Thursday, April 10, 2008

Crime Rates Around The World

Comparative statistics of crime rates around the world draws a surprising, if somewhat amusing, conclusion – the world we now live in is a safer place than before.

Crime in the only remaining superpower is seen to be declining. In US, street crime hovers near historic lows – hence the declaration of certain analysts that life in US has never been safer. And with the apparently downward trend of criminal activities all over the world, the world appears to be a friendlier place – notwithstanding terrorism. This is in sharp contrast to the perception that the world is getting more dangerous everyday.

Though the United States still ranks among the highest in violent crimes among industrialized nations, and also in overall crime, the country is enjoying a decline in crime numbers, nevertheless. In the meantime, crime in many other nations – specifically in Eastern and Western Europe – appear intent on catching up. Low-crime societies like Denmark and Finland are ranking high among street crime rates in the present. Even countries absent from the crime radar are making themselves conspicuous – like another industrialized nation, Japan.

Comparative analysis of crime rate statistics around the world remains complicated. Different definitions of what constitutes a crime make official crime statistics undependable, for one. Still, the United Nation initiative of global crime rates tracking – the World Crime Survey – may offer the most realistic and reliable figures.

Other factors affecting crime levels are:

a. Difference in legal and criminal justice systems
b. Rates of crime report and police recording
c. Differences in the point at which a crime is measured – some countries believes it is the time when the offense is reported; others only do the recording when a suspect in identified and the papers are transferred to the prosecutor
d. Differences in the ruling of which multiple offenses are counted
e. Differences in the lost of offenses to be included in the whole crime figures
f. Differences in data quality

Using the United States as a point of reference, we arrive at the following conclusions:

Burglary – Widely believed as the gravest of property crimes, burglary is lower in US today than in the 80s. As of 2000, US has lower rates than Australia, Canada, Denmark, England, Finland, and Wales. It has higher rates than Korea, Saudi Arabia, and Spain.
Homicide – US had been consistently high in homicide rates than most of the Western countries from 1980 – 2000. Though the rate was cut almost in half in the 90s, it is still higher than all nations without political and social turmoil with the 2000 rate of 5.5 homicides per 100,000 people. Countries entrenched in turmoil like Colombia and South Africa, had 63 homicides per 100,000 and 51, respectively.

Rape – In the 80s and 90s, US rates were higher than most of the Western countries, but by 2000, Canada is leading. Rape reports are lower in Asia and the Middle East.

Robbery – The past 2 decades saw a steady decline in the US. Countries with more reported robberies than US include England, Wales, Portugal, and Spain. Those with fewer are France, Germany, and Italy, and Asian countries plus the Middle East.

In overall crimes (the total of all mentioned crimes), US ranks the highest, followed by Germany, United Kingdom, France, and South Africa.

Total crime victims by country

Rank Countries Amount (top to bottom)
#1 Australia: 30.1%
#2 New Zealand: 29.4%
#3 United Kingdom: 26.4%
#4 Netherlands: 25.2%
#5 Sweden: 24.7%
#6 Italy: 24.6%
#7 Canada: 23.8%
#8 Saint Kitts and Nevis: 23.2%
#9 Malta: 23.1%
#10 Denmark: 23%
#11 Poland: 22.7%
#12 Belgium: 21.4%
#13 France: 21.4%
#14 Slovenia: 21.2%
#15 United States: 21.1%
#16 Finland: 19.1%
#17 Austria: 18.8%
#18 Switzerland: 18.2%
#19 Portugal: 15.5%
#20 Japan: 15.2%

Weighted average: 22.4%

DEFINITION:
People victimized by crime (as a % of the total population). Data refer to people victimized by one or more of 11 crimes recorded in the survey: robbery, burglary, attempted burglary, car theft, car vandalism, bicycle theft, sexual assault, theft from car, theft of personal property, assault and threats. Crime statistics are often better indicators of prevalence of law enforcement and willingness to report crime, than actual prevalence.


Murders Rates by country


Rank Countries Amount (top to bottom)




#1 Colombia: 0.617847 per 1,000 people
#2 South Africa: 0.496008 per 1,000 people
#3 Jamaica: 0.324196 per 1,000 people
#4 Venezuela: 0.316138 per 1,000 people
#5 Russia: 0.201534 per 1,000 people
#6 Mexico: 0.130213 per 1,000 people
#7 Estonia: 0.107277 per 1,000 people
#8 Latvia: 0.10393 per 1,000 people
#9 Lithuania: 0.102863 per 1,000 people
#10 Belarus: 0.0983495 per 1,000 people
#11 Ukraine: 0.094006 per 1,000 people
#12 Papua New Guinea: 0.0838593 per 1,000 people
#13 Kyrgyzstan: 0.0802565 per 1,000 people
#14 Thailand: 0.0800798 per 1,000 people
#15 Moldova: 0.0781145 per 1,000 people
#16 Zimbabwe: 0.0749938 per 1,000 people
#17 Seychelles: 0.0739025 per 1,000 people
#18 Zambia: 0.070769 per 1,000 people
#19 Costa Rica: 0.061006 per 1,000 people
#20 Poland: 0.0562789 per 1,000 people
#21 Georgia: 0.0511011 per 1,000 people
#22 Uruguay: 0.045082 per 1,000 people
#23 Bulgaria: 0.0445638 per 1,000 people
#24 United States: 0.042802 per 1,000 people
#25 Armenia: 0.0425746 per 1,000 people
#26 India: 0.0344083 per 1,000 people
#27 Yemen: 0.0336276 per 1,000 people
#28 Dominica: 0.0289733 per 1,000 people
#29 Azerbaijan: 0.0285642 per 1,000 people
#30 Finland: 0.0283362 per 1,000 people
#31 Slovakia: 0.0263303 per 1,000 people
#32 Romania: 0.0250784 per 1,000 people
#33 Portugal: 0.0233769 per 1,000 people
#34 Malaysia: 0.0230034 per 1,000 people
#35 Macedonia, The Former Yugoslav Republic of: 0.0229829 per 1,000 people
#36 Mauritius: 0.021121 per 1,000 people
#37 Hungary: 0.0204857 per 1,000 people
#38 Korea, South: 0.0196336 per 1,000 people
#39 Slovenia: 0.0179015 per 1,000 people
#40 France: 0.0173272 per 1,000 people
#41 Czech Republic: 0.0169905 per 1,000 people
#42 Iceland: 0.0168499 per 1,000 people
#43 Australia: 0.0150324 per 1,000 people
#44 Canada: 0.0149063 per 1,000 people
#45 Chile: 0.014705 per 1,000 people
#46 United Kingdom: 0.0140633 per 1,000 people
#47 Italy: 0.0128393 per 1,000 people
#48 Spain: 0.0122456 per 1,000 people
#49 Germany: 0.0116461 per 1,000 people
#50 Tunisia: 0.0112159 per 1,000 people
#51 Netherlands: 0.0111538 per 1,000 people
#52 New Zealand: 0.0111524 per 1,000 people
#53 Denmark: 0.0106775 per 1,000 people
#54 Norway: 0.0106684 per 1,000 people
#55 Ireland: 0.00946215 per 1,000 people
#56 Switzerland: 0.00921351 per 1,000 people
#57 Indonesia: 0.00910842 per 1,000 people
#58 Greece: 0.0075928 per 1,000 people
#59 Hong Kong: 0.00550804 per 1,000 people
#60 Japan: 0.00499933 per 1,000 people
#61 Saudi Arabia: 0.00397456 per 1,000 people
#62 Qatar: 0.00115868 per 1,000 people

Weighted average: 0.1 per 1,000 people



DEFINITION: Total recorded intentional homicides, completed. Crime statistics are often better indicators of prevalence of law enforcement and willingness to report crime, than actual prevalence. Per capita figures expressed per 1,000 population.


