Baseline summary:

Iran has slowed its enrichment activity.  The latest sampling by the IAEA shows enrichment levels at 3.49% – very low levels.  Iran had produced 839kg of LEU as of November, and an additional 171 Kg of LEU since.

All inventories of nuclear material are accounted for.  There has been no diversion of nuclear material.  All inventories and enrichment facilities under inspection.

Negatives (these will be the focus of Western press articles)

No movement on implementation of Additional Protocol suspended in 2006.

Stalemate on exchange of information re details of legacy possible military research (pre-2003).

Iran has not permitted inspections of the IR-40 research nuclear plant.  Iran claims that the facility has not received any nuclear material.

Basically, since the adoption of the 2007 workplan, the IAEA process has been in a stasis mode.

 

No, not quite.  The most reliable reports (thanks to m.s.) are on the various space hobby wonk blogs that really appreciate the technological feat Iran has managed to display.  It also helps that Iran is demonstrating a high degree of transparency with its satellite program, complete with a cool CGI-generated simulation viewable here.

 According to one report,

 The satellite has a mass of 27 kg (ISA web) or 25 kg (IRINN news agency) and it is a 0.40m cube. It carries an instrument to measure the space environment, and a GPS receiver modified for use in the unstabilized (i.e. tumbling) satellite, according to the Iranian Space Agency web site isa.ir. (Thanks to Reza Farivar for translation). IRNA associates the project with “Saa Iran Industries”, and connects it with the celebrations for the 30th anniversary of the revolution that brought Ayatollah Khomeini to power.

The first Iranian satellite was launched into orbit on Feb 2 at around  1834 UTC +/- 5 min on a southeastern trajectory from an unidentified launch site in Iran. Two objects are in orbits of 245 x 378 km x 55.51 deg and 245 x 439 x 55.6 deg; radio signals picked up by Bob Christy, Sven Grahn and Greg Roberts confirm that 2009-04A is the Omid payload and the 2009-04B is the Safir rocket final stage. Omid’s rbit is close to the announced plan of a 250-350 km altitude. The Iranian Students News Agency calls the launch vehicle Safir-2; it’s not clear if this is represents a different vehicle type from Safir-1, or just a serial number. Pictures of the launch show “Safir – Omid (2) IRILV” painted on the side of the rocket. Based on an Iranian video showing an animation of the launch, it appears that Safir is a two-stage launch vehicle.….

TheSafir-2 resembles a “sounding rocket” more than a true ICBM.  The Omid is about the size of a microwave oven (appx. 18”) and quite a bit heavier, but nowhere approaching a useful military payload.  The Safir-2 has a range that permits strikes anywhere in Israel, but as an Israeli expert grumbled to the New York Times, this is not new.

But hit those alarm bells.  As US defense experts warn (with an eye to larger budget requests):

 
Iran's launch of a domestically made satellite into orbit demonstrates Tehran 

has moved one step closer to eventually building long-range nuclear missiles

that could reach Europe or the United States, experts said on Tuesday.
 

The ability to send a satellite into space -- combined with Tehran's disputed 

nuclear program and uranium enrichment -- raises the threat Iran could ultimately 

have an intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) arsenal, US officials and experts 

say.  "In the case of Iran, one of the biggest concerns we've always had is that any 

country that can put a satellite into orbit has thereby demonstrated that they can 

send a nuclear weapon to intercontinental distances," said Rick Lehner, a 

spokesman of the US Missile Defense Agency.


NASA has confirmed a spot-on low earth orbit for the Omid, 
which marks this as a tremendous technological accomplishment 
and introduces Iran into an exclusive club of nations who have launched 
satellites themselves, as opposed to contracting with the 
US, Russia, France or Japan.  

  Omid (centre) and its launch vehicle  (FARS)


There is, of course, something disquieting about the Omid.  It’s the shape – a perfect 
cube.  Now, is this significant?  You bet.  Only one intergalactic species uses the cube 
form of interstellar spaceship – the Borg.  You know, the ones that kidnapped star ship 
Enterprise captain Jon-Luc Picard and threatened to assimilate all humanity.  
 

   Borg ship (not to scale)
 
Have the Iranians been assimilated by the Borg?  You be the judge.  
Check out page 147 of your Star Trek ®
convention notebook.  What?  You left it at home?  
 

The EU decision on the People’s Mujahideen Organisation of Iran (PMOI) followed a years-long legal row and Iran’s state radio immediately branded it an “irresponsible move”.    Foreign ministers of the 27-nation EU, which has unsuccessfully tried to persuade Iran to curb nuclear activities suspected as part of a bomb programme, approved the removal of the PMOI from a list of terror groups that includes Palestinian Hamas and Sri Lanka’s Tamil Tigers.   The decision follows a number of EU court rulings against its seven-year inclusion on the blacklist.   “What we are doing today is abiding by the resolution of the European court,” EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana, the official leading diplomacy with Tehran, told reporters just before the ministers finalised the decision.

In Tehran, the Iranian Foreign Ministry was quoted as saying removal of the ban amounted to encouragement of terrorism.   “It means becoming friends with terrorists,” the Students news agency quoted a ministry statement as saying. “Iran believes the European Union lacks legitimacy to fight against terrorists.”   The PMOI began as a leftist-Islamist opposition to the late Shah of Iran and has bases in Iraq.

Western analysts say its support is limited in Iran, which denies trying to make a nuclear bomb, because of its collaboration with Iraq during the 1980-88 Iran-Iraq war. It remains banned in the United States.  Maryam Rajavi, president-elect of the PMOI’s political wing, the National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCRI), said the delisting was a “stinging defeat for Europe’s policy of appeasement” of Tehran and urged Washington to follow.

“The most important part of any change in policy by the new (U.S.) president … would be the removal of the terrorist label of the PMOI,” she said in a statement.  An NCRI spokesman said the PMOI had “tens of millions of dollars of assets, including $9 million in France” which have been frozen in Europe and to which it should now have access.

This short-sighted decision is likely to have negative consequences for continuing negotiations with Iran over its ongoing enrichment program.

Meanwhile, Susan Rice, President Obama’s ambassador to the UN, said that the US would deal direct with Iran, but also qualified her statement by insisting that Iran suspend uranium enrichment before negotiating on the nuclear program.  

“The dialogue and diplomacy must go hand in hand with a very firm message from the United States and the international community that Iran needs to meet its obligations as defined by the Security Council. And its continuing refusal to do so will only cause pressure to increase,” she told reporters during a brief question-and-answer session.   Her comments, reflecting Obama’s signals for improved relations with America’s foes after eight years under President George W. Bush, came shortly after meeting with Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon on her first day in her new job.

