Feb 27, 2009
President
Barack Obama said directly that he would be announcing "a way forward
in Iraq that leaves Iraq to its people and responsibly ends this war."
As far as it goes, that sounds good. This is an indication that
President Obama is largely keeping to his campaign promises, and that's
a hopeful sign, reflecting the power of the anti-war consensus in this
country.
If this plan were actually a first step towards the unequivocal goal
of a complete end to the U.S. occupation of Iraq, it would be better
than good, it would be fabulous. But that would mean this withdrawal
would be the first step towards a complete withdrawal of all U.S.
troops, pulling out of all the 150,000+ U.S.-paid foreign mercenaries
and contractors, closing all the U.S. military bases, and ending all
U.S. efforts to control Iraqi oil.
So far that is not on Obama's agenda.
The troop withdrawal as planned would leave behind as many as 50,000
U.S. troops. That's an awful lot. Even Speaker of the House Nancy
Pelosi thinks that may be too much. She told Rachel Maddow, "I don't
know what the justification is for 50,000, at the present...I would
think a third of that, maybe 20,000, a little more than a third, 15,000
or 20,000."
Those troops won't include officially designated "combat" troops.
But those tens of thousands of troops will still be occupying Iraq.
Doing what? Very likely, just what combat troops do - they would walk
and talk and bomb and shoot like combat troops, but they'd be called
something else. The New York Times spelled it out last
December: describing how military planners believe Obama's goal of
pulling out combat troops "could be accomplished at least in part by
re-labeling some units, so that those currently counted as combat
troops could be 're-missioned,' their efforts redefined as training and
support for the Iraqis." That would mean a retreat to the lies and
deception that characterized this war during Bush years - something
President Obama promised to leave behind. It would also mean military
resistance in Iraq would continue, leading to more Iraqi and U.S.
casualties.
Further, the U.S. agreement with Iraq calls for all U.S. forces to
be out of Iraq by the end of December 2011. President Obama's
announcement later this week may even reflect something like this goal
too. But. The agreement can be changed. Retired General Barry McCaffrey
wrote an internal report for the Pentagon after a trip to Iraq last
year, saying, "We should assume that the Iraqi government will
eventually ask us to stay beyond 2011 with a residual force of
trainers, counterterrorist capabilities, logistics, and air power." My
estimate? Perhaps a force of 20,000 to 40,000 troops.
And what if the reduction in ground troops is answered with an
escalation of U.S. air power? The U.S. appears to be planning to
control the skies over Iraq for years to come. That means even more
Iraqi civilians being killed by the U.S. military. We need the withdraw
all air and naval forces too - something the SOFA agreement mentions,
but we have yet to hear anything from the Obama administration. The
U.S. has been conducting continuous overflights and regular bombing of
Iraq since January 1991 - isn't 18 years of air war enough?
The U.S.-Iraq agreement (which was ratified by the Iraqi parliament
but never brought to the U.S. Senate for ratification, as mandated by
the Constitution) also requires that a national referendum be held in
Iraq during the summer of 2009 to approve or reject the timetable. It
is certainly possible that - if the referendum is held at all - a vast
majority of Iraqis would call for an even earlier timeline, saying that
two-and-a-half more years of occupation is too long. And it seems a
real long-shot to imagine that the U.S. - despite the Obama
administration's commitment to diplomacy over force - would agree to
abide by the popular will of the Iraqi people and pull out the troops
immediately.
The military hasn't been transformed with the election of President
Obama. He is the commander in chief, but he has made clear his
intention to listen to his military advisers (they pushed for the
19-month rather than 16-month withdrawal timeline). The oil companies
and powerful contractors whose CEOs and stockholders have made billion
dollar killings on Iraq contracts have not been transformed. Obama is
president and has promised transparency in the contracting process, but
he hasn't promised to bring home all the mercenaries and contractors.
Mercenaries and Contractors
Ending the U.S. occupation means ending all U.S. funding for the
giant contractors - Dyncorp, Bechtel, Blackwater - that serve as
out-sourced private unaccountable components of the U.S. military. The
contractor companies - and the mercenaries they hire - were part of
what led to Abu Ghraib. (Blackwater's recent name change to "Xe" should
not allow its role in killing Iraqi civilians to be forgotten.) Even as
some troops may be withdrawn, we will need to mobilize for
congressional hearings, independent investigations, and more on the
human rights violations and misuse of taxpayer funds by the war
profiteers who run these companies. President Obama's decision to close
the Guantanamo prison shows his awareness of severity of the crimes
committed there. Ending the funding of the contractors who carried out
so many of those crimes should be a logical next step.