Rapes by country

Rank Countries Amount (top to bottom)
#1 United States: 89,110
#2 South Africa: 53,008
#3 Canada: 24,049
#4 Australia: 15,630
#5 India: 15,468
#6 Mexico: 13,061
#7 United Kingdom: 8,593
#8 France: 8,458
#9 Germany: 7,499
#10 Russia: 6,978
#11 Korea, South: 6,139
#12 Spain: 5,664
#13 Zimbabwe: 5,567
#14 Thailand: 4,020
#15 Venezuela: 2,931
#16 Poland: 2,399
#17 Italy: 2,336
#18 Japan: 2,260
#19 Colombia: 1,861
#20 Netherlands: 1,648
#21 Indonesia: 1,372
#22 Jamaica: 1,304
#23 Papua New Guinea: 1,295
#24 Turkey: 1,260
#25 Chile: 1,250
#26 Malaysia: 1,210
#27 Sri Lanka: 1,202
#28 Ukraine: 1,151
#29 Romania: 1,110
#30 New Zealand: 861
#31 Bulgaria: 593
#32 Hungary: 589
#33 Finland: 579
#34 Norway: 555
#35 Belarus: 530
#36 Czech Republic: 500
#37 Denmark: 497
#38 Costa Rica: 475
#39 Switzerland: 404
#40 Portugal: 385
#41 Tunisia: 334
#42 Kyrgyzstan: 321
#43 Zambia: 300
#44 Ireland: 218
#45 Moldova: 200
#46 Lithuania: 183
#47 Uruguay: 175
#48 Slovakia: 129
#49 Greece: 114
#50 Hong Kong: 104
#51 Latvia: 104
#52 Saudi Arabia: 87
#53 Slovenia: 86
#54 Yemen: 80
#55 Iceland: 73
#56 Estonia: 73
#57 Seychelles: 64
#58 Georgia: 47
#59 Azerbaijan: 30
#60 Armenia: 28
#61 Macedonia, The Former Yugoslav Republic of: 27
#62 Mauritius: 27
#63 Dominica: 24
#64 Qatar: 12
#65 Montserrat: 7

Total: 296,648

Weighted average: 4,563.8



Kidnappings by country


Rank Countries Amount (top to bottom)
#1 Colombia: 5,181 kidnappings
#2 Mexico: 1,269 kidnappings
#3 Brazil: 515 kidnappings
#4 Philippines: 492 kidnappings
#5 Venezuela: 109 kidnappings
#6 India: 76 kidnappings
#7 Ecuador: 66 kidnappings
#8 Nigeria: 34 kidnappings
#9 South Africa: 11 kidnappings

Total: 7,753 kidnappings

Weighted average: 861.4 kidnappings


DEFINITION: Total kidnappings The statistics are based on those cases about which Hiscox has obtained reasonably reliable information and do not purport to represent the full extent of the problem. Please bear in mind that only a tiny fraction [10% ?] of all kidnapping cases are reported to authorities for fear that it will trigger further kidnappings.



http://globalsecuritycouncil.blogspot.com

Monday, March 31, 2008

Human Rights Violations in Israel and Palestine

The Association for Civil Rights in Israel (ACRI) publishes annual reports on the state of human rights in Israel and occupied Palestine. This article is based on its latest year end 2007 one.

ACRI is Israel's leading human and civil rights organization and the only one addressing all rights and liberties issues. It was founded in 1972, is independent and nonpartisan, and leads the struggle for these issues in Israel and the Occupied Territories through litigation, legal advocacy, education, and public outreach. ACRI also believes that civil and human rights are universal. They must be "an integral part of democratic community building and....a unifying force in Israeli public life" for everyone, especially those most marginalized, disadvantaged and currently persecuted or neglected.

ACRI evaluates the state of human rights annually, and it's latest report coincided with the December 10, 2007 International Human Rights Day. Its purpose is to cite flagrant violations; note positive trends and developments, if any; and "trace significant human rights-related processes (affecting) Israeli citizens and residents." Reports rely on various information sources: government publications, NGO reports, newspaper and other published materials, parliamentary documents and court litigation.

Human rights violations directly result from government policies, actions and inactions, and ACRI's report is gloomy. It found the Israeli government derelict for having allowed the "blanket" of rights it's supposed to ensure for Arabs and Jews to erode. As a result, rights violations grow, more people are affected, and those harmed most are on society's fringes. ACRI's report is comprehensive and documents them in areas of:

-- health;

-- workers' rights;

-- the state of Arab Israelis;

-- education in Sderot;

-- migrant worker rights;

-- citizenship and residency status;

-- human rights in occupied Palestine, highlighting neglect and discrimination in Arab East Jerusalem, Hebron, and the "unrecognized" Negev Bedouins;

-- freedom of expression;

-- the right to privacy;

-- criminal justice; and

-- the overall destabilization and erosion of democracy in the country. Israel claims to be a democracy. Its record disproves it.

ACRI's evidence is disturbing and compelling, yet it's appalled by the Israeli public's indifference. It aims to change this by publicizing its findings so those in government, the media and general population know them and will react to reverse an ugly and damaging trend. Growing numbers of people worldwide know how Israel harms Palestinians. ACRI's report shows that Jews are also impacted.

Health Care in Israel

Israel's 1994 National Health Insurance Law has noble guarantees - quality health services for every Israeli resident in accordance with justice, equality and mutual support principles. Ever since, however, Israeli governments violated their obligation, and unequal access has increased. It's characterized by inadequate funding, privatized health services, a steady erosion in the extent and quality of services provided, and the crowding out of access for the poor and many in the middle class. Defunding public health means private insurance is as essential as it is in the US. The result is two health systems differing markedly in quality - one for the well-off and another for everyone else, including many in the middle class.

ACRI finds it disturbing. The trend undermines Israel's social contract with its citizens, violates basic rights, and reneges on the state's duty under the International Covenant of Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. ACRI focuses on the problem with special emphasis on a growing hospital crisis, the need for expensive supplemental insurance, and how various population groups cope inadequately under very limited and expensive health service access.

In recent years, budgets have been cut, and the trend continued in 2007. The Ministry of Health's per capita allocation is 14% lower than in 2001, and the Ministry's development budget is 43% lower. Public hospitals have been hardest hit, patient access to quality health care has eroded, and medical personnel are understaffed and aren't able to provide the best care possible.

The Israel Medical Association January 2007 data highlight the crisis:

-- the hospital beds/population ratio has declined; it was 3.27 per 1000 persons in 1970; a year ago it touched 1.94, the lowest figure among western countries;

-- the approved number of beds hasn't increased, the need for them has, and it's been met by adding "non-approved" beds that comprise up to 30% of the total in hospital internal medicine units (IMUs); the result is growing overcrowding and medical staff unable to cope;

-- on routine days, average hospital occupancy is 100% compared to 85% in the West; in IMUs it reached 130% and in pediatric units 112%; and

-- overcrowding and underfunding force early patient releases before they're ready to go; they also contribute to the spread of infections, viruses and diseases and require doctors and medical staff to be responsible for a growing number of patients, more than they can adequately handle.

Ever since the 1994 National Health Insurance Law passed, health services have eroded in violation of its guarantee. The Adva Center advocates for policy changes favoring disadvantaged Israelis. It tallied the damage through last year and found a 44% decline in health service funding with gaps made up for by supplemental insurance. Over 70% of the public have it while the rest rely solely on dwindling national health services that often fail to deliver.

Most disadvantaged Israelis lack supplemental insurance: one-third are age 65 or older; 53% are Israeli Arabs; 42% are Jews of Russian origin; while 11% are from the Hebrew-speaking community. A 2007 Physicians for Human Rights report describes how various population groups are disadvantaged. Those furthest removed from Israel's social center got poorest access. They include: low wage earners; "unrecognized" Negev Bedouins; East Jerusalem Palestinians; Israelis married to Occupied Territory Palestinians; prisoners; Palestinian spouses of Israeli Arabs; migrant workers; refugees and asylum-seekers; and victims of human trafficking. In total, these groups comprise about 1.25 million men and women.

Income alone is a hugely limiting factor, and two studies document it. A 2005 Brookdale Institute one showed that 15% of Israelis forego some medications. Among low wage earners, the figure was 23%. A 2006 Israel Medical Association survey of Israeli Jews found 23% of them abstain from some form of treatment or essential medication with income and family size the main limiting factors. The same survey reported that 56% of Israeli Jews fear they'll be unable to afford needed medication because of cost, and it estimated that the situation for Israeli Arabs is far worse.

The situation is most acute in peripheral areas, especially in southern Israel that's populated by Bedouin Arabs and new immigrants. Here, socioeconomic status is lowest and so is access to health services that are far below what's available in Central Israeli cities like Tel Aviv and Haifa: fewer hospital beds, inadequate specialized equipment, fewer specialists, and waiting periods for appointments can take weeks. In addition, for more complicated cases, patients are at risk. Hospitals can only provide preliminary exams, patients must incur time and expense to get to where proper treatment is available, and it can be touch and go in life-threatening cases.

ACRI believes that distributive justice demands that the state provide local health services where they're lacking so all Israelis get equal access to it. That will require funding boosts not now available or planned.

Worker Rights and the Unemployed

Subcontracted employment is a growing trend in Israel, the practice exploits workers, labor laws are violated, and human rights organizations are taking note. On average, subcontract wages are 60% of standard, few or no benefits are gotten, and worker rights are routinely violated. Most common abuses include: wages below minimum, illegal overtime without pay, firings without severance, social benefits withheld, leave time disallowed or no pay while on leave, lower pay because of illegal deductions and fines, and organizing efforts crushed.