I, robot

One of the most frightening interviews I have ever heard on the airwaves was Terry Gross’ Fresh Air (NPR) interview with the investigative journalist Peter Sanger, whose book on private military contractors, Corporate Warriors, remains the authoritative study on the international security industry.  Sanger’s new book, Wired for War, describes how the Pentagon is moving toward an entirely automated battlefield adapted for a new generation of Xbox-reared soldiers.  What is especially interesting about Sanger is he is one of the few authors who expands his reach to consider the legal and ethical implications of reducing a battlefield to non-human actors, noting that the recent Gaza war was a testbed for Israeli remote technology. 

One of the key issues rarely discussed by most, but contemplated by Sanger, is whether these new technologies may lead to greater ease by First World nations in interventionism since the human cost to the intervenor is reduced.  Likewise, he even touches on the fact that since much of this technology is being developed in the civilian market (and much can be purchased at places like Best Buy), insurrection movements can likewise avail themselves to much of this knowledge, for example, GPS.  It is one of those revelatory discussions akin to the ones we used to have on the roof of our freshman dorm.

The audio is here by following the link.

MSM-stalwart Time leads forth with an article suggesting that President Obama is at loggerheads with his Bush-holdover Defense Secretary, Robert Gates, as to whether to proceed with the Reliable Replacement Warhead (RRW).  The Pentagon and the Department of Energy’s nuclear weapons laboratories have been lobbying for years to replace what they consider an aging stockpile of nuclear warheads with more “safer” and “reliable” modern warheads.  The RRW has been nearly killed off several times in Congress but rises, lazarus-like, to haunt each new defense budget.  It is a favorite of the arms control establishment who argue that unless new warheads are designed and built (an activity principally conducted now at the weapons labs), we cannot meet our SORT treaty commitments to reduce to 2200 deployed warheads by 2012 without jeopardizing our “nuclear deterrent.”

The latest U.S. nuclear showdown doesn’t involve a foreign enemy. Instead it pits President Barack Obama against his Defense Secretary, Robert Gates, and concerns the question of whether America needs a new generation of nuclear warheads. While serving under former President George W. Bush, Gates had repeatedly called for the Reliable Replacement Warhead (RRW) program to be put into operation, because the nation’s current nukes — mostly produced in the 1970s and ’80s — are growing so old that their destructive power may be in question.

The Reliable Replacement Warhead is not about new capabilities but about safety, reliability and security,” Gates said in a speech in the week before last November’s election. In an article in the current issue of Foreign Affairs, released in early December after Gates was tapped by Obama to stay on at the Pentagon, Gates repeated that refrain. “Even though the days of hair-trigger superpower confrontation are over, as long as other nations possess the bomb and the means to deliver it, the United States must maintain a credible strategic deterrent,” he wrote. “Congress needs to do its part by funding the Reliable Replacement Warhead program — for safety, for security and for a more reliable deterrent.” RRW basically trades explosive force for greater assurance that new warheads would work predictably in the absence of tests, which the U.S. has refrained from conducting for nearly two decades to help advance nonproliferation goals.

But Obama doesn’t buy that logic. Shortly after taking the oath of office on Tuesday, he turned what had been a campaign promise into an official presidential commitment: the new Administration “will stop the development of new nuclear weapons,” the White House declared flatly on its website, with no equivocation, asterisks or caveats.

Obama and Gates are “at loggerheads on this,” says Michael O’Hanlon, a military expert at the Brookings Institution who has specialized in nuclear issues. A senior Pentagon official says talk of a resolution is “premature” because he doesn’t believe Gates and Obama have discussed the matter.

O’Hanlon and other nuclear thinkers have suggested retooling existing weapons to improve reliability as an option. But the Energy Department’s National Nuclear Security Administration, which develops America’s nuclear weapons, has said it cannot meet the goals set for RRW by modifying existing weapons. Obama’s position has backing in Congress, which has repeatedly refused to fund the program.

Obama would have a difficult time reversing course on what is now a stated policy of his Administration instead of simply a campaign promise. And any move to produce new nuclear weapons will be read by other nations as a U.S. push for nuclear supremacy, even as Washington urges the rest of the world — Tehran, are you listening? — to do without the weapons. Russia would very likely respond by upgrading its own arsenal.

It’s easy to get too excited about this, since an enormous amount of momentum has developed behind “modernization” of the US nuclear force.  Tens of billions has been sunk into nuclear weapons research and infrastructure so that a breakout of new weapons could occur reasonably quickly.  Production has been upgraded, and these programs includes not only new warheads, but delivery systems (many dual use), guidance, and missions.  A victory over the RRW may simply be a victory over a three letter combination, since these matters have a habit of reappearing as something else.

Is Iran running low on nuclear fuel?

            Another nuclear story which cannot be deemed fully reliable is making the rounds, this time about Iran.  One indicator of its unreliability is that it originated with the Murdoch-owned London Times, which has, in recent years, published all sorts of nonsense about Iran and Israel.   As re-circulated by the Global Security “newswire”, Iran is running short of uranium yellowcake to process through its conversion and enrichment facilities.  The Times claimed that Iran has converted 70% of its stock of yellowcake into uranium hexafluoride, and is looking for more despite the Western embargo. 

            What caught my eye was an amazing statement:

Iran possesses enough uranium hexafluoride for up to 35 bombs, but it could use up its stocks of yellowcake uranium by the end of 2009, said David Albright, head of the Institute for Science and International Security.

What? Albright said that??  Up until now the debate has been whether Iran can make a bomb, but not thirty-five.  To get from all of its UF6 to highly enriched uranium for that many bombs would require a fantastic engineering feat, recalling that to date, all of the enriched uranium produced at Bushehr has been inspected by the IAEA and is less than 5% enriched. 

Albright and Shire’s report for their Institute for Science and International Security dated 12 January 2009 advocates that Obama adopt a European-style approach to Iran involving direct negotiations, increased sanctions and incentives.  They otherwise warn that “The year 2009 will likely mark Iran’s development of a nuclear weapons capability.”   Albright if its existing centrifuges are run at full capacity, Iran could produce enough bomb-grade uranium for one to two devices a year.  What worries Albright is that the Iranian enrichment program is too small to support a civilian reactor, but more than enough for an indigenous weapons program.  As for thirty-five bombs, Albroght actually says:

From the perspective of nuclear weapons, its existing stock of uranium hexafluoride is enormous. Given that between five and ten tonnes of uranium in the form of uranium hexafluoride are needed to feed into cascades to make enough HEU for a nuclear weapon, Iran has accumulated enough uranium hexafluoride for over 35 nuclear weapons. All of the uranium hexafluoride is safeguarded by the IAEA.

