Except on this point, because perhaps the only thing the two sides agree on at this point is that they won't divide Jerusalem again. And furthermore it would be impossible now even if they wanted to thanks to the way Israel has jigsawed in their settlments. This was the kernel that made Camp David II, for all its shortcomings, so stunning. If they had been able to close the deal, it would have meant, underneath everything else, and never to be mentioned in public, that the two states would have had a permanently open border in Jerusalem. Which is to say, an open border period. Michael Pollak
------------
Hey, no problem. I give, an open city.
You know I had forgotten that negotiations were still in progress, and that Arafat was shuttling around when Sharon's shunt ended it all. Completely forgotten it. That's how pernicious the media-culture drift is---how much it depends on forgetting. Amazing. How did I get it into my head that Arafat was giving it all away just to get out from under the military occupation? It seems to me, they were stalled out on settlements, territorial contiguity, access, and Jerusalem.
In any event, the NLG recommendations are at least concrete proposals that local US protest groups can rally around. It would be nice to stick the Bush administration with a proven record of selling arms to the `rogue' state of Israel. It might help move the DLC a few notches toward thin cover so at least they appear slightly more humanitarian than Gorge I, The Impaler.
I seriously think if enough groups pushed general community awareness, which mass media evidentually couldn't ignore, `no arms for Charon' there would be some effect. Sharon is tailor made for demonization---he even looks a little like Michaelangelo's boatman. If US support starts to get questionable, it might make the Israeli military think twice about working themselves up for bigger things.
While reading the posted CO letters from Israel, I thought shit, their getting ready for war. Or maybe it is just ancient memory of Vietnam stirring.
The findings sections of the NLG report are pretty terrible. They essentially document a change over from riot control (tear gas, rubber bullets, shields) to combat with an increased use of live ammunition and anti-personnel weapons. The kinds of weapons and injuries listed constitute `indiscriminant and excessive lethal force'---a violation of international laws governing treatment of civilians under military occupation. Here are some weapon samples from the report. Remember these are used for riot control. See (46p):
http://www.nlg.org/committees/International/middle_east_delegation_report.htm
Apache helicopters firing 30mm chain guns (675rpm), Hell-Fire Air to Ground missiles;
Huey Cobra helicopters firing 20mm chain guns;
Naval ship artillery: Reshef patrol boats firing 76mm high explosive rounds into Gaza City;
Main armament of tanks: firing 105mm, 120mm tungsten carbide DFDS sabo rounds and high explosive rounds;
M203 Grenade Launcher firing 40mm M406 HE grenades;
M19 Automatic Grenade Launcher firing 40mm M383 grenades, belt feed;
Light Anti-tank Weapons; shoulder-fired, anti-armor weapons with 84mm or 90mm rockets; ...(list continues on)
The ammunition used in many of the M-16's are high velocity, plastic and rubber coated metal, that are essentially equivalent to the WWI dum-dum. At close range they burst inside the body for maximum lethal effect. The report has a postmortem skull/neck x-ray to illustrate.
Many of these weapons were developed in the Vietnam era for exactly the same purpose---killing large numbers of hiding civilians intermixed with a few combatants. And of course most are made in the USA. Our tax dollars at work.
The report cites UN Charter articles 2.3 and 2.4 signed by Israel on the use of force in settlement of disputes, and the Hague Regulations of 1907 and the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949 protecting civilians under military occupation.
Israel formally considers these not to apply since they consider the Al Aqsa Intifada to be a situation of hostility and no longer a belligerent occupation. This lends some credence to idea they are gearing up for war---since they have just about declared it in order to justify the excessive force. In either event, the Hague and Geneva Conventions prohibit turning an occupation into entrenched sovereign permanence and require compensation for damage and confiscation of property. ``...Likewise any `peace' agreement that purports to transfer or legitimize sovereign claims by the occupier or restricts or cancels the rights of the occupied population to its territory, is absolutely prohibited...'' (51p)
Chuck Grimes