The situation is deplorable, organizations like ACRI are addressing it, and the government tops their target list. It's the country's largest subcontract employer and the body responsible for making and enforcing the law. Progress for reforms show promise:

-- in March 2007, the Ministry of Finance's General Accountant, Yaron Zelekha, directed government ministries to assure that subcontract bidding includes all social benefits workers are entitled to under protective labor laws. ACRI called it a "significant breakthrough" provided they're enforced; earlier efforts failed because they weren't;

-- the same Ministry now requires subcontract companies to present confirmation they're complying with employment laws;

-- in June 2007, the Knesset produced a draft bill requiring organizations using subcontract labor to assure worker rights aren't violated; and

-- the General Accountant also established a minimum price for employing subcontract workers.

Earlier in 2005, the government established the "Mehalev" program that was known as the "Wisconsin Plan" where the idea originated. In principle, it was sound, but in practice it failed. The idea was this - reduce the number of guaranteed income recipients by integrating them into the job market and thus provide better opportunities for more pay and benefits. In fact, the format was unsuitable for many required to enroll, too little investment went into the program, and bureaucratic obstacles overwhelmed its administration.

A June 2007 inter-ministerial report assessed the plan, concluded it failed, and recommended a new one be established with a menu of proposed changes. As a result, revisions were made, and a new program called "Employment Lights" began in August 2007 with performance under it yet to be assessed.

The Rights of Israeli Arab Citizens

The Palestinian population (excluding refugees) is around 5.3 million. About 3.9 million live in occupied Gaza and the West Bank, and another 1.4 million are Israeli citizens comprising 20% of the population of 7,150,000. They live mainly in three heartlands - the Galillee in the north, along the "Little Triangle" in the center, and the Negev in the south. They get no rights afforded Jews even though Israeli Arabs are citizens, have passports and IDs and can vote in Knesset elections. Even so, they're nonpersons, are systematically abused, neglected, and are confined to 2% of the land plus another 1% for agricultural use.

ACRI assesses the damage that shows up in reports and surveys it reviews. They reveal a disturbing trend - increasing racism toward and discrimination against Israel's Arab citizens. For example:

-- the June 2007 Israel Democracy Institute's "Democracy Index" reported disturbing results explained below, and the data are the highest seen since pre-Oslo;

-- a March 2007 Center Against Racism report showed a 26% rise in racist incidents against Israeli Arabs in 2006. In addition, an overall negative trend toward Arabs is growing, including feelings of discomfort, fear and hatred. Most disturbing is the government's attitude and how the media portrays its Arab citizens - stereotypically negative, threatening and as state enemies. Fear and loathing is then sown that, in turn, is translated into actions - threats, assaults, forced separation of Jewish and Arab communities and racist Knesset legislation;

-- Knesset members (MKs) and public figures want to strengthen the Jewish character of the state and do it legislatively. For example:

(1) to make military or national service a prerequisite to vote and get National insurance benefits; Arabs aren't required to serve in the military, they're not encouraged to do it, few of them do, and Israel's Ministry of Defence has discretion under Article 36 of the 1986 National Defence Service Law to exempt all non-Jews;

(2) to require MKs and ministers to declare their allegiance to the State of Israel as a "Jewish and Democratic State;" and

(3) a 2007 draft bill declaring that Jewish National Fund (JNF) land (about 13% of state lands) should only be for Jews; the bill passed its "preliminary reading" by 64 to 16. In actuality, the government owns about 80% of Israeli land, the JNF another 13%, and Jews and Arabs the rest. The Israel Land Administration (ILA) administers all government and JNF land, controls who gets access to it, and pretty much assures that Arabs can't buy Israeli land.

These and other measures reveal a disturbing pattern - state-sponsored racism against Israeli Palestinians. They're routinely victimized, punished for being Arabs, and denied equality, dignity, privacy, freedom of movement and everything afforded Jews. Their freedom of expression was also challenged after four Arab documents were published with clearly stated aims - to legislatively mandate equal citizenship rights for all Israelis (Jews, Muslims, Christians and others). Outrage was the response because Jews believe these demands threaten state sovereignty. So do officials like head of General Security Service (GSS), Yuval Diskin. He called Israeli Arabs a "strategic threat," and got Attorney General Menachem Mazuz to agree.

Palestinian citizens have no say and are disadvantaged in many ways. They're routinely denied equal access to public resources in all areas of life, and ACRI highlights the northern rehabilitation program budget as an example. Arab villages there are sorely lacking because of government neglect. Budgeted funds are inadequate, they're improperly used, Arabs in the north are marginalized, their needs go unaddressed, and 2008 promises to be worse with planned budget cuts.

It's worse still in the south for the Negev Bedouins who comprise half the area's 160,000 population. They live in villages called "unrecognized" because their inhabitants had to flee their homes during Israel's War of Independence, couldn't return when it ended, and are considered internal refugees and "trespassers" on Jewish land.

These villages were delegitimized by Israel's 1965 Planning and Construction Law that established a regulatory framework and national future development plan. It zoned land for residential, agriculture and industrial use, forbade unlicensed construction, banned it on agricultural land, and stipulated where Israeli Jews and Palestinians could live.

Existing communities are circumscribed on a map with blue lines around them. Areas inside can be developed. Those outside cannot. Great latitude is shown Jewish communities, so new ones are added. In contrast, Palestinian areas are severely constricted with no allowed room for expansion. Their land was reclassified as agricultural meaning no new construction is allowed. It means entire communities are "unrecognized" and all homes and buildings there are illegal, even the 95% of them built before the 1965 law passed. They're subject to demolition and their inhabitants displaced at Israel's discretion. It's so new land for Jews can be provided with Arab owners helpless to stop it.

As a result, no new Palestinian communities are allowed, and existing "unrecognized villages" are denied essential services like clean drinking water, electricity, roads, transport, sanitation, education, healthcare, postal service, telephone connections, refuse removal and more because under the Planning and Construction Law they're illegal. The toll on people is devastating:

-- clean water is unavailable almost everywhere unless people have access to well water;

-- the few available health services are inadequate;

-- many homes have no bathrooms, and no permits are allowed to build them;

-- only villages with private generators have electricity that's barely enough for lighting;

-- no village is connected to the main road network,

-- some villages are fenced in prohibiting their residents from access to their traditional lands; and

-- education is limited, achievement levels are low, and dropout rates high.

It's worse still when home demolitions are ordered. It may stipulate Palestinians must do it themselves or be fined for contempt of court and face up to a year in prison. They may also have to cover the cost when Israelis do it under a system of convoluted justice penalizing Palestinians twice over for being an Arab in a Jewish state.

In 2007, around 200 Bedouin homes were demolished, compared to much lower numbers in previous years: 23 in 2002, 63 in 2003, 15 in 2005 and 96 in 2006. Most of the homeless are "invisible," the media hardly covers them, Jews are largely uninformed, and planned Negev Judaization assures things will get worse. It's to be a "A Miracle in the Desert" with a clearly defined aim - to populate the area with a half million Jews in the next decade. Plans are for 25 new communities and 100,000 homes on cleared Bedouin land. Unless efforts coalesce to stop them, the human toll will be horrific.

Various advocacy organizations are trying, and one is the UN Committee on the Elimination of all forms of Racial Discrimination. It published its recommendations in March 2007 that called on Israel to reconsider its development plans and recognize "the rights of the Bedouins to own, develop, control and use their communal lands, territories, and resources...." ACRI calls them a "national, religious, and cultural(ly) indigenous minority." Under international law, Israel is obligated to respect their right to preserve their culture and provide them adequate housing, education, livelihood and dignity. Israel, on the other hand, disdains international law, so hoping authorities will respect it looks impossible.

Education in Sderot, Israel

Sderot borders Gaza and has been struck by Palestinian Qassam rockets. ACRI's study focuses on protecting schools from them, rather than on the education they provide. It reported that despite the state's obligation to defend its citizens, it's done it poorly in Sderot, including for its schools. They were built in the 1970s, have shingled roofs and lack security rooms. In July 2006, the government adopted the Home Front Command's protection plan that called for reinforcing 24 of the city's schools. Then after a Parents Committee of Sderot petition to the High Court of Justice in October, it was announced that protected space construction would be provided for all preschools and first through third grade classrooms in the Gaza-border region.

In May 2007, the Court ruled that the government must provide "full protection" for all classrooms by the start of the 2007-2008 school year. By mid-October, the Sderot Municipality reported work was proceeding satisfactorily on seven schools with plans to build 13 news ones by 2010.

ACRI also reported on a shortage of educational psychologists to provide counseling services to students, parents and educators because of the trauma caused by rocket landings in residential areas. A better strategy would be for Israel to stop attacking Gazans, they wouldn't respond in self-defense, and that would ensure safety on both sides. Israel ignores that option, however, chooses conflict instead, so the Ministry of Education and Sderot Municipality need bigger counseling budgets for what they should never have to deal with in the first place.