Well, that part about being safeguarded by the IAEA is a bit of a catch, isn’t it?

The occasion was the latest column by the ever-so-moderate, prim and condescendingly ”centrist” Washington Post columnist, David Ignatius, who contrasted Obama’s “post-partisan” approach with Limbaugh on the far right, or the Daily Kos on the left.  This was utter crap, and Markos rightly called Ignatius on it.  Ordinarily I would not get excited about such exchanges, but the Daily Kos’ viceral response echoes what we in the United States have had to put up with by the hordes of “centrists”, so-called “Iran experts”, members of the “arms control community”, and politicians who equate 4 Israeli deaths with 1300 Palestinians. 

I include the Daily Kos’ fully justified screed in full.  The blog is a recognized voice for the “establishment” left (such as it is - I’m thinking here, people like Barney Frank or the soon-to-be Senator Al Franken.  It’s a far cry from Europe.)   You may avert your eyes at the invocation of the f— word.  Go get ‘em, Markos:   

Hmm. The extremes, according to David Ignatius: us. And Rush Limbaugh.

I would feel better about these pointed words towards us (and by direct extension, me) if I knew which things counted as the “petty grievances” that a radical voice like mine should be “reflecting” upon. Which were they? Was it speaking too loudly of the devolution of the United States into unapologetic torture? Was it complaining of the lives lost in Iraq, or making petty noises that even the president should follow the Constitution when it came to spying upon certain Americans, or making the case for their internment?

When I put up that picture of the Iraqi girl who had just seen her parents shot to death at a checkpoint while Iraq descended into chaos, was that the petty one? When I complained at a presidency that declared patriotism synonymous with support for White House policies, and nationalism synonymous with both? Where was that line, what were the things I am supposed to keep my mouth shut about, in the future? When Rush Limbaugh was playing “Barack the Magic Negro”, all in good fun, of course, what abominable slight was it precisely that makes David Ignatius think of him and me as cut from the same cloth?

What were the worn out dogmas, the ones I should avoid? The insistence that energy policy be rational, or scientific fact be given plain acknowledgement regardless of ideological convenience? The constant, annoying observations of each time that conservative rhetoric was proven utterly false by conservative action? The staggering assertion that competence should be not only be expected of government, but that it could and should be judged? The insistence that if “every life” is sacred, that even those that conservatives did not like might count too? Is it my fury at the plainness with which powerful men can avoid the law, was that the bridge too far, the tired ? So tell me, poster child of the press guarding our democracy, since you have read our site enough to compare it as equivalently distasteful to one of the most hateful, politically blindfolded propagandists in the nation, a man who has truly been nothing but a suckling pig, devoted and supine, at the teat of whatever war against half the nation the policymakers could devise — which were the complaints I had that crossed that line?

This is why I have come, in these recent years, to despise these people. There is no abomination on this earth worth an emotional outburst, in their minds — no conflict worth a raised voice. There is only the mushy, cowardly middle, one that never stands for anything too much or critiques anything too loudly. They all stink like fish, they have been praising the status quo for so long and so colorlessly — and yet they fancy themselves intellectuals for it, and even presume themselves courageous for it.

Throughout a near-decade of partisan demonization from the White House, through constant assertions that fighting against conservative assertions was nothing more or less than treasonous, through incompetence that, at long last, has proved absolutely staggering in every possible arena, from military tactics to disaster preparedness to economic guidance to the most basic acts of government — setting its own budget and ensuring its own financial stability — Never — never — did I hear from the majority of our national supposed watchdogs more than petty fucking odes to a faux-centrist position in which fantasy and reality must be given equal weight, and that legality be not judged to pedantically, or ineptitude too keenly, or partisan viciousness too forcefully, lest anyone get too pissed off or lest the vaunted “centrist” teacup be jarred even slightly by the plain actions of the both parties, out there for all the world to see.

What’s that saying — in easy times, everyone is a patriot? I won’t soon forget Bush and his band of incompetent, bullying, self-absorbed, ideologically obsessed buffoons — an administration so bereft of value that even the Economist wrote its obituary using examples, comparisons and words (incompetent included) that had appeared on this site for most of Bush’s time in office. But I also won’t forget those who, in service to their own coddled hierarchies or fear of sounding ‘petty’ or ‘dogmatic’, weren’t willing to lift their voices too loudly or too energetically against one damn bit of it. They are as much to blame as anyone in the Bush administration, and while it would be As Convenient As All Fucking Hell for the world to forget that it was their own deregulation odes that led to catastrophe, that their own military-playtime assertions were proved concretely to be nothing short of moronic, and their own papers hemmed and hawed over whether or not blind inhumanity towards our fellow man — in the form of torture — was really condemnable, or merely gauche, or whether or not government figures spreading now-proven-absolutely-no-question-about-it-false assertions to goad a democracy into war count as something that should be held against someone, or merely the stuff of past history, nobody’s fault really — while it would be astonishingly convenient for all of us mere peons to forget all of that, and cast recriminations against no one, and go on with our lives like good little shoes and thimbles in someone else’s damned board game — I think I will probably not forget. I am fairly certain, in fact.

But no, these are the people who protect our democracy, our first and only true line of defense against a government that acts against the interests of its own people. These are the people who are paid to pass judgment, and yet have made careers out of never passing judgment, at least not in any way that would provide more than the slightest inconvenience to those in power, and if we were to look into our rear-view mirrors at this past Bush administration, failed and mean-spirited, we would see their faces there too, shaking the same damn hands and mouthing the same damn words as they have always said, year after year after goddamned year, while all of this unfolded on their own television stations and in the pages of their own damn newspapers. And so everything I or anyone else in opposition has ever given voice too can be dismissed, because it was all the stuff of — what was that phrase again? — ah, yes, petty grievances.

Perish the fucking thought.

May Allah bless you, too. 

  Today’s Wall Street Journal leads with a “scoop” concerning Iranian efforts to acquire high-tech components for “nuclear missiles.”  While I am in no position to contest the factual elements of the story, it is interesting to observe the spin the conservative paper puts on these details.  This starts with the very first paragraph:

U.S. security and law-enforcement officials say they have fresh evidence of recent efforts by Iran to evade sanctions and acquire metals from China used in high-tech weaponry, including long-range nuclear missiles.