U.S. Military Bases
We've heard how long it will likely take to evacuate each of the 50+
U.S. military bases in Iraq (6 weeks for the small ones, 18 months for
the biggest) but we haven't heard any indication, let alone a promise,
that they will actually be turned over to the Iraqis. The issue of
bases places Iraq at the centerpiece of the broad global movement
challenging the network of U.S. military bases all over the world.
Opposition to the impact of those bases - environmental, social and
women's rights, economic and more - is rising in countries as diverse
as Korea, Italy, Ecuador, Kyrgyzstan and more. In fact in some
countries governments are joining with civil society to reject
Washington's global crusade. Kyrgyzstan decided to close the U.S. air
base there, indicating they prefer Russian bribes to U.S. warplanes.
(That decision may present the Obama administration with the unsavory
prospect of renewing the U.S. alliance with Uzbekistan, whose
government is characterized by some of the most egregious human rights
violations in the world.) Ecuador has recently passed a new
constitution prohibiting the presence of foreign military bases on
their soil, and is in the process of ending its hosting of the U.S.
airbase at Manta.
As the Obama administration seeks new ways to cut military spending,
closing the 50+ Iraqi bases, particularly the five mega-bases becomes
an urgent necessity. And the giant embassy-on-steroids that the Bush
administration built to house up to 5,000 U.S. diplomats and officials
should be closed down as a relic of an illegal war launched to maintain
control of the country, people and resources of Iraq.
Ending Occupation?
Certainly almost three more years of acknowledged occupation is way
too long. That's almost half again as long as the U.S. occupation of
Iraq has been going today. But even so, if this 19-month partial
withdrawal really was a first step towards a complete end of the Iraq
war and occupation, if this really meant that the troops in Iraq would
be brought home instead of redeployed to another failing war in
Afghanistan, if this really meant that President Obama's promise that
"I will end the war" was about to be made real - then 19 months
wouldn't be so bad.
Then, at last, we could begin making good on our real debt to the
people of Iraq. Make good on the U.S. obligations for compensation
(money to Iraqis themselves, not to overpaid U.S. contractors), for
reparations (including for the years of society-destroying economic
sanctions), for support for Iraqi-led international help in
peacekeeping and in demilitarizing Iraq after so many years of
occupation and war.
So far, though, we're not seeing any of that. So far, there are too
many "buts." We know there is no military solution in Iraq - and
continuing an "occupation lite" to muscle out competitors in oil
contracts, or to maintain a power-expansion presence in the region, or
to create the illusion of "peace with honor" - none of these things
justify continuing an illegal U.S. occupation. Pulling out any troops
from Iraq is a good thing. But so far, our job hasn't ended - to
mobilize, to pressure, to continue to educate and advocate and agitate
for a real end to the war. We have a lot of work to do.
Join Us: News for people demanding a better world
Common Dreams is powered by optimists who believe in the power of informed and engaged citizens to ignite and enact change to make the world a better place. We're hundreds of thousands strong, but every single supporter makes the difference. Your contribution supports this bold media model—free, independent, and dedicated to reporting the facts every day. Stand with us in the fight for economic equality, social justice, human rights, and a more sustainable future. As a people-powered nonprofit news outlet, we cover the issues the corporate media never will. |
© 2023 Foreign Policy In Focus
Phyllis Bennis
Phyllis Bennis is a fellow of the Institute for Policy Studies and serves on the national board of Jewish Voice for Peace. Her most recent book is the 7th updated edition of "Understanding the Palestinian-Israeli Conflict: A Primer" (2018). Her other books include: "Understanding the US-Iran Crisis: A Primer" (2008) and "Challenging Empire: How People, Governments, and the UN Defy US Power" (2005).
President
Barack Obama said directly that he would be announcing "a way forward
in Iraq that leaves Iraq to its people and responsibly ends this war."
As far as it goes, that sounds good. This is an indication that
President Obama is largely keeping to his campaign promises, and that's
a hopeful sign, reflecting the power of the anti-war consensus in this
country.