Migrant Worker Rights

In October 2006, Israel enacted legislation prohibiting trafficking in persons for slavery, forced labor, prostitution, human organ sales, human reproduction, or immoral publications. Ignored were other types of trafficking, such as "binding" workers to employers and requiring onerous fees to brokers that are still common. More on that below. A victory was achieved in part, however, for 63% of those requesting it in 2007 - granting legal status to migrant workers' children who were born in Israel or have lived there since very young, use Hebrew as their primary language, and have adopted Israel as their culture.

The High Court granted another one as well on the way agricultural firms, nursing care services and other industries "bind" migrant workers to a single employer. It ruled this infringes on workers rights, must be discontinued, and gave the government six months to draft new a employment arrangement for its migrant workers. As of last October, nothing was implemented, 18 months after the Court ruling. Abuses still occur, and ACRI concludes that evidence about them paints a "bleak picture for future employment conditions for Israeli migrant workers."

Then there's the matter of brokers' fees that can be "astronomical" and a way to earn profits at workers' expense. Israel allows them even though the law forbids it. They're an oppressive burden, can cost several months wages, and they may require high interest rate loans to be able to pay them. A solution may be near, however, under an agreement between Thailand and the International Organization for Migration (IOM) regarding agricultural worker recruitment. Beginning this year, only migrant workers from countries with which Israel has bilateral brokerage fee agreements will be allowed into the country. It remains to be seen if this will work.

Citizenship and Residency Status

Sovereign states are entitled to decide who can immigrate and get permanent status. But they must consider human rights, issues of family, and not exclude refugees, asylum-seekers, stateless persons or those coming under duress. Israel fails on all counts and makes things worse. It has no immigration policy for non-Jews who aren't welcome, and family member status rules are changing and becoming hardened.

In 2005, the government appointed Professor Amnon Rubinstein to head a committee to assess the immigration issue, examine relevant legislation and regulations, and propose new policies and laws. In February 2006 a report was issued, but the committee wasn't reappointed, and bureaucratic guidelines replaced policy with Population Registry civil servants in charge. An administrative black hole is the result with policies governing non-Jews stiffened.

Since 2003, the Citizenship and Entry into Israel Law (Temporary Order) denies legal status to Palestinian spouses of Israeli citizens. Israeli Arabs suffer the most as they maintain marriage and family ties with their relatives in the Territories. In May 2006, the High Court rejected petitions opposing the law and determined that it serves an essential security purpose. As a result, although the law is temporary, it's been extended several times, most recently through July 2008.

In addition, the law's scope has been expanded and now prevents family member spouses from Iran, Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, and other government-designated "enemy states" from getting status. Tougher immigration rules for non-Jews were also in a government-proposed draft bill stipulating that illegal Israeli residents must leave for a multi-year "cooling off" period before being eligible to return. The law is far-reaching on issues of family life; equality for spouses of Israeli citizens and residents; parents of Israeli minors; elderly parents; minor children of Israeli citizens and residents; indigenous Negev Bedouins with no formalized status; asylum-seekers; women victimized by trafficking; and many others.

According to the UN High Commission for Refugees (UNHCR), the number of asylum-seekers in Israel rose sharply over the past year. Most arrive through Egypt under trying conditions, bear scars of physical and mental abuse, are impoverished and desperate, have no relatives or friends in the country, and are totally dependent on aid from their host.

For its part, Israel lacks clear policy directives for dealing with the situation. Mechanisms in place are based on Ministry of Interior unpublished procedures, and inter-ministerial committee asylum determinations are made on a case-by-case basis with all deliberations kept secret. The result is the lowest percent of requests granted in the West, just 1% in 2005. It was even lower in 2006 at under 0.5%. In 2007, 350 refugees got temporary protection, 805 others were denied, and 863 are under review.

Even persons recognized as refugees aren't granted permanent Israeli status. At best, they get temporary permits for limited stays. Provisions allow bi-annual renewals if hardship conditions remain in countries of origin, but at times refugees are summarily turned away and others (including women and children) imprisoned for extended periods under very difficult conditions and without having committed an offense.

Israel is morally and legally bound to assist asylum-seekers. And it has every right to establish laws and procedures for their admittance. Yet its record is shameless as the West's least hospitable country to individuals in greatest need.

Human Rights Violations in Occupied Palestine

June 2007 was a milestone for Palestinians. It marked 40 years under Israeli occupation, during which time their democratic rights have been denied and they've endured appalling human rights abuses - to life, liberty, security, privacy and personal safety, in or outside their homes. In addition, they have no property rights or freedom of movement, employment, or for health care and education. They're collectively punished and economically strangled. Their borders are blocked and routinely violated as are their waters and air space. They're also constricted by oppressive curfews, roadblocks, checkpoints, electric fences and separation walls, and their homes are being bulldozed and land taken for illegal settlement expansions. It gets worse.

Israeli security forces brutally harass, arrest, imprison, torture and extra-judicially assassinate anyone with impunity. Palestinians are helpless, redress is denied them, and when they resist, they're called terrorists. The toll has been horrific, it's too detailed to recount, so ACRI focused on three prominent issues: movement restrictions, conditions in Hebron that symbolize the overall situation, and life in occupied Gaza that's more repressive than ever. It then addressed conditions in Arab East Jerusalem.

Free movement is a basic human right that affects other rights: to employment, to live in dignity, to education, health, and the right to family life. Since the second Intifada began in September 2000, these freedoms have been constricted, and it's made life in the Territories impossible. They mainly affect the West Bank that's restricted by hundreds of checkpoints, roadblocks, barriers and the Separation Wall that's taken 10% of Palestinian territory through a shameless land grab on the pretext of security.

Movement restrictions have split the West Bank into six geographic units - North, Center, South, the Jordan Valley, the northern Dead Sea, and East Jerusalem. Movement is severely restricted within and between them, it's had a grave impact on normal economic life, and Palestinians are effectively prisoners in their own land.

Consider the checkpoints. They restrict movement and subject Palestinians to inordinate delays and abusive searches. They're supplemented by countless obstacles further impinging movement: concrete blocks, earth mounds, and trenches that deny direct vehicular or pedestrian passage and allow Israelis exclusive access to 311 kilometers of main West Bank roads connecting all of Israel and the Territories. Those most harmed are the elderly, sick, pregnant women and small children. So are selected population groups according to gender, age or place of residence. Males aged 16 to 30 or 35 are targeted as well as populations in cities under assault.

Then there's the "black lists" called "Police Refused" or "GSS Refused." Tens of thousands of Palestinians are on them for groundless and arbitrary reasons with no right of appeal. Their lives are disrupted, freedom denied and movements restricted inside the Territory or when attempting to leave. The Separation Wall makes things worse. It's 80% on Palestinian land, has nothing to do with security, separates Palestinians from each other, and violates their fundamental human rights:

-- it separates Palestinian cities, villages, communities and families from each other;

-- cuts off Palestinian farmers from their lands;

-- impedes access to health facilities, educational institutions and other essential services; and it

-- obstructs access to clean water sources and effectively steals them.

The planned route when completed will be immense - 780 kilometers. By October last year, 409 kilometers were completed and another 72 km were being built. As of last May, there are 65 gates but Palestinians can only pass through 38 of them and only for selected hours of the day and not at all on some days. Around Jerusalem, the planned route is 171 km; half was completed by last June and another 32 km were under construction. The Wall cuts off Palestinians in East Jerusalem neighborhoods from the remaining West Bank as well as villages around Jerusalem and some Palestinian East Jerusalemites from the center of their lives and livelihoods in the city.

When completed, the Wall will create two types of Palestinian enclaves:

-- villages and agricultural land on the Israeli side in what's called the "seam zone;" and

-- villages and land on the Palestinian side that are blocked on three or more sides by twists in the route or the intersection of the Wall with physical roadblocks or roads forbidden to Palestinians.

The UN Committee on the Elimination of all forms of Racial Discrimination published recommendations concerning Israel in March 2007. It expressed concern that Occupied Territory movement restrictions have been "highly detrimental" and have impacted essential elements of Palestinians' lives that "gravely infringe (their) human rights...." They have no justification for security or "military exigencies." Yet they're maintained, and who'll challenge Israel to change things.

The same situation exists in Hebron, ACRI and B'Tselem jointly documented it, and last year prepared a report called: "Ghost Town." It's a disturbing story of separation, forced displacement and terror. Israel is the oppressor, Palestinians the victims, and no one seems to care. The human toll is horrific - "protracted and severe harm to Palestinians (from) some of the gravest human rights violations" against them that go unaddressed, continue unabated, and worsen.

Hebron's City Center was once a thriving commercial and residential area. Today it's a "Ghost Town" because Israel destroyed its fabric of life through a state-imposed policy of land seizures, extended curfews, harsh free movement restrictions and unaddressed violence. Combined, they terrorize Palestinians and prohibit them from driving or even walking on the area's main streets. That, in turn, makes life impossible. The consequences have been devastating with peoples' lives uprooted.