 Long-range yes, but what makes them necessarily “nuclear?”  Recalling that the US is presently planning to retrofit Trident missiles to carry conventional warheads, any leap to conclude that these missiles are intended for nuclear warheads seems premature.  The WSJ article by Simpson and Solomon continues:

Iran‘s efforts are detailed in a series of recent emails and letters between Iranian companies and foreign suppliers seen by The Wall Street Journal. Business records show one Iranian company, ABAN Commercial & Industrial Ltd., has contracted through an intermediary for more than 30,000 kilograms (about 66,000 pounds) of tungsten copper — which can be used in missile guidance systems — from Advanced Technology & Materials Co. Ltd. of Beijing. One March 2008 email between the firms mentions shipping 215 ingots, with more planned.

The United Arab Emirates has informed the U.S. that in September it intercepted a Chinese shipment headed to Iran of specialized aluminum sheets that can be used to make ballistic missiles. A month earlier, UAE officials also intercepted an Iran-bound shipment of titanium sheets that can be used in long-range missiles, according to a recent letter to the U.S. Commerce Department from the UAE’s Washington ambassador.

This brings to mind the aluminum-tube intelligence fiasco that preceded the 2003 Iraq war (photo above).   These materials can be used for all sorts of things, much like a shampoo bottle can be used to transport dangerous explosive chemicals or – well – shampoo.  This is all what attorneys refer to as very indirect circumstantial evidence of something, but let’s assume the worst, as the WSJ does.

All of the high-performance metals Iran has been acquiring also have industrial uses such as commercial aviation and manufacturing, making it difficult for intelligence agencies to be absolutely certain how the materials are being used. “We can’t say we know it would, or would not, be used for military purposes,” said proliferation expert Gary Milholland of the nonprofit Wisconsin Project on Nuclear Arms Control, noting that broad economic sanctions on Tehran led by the U.S. mean Iran has to go to unusual lengths to find high-grade materials for industrial use as well as weapons.

Still, he added, “There doesn’t seem to be any real doubt or debate whether Iran is going for the bomb or whether Iran is using front companies to import things. Everyone agrees on that around the world.”

And just who is “proliferation expert” Gary Milholland?  Milholland is the “Wisconsin Project”, a small K Street institute (one of hundreds) that churns out statements on nonproliferation and nuclear weapons, an associated with IranWatch, a conservative group which has been sounding war chants on Iran for years, as well as AIPAC.  It’s comforting to know there is “no debate” on Iran’s push for the bomb, which explains why the IAEA has yet to find any evidence of a weapons programme.   Russia is unenthusiastic about these charges, as reflected in yesterday’s remarks by Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov:

Lavrov also said he hoped that once Obama assumes office the Iran Six group of world powers will resume contact with Tehran on the resolution of its controversial nuclear program. “Our position is that Iran, which has answered many questions from the IAEA [International Atomic Energy Agency], should continue its active cooperation with this agency to resolve remaining problems that are still in the Iranian [nuclear] dossier,” Lavrov said.

Russia has repeatedly called on the Iran Six group, which also involves the United States, China, France, Britain and Germany, to support the work of the UN nuclear watchdog, while the United States wants to strengthen sanctions against Iran.

Tehran is under three sets of relatively mild UN Security Council sanctions over its refusal to suspend its nuclear program, which many Western powers led by the United States say is a covert nuclear weapons program, a claim that Iran has dismissed.

Our nuclear friends

            Of course, to the US, nuclear proliferation is a good thing if the recipient of the nuclear technology happens to be a conservative US ally, like the United Arab Emirates.  Today the US signed a nuclear cooperation deal with the UAE, the first in the Middle East (leaving aside whatever covert aid given the Israelis, ahem).

The deal, named the “123 Agreement” after Section 123 of the US Atomic Energy Act, was signed in Washington by U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and her UAE counterpart, Abdullah bin Zayed al-Nayhan.

After signing the deal, bin Zayed said that the agreement benefits both countries, adding that it reflects the strong relationship between the US and the UAE.

“Under the terms of this agreement, the UAE will gain access to significant capabilities and experience in the peaceful use of nuclear energy. This will allow the UAE to develop its civilian nuclear program to the highest standards of safety, security and non-proliferation. The agreement will also open opportunities for US firms to be active participants in the UAE nuclear energy program,” he added.

The deal is a part of UAE’s plans to invest in nuclear energy, and the oil-rich nation has already signed deals to build several nuclear power plants in the country.

No inconsistencies there, no sir.

In fact, the International Red Cross has stated that Israel is certainly using it and Israel’s response was a non-denial, a spokesman explaining that the military “wishes to reiterate that it uses weapons in compliance with international law, while strictly observing that they be used in accordance with the type of combat and its characteristics.” Foreign press cannot get to bottom of it due to Israel refusing journalists’ entry to Gaza.

The use of white phosphorus as an illuminating device only is okayed by international law but such use is extremely risky and banned for use in dense civilian areas. The fires it sets cannot be put out with the usual water or fire extinguishers.

Today, at least two United Nations officials have flatly declared that three or more white phosphorous shells were part of the attack today that set a UN building and compound ablaze in Gaza City.   …

Earlier this week The New York Times reported on growing civilian charges of white phosphorus use:

Luay Suboh, 10, from Beit Lahiya, lost his eyesight and some skin on his face Saturday when, his mother said, a fiery substance clung to him as he darted home from a shelter where his family was staying to pick up clothes. The substance smelled like burned trash, said Ms. Jaawanah, the mother who fled her home in Zeitoun, who had experienced it too. She had no affection for Hamas, but her sufferings were changing that. ‘Do you think I’m against them firing rockets now?’ she asked, referring to Hamas. ‘No. I was against it before. Not anymore.’

Also this week, AFP reported that medics in Gaza say they have treated more than 50 people suffering burns caused by controversial white phosphorus shells, a claim backed up by a report of the New York-based Human Rights Watch. And two Norwegian doctors, recently returned from working in the Gaza Strip, accused Israel of using the territory as a testing ground for a new “extremely nasty” type of explosive. Then there is today’s report by The Times of London from correspondent Sheera Franklin in Jerusalem:

Remnants of an Israeli white phosphorus shell, identified by the marking on the outer casing — M825A1 — have been found in the village of Sheikh Ajilin in western Gaza. Witnesses in Gaza said that the shell was fired on January 9 and was taken indoors as evidence. They recalled seeing thick smoke and smelling a strong odour in keeping with the garlic-like smell associated with white phosphorus.