If this plan were actually a first step towards the unequivocal goal
of a complete end to the U.S. occupation of Iraq, it would be better
than good, it would be fabulous. But that would mean this withdrawal
would be the first step towards a complete withdrawal of all U.S.
troops, pulling out of all the 150,000+ U.S.-paid foreign mercenaries
and contractors, closing all the U.S. military bases, and ending all
U.S. efforts to control Iraqi oil.
So far that is not on Obama's agenda.
The troop withdrawal as planned would leave behind as many as 50,000
U.S. troops. That's an awful lot. Even Speaker of the House Nancy
Pelosi thinks that may be too much. She told Rachel Maddow, "I don't
know what the justification is for 50,000, at the present...I would
think a third of that, maybe 20,000, a little more than a third, 15,000
or 20,000."
Those troops won't include officially designated "combat" troops.
But those tens of thousands of troops will still be occupying Iraq.
Doing what? Very likely, just what combat troops do - they would walk
and talk and bomb and shoot like combat troops, but they'd be called
something else. The New York Times spelled it out last
December: describing how military planners believe Obama's goal of
pulling out combat troops "could be accomplished at least in part by
re-labeling some units, so that those currently counted as combat
troops could be 're-missioned,' their efforts redefined as training and
support for the Iraqis." That would mean a retreat to the lies and
deception that characterized this war during Bush years - something
President Obama promised to leave behind. It would also mean military
resistance in Iraq would continue, leading to more Iraqi and U.S.
casualties.
Further, the U.S. agreement with Iraq calls for all U.S. forces to
be out of Iraq by the end of December 2011. President Obama's
announcement later this week may even reflect something like this goal
too. But. The agreement can be changed. Retired General Barry McCaffrey
wrote an internal report for the Pentagon after a trip to Iraq last
year, saying, "We should assume that the Iraqi government will
eventually ask us to stay beyond 2011 with a residual force of
trainers, counterterrorist capabilities, logistics, and air power." My
estimate? Perhaps a force of 20,000 to 40,000 troops.
And what if the reduction in ground troops is answered with an
escalation of U.S. air power? The U.S. appears to be planning to
control the skies over Iraq for years to come. That means even more
Iraqi civilians being killed by the U.S. military. We need the withdraw
all air and naval forces too - something the SOFA agreement mentions,
but we have yet to hear anything from the Obama administration. The
U.S. has been conducting continuous overflights and regular bombing of
Iraq since January 1991 - isn't 18 years of air war enough?
The U.S.-Iraq agreement (which was ratified by the Iraqi parliament
but never brought to the U.S. Senate for ratification, as mandated by
the Constitution) also requires that a national referendum be held in
Iraq during the summer of 2009 to approve or reject the timetable. It
is certainly possible that - if the referendum is held at all - a vast
majority of Iraqis would call for an even earlier timeline, saying that
two-and-a-half more years of occupation is too long. And it seems a
real long-shot to imagine that the U.S. - despite the Obama
administration's commitment to diplomacy over force - would agree to
abide by the popular will of the Iraqi people and pull out the troops
immediately.
The military hasn't been transformed with the election of President
Obama. He is the commander in chief, but he has made clear his
intention to listen to his military advisers (they pushed for the
19-month rather than 16-month withdrawal timeline). The oil companies
and powerful contractors whose CEOs and stockholders have made billion
dollar killings on Iraq contracts have not been transformed. Obama is
president and has promised transparency in the contracting process, but
he hasn't promised to bring home all the mercenaries and contractors.
Mercenaries and Contractors
Ending the U.S. occupation means ending all U.S. funding for the
giant contractors - Dyncorp, Bechtel, Blackwater - that serve as
out-sourced private unaccountable components of the U.S. military. The
contractor companies - and the mercenaries they hire - were part of
what led to Abu Ghraib. (Blackwater's recent name change to "Xe" should
not allow its role in killing Iraqi civilians to be forgotten.) Even as
some troops may be withdrawn, we will need to mobilize for
congressional hearings, independent investigations, and more on the
human rights violations and misuse of taxpayer funds by the war
profiteers who run these companies. President Obama's decision to close
the Guantanamo prison shows his awareness of severity of the crimes
committed there. Ending the funding of the contractors who carried out
so many of those crimes should be a logical next step.