Since Gaza and the West Bank were occupied in 1967, Israel expelled tens of thousands of Palestinians overall. In Hebron alone, thousands of residents and merchants were removed or had no option but to leave the City Center because of Israel's "principle of separation" policy.

Hebron is important as the West Bank's second largest city, the largest in the territory's south, and the only Palestinian city with an Israeli settlement in its center. It's concentrated in and around the Old City that once was the entire southern West Bank's commercial center. No longer.

For many years, Israel severely oppressed Palestinians in Hebron's center. It partitioned the city into northern and southern parts and created a long strip of land for Jewish vehicles only. In addition, in areas open to Palestinians, they're subjected to "repeated detention and humiliating inspections" any time, for any reason, and it worsened after the 1994 Baruch Goldstein massacre of Muslim worshipers in the Tomb of the Patriarchs. Israel's military commander ordered many Palestinian-owned shops closed that were the livelihoods for thousands of people. In addition, he condoned frequent settler violence as a way to remove Palestinians from their own land. It worked.

A combination of restrictions, prohibitions and deliberate harassment devastated Hebron's residents. They lost their homes, land, businesses and freedom. ACRI and B'Tselem documented it in the Old City and Casbah areas where most Israeli settlements are located and Palestinians face the harshest conditions and restrictions on their movements. As a result, they were removed or had to leave, and what was once "the vibrant heart of Hebron (is now) a ghost town."

A senior Israeli defense official explained the scheme that's pretty common knowledge today. He called it "a permanent process of dispossessing Arabs to increase Jewish territory." Distinguished Israeli historian, Ilan Pappe, calls it state-sponsored ethnic cleansing that's been ongoing since Israel became a state in 1948. B'Tselem-ACRI document the practice in Hebron's once viable City Center.

At least 1014 Palestinian housing units (41.9% of the total in the area) were vacated by their occupants. Another 659 apartments (65% of the total) were as well during the second Intifada. In addition, 1829 Palestinian businesses (76.6% of them all) were lost. Of the total, 1141 (62.4% of the total) closed after the year 2000, 440 or more by military order. ACRI and B'Tselem believe Palestinian apartment abandonments were even higher than reported because neighborhoods near settlements collapsed and housing and living costs declined dramatically there. Poor families took advantage. Unable to afford more costly housing, they left distant parts of Hebron for Old City neighborhoods where they occupied vacated houses.

Overall, the affects were devastating - job loss, poor nutrition, rising poverty, growing family tensions from prolonged confinement, severe harm to education, welfare and health systems, and a mass exodus away from areas near settlements resulting in lost homes and businesses. To this day, nothing has changed, there's no sign it will any time soon, and things, in fact, got worse.

Israeli security forces protect settlers who freely attack Palestinians with impunity. Offenses include physical assaults and beatings (at times with clubs), stone throwing, and hurling refuse, sand, water, chlorine, and empty bottles. Settlers freely loot Palestinian shops and commit acts of vandalism against them and other owner property. Killings also occur as well as attempts to run over people with vehicles, chop down fruit trees, poison water wells, break into homes, and pour hot liquids on Palestinian faces. IDF forces are positioned everywhere in the area. They witness everything and ignore it.

Soldiers also commit violence and use excessive force as do police. In addition, they engage in arbitrary house searches at all hours of the day and night, seize houses, harass, detain randomly and conduct humiliating searches and harsh treatment overall. These actions violate international and Israeli administrative and constitutional law. They persist nonetheless.

In Gaza it's even worse. Life there was never easy under occupation, but conditions worsened markedly after Hamas' surprise January 2006 electoral victory. Israel refused to recognize it. So did the US and the West. All outside aid was cut off, an economic embargo and sanctions were imposed, and the legitimate government was isolated. Stepped up repression followed along with repeated IDF incursions, attacks and arrests. Gazans have been imprisoned in their own land and traumatized for months. No one outside Palestine cares or offers much aid, and things continue to deteriorate.

Hamas is isolated, assaulted and called a "hostile entity." Then on September 19, 2007 sanctions were tightened, electricity and fuel was reduced and so were supplies of food, medicines and other essential items. Tighter border crossing restrictions were also imposed on an area already devastated by years of repression.

Its industrial production is down 90%, and its agricultural output is half its pre-2007 level. In addition, nearly all construction stopped, and unemployment and poverty exceed 80%. Shops then ran out of everything because Israel allows in only nine basic materials, their availability is spotty, and some essentials are banned, like certain medicines, and others restricted like fruit, milk and other dairy products. Before June 2007, 9000 commodities could be imported. Today, it's only 20, people don't get enough food, and the situation is desperate.

Then there's the matter of power without which Gaza shuts down. The Strip needs 230 - 250 daily megawatts of electricity. Its only power plant supplies around 30% of it, but people in central Gaza and Gaza city are totally dependent on what can't be supplied if industrial diesel fuel the plant depends on is cut off. The result is critically ill people are endangered, hospitals can't function, bread and other baked goods can't be produced without electricity to power ovens, food is already in short supply, so is fresh water, and sanitation conditions are disastrous.

The situation may now worsen following Israel's High Court January 30, 2008 decision in which it upheld government sanctions on Gaza and its right to restrict fuel and electricity. Here's what's planned on top of already imposed cuts. Starting February 7, further reductions will be made incrementally according to a plan submitted to the Court - 5% on three of ten lines supplying electricity to Gaza for a total of 1.5 megawatts through around February 21. An additional 25 megawatts have already been cut because of diesel fuel reductions to Gaza's sole power plant. The result is rolling blackouts, hospitals in crisis, and sewage treatment plants, water pumps and other vital services can't operate. Transportation is also disrupted. The situation is critical, Israel won't address it, these punitive measures violate international law, and the world community is dismissive.

Egypt, however, may provide belated relief. On March 21, the pro-government Al-Ahram newspaper reported that Cairo is expected to build a power line to supply about 150 megawatts of electricity to the Strip and become its main supplier. A senior Egyptian electricity ministry official apparently confirmed it by indicating the Islamic Development Bank agreed to finance the project that will link El-Arish in Sinai with Gaza.

In addition, an Egyptian oil minister issued "urgent" directives for his country to provide natural gas to the Territory and help develop offshore Palestinian gas fields that British Gas Group (BG) estimate hold 1.3 trillion cubic meters in proved reserves worth nearly $4 billion. For its part, Israel wants to cut all ties with Gaza and apparently finds the new arrangement acceptable or at least won't prevent it. However, it remains for it to be implemented, Gaza remains under siege, and conditions on the ground are at crisis levels.

East Jerusalem is also victimized by neglect and discrimination even though Israel granted its Palestinian population "permanent resident" status after its 1967 occupation. International law is clear, and Israeli law as well obligates the government to treat the population equitably and afford them all services and rights Israelis get, aside from the right to vote in national elections.

Israel refuses and for the past four decades has systematically neglected Palestinian Arabs as part of a discriminatory policy to drive them from the city and secure a Jewish majority in it. As a result, East Jerusalem residents suffer severe distress, conditions continue worsening, and life for them is an unending cycle of poverty, neglect, shortages and repression. In 2003, Central Bureau of Statistics data showed 64% of Palestinians in the city lived in poverty compared to 24% of Jewish families. It was even worse for children - 76% of Palestinians compared to 38% of Jews.

Other examples of abuse and neglect are also common:

-- Palestinians aren't allowed building permits for new construction; in rare instances when they're allowed, permit fees are too high to be affordable for nearly everyone;

-- their lands continue to be expropriated for new Jewish neighborhoods and settlements;

-- in contrast, Jewish areas get generous construction and infrastructure investment;

-- desperate Palestinians resort to their own devices, erect homes on their own land, yet live in fear of frequent demolitions that are patently illegal;

-- East Jerusalem sanitation facilities are sorely lacking; sewage and drainage infrastructure is grossly inadequate, antiquated and poorly maintained; the result is frequent sewer flooding and harmful sanitary conditions that are exacerbated during bad weather; in addition, trash goes uncollected and piles up in streets;

-- infrastructure is in disrepair, public parks and recreational facilities don't exist, the postal service barely functions, and most Arab neighborhoods get no fresh water;

-- educational facilities are lacking; a severe classroom shortage exists, and only half of the city's children are enrolled in municipal schools that are overcrowded, poorly equipped and unsafe;

-- the toll on Palestinians is horrific in many ways: family relationships are damaged; violence in them is common; school dropouts are high; jobs are scarce; crime and drug use rises; and health and nutritional problems are severe; in spite of overwhelming needs, welfare services are inadequate, near collapse and one consequence is thousands of children and youths are in acute distress and at high risk;

-- police and security force brutality exacerbates the hardships; harassment is common and so is unrestrained violence; Palestinians are terrorized, harmed, frequently killed, and no one outside the Territories seems to notice or care.