Hebrew writing on the shell casing reads “exploding smoke” — the term the Israeli army uses for white phosphorus. Doctors who examined the shell said that it appeared to include phosphorus residue. Residents said that they suffered burns on their feet when they walked where the shelling had taken place.

Jane’s supplies the following information on the American-made M825A1 shell:

The 155 mm M825A1 smoke WP is a separate-loading base-ejection smoke-producing projectile. It uses a body virtually identical to that of the 155 mm M483A1 DPICM. The projectile has a 155 mm M483A1 DPICM aluminium ogive section and expulsion charge, a forged-steel modified M483A1 body and a threaded steel ring and aluminium body base. Inside the body is a hermetically sealed canister containing 116 WP (white phosphorous) saturated felt wedges, each 190 mm thick and separated into four quadrants of 29 wedges each. A 63.5 mm diameter burster charge containing approximately 45 g of Composition B runs the entire length of the canister’s centre cavity.In operation, the nose-mounted time fuze is set to function at a selected point during the projectile’s trajectory. When the fuze functions, it ignites a 51 g expulsion charge of M10 propellant which creates sufficient internal pressure within the ogive to push off the body base and eject the canister. The expulsion charge also ignites a 100 ms pyrotechnic delay, enabling the canister to be fully ejected from the carrier body before the burster charge (21.2 g of Composition A5) ignites to break open the canister and release the WP-saturated felt wedges. The total weight of WP in the wedges is 5.78 kg. A launch-activated safe-and-arm module from an M739 Point-Detonating (PD) fuze separates the forward end of the main burster charge from the heat-sensitive pyrotechnic-delay element. In less than 45 seconds from the moment they meet the air, the separated felt wedges start to burn…

Sounds like fun, except that the WP wedges burn on contact with air and cannot be quenched with water.   The burns inflicted upon unfortunate civilians coming into contact with WP are horrific.   The organization International Lawyers against Nuclear Arms (ILANA) has briefed the illegality of its use on civilian targets, as the US did in the 2004 Falluja, Iraq campaign:

 The killing of troops and civilians in the city of Falluja on November 8-11, 2004 occurred in an indiscriminate way and against a specific population, falling under the provisions of Article 7 of the Rome Statute, for whose purposes “crimes against humanity” are “murder, extermination, or other inhumane acts of a similar character intentionally causing great suffering, or serious injury to body or to mental or physical health when committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against any civilian population.”  We define an “attack directed against any civilian population” as a course of conduct involving the multiple commission of acts referred to in paragraph 1 against any civilian population, pursuant to or in furtherance of a State or organizational policy to commit such attack; “extermination” includes the intentional infliction of conditions of life, inter alia the deprivation of access to food and medicine, calculated to bring about the destruction of part of a population.

In the attack on the city of Falluja, on 8-11 November 2004, as pointed out by the RaiNews24 report, many war crimes can be identified – according to article 8 of the Rome Statute, in particular the employment of white phosphorus: even though it was employed as a “light-throwing substance”, its effects on the civilian population and on the insurgents fall under the protection of the article.

War crimes are:

- wilful killing;

- wilfully causing great suffering, or serious injury to body or health;

- extensive destruction and appropriation of property, not justified by military necessity and carried out unlawfully and wantonly;

- other serious violations of the laws and customs applicable in international armed conflict, within the established framework of international law, namely, any of the following acts:

- intentionally directing attacks against the civilian population as such or against individual civilians not taking direct part in hostilities;

- intentionally directing attacks against civilian objects, that is, objects which are not military objectives;

- intentionally launching an attack in the knowledge that such attack will cause incidental loss of life or injury to civilians or damage to civilian objects or widespread, long-term and severe damage to the natural environment which would be clearly excessive in relation to the concrete and direct overall military advantage anticipated;

- attacking or bombarding, by whatever means, towns, villages, dwellings or buildings which are undefended and which are not military objectives;

- killing or wounding a combatant who, having laid down his arms or having no longer means of defence, has surrendered at discretion;

- killing or wounding treacherously individuals belonging to the hostile nation or army;

- employing poison or poisoned weapons;

- employing weapons, projectiles and material and methods of warfare which are of a nature to cause superfluous injury or unnecessary suffering or which are inherently indiscriminate in violation of the international law of armed conflict, provided that such weapons, projectiles and material and methods of warfare are the subject of a comprehensive prohibition.

The US has not signed the Rome Statute.  Neither has Israel.  Most nations have, and it is part of the customary law of nations.  The fact that the US and Israel has not signed the Rome statute is not carte blanche to drop this weapon on civilians:

White phosphorus, the chemical compound that is the object of this statement, just like many other chemicals that are or are going to be on the market and still don’t have a precise name or coding, is neither prohibited in itself nor is expressly referred to in the “Convention on the prohibition of the development, production, stockpiling and use of chemical weapons and on their destruction” (Paris, 13 January 1993). As a matter of fact, although it is not mentioned in the three “Tables of the chemicals”of the Convention, we must take into account that “for the purposes of this Convention” – as the Annex on chemicals states (B. Tables of chemicals, first paragraph) – these tables identify the chemicals that are object of the verification measures in accordance with the provisions in Annex on Implementation and Verification. According to Article II, Section (1a), “the Tables are not a definition of chemicals”.

The same notion is highlighted in the first part of the Convention (Article II, Definition and criteria) where it says: “For the purpose of implementing this

Convention, toxic chemicals which have been identified for the application of verification measures are listed in Schedules contained in the Annex on Chemicals”.

Therefore, the point is not the nature of the weapon (incendiary, light throwing or biochemical weapons) but the WAY IN WHICH THE CHEMICAL HAS BEEN

USED. We can’t play with definitions and change the brand of a product to put it on the market for a while (as in the case of Napalm and MK77) until it is outlawed.

WARFARE HAS ALWAYS BEEN GIVEN RULES. However, these rules proceed at a slower pace than technology and this is the reason why lawmakers write

comprehensive provisions instead of giving a list of prohibited chemicals (that can be too easily gone round) and prefer to focus on the effects they can produce and condemn everything that wilfully and systematically causes great and unnecessary suffering and serious injuries to human beings (people and animals) and jeopardize the environment.

