removed, I do not believe that it will ever be possible to use the word "heroic" to describe what the American and British governments have done and what they will force their soldiers to do in Iraq. And I think about what kind of new "Cold War" will result from this latest "war of liberation".

America's Battle Against the Press: Lies, Censorship, and Bombs

It is clear to many observers that the United States' war against Iraq has contributed to an already miserable state of affairs concerning the press and the public. The Anglo-American military forces continue issuing entirely invented, completely bogus "information"; the American press continues to report this nonsense with a straight face; the American public, with the exception of dangerous "communists and anarchists", continues to swallow everything fed to it. There is no general outrage amongst Americans over the fact that they are being lied to and led around by the Bush administration with the help of the press. No media alarm bells are ringing despite the fact that the officials of Iraq, subject to a brutal dictatorship, have been providing more reliable and more detailed information than the the military spokespersons of the US, supposedly the freest country on earth. Coverage of the war has become a laughingstock in the rest the world. Yet the American press seems blissfully unaware as they operate under the Orwellian maxim of Ignorance is Strength.

I will not cover this issue in exhaustive detail here. Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting has been keeping track of the most egregious falsehoods surrounding the war; The Black Commentator has a good roundup and analysis. Instead, I briefly examine three methods that the Anglo-American "coalition of the willing" is using to keep the press (and especially the Arab media), and by extension the public, to heel.

Lies. American and British officials have been making numerous claims that are either false or not supported by any evidence. They are simply soundbites intended to make the Iraqis look depraved or the Anglo-American forces look good, or both. But the American press can't or won't differentiate between propaganda and news. One day, an entire 8,000-strong Iraqi army division surrenders; the next, large elements of this defeated enemy army group are fighting against their supposed captors. Do the American and British military forces know how to count? Do they operate with some kind of idiosyncratic idea of what "surrender" means? Or was this claim simply an invention to prove that the American planners' predictions of an easy war were coming true? There is absolute "proof" that British soldiers have been executed; or maybe there isn't. The list could go on and on already.


It doesn't matter so much to American officials that these statements are eventually proven wrong. Once this propaganda enters the public record, it is very difficult to expunge. And with the press in the pockets of the parties issuing such garbage, there is no real scrutiny, criticism, or scepticism of these repeat offender liars. News items disproving earlier false "information" are simply allowed to slowly and quietly drift into Orwell's memory hole.

Censorship. Blatant censorship of American media organizations is not practiced. Why should it be? The mainstream press is already completely compromised. The same thing, however, cannot be said for media that is outside the reach of the American government or that does not benefit from American legal protection.


In particular, the Arabic-language Al Jazeera has been targetted by American officials and, occasionally, military forces. Its troubles with the US began in 2001, shortly after the September 11 atrocities. US Secretary of State Colin Powell asked the government of Qatar to "use its influence" to restrain Al Jazeera because it was "inflaming" Arab opinion against the US (naturally, there was no discussion of what the US could do to "de-inflame" this opinion). In the current war, Al Jazeera has come under withering attack by both American and British officials for showing footage of captured and dead "coalition" soldiers, even though this does not appear to have violated the Geneva Convention, contrary to the assertion otherwise. Nevertheless, the arm-chair international legal experts at the NYSE and Nasdaq, following the lead of their masters, have banned Al Jazeera reporters from their premises. Finally, an unknown party, presumably comprising self-styled American "patriots", has targetted the broadcaster's Arabic and English websites, knocking them out of commission. Although the identity of this group is unknown, Al Jazeera itself is convinced that the Pentagon is responsible.

Bombs. When all else fails, or if it is simply expedient, the US always has the "big stick" handy to silence a dissenting foreign media. While bombing Al Jazeera out of the New York offices of the NYSE and Nasdaq may not be practical or necessary, there were no such constraints in Kabul in 2001. If enemy media are involved, then targetting is de rigeur. In what was probably an illegal attack, the Anglo-American forces blew up Iraqi state television facilities. Naturally, the irony of the military of the world's freest country silencing one of the most reliable sources of information on the war was lost on most American observers. A similar attack took place during NATO's action against Yugoslavia in 1999, killing 16 people, none of whom were connected to the Milosevic regime. The usual justification for these attacks against the press is that the targetted organizations are simply serving up propaganda for their governments - which is oddly similar to how many people see media outlets such as CNN and NBC. Would the US approve of armed attacks against these groups?

As the war goes on, expect to see more of the same. Or, to paraphrase Erich Fromm's "Afterword" to 1984, 1984 may not have arrived on time - but there's always 2003.

Sign me up! Did I mention that my cat's breath smells like cat food? So I'm totally overqualified already!

Call for New Members - The Ralph Wiggum International Brigade

Are you looking for some comrades with whom you can participate in the next round of civil disobedience against the Bush regime's war without end? Then look no further. Our infinity group, the Ralph Wiggum International Brigade, is searching for new members to join our dedicated hardcore of supramen and suprawomen.

Join now - we engage in the following civil disobedience tactics:

• Breaking the government's "wookie";
• Choo-choo-choosing "the train on the front";
• Being "vikings" - especially when we sleep;
• Using scissors that might be able to cut through hot butter.

Don't wonder what a "diorama" is any longer; let's "bee" comrades. Open to anyone; background in Marxist and/or anarchist thought and European football "firm" tactics (English or Dutch; German also acceptable) especially welcome.

Narcs (and we know who you are) need not apply.

Scumbag of the Week

After careful deliberation, our blue-ribbon panel has awarded this week's Scumbag of the Week citation to...US President George W. Bush. What a shocking turn of events! Bush unseats Israeli Prime Minister and war criminal Ariel Sharon, who has won the award for a record 58 weeks in a row.