The Right to Privacy

Israel has no formal constitution. It relies instead on 11 Basic Laws. Section 7 (D) states that "there shall be no violation of the confidentiality of conversation." Authorities ignore it, and data show police wiretapping abuses are common, thus violating the right to privacy.

By law, police must formally request a court order to wiretap. Rarely are they refused, and in 2007 a Knesset committee investigated the issue. In November 2007, a new bill was drafted concerning the transfer of data from communications companies to the police for use in criminal investigations. It provides wide latitude, and ACRI calls the potential for privacy violations enormous and possibly unprecedented. Protests were lodged against the original bill, and they led to important changes toning down the initial language.

Privacy issues also affect job applicants and employees, can be abusive, and individuals get no choice - accept them, or else. They:

-- demand job applicants sign a complete waiver of medical confidentiality;

-- allow employer surveillance of telephone conversations and e-mail correspondence;

-- mandate compulsory polygraphs for applicants and employees; and

-- use video cameras for workplace monitoring.

Criminal Justice

The right to counsel is essential for anyone charged with a crime. Israel's Public Defender's Law (1995) stipulates that detainees and defendants unable to afford help are entitled to state-funded representation, but only for crimes with prison terms of five or more years. This was amended in December 2006 to prohibit prison sentences for unrepresented defendants.

Israel's legal system also establishes the right to a fair trial and other safeguards. Yet, erosion began in 2007 under a temporary Knesset January 2007 law infringing on detainees rights: they can be denied face-to-face contact with an attorney; prevented from meeting with family members; denied the right to be present at hearings on their charges; interrogated without counsel; and unreasonably cut off from the outside world that creates a feeling of isolation.

In June 2007, the Office of the Public Defender published a report on detention and incarceration conditions in Israeli police internment facilities. As in previous years, it was alarming and indicated basic human rights violations, some extreme. An Israeli Bar Association March 2007 report reached the same conclusions:

-- severe overcrowding and highly restrictive living space in two-thirds of detention facilities examined; some cells were only two square meters or less;

-- larger cells held up to 10 prisoners;

-- sanitary and hygiene conditions were poor as well as ventilation; some cells lacked windows;

-- wall peeling and crumbling from dampness and mold were common;

-- prisons had filthy and foul-smelling toilets and showers as well as infestations of cockroaches, rats and other vermin;

-- lighting was poor and prisoners often sat in dark, suffocating, fetid cells; the wings of one prison were described as unsuitable for human habitation; and

-- complaints were common about violence at the hands of guards and wardens; collective punishment was also inflicted and overall treatment was degrading, humiliating and invasive.

Police brutality is a major issue, just as it is in the US. The authorities have great power and too often abuse it with impunity. Complaints often are unaddressed. The problem is systemic, it's within the Police Service, and specifically in the Police Investigations Department of the Ministry of Justice (PID).

PID was established in 1992 and mandated to investigate complaints against police in cases of excessive force. However, investigations are rare, and seldom ever are there prosecutions, regardless of the complaint's severity and almost never against senior officers with authority. The lack of effort assures continued brutality because officers know they can get away with it.

The Destabilization of Democracy

The Israeli Democracy Institute (IDI) surveyed Israeli citizens, published its "Democracy Index" in June 2007, and included some disturbing findings in it. Its survey showed:

-- less than half of respondents believe public speakers have the right to criticize the government;

-- only 54% favor freedom of religion and a bare 50% feel Arabs and Jews should have equal rights;

-- 87% rate Jewish-Arab relations poor or very poor;

-- 78% oppose having Arab parties or ministers join Israel's government;

-- 43% believe Arabs aren't intelligent;

-- 55% feel the government should encourage Arab emigration; and

-- 75% think Arabs favor violence.

Overall, the results showed democratic values eroding since the IDI 2003 survey. It doesn't happen in a vacuum. It's part of the cultural environment: from the home, within families, at school, through the media and other social contexts from which attitudes develop. It's also gotten from the law, the way Israeli courts interpret it, particularly the High Court of Justice, and subsequent legislative efforts to bypass Court rulings and trample on human rights. The problem is pervasive and worsening as Israel becomes a very hostile place, much like America. And it doesn't just affect Israeli Arabs who get no justice.

ACRI cites the role of Daniel Friedman since he became Israel's Justice Minister in February 2007. He's since proposed a number of initiatives and "reforms" that threaten to undermine the legal system and High Court in particular. One proposal was to change how justices are chosen in a way that would curtail their independence and politicize the entire process. In August, he then prepared a draft bill to limit public petitioner rights to the High Court, especially for human rights organizations.

ACRI ends its lengthy and disturbing report as follows: History shows that "parliaments tend to violate human rights in times of crisis. It is precisely at these moments, however, that (it's vital) to preserve the judiciary's role in the system of checks and balances." Israel claims to be a democracy. It has an odd way of showing it, and when it comes to its Arab citizens, it's nowhere in sight.


http://globalsecuritycouncil.blogspot.com

Wednesday, February 27, 2008

The US-NATO Preemptive Nuclear Doctrine: Trigger a Middle East Nuclear Holocaust to Defend "The Western Way of Life"

What the Western allies face is a long, sustained and proactive defence of their societies and way of life. To that end, they must keep risks at a distance, while at the same time protecting their homelands.

International terrorism today aims to disrupt and destroy our societies, our economies and our way of life. ...

These different sources of [Islamist] propaganda and/or violence vary in their intellectual underpinnings, sectarian and political aims, ... . But what they have in common is an assault on the values of the West – on its democratic processes and its freedom of religion...

Notwithstanding the common perception in the West, the origin of Islamist terrorism is not victimhood, nor an inferiority complex, but a well-financed superiority complex grounded in a violent political ideology.

If the irrational and fanatical [Islamist organizations] get out of hand, there is a risk that, ... the rise of fundamentalisms and despotisms will usher in a new, illiberal age, in which the liberties that Western societies enjoy are seriously jeopardized.

The threats that the West and its partners face today are a combination of violent terrorism against civilians and institutions, wars fought by proxy by states that sponsor terrorism, the behaviour of rogue states, the actions of organised international crime, and the coordination of hostile action through abuse of non-military means.

Towards a Grand Strategy for an Uncertain World: Renewing Transatlantic Partnership".

Group report by former chiefs of staff General John Shalikashvili, (US), General Klaus Naumann (Germany), Field Marshal Lord Inge (UK), Admiral Jacques Lanxade (France) and Henk van den Breemen (The Netherlands), published by the Netherlands based Noaber Foundation, December 2007, (emphasis added)



The controversial NATO sponsored report entitled Towards a Grand Strategy for an Uncertain World: Renewing Transatlantic Partnership". calls for a first strike use of nuclear weapons. The preemptive use of nukes would also be used to undermine an "increasingly brutal World" as well as a means to prevent the use of weapons of mass destruction:

"They [the authors of the report] consider that nuclear war might soon become possible in an increasingly brutal world. They propose the first use of nuclear weapons must remain "in the quiver of escalation as the ultimate instrument to prevent the use of weapons of mass destruction". (Paul Dibb, Sidney Morning Herald, 11 February 2008)

The group, insists that the option of a nuclear first strike is indispensable, "since there is simply no realistic prospect of a nuclear-free world." (Report, p. 97):

Nuclear weapons are the ultimate instrument of an asymmetric response – and at the same time the ultimate tool of escalation. Yet they are also more than an instrument, since they transform the nature of any conflict and widen its scope from the regional to the global. ...

...Nuclear weapons remain indispensable, and nuclear escalation continues to remain an element of any modern strategy.

Nuclear escalation is the ultimate step in responding asymmetrically, and at the same time the most powerful way of inducing uncertainty in an opponent’s mind. (Ibid, emphasis added)

The Group's Report identifies six key "challenges", which may often result as potential threats to global security:

Demography. Population growth and change across the globe will swiftly change the world we knew. The challenge this poses for welfare, good governance and energy security (among other things) is vast.

Climate change. This greatly threatens physical certainty, and is leading to a whole new type of politics – one predicated, perhaps more than ever, on our collective future.

Energy security continues to absorb us. The supply and demand of individual nations and the weakening of the international market infrastructure for energy distribution make the situation more precarious than ever.

There is also the more philosophic problem of the rise of the irrational – the discounting of the rational. Though seemingly abstract, this problem is demonstrated in deeply practical ways. [These include] the decline of respect for logical argument and evidence, a drift away from science in a civilization that is deeply technological. The ultimate example is the rise of religious fundamentalism, which, as political fanaticism, presents itself as the only source of certainty.

The weakening of the nation state. This coincides with the weakening of world institutions, including the United Nations and regional organizations such as the European Union, NATO and others.