The defense of this war strategy in the military campaign in Iraq based on the employment of white phosphorus can’t be based on the “exclusivist” principle. On the contrary, not all of the chemicals not expressly referred to in the tables can be employed with impunity in wartime because, as we have already seen, the tables are not a list of prohibited chemicals but, in line with the spirit of the  Convention itself, “of the sole chemicals that are object of verification measures”.

We want to highlight once again that if a toxic chemical is not mentioned in the Convention, its employment is not automatically lawful. With regard to this, we recall that (Article II – Definition and criteria, Section (2)), “Toxic Chemical” means: “any chemical which through its chemical action on life processes can cause death, temporary incapacitation or permanent harm to humans or animals. This includes all such chemicals, regardless of their origin or of their method of production, and regardless of whether they are produced in facilities, in munitions or elsewhere”.

A good antidote to the Anglo-centric wave of  “great game” columns on the Gaza war (we win, Iran loses, we lose, Iran wins) is Trita Parsi’s article “Trapping Obama in imagined fault lines” at truthout.org. 

 In talking about the assault on Gaza, neo-conservative pundits and Israeli hardliners have relied on a familiar frame. The fighting in Gaza, they say, is a struggle between Israel and so-called “moderate” Arab states (namely, Egypt, Jordan and Saudi Arabia) on the one hand, and Iran, Syria, Hezbollah and Hamas on the other. In reality, Israel is fighting Iran in Gaza, the argument reads.    These imagined Manichean fault lines defy logic and reality. This conflict is the last thing Tehran would have wished for in the last few weeks of the Bush administration. It increases the risk of a US-Iran confrontation now, and reduces the prospects for US-Iran diplomacy once President elect Obama takes over – neither of which is in Iran’s national interest. Rather than benefiting from the instability following the slaughter in Gaza, Iran stands to lose much from the rise in tensions. And so does Obama.

In talking about the “moderate” Arab states of unelected governments, one has to distinguish how the people inside them feel about the conflict.  Once more, these conservative institutions get to sell the Palestinians down the proverbial river for a few tossed shekels from the US.  Dr. Abbas Bakhtiar writes in New Zealand’s Scoop that against the will of the majority of their populations, Jordan, Saudi Arabia and Egypt are dancing to Tel Aviv’s tune as collaborators.  First he leaves no doubt as to the war crimes at hand:

It is now over two weeks since Israel started its vicious assault on Gaza resulting, so far, in close to 600 dead and thousands of injuries mostly civilians. Israel true to its nature is once again ignoring all international laws and conventions. With its usual thirst for blood of the civilians, Israel is continuing its bombing of workshops, administrative buildings, roads, bridges, fuel depots, prisons, schools and mosques; killing and injuring large number of civilians in one of the world’s most impoverished and densely populated areas of the world. The Israelis are following their old method of destroying everything that makes a society a society, the infrastructure. The collective punishment of the Palestinians for what Hamas or Islamic Jihad is supposed to be doing or has done, reminds one of the collective punishments that Nazis meted out in the occupied areas in Eastern Europe during the WWII.

International Red Cross just issued a statement [ 1] condemning Israel for its brutality against civilians. There are several things that seem to have shocked the Red Cross. In one episode after several days of heavy pressure from the Red Cross, several ambulances were allowed to enter a neighbourhood to evacuate the injured civilians. In one house they found 12 bodies all civilians and mostly women and children. They also found four very young children still alive next to their dead mothers, too weak to stand. They have been holed-up in the same house for close to 4 days.

Apparently the whole neighbourhood was full of dead and injured civilians with Israeli forces only 80 meters away. According to the Red Cross the Israeli forces knew of the situation and not only didn’t do anything to help the civilians, but also were stopping Red Cross from providing assistance. Representative of the Norwegian Red Cross’ People’s Action calls this a war crime.

But this is only the tip of the iceberg. The Israeli forces have begun to use civilians as human shields. According to Amnesty International Israeli forces occupy civilian houses and keep the civilians as hostages on the first floor, while they position their soldiers on the second floor; ensuring that any fire on the house (especially with anti-tank or RPG missiles) kills the civilians as well.

In yet another report, the United Nations condemned Israel for targeting civilians. The head of the UN agency in Gaza running the school that was attacked by Israel forces categorically rejected the claim by Israel that Hamas fighters were in or even near the school. Israel bombed the UN run school, killing 43 children and injuring 100.

Bakhtiar then turns his justifiable wrath on the old-line Arab conservative governments:

The often asked question, when it comes to the Palestinians, is about the role of Arab countries in the Palestinian struggle for freedom. The people not familiar with the political landscape of the area often see the Middle East as two camps, Arab countries on one side and Israel on the other. The reality is totally different. Israel has seldom been alone. Beside its usual American , French, British and other staunch allies, she has had the hidden backing of several Arab countries.

For close to 30 years now, many Arab countries have been collaborating with Israel; some like Egypt (gained independence: 1922) and Jordan (gained independence: 1946) openly while others like Saudi Arabia (founded: 1932), UAE (founded: 1972) and Kuwait (founded: 1961) from behind the scenes. The reasons for this collaboration vary from country to country but they all have one thing in common: the rulers of these countries are all dictators and need foreign protection from their own people. Some such as Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Kuwait and UAE were put in power by the British. The founder of Saudi Arabia, Abdul-Aziz bin Saud (the kingdom is name after him) was put in power by the British. The same goes for the others, except Egypt which experienced a coup by the army officers in 1952 resulting in the ousting of the monarchy and the accompanying British influence. But the Western influence returned with Anwar Sadat. All these countries are dictatorships and all are under pressure from their people. What they cannot accept is any democratically elected form of government in their mist. They fear that if an Arab government becomes democratic they may have to become one themselves, hence losing power. One of the things that they love about Mahmoud Abbas, the Palestinian president, is that he won the election not by popular vote but by popular method of rigging the election; something that these Arab leaders understand and respect.

In contrast Hamas really represented the aspiration of the people. Soon, Mahmood Abbas term as president is over and he had to stand for re-election something that he would surely lose. In contrast Hamas really won the municipal elections in 2005 and the Parliamentary election in 2006. The elections were supervised by international observers, many from Europe, and US.

Palestinians were fed-up with the corrupt regime of Mahmoud Abbas and the Fatah. They wanted to clean house. But as soon as Hamas took over, the US and the Europeans put an embargo on Hamas, calling it a terrorist organisation and not a peace partner. Israel closed the borders and refused to let anything into Gaza. Egypt also did the same.