Bush edged out his closest competitor, Sharon, with a performance over the last several months, culminating with the new war against Iraq, that is unrivalled in world history. Our panel took the following outstanding achievements into consideration when selecting Bush for this prestigious award:

• Starting a war with no justification whatsoever.
• Committing naked aggression in pursuit of the above achievement.
• Demolishing international legal frameworks and the legitimacy of the UN.
• Delivering dozens of lies to the American and world publics.
• Rendering meaningless the idea of human rights and democracy.
• Making it impossible for US citizens to travel safely anywhere in the world.
• Endangering citizens of other states in pursuit of wealth.

Congratulations, President Bush! Enjoy your award - you've earned it!

Rachel Corrie's Murder and Hatred for the Victim

Many Americans were shocked and saddened by the brutal murder of Rachel Corrie last week. Corrie, an American peace activist with the International Solidarity Movement, was trying to prevent the illegal demolition of a doctor's house in a Gaza refugee camp when an Israeli army bulldozer deliberately ran her over. While such "accidents", as the Israeli army likes to term them, are very frequent in the occupied Palestinian territories (recent Palestinian deaths during house demolitions, prohibited under Article 33 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, include an expectant mother and a partially deaf 65-year-old woman), the killing of a US citizen elicited much sympathy and genuine grief by many, regardless of their views on the Palestine-Israel issue.

Except, that is, for a remarkably large number of people who immediately began blaming the victim. Murder wasn't murder, in this case - Rachel Corrie, according to these hypocrites, got what she deserved for "getting in the way" of the Israeli army. Never mind that she was an unarmed civilian, clearly marked as such and, despite the outrageous lies immediately circulated by the Israeli army and foreign ministry, clearly visible to the bulldozer driver - she stood up for Palestinian rights, and that was enough to justify her murder.

The level of hatred these people have for Rachel Corrie is difficult to comprehend. It defies all normal, and most abnormal, ideas of decency, morality, and humanity. Instead of facing up to Corrie's death for what it was - blatant murder in pursuit of an illegal and immoral policy against civilians - this group of people filtered it through the spectrum of the "Israel is always right" philosophy. If Israel is doing something, anything, why then it must be the most moral thing ever carried out by human beings. Dead human beings, especially Palestinians or 23-year-old leftist women, even if they are fellow citizens, matter little in this scheme of things.

I will speak of my own experience with this blind hatred before reviewing some other examples in the press. I am a member of Students for Justice in Palestine at UC-Berkeley. We made a flyer announcing Corrie's death and a vigil to be held that night at the Israeli consulate in San Francisco. SJP members put this flyer up around campus at noon on Monday. Within two hours, at least half of them had been taken down. By the next day, virtually all had been removed. The few that remained had been wheatpasted up and couldn't be ripped down so easily. But even then, this hatred for Rachel Corrie was so deep that someone had put little stickers on the flyer with such sentiments as "Suicidal or just stupid?" and "Idiot terrorist sympathizer". Not even one single flyer, the "mass-media" venue of the weak and poor, could be left alone without being defaced. The idea that even a single flyer announcing her murder could be left up to inform the public was intolerable to these people.

Who could do something like this? What kind of mentality would make something like this possible? Israel's propagandists like to claim that textbooks "teach" Palestinian children to hate Israelis - what source could possibly have taught these UC Berkeley students such hatred, a hatred that required the total obliteration or at least distortion of the memory of a murdered human being?

Others went beyond simply tearing down the work of concerned activists and decided to to actively broadcast their hypocritical malice. The SF Chronicle ran series of letters justifying the murder. In one issue one letter writer stated that Corrie had to "pay a stiff price for her misguided sympathies" - a clear indication by this commentator that anyone who supports the Palestinians deserves to be killed; another accused her of "treason" - odd, since in most cases (i.e., those not involving Israel), the normal reaction would be that supporting a foreign government which killed a fellow citizen would actually be much closer to treason. In another issue, the Chronicle ran a letter from someone who justified the murder since Corrie has been photographed burning an American flag - apparently signalling that dissent should be punished by death. Elsewhere, a student newspaper at the University of Maryland, the Diamondback, ran a cartoon by one Daniel Friedman depicting a woman sitting in front of a bulldozer with the caption "Stupidity...sitting in front of a bulldozer to protect a gang of terrorists". Needless to say, it is unlikely that the Diamondback, or any newspaper, would publish a similar cartoon mocking Israeli settlers who were killed as a result of their racist and apartheid policies of land theft and dispossession of the Palestinians.

Naturally, these instances of blind hatred and justification of murder do not represent the full spectrum of feelings of Israel's supporters. No doubt, most of them were also shocked by Corrie's death. But I cannot recall ever seeing any instances of newspapers publishing so many items from contributors and readers suggesting that the victim "deserved it" - and certainly not in connection with attacks against Israeli soldiers and settlers on occupied Palestinian lands. What did Rachel Corrie do to cause these "supporters of Israel" to react in such a barbaric manner? She exposed Israeli state brutality and terrorism in a way that a thousand Palestinian deaths could never have done in the United States.

Postscriptum: US military officials have condemned the Iraqi government and Arabic-language satellite station Al Jazirah for breaching the Geneva Conventions by airing footage of several captured American soldiers in Iraq. This comes exactly one week after US citizen Rachel Corrie was murdered by a foreign government in the process of violating the Fourth Geneva Convention. What has been the reaction of the US government to the latter breach of international law? Approximately $10 billion in military aid and loan guarantees to Israel.

Is anyone besides me going to blog on this bloggerfucking blog?