The dark side of globalization ... These include internationalized terrorism, organized crime and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, but also asymmetric threats from proxy actors or the abuse of financial and energy leverage. (Ibid)

Deterrence and Pre-emption

According to the Report, a new concept of deterrence is required directed against both State and
non-state actors, This "new deterrence" is based on pre-emption as well as on the ability to "restore deterrence through [military] escalation". In this context, the Report contemplates, what it describes as:

escalation dominance, the use of a full bag of both carrots and sticks—and indeed all instruments of soft and hard power, ranging from the diplomatic protest to nuclear weapons.” (Report, op city, emphasis added).

Iran

In much the same terms as the Bush administration, the NATO sponsored report states, without evidence, that Iran constitutes "a major strategic threat":

"An Iranian nuclear weapons capability would pose a major strategic threat – not only to Israel, which it has threatened to destroy, but also to the region as a whole, to Europe and to the United States. Secondly, it could be the beginning of a new multi-polar nuclear arms race in the most volatile region of the world." (Report, op. cit., p. 45)

Careful timing? The controversial NATO sponsored report calling for a preemptive nuclear attack on Iran was released shortly after the publication of the National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) report entitled Iran: Nuclear Intentions and Capabilities. The latter denies Iran's nuclear capabilities. The NIE report, based on the assessments of sixteen US intelligence agencies, refutes the Bush administration's main justification for waging a preemptive nuclear war on Iran. The NIE report confirms that Iran “halted its nuclear weapons program in 2003":

"These findings constitute a damning indictment of the Bush administration’s relentless fear-mongering in relation to an alleged nuclear threat from Iran. They demonstrate that just as in the buildup to the war against Iraq five years ago, the White House has been engaged in a systematic campaign to drag the American people into another war based on lies." (See Bill van Auken, 24 January 2008)

It should be noted that this recently declassified intelligence (pertaining to Iran contained in the 2007 NIE report) was known by the White House, the Pentagon and most probably NATO since September 2003. Ironically, US military documents confirm that the Bush Administration initiated its war preparations against Iran in July 2003, two months prior to the confirmation by US intelligence that Iran did not constitute a nuclear threat.

The July 2003 war scenarios were launched under TIRANNT: Theater Iran Near Term.

The justification for TIRANNT as well as for subsequent US war plans directed against Iran ( which as of 2004 included the active participation of NATO and Israel), has always been that Iran is developing nuclear weapons and plans to use them against us.

Following the publication of the 2007 NIE in early December, there has been an avalanche of media propaganda directed against Tehran, essentially with a view to invalidating the statements of the NIE concerning Tehran's nuclear program.

Moreover, a third sanctions resolution by the UN Security Council, was initiated with a view to forcing Iran to halt uranium enrichment. The proposed UNSC resolution, which is opposed by China and Russia includes a travel ban on Iranian officials involved in the country's nuclear programs, and inspections of shipments to and from Iran "if there are suspicions of prohibited goods" (AFP, 11 February 2008). Meanwhile, French President Nicolas Sarkozy together with British Prime Minister Gordon Brown, have been calling for a unified EU sanctions regime against Iran.

Contradicting the US national intelligence estimate (NIE), Bush's most recent speeches continue to portray Iran as a nuclear threat:

"I feel pretty good about making sure that we keep the pressure on Iran to pressure them so they understand they're isolated, to pressure them to affect their economy, to pressure them to the point that we hope somebody rational shows up and says, okay, it's not worth it anymore," Bush said.

Threat to "The Western Way of Life"

The Western media is involved in a diabolical disinformation campaign, the purpose of which is to persuade public opinion that the only way to "create a nuclear free World" is to use nuclear weapons on a preemptive basis, against countries which "threaten our Western Way of Life."

The Western world is threatened. The NATO sponsored report, according to Paul Dibb: "paints an alarming picture of the threats confronting the West, arguing that its values and way of life are under threat and that we are struggling to summon the will to defend them."(Dibb, op cit)

A preemptive nuclear attack -- geographically confined to Middle East (minus Israel?)-- is the proposed end-game. The attack would use US tactical nuclear weapons, which, according to "scientific opinion" (on contract to the Pentagon) are "harmless to the surrounding civilian population because the explosion is underground". (See Michel Chossudovsky The Dangers of a Middle East Nuclear Holocaust, Global Research, 17 February 2006)

B61-11 bunker buster bombs with nuclear warheads Made in America, with an explosive capacity between one third to six times a Hiroshima bomb, are presented as bona fide humanitarian bombs, which minimize the dangers of "collateral damage".

These in-house "scientific" Pentagon assessments regarding the mini-nukes are refuted by the Federation of American Scientists (FAS):

Any attempt to use a [B61-11 bunker buster nuclear bomb] in an urban environment would result in massive civilian casualties. Even at the low end of its 0.3-300 kiloton yield range, the nuclear blast will simply blow out a huge crater of radioactive material, creating a lethal gamma-radiation field over a large area " (Low-Yield Earth-Penetrating Nuclear Weapons by Robert W. Nelson, Federation of American Scientists, 2001 ).

Diabolical Military Agenda: Nuclear War to "Halt the Spread of Nuclear Weapons"

Professor Paul Dibb is a former Australian Deputy Secretary of Defense, who has, over the years, also occupied key positions in Australia's defense and intelligence establishment. Dibb carefully overlooks the consequences of the use of nuclear weapons in a conventional war theater. According to Dibb, NATO's preemptive nuclear doctrine, which replicates that of the Pentagon, constitutes a significant and positive initiative to "halt the imminent spread of nuclear weapons". .

"They [the group] believe that the West must be ready to resort to a pre-emptive nuclear attack to try to halt the imminent spread of nuclear weapons."

Never mind the nuclear holocaust and resulting radioactive contamination, which would spread Worldwide and threaten, in a real sense, the "way of life".

There is no "way of life" in a World contaminated with deadly radioactive material. But this is something that is rarely discussed in the corridors of NATO or in strategic studies programs in Western universities.

What is frightening in Professor Dibb's article is that he is not expressing an opinion, nor is he analyzing the use of nuclear weapons from an academic research point of view.

In his article, there is neither research on nuclear weapons nor is there an understanding of the complex geopolitics of the Middle East war. Dibb is essentially repeating verbatim the statements contained in NATO/Pentagon military documents. His article is a "copy and paste" summary of Western nuclear doctrine, which in practice calls for the launching of a nuclear holocaust.

The stated objective of a Middle East nuclear holocaust is "to prevent the occurrence of a nuclear war". An insidious logic which certainly out- dwarfs the darkest period of the Spanish inquisition...

Neither NATO nor the Pentagon use the term nuclear holocaust. Moreover, they presume that the "collateral damage" of a nuclear war will in any event be confined geographically to the Middle East and that Westerners will be spared...

But since their in-house scientists have confirmed that tactical nuclear weapons are "safe for civilians", the labels on the bombs have been switched much in the same way as the label on a packet of cigarettes: "This nuclear bomb is safe for civilians"

Nukes: Just Another Tool in the Military Toolbox

The new definition of a nuclear warhead has blurred the distinction between conventional and nuclear weapons:

'It's a package (of nuclear and conventional weapons). The implication of this obviously is that nuclear weapons are being brought down from a special category of being a last resort, or sort of the ultimate weapon, to being just another tool in the toolbox," (Japan Economic News Wire, , 30 December 2005)

This re-categorization has been carried out. The " green light" for the use of tactical nuclear weapons in conventional war theater has been granted by the US Congress. " Let's use them, they are part of the military toolbox."

We are at a dangerous crossroads: military planners believe their own propaganda. The military manuals state that this new generation of nuclear weapons are "safe" for use in the battlefield. They are no longer a weapon of last resort. There are no impediments or political obstacles to their use. In this context, Senator Edward Kennedy has accused the Bush Administration for having developed "a generation of more useable nuclear weapons."

Russia and China

Who else constitutes a threat to " the Western way of life"?

Nukes are also slated to be used against Russia and China, former enemies of the Cold War era.

This post Cold War logic was first revealed, when the Pentagon's Nuclear Posture Review (NPR) was leaked to The Los Angeles Times in January 2002. The NPR includes China and Russia alongside the rogue states as potential targets for a first strike nuclear attack. According to William Arkin, the NPR "offers a chilling glimpse into the world of nuclear-war planners: With a Strangelovian genius, they cover every conceivable circumstance in which the president might wish to use nuclear weapons-planning in great detail." (Los Angeles Times, March 10, 2002)

"Decapitate Their Leadership and Destroy their Countries as Functioning Societies"

The use of nukes against "rogue states", including Iran and North Korea (which lost more than a quarter of its population in US bombings during the Korean war) is justified because these countries could act in an "irrational" way. It therefore makes sense to "take em out" before they do something irrational. The objective is: "decapitate their leadership and destroy their countries as functioning societies":

"One line of reasoning is that so-called rogue states, such as Iran and North Korea, are sufficiently irrational to risk a pre-emptive nuclear strike on the US or its allies, such as Israel and South Korea.