What is not mentioned much in the media is that this was done with the complete approval of the Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Jordan.  After all, Egypt could have opened its border for transfer of food and fuel. The reasons behind this hostility were and are that Hamas is a truly elected government and worst of all, Hamas is a branch or an off-shoot of Muslim Brotherhood of Egypt.

Muslim Brotherhood has a branch or related organisation in Jordan as well. Egypt and Jordan are worried that should Hamas survive and show its resistance, their people may get the idea that they can also resist the tyrannical rule of these despots. One must not forget that Muslim Brotherhood represents the only serious challenge to the Mubarak’s rule in Egypt.

….

These are important observations, and answer the oft-voiced plaintive liberal question, “but why do they hate us?”    Bakhtiar concludes:

As can be seen each country has a good reason to eliminate Hamas, but each is restrained by its population. Israel has no such a restrain imposed on it. She not only can wage a terrible war, but also get assistance from Arab countries. Indeed it is the second time (the first was the Lebanon invasion of 2006) that Israel is getting open and solid support from these Arab countries. The invasion of Gaza was discussed in Egypt before its implementation. Egypt, Jordan and Saudi Arabia are Israel’s active partners.

Egypt is actively involved in stopping all aids from getting to Palestinians in Gaza save a token few trucks. These few trucks are allowed to go through so they can be filmed and shown to Egyptian people. All demonstrations are banned and all Egyptian volunteers for Gaza are either arrested or sent back.

There are hundreds of thousands of volunteers across the Muslim world that are willing to go to the aid of the Palestinians, but the Egyptian authorities don’t allow them passage. Egyptians even stop medical aid from passing through their territories. …

One thing is clear: these three countries do not want the Israelis to fail in their mission of totally destroying Gaza. Hosni Mubarak said so himself. The daily Haaretz reported that Hosni Mubarak had told European ministers on a peace mission that Hamas must not be allowed to win the ongoing war in Gaza.

As Egypt physically aids the Israeli military by denying food, fuel and medicine to the civilians, The House of Saud helps Israel by giving her time and diplomatic cover. When Israel started its invasion there was an immediate call for an Arab summit. Saudi Arabia and Jordan (along with Egypt of course) delayed the summit. The Saudis along with the UAE said that they had another meeting to attend to and therefore Palestinian issue had to wait. After a few days when the summit was eventually held, they issued the same old statements. Yet this time same as the Israel’s invasion of Lebanon in 2006, they blamed the victims. In a statement Saudi Arabia blamed Hamas for Israel’s continuing offensive in the Gaza Strip. Saudi Arabia, after blaming Hamas, declared that it will not even consider an oil embargo on Israel’s supporters. She then again blamed Hamas.

By this time, the three Arab countries along with Kuwait and UAE began singing the old song: international community is not doing anything about the catastrophe that is taking place in Gaza. It seems that these Arab tyrants have no shame at all. This reminds me of a quote from Marquis De Sade (1740-1814): “One is never so dangerous when one has no shame, than when one has grown too old to blush.”

These Arab leaders (many are indeed too old to blush) are complicit in the murder of so many civilians, especially young children. According to Agence France-Presse, quoting the medics on the ground, fully one third of all people killed have been children [ ]. How can these Arab leaders justify this to their people?

The answer is that they cannot. Israel knows this and for the second time can show the Arab street that their leaders are nothing but a bunch of old hypocrites. These Arab leaders are now exposed and can do nothing but to cooperate fully with Israel and US. What stand between them and their people’s rage is their army and secret services; which in turn are supported by US.

Israel has cleverly exposed these leaders for what they are: collaborators of the worst kind. These Arab leaders have brought an unimaginable shame to their people. To quote Lucien Bouchard: I have never known a more vulgar expression of betrayal and deceit. Our hope is now with the people of these countries to clean this stain from their honour.

Illegal weapons

            Israel fields possibly the most ‘modern’ military in the world, if the term ‘modern’ is defined as the advancement of technology to devise new and efficient methods of killing one’s enemy.  The asses’ jawbone and slingshot have been replaced by cluster bombs, white phosphorus, flechette shells and DIME munitions.  Aljazeera reported this morning:

The most prominent controversy is over the use of shells containing white phosphorus, which causes horrific burns when it comes into contact with skin. Under international law, phosphorus is allowed as a smokescreen to protect soldiers but treated as a chemical weapon when used against civilians.

The Israeli army maintains that it is using only weapons authorised in international law, though human rights groups have severely criticised Israel for firing phosphorus shells over densely populated areas of Gaza.

But there might be other unconventional weapons Israel is using out of sight of the watching world.

One such munition may be Dime, or dense inert metal explosives, a weapon recently developed by the U.S. army to create a powerful and lethal blast over a small area.

The munition is supposed to still be in the development stage and is not yet regulated. There are fears, however, that Israel may have received a green light from the U.S. military to treat Gaza as a testing ground.

“We have seen Gaza used as a laboratory for testing what I call weapons from hell,” said David Halpin, a retired British surgeon and trauma specialist who has visited Gaza on several occasions to investigate unusual injuries suffered by Gazans.

“I fear the thinking in Israel is that it is in its interests to create as much mutilation as possible to terrorise the civilian population in the hope they will turn against Hamas.”

Gaza’s doctors, including one of the few foreigners there, Mads Gilbert, a Norwegian specialist in emergency medicine working at Al Shifa hospital in Gaza City, report that many of the injuries they see are consistent with the use of Dime.

Wounds from the weapon are said to be distinctive. Those exposed to the blast have severed or melted limbs, or internal ruptures, especially to soft tissue such as the abdomen, that often lead to death.

There is said to be no shrapnel apart from a fine “dusting” of minute metal particles on damaged organs visible when autopsies are carried out. Survivors of a Dime blast are at increased risk of developing cancer, according to research carried out in the United States.

Traditional munitions, by contrast, cause large wounds wherever shrapnel penetrates the body.

“The power of the explosion dissipates very quickly and the strength does not travel long, maybe 10 metres, but those humans who are hit by this explosion, this pressure wave, are cut in pieces,” Dr Gilbert said in a recent interview.

This is not the first time concerns about Israel’s use of Dime have surfaced in Gaza. Doctors there reported strange injuries they could not treat, and from which patients died unexpectedly days later, during a prolonged wave of Israeli air strikes in 2006.

A subsequent Italian investigation found Israel was using a prototype weapon similar to Dime. Samples from victims in Gaza showed concentrations of unusual metals in their bodies.

Yitzhak Ben-Israel, the former head of the Israeli military’s weapons development programme, appeared familiar with the weapon, telling Italian TV that the short radius of the explosion helped avoid injuries to bystanders, allowing “the striking of very small targets”.

Israeli denials about using weapons banned by international law would not cover Dime because it is not yet officially licensed.

 International lawyers such as Richard Falk (video) are cropping up on foreign networks such as Aljazeera to crticise Israel’s war in Gaza..  In recent days, accusations have abounded that the Israelis are using white phosphorous in urban areas (video) as well as targeting civilian schools and mosques.  As the number of confirmed dead in Gaza nears1000, the scale of Israel’s assault is manifestly grotesquely out of proportion to the casualties and damage caused by Hamas rockets.

Americans have never paid much attention to international conventions limiting a nation’s military self-defense to that which is proportionate to the military force or threat inflicted by the other, a principal of international law that has existed for nearly 200 years (the Caroline doctrine).   Dramatic examples of American disregard include the deliberate firebombing of Japanese cities by Curtis LeMay’s AAF in 1945, and the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.  Japan was prostrate, and at the time of the atomic bombings, was seeking a negotiated surrender.  The military utility of the bombings was slight: the principal effect was the wholesale annihilation of urban populations.  In 1996, the International Court of Justice issued an advisory decision (On the legality or threat of use of nuclear weapons) which noted that the first protocol to the 1949 Geneva Conventions that embodied the rule of a proportional response implicated atomic weapons which by their very nature result in outsized, disproportional results.

As addressed by the International Court of Justice in the 2003 Oil Platforms Case (Iran v. United States) any exercise of self defense under Article 51 of the United Nations Charter is conditioned by the requirement that the exercise of force be necessary and proportional to the act of the aggressor.  The case began when Iran instituted legal proceedings against the United States in the International Court of Justice to seek a declaration that American attacks against its oil facilities in 1987 and 1988 as retaliation for a suspected mining of an American ship violated international law.  The ICJ agreed with Iran, concluding that the attacks were not justified under Article 51 and disproportionate.

In the case of The Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, the ICJ held that Israel’s construction of a military barrier in the occupied West Bank could not be justified under Article 51 since it did not involve attacks attributable to a foreign state, but territory which itself occupied.  This rathionale applies equally to Gaza, which is for all intents and purposes an illegal bantustan created by Israel.

To put the Gaza campaign in perpective and in human terms, there is an excellent column by Mustafa Qadri, Gaza attacks: murder with impunity on the Foreign Policy in Focus website (30 December 2008).

Israel has targeted Hamas, but the vast majority of the casualties from its attacks have been civilian police officers, government workers, and other civilians. The Palestinian death toll currently stands at 350 while more than a thousand have sustained injuries. The figure is expected to increase as Israel’s bombardment continues. Since Monday morning, Israel’s navy has commenced bombing Gaza from the coast. Compounding the suffering is the fact that medical and other humanitarian supplies are in a dire state thanks to Israel’s three-year-old blockade of the territory. Half the population of Gaza, even before this most recent attack, was living below the poverty line.

So far, rockets fired from Gaza have killed two Israelis and injured several others.

The Israeli government argues that the bombardment is a response to these rockets attacks. But the calls of self-defense must be understood within the broader context of the continued annexation of Palestine. It is the greatest of reverse-psychology ploys. Israel calls Hamas and other Palestinian resistance movements existential threats while, at the same time, it continues to ensure that a viable Palestinian state can never hope to exist by imprisoning Gaza and expropriating much of the West Bank.

The UN Security Council quickly released a non-binding statement calling for an end to hostilities. But the document failed to name either Israel or Hamas by name and glibly called for a return to the ceasefire. It did not mention any justice for the hundreds killed. The international community – and particularly the Middle East Quartet consisting of the European Union, UN, United States, and Russia – have been completely incapable of protecting those most exposed to the conflict – the Palestinians of the occupied territories who are killed, harassed and humiliated on a daily basis.

There is good reason to be critical of Hamas too. Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas has cited Hamas’ inability to renew a ceasefire with Israel for this most recent assault. But Israel must shoulder the lion’s share of culpability for the carnage presently unfolding in the occupied territories.

It is becoming increasingly clear that Israel’s latest attack on Gaza was a pre-meditated attempt to destabilize the Hamas regime. The Israeli Ha’aretz newspaper recently revealed that even while it was negotiating a ceasefire, the Israeli government drew up a detailed plan to destroy Hamas in Gaza six months ago.

No member of the international community is more complicit in Israel’s crimes than the United States. The Bush White House was quick to blame the violence on Hamas even though Israel is responsible for the vast majority of the death and destruction. A spokesperson for President Bush described the movement as a bunch of “thugs.” Such statements legitimate Israeli aggression by dehumanizing a democratically elected government.

There is little hope, however, of a shift toward a more balanced U.S. role under President Barack Obama. Ever fearful of the powerful Israel lobby, he has gone to great lengths to prove his loyalty. “If somebody was sending rockets into my house where my two daughters sleep at night,” Obama said during a visit to Israel earlier this year, “I’m going to do everything in my power to stop that.” Sadly, that logic does not appear to apply to the Palestinians. According to the UN, 105 Palestinian children have been killed this year, thanks largely to Israeli forces armed and supported by the United States.

While grand rhetoric has been a feature of Barack Obama’s political career, he has so far opted to remain silent as Israel wreaks havoc on Gaza this week.

Others have not been silent, however. Already protesters have taken to the street throughout the world, including in Israel, to voice their opposition to the strikes. The Turkish government has rejected calls from Israel and the Palestinian Fatah Movement of President Mahmoud Abbas to broker another ceasefire with Hamas. Turkey has also pulled out of landmark peace negotiations it had hitherto been conducting between Israel and Syria over the occupied Golan Heights. Israel’s attacks in Gaza are also expected to dominate discussions this week by Arab leaders at the Gulf Cooperation Council ahead of an extraordinary meeting of the Arab League on Wednesday. Arab leaders have called for a unified position on the current conflict, no doubt under significant domestic pressure to do something to protest Israel’s actions.

Meanwhile, the exiled leader of the Hamas movement in Syria called on Palestinians to commence a third intifada in response to Israel’s offensive. Given Israel’s full spectrum dominance of the Occupied Palestinian Territories, such an uprising might be well nigh impossible. One shudders, nevertheless, to think what fury a third intifada would unleash.