U.S. Military Bases
We've heard how long it will likely take to evacuate each of the 50+
U.S. military bases in Iraq (6 weeks for the small ones, 18 months for
the biggest) but we haven't heard any indication, let alone a promise,
that they will actually be turned over to the Iraqis. The issue of
bases places Iraq at the centerpiece of the broad global movement
challenging the network of U.S. military bases all over the world.
Opposition to the impact of those bases - environmental, social and
women's rights, economic and more - is rising in countries as diverse
as Korea, Italy, Ecuador, Kyrgyzstan and more. In fact in some
countries governments are joining with civil society to reject
Washington's global crusade. Kyrgyzstan decided to close the U.S. air
base there, indicating they prefer Russian bribes to U.S. warplanes.
(That decision may present the Obama administration with the unsavory
prospect of renewing the U.S. alliance with Uzbekistan, whose
government is characterized by some of the most egregious human rights
violations in the world.) Ecuador has recently passed a new
constitution prohibiting the presence of foreign military bases on
their soil, and is in the process of ending its hosting of the U.S.
airbase at Manta.
As the Obama administration seeks new ways to cut military spending,
closing the 50+ Iraqi bases, particularly the five mega-bases becomes
an urgent necessity. And the giant embassy-on-steroids that the Bush
administration built to house up to 5,000 U.S. diplomats and officials
should be closed down as a relic of an illegal war launched to maintain
control of the country, people and resources of Iraq.
Ending Occupation?
Certainly almost three more years of acknowledged occupation is way
too long. That's almost half again as long as the U.S. occupation of
Iraq has been going today. But even so, if this 19-month partial
withdrawal really was a first step towards a complete end of the Iraq
war and occupation, if this really meant that the troops in Iraq would
be brought home instead of redeployed to another failing war in
Afghanistan, if this really meant that President Obama's promise that
"I will end the war" was about to be made real - then 19 months
wouldn't be so bad.
Then, at last, we could begin making good on our real debt to the
people of Iraq. Make good on the U.S. obligations for compensation
(money to Iraqis themselves, not to overpaid U.S. contractors), for
reparations (including for the years of society-destroying economic
sanctions), for support for Iraqi-led international help in
peacekeeping and in demilitarizing Iraq after so many years of
occupation and war.
So far, though, we're not seeing any of that. So far, there are too
many "buts." We know there is no military solution in Iraq - and
continuing an "occupation lite" to muscle out competitors in oil
contracts, or to maintain a power-expansion presence in the region, or
to create the illusion of "peace with honor" - none of these things
justify continuing an illegal U.S. occupation. Pulling out any troops
from Iraq is a good thing. But so far, our job hasn't ended - to
mobilize, to pressure, to continue to educate and advocate and agitate
for a real end to the war. We have a lot of work to do.
Phyllis Bennis
Phyllis Bennis is a fellow of the Institute for Policy Studies and serves on the national board of Jewish Voice for Peace. Her most recent book is the 7th updated edition of "Understanding the Palestinian-Israeli Conflict: A Primer" (2018). Her other books include: "Understanding the US-Iran Crisis: A Primer" (2008) and "Challenging Empire: How People, Governments, and the UN Defy US Power" (2005).
President
Barack Obama said directly that he would be announcing "a way forward
in Iraq that leaves Iraq to its people and responsibly ends this war."
As far as it goes, that sounds good. This is an indication that
President Obama is largely keeping to his campaign promises, and that's
a hopeful sign, reflecting the power of the anti-war consensus in this
country.
If this plan were actually a first step towards the unequivocal goal
of a complete end to the U.S. occupation of Iraq, it would be better
than good, it would be fabulous. But that would mean this withdrawal
would be the first step towards a complete withdrawal of all U.S.
troops, pulling out of all the 150,000+ U.S.-paid foreign mercenaries
and contractors, closing all the U.S. military bases, and ending all
U.S. efforts to control Iraqi oil.
So far that is not on Obama's agenda.
The troop withdrawal as planned would leave behind as many as 50,000
U.S. troops. That's an awful lot. Even Speaker of the House Nancy
Pelosi thinks that may be too much. She told Rachel Maddow, "I don't
know what the justification is for 50,000, at the present...I would
think a third of that, maybe 20,000, a little more than a third, 15,000
or 20,000."
Those troops won't include officially designated "combat" troops.