The supposition here is that deterrence - that is, threatening the other side with obliteration - no longer works. But even the nasty regimes in Tehran and Pyongyang must know that the US reserves the right to use its overwhelming nuclear force to decapitate the leadership and destroy their countries as modern functioning societies. (Dibb, op cit., emphasis added)

Use nuclear weapons to prevent the use of weapons of mass destruction? .

But of course, lest we forget, America's nuclear arsenal as well as that of France, Britain and Israel are not categorized as "weapons of mass destruction", in comparison with Iran's deadly nonexistent nuclear weapons program.

Bin Laden's Nuclear Program

Now comes the authoritative part of the Pentagon-NATO preemptive doctrine: We need to use nukes against bin Laden, because Islamic "fanatics" can actually fabricate nuclear weapons or buy them from the Russians on the black market.

The Report calls for a first strike nuclear attack directed against Osama bin Laden's Al Qaeda, which has the ability, according to expert opinion, of actually producing small nuclear bombs, which could be used in a Second 9/11 attack on America: .

The second line of reasoning [contained in the NATO sponsored report] is more difficult to refute. It argues that extreme fanatical terrorists, such as al-Qaeda, cannot be deterred because (a) they do not represent a country and therefore cannot be targeted and (b) they welcome death by suicide. So, we have to shift the concept of nuclear deterrence to the country or regime supplying the terrorists with fissile material.

Nuclear weapons require materials that can be made only with difficulty. Once these materials are obtained by terrorists, however, the barriers to fabricating a weapon are much lower. In that sense the nuclear threat today is greater than it was in the Cold War and it seems the terrorists cannot be deterred.( Dibb, op cit, emphasis added)

The alleged nuclear threat by Al Qaeda is taken very seriously. The Bush administration has responded with overall defense spending (budget plus war theater) in excess of one trillion dollars. This massive amount of public money has been allocated to financing the "Global War on Terrorism" (GWOT).

Confirmed by Pentagon documents, this military hardware including aircraft carriers, fighter jets, cruise missiles and nuclear bunker buster bombs, is slated to be used as part of the "Global War on Terrorism". In military jargon, the US is involved in asymmetric warfare against non-State enemies. ( The concept of Asymmetric Warfare was defined in The National Defense Strategy of the United States of America (2005)

"The American Hiroshima"

The US media has the distinct ability to turn realities upside down.

The lies are upheld as indelible truths. The "Islamic terrorists" have abandoned their AK 47 kalashnikov rifles and stinger missiles; they are not only developing deadly chemical and biological weapons, they also have nuclear capabilities.

The fact, amply documented, that Al Qaeda is supported by the CIA and Britain's MI6 is beside the point.

The nuclear threat is not directed against the Middle East but against the USA, the perpetrators and architects of nuclear war are bin Laden's Al Qaeda (a CIA "intelligence asset"), which is planning to launch a nuclear attack on an American city:

"U.S. government officials are contemplating what they consider to be an inevitable and much bigger assault on America, one likely to kill millions, destroy the economy and fundamentally alter the course of history,...

According to captured al-Qaida leaders and documents, the plan is called the "American Hiroshima" and involves the multiple detonation of nuclear weapons already smuggled into the U.S. over the Mexican border with the help of the MS-13 street gang and other organized crime groups. (World Net Daily, 11 July 2005, emphasis added)

The New York Times confirms that an Al Qaeda sponsored "American Hiroshima" "could happen" .

"Experts believe that such an attack, somewhere, is likely." (NYT, 11 August 2004)

According to the Aspen Strategy Group which is integrated, among others, by Madeleine Albright, Richard Armitage, Philip D. Zelikow, Robert B. Zoellick, "the danger of nuclear terrorism is much greater than the public believes, and our government hasn't done nearly enough to reduce it.":

If a 10-kiloton nuclear weapon, a midget even smaller than the one that destroyed Hiroshima, exploded in Times Square, the fireball would reach tens of millions of degrees Fahrenheit. It would vaporize or destroy the theater district, Madison Square Garden, the Empire State Building, Grand Central Terminal and Carnegie Hall (along with me and my building). The blast would partly destroy a much larger area, including the United Nations. On a weekday some 500,000 people would be killed. (NYT, 11 August 2004)

"Threaten them with a devastating [nuclear] attack"

According to professor Dibb, nuclear deterrence should also apply in relation to Al Qaeda, by holding responsible the governments which help the terrorists to develop their nuclear weapons' capabilities:

"Ashton Carter, a former US assistant secretary for defense, has recently argued, the realistic response is to hold responsible, as appropriate, the government from which the terrorists obtained the weapon or fissile materials and threaten them with a devastating [nuclear] strike. In other words, deterrence would work again." (Dibb, op cit)

The real nuclear threat is coming from bin Laden. The objective is to "to do away with our way of life":

None of this is to underestimate the impact of a nuclear weapon being detonated in an American city. It could be catastrophic, but it is highly unlikely to threaten the very survival of the US. To believe otherwise risks surrendering to the fear and intimidation that is precisely the terrorists' stock in trade.

General Richard Myers, another former chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, has claimed that if [Islamic] terrorists were able to kill 10,000 Americans in a nuclear attack, they would "do away with our way of life". But Hiroshima and Nagasaki incurred well over 100,000 instant deaths and that did not mean the end of the Japanese way of life. (Ibid, emphasis added)

In an utterly twisted and convoluted argument, professor Dibb transforms the US-NATO threat to wage a nuclear war on Iran into an Al Qaeda operation to attack an American city with nuclear weapons.

Dibb presents the US-NATO menace to trigger what would result in a Middle East nuclear holocaust as a humanitarian operation to save American lives. By implication, the Al Qaeda sponsored "American Hiroshima" would be supported by Iran's president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. and this in turn would immediately provide a juste cause (Jus ad bellum) for retaliation against Iran

"What a nuclear attack on a US city would mean, however, is an understandable American retaliation in kind. So, those countries that have slack control over their fissile nuclear materials and cozy relations with terrorists need to watch out. A wounded America would be under enormous pressure to respond in a wholly disproportionate manner.

And then we would be in a completely changed strategic situation in which the use of nuclear weapons might become commonplace. Ibid, emphasis added).

The notion of "preemption" applied to the use of nuclear weapons is predicated on the right to "self defense." "Nuclear Preemption" defines "when it is permissible to wage war" using nuclear weapons: jus ad bellum. The latter concept serves to build a consensus within the Military command structures. It also serves to convince the Military that they are using nukes for a "just cause", to "save the Western way of life".

Dick Cheney's Second 9/11

The insinuation that Al Qaeda is preparing an attack on America has been on the lips of Vice President Dick Cheney for several years now. Cheney has stated on several occasions since 2004, that Al Qaeda is preparing a "Second 9/11": .

In August 2005, Vice President Dick Cheney is reported to have instructed USSTRATCOM, based at the Offutt Air Force Base in Nebraska, to draw up a "Contingency Plan", "to be employed in response to another 9/11-type terrorist attack on the United States". (Philip Giraldi, Attack on Iran: Pre-emptive Nuclear War, The American Conservative, 2 August 2005)

Dick Cheney's "Contingency Plan" was predicated on the preemptive war doctrine. Implied in the "Contingency Plan" was the presumption that Iran would be behind the attacks.

The Pentagon in a parallel initiative has actually fine-tuned its military agenda to the point of actually envisaging a Second 9/11 scenario as a means to providing the US administration with a "credible" justification to attack Iran and Syria:

"Another [9/11 type terrorist] attack could create both a justification and an opportunity that is lacking today to retaliate against some known targets [Iran and Syria]" (Statement by Pentagon official, leaked to the Washington Post, 23 April 2006, emphasis added)

Meanwhile,. the US Congress is concerned that an "American Hiroshima" could potentially damage the US economy:

"What we do know is that our enemies want to inflict massive casualties and that terrorists have the expertise to invent a wide range of attacks, including those involving the use of chemical, biological, radiological and even nuclear weapons. ... [E]xploding a small nuclear weapon in a major city could do incalculable harm to hundreds of thousands of people, as well as to businesses and the economy,...(US Congress, House Financial Services Committee, June 21, 2007).

As far as sensitizing public opinion to the dangers of a US sponsored nuclear war, there is, with a few exceptions, a scientific and intellectual vacuum: No research, no analysis, no comprehension of the meaning of a nuclear holocaust which in a real sense threatens the future of humanity. This detachment and lack of concern of prominent intellectuals characterizes an evolving trend in many universities and research institutes in the strategic studies, the sciences and social sciences.

Academics increasingly tow the line. They remain mum on the issue of a US sponsored nuclear war. There is a tacit acceptance of a diabolical and criminal military agenda, which in a very sense threatens life on this planet. The US-NATO doctrine to use nukes on a preemptive basis with a view to "saving the Western World's way of life" is not challenged in any meaningful way either by academics or media experts in strategic studies.



http://globalsecuritycouncil.blogspot.com