But those tens of thousands of troops will still be occupying Iraq.
Doing what? Very likely, just what combat troops do - they would walk
and talk and bomb and shoot like combat troops, but they'd be called
something else. The New York Times spelled it out last
December: describing how military planners believe Obama's goal of
pulling out combat troops "could be accomplished at least in part by
re-labeling some units, so that those currently counted as combat
troops could be 're-missioned,' their efforts redefined as training and
support for the Iraqis." That would mean a retreat to the lies and
deception that characterized this war during Bush years - something
President Obama promised to leave behind. It would also mean military
resistance in Iraq would continue, leading to more Iraqi and U.S.
casualties.
Further, the U.S. agreement with Iraq calls for all U.S. forces to
be out of Iraq by the end of December 2011. President Obama's
announcement later this week may even reflect something like this goal
too. But. The agreement can be changed. Retired General Barry McCaffrey
wrote an internal report for the Pentagon after a trip to Iraq last
year, saying, "We should assume that the Iraqi government will
eventually ask us to stay beyond 2011 with a residual force of
trainers, counterterrorist capabilities, logistics, and air power." My
estimate? Perhaps a force of 20,000 to 40,000 troops.
And what if the reduction in ground troops is answered with an
escalation of U.S. air power? The U.S. appears to be planning to
control the skies over Iraq for years to come. That means even more
Iraqi civilians being killed by the U.S. military. We need the withdraw
all air and naval forces too - something the SOFA agreement mentions,
but we have yet to hear anything from the Obama administration. The
U.S. has been conducting continuous overflights and regular bombing of
Iraq since January 1991 - isn't 18 years of air war enough?
The U.S.-Iraq agreement (which was ratified by the Iraqi parliament
but never brought to the U.S. Senate for ratification, as mandated by
the Constitution) also requires that a national referendum be held in
Iraq during the summer of 2009 to approve or reject the timetable. It
is certainly possible that - if the referendum is held at all - a vast
majority of Iraqis would call for an even earlier timeline, saying that
two-and-a-half more years of occupation is too long. And it seems a
real long-shot to imagine that the U.S. - despite the Obama
administration's commitment to diplomacy over force - would agree to
abide by the popular will of the Iraqi people and pull out the troops
immediately.
The military hasn't been transformed with the election of President
Obama. He is the commander in chief, but he has made clear his
intention to listen to his military advisers (they pushed for the
19-month rather than 16-month withdrawal timeline). The oil companies
and powerful contractors whose CEOs and stockholders have made billion
dollar killings on Iraq contracts have not been transformed. Obama is
president and has promised transparency in the contracting process, but
he hasn't promised to bring home all the mercenaries and contractors.
Mercenaries and Contractors
Ending the U.S. occupation means ending all U.S. funding for the
giant contractors - Dyncorp, Bechtel, Blackwater - that serve as
out-sourced private unaccountable components of the U.S. military. The
contractor companies - and the mercenaries they hire - were part of
what led to Abu Ghraib. (Blackwater's recent name change to "Xe" should
not allow its role in killing Iraqi civilians to be forgotten.) Even as
some troops may be withdrawn, we will need to mobilize for
congressional hearings, independent investigations, and more on the
human rights violations and misuse of taxpayer funds by the war
profiteers who run these companies. President Obama's decision to close
the Guantanamo prison shows his awareness of severity of the crimes
committed there. Ending the funding of the contractors who carried out
so many of those crimes should be a logical next step.
U.S. Military Bases
We've heard how long it will likely take to evacuate each of the 50+
U.S. military bases in Iraq (6 weeks for the small ones, 18 months for
the biggest) but we haven't heard any indication, let alone a promise,
that they will actually be turned over to the Iraqis. The issue of
bases places Iraq at the centerpiece of the broad global movement
challenging the network of U.S. military bases all over the world.
Opposition to the impact of those bases - environmental, social and
women's rights, economic and more - is rising in countries as diverse
as Korea, Italy, Ecuador, Kyrgyzstan and more. In fact in some
countries governments are joining with civil society to reject
Washington's global crusade. Kyrgyzstan decided to close the U.S. air
base there, indicating they prefer Russian bribes to U.S. warplanes.
(That decision may present the Obama administration with the unsavory
prospect of renewing the U.S. alliance with Uzbekistan, whose
government is characterized by some of the most egregious human rights
violations in the world.) Ecuador has recently passed a new
constitution prohibiting the presence of foreign military bases on
their soil, and is in the process of ending its hosting of the U.S.
airbase at Manta.
As the Obama administration seeks new ways to cut military spending,
closing the 50+ Iraqi bases, particularly the five mega-bases becomes
an urgent necessity. And the giant embassy-on-steroids that the Bush
administration built to house up to 5,000 U.S. diplomats and officials
should be closed down as a relic of an illegal war launched to maintain
control of the country, people and resources of Iraq.
Ending Occupation?
Certainly almost three more years of acknowledged occupation is way
too long. That's almost half again as long as the U.S. occupation of
Iraq has been going today. But even so, if this 19-month partial
withdrawal really was a first step towards a complete end of the Iraq
war and occupation, if this really meant that the troops in Iraq would
be brought home instead of redeployed to another failing war in
Afghanistan, if this really meant that President Obama's promise that
"I will end the war" was about to be made real - then 19 months
wouldn't be so bad.
Then, at last, we could begin making good on our real debt to the
people of Iraq. Make good on the U.S. obligations for compensation
(money to Iraqis themselves, not to overpaid U.S. contractors), for
reparations (including for the years of society-destroying economic
sanctions), for support for Iraqi-led international help in
peacekeeping and in demilitarizing Iraq after so many years of
occupation and war.
So far, though, we're not seeing any of that. So far, there are too
many "buts." We know there is no military solution in Iraq - and
continuing an "occupation lite" to muscle out competitors in oil
contracts, or to maintain a power-expansion presence in the region, or
to create the illusion of "peace with honor" - none of these things
justify continuing an illegal U.S. occupation. Pulling out any troops
from Iraq is a good thing. But so far, our job hasn't ended - to
mobilize, to pressure, to continue to educate and advocate and agitate
for a real end to the war. We have a lot of work to do.
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.
LATEST NEWS
'We Have Run Out of Body Bags to Bury the Dead' in Gaza
A relentless series of assaults in central and northern Gaza by Israeli forces, according to reports on the ground, have killed numerous civilians—including children, rescue workers, and journalist—in recent days with no end in sight.
Dec 15, 2024
Rescue workers, children, and journalists are among the civilians killed by Israeli attacks in Gaza on Sunday, as the death toll continues to mount in a military campaign Amnesty International earlier this month said has all the markings of an active and ongoing genocide.
"Due to the rising Israeli bombings and killings in northern Gaza, we have run out of body bags to bury the dead," said Palestinian journalist Hossam Sabath, reporting from northern Gaza on Sunday. "Now we resort to using any piece of clothing or a blanket for their burial."
On the ground in the town of Beit Hanoun, where Israeli troops reportedly killed at least 20 people—including civilians—in a series of raids in the area on Sunday, Sabath said the the "scenes of charred bodies are too distressing for us to broadcast. However, they are part of the documented evidence of genocide involving the burning of people alive. We are ready to hand them over to any human rights organization."
According to the Gulf Times:
Israeli troops killed at least 22 Palestinians, most of them in the northern Gaza Strip, on Sunday in airstrikes and other attacks on targets that included a school sheltering displaced Gazans, medics and residents said.
They said at least 11 of the dead were killed in three separate Israeli airstrikes on Gaza City houses, nine were killed in the towns of Beit Lahiya, Beit Hanoun and Jabalia camp and two were killed by drone fire in Rafah.
Residents said clusters of houses were bombed and some set ablaze in the three towns. The Israeli army has been operating in the towns for over two months.
In Beit Hanoun, Israeli forces besieged families sheltering in Khalil Aweida school before storming it and ordering them to head towards Gaza City, the medics and residents said.
Al Jazeera's Hani Mahmoud, reporting from Deir el-Balah in central Gaza, quoted witnesses who reported "severe injuries" among those who survived the attacks further north.
"They have nowhere to go because the Israeli military forces are encircling the area with tanks and armored vehicles, and hammering the school with heavy artillery," Mahmoud reported.
A family of four were among those killed, including two children, after the classroom where they were sheltering took a “direct hit” from Israeli artillery fire that arrived without prior warning, the outlet reported.
“Many of the injured are in the courtyard of the school and inside the other classrooms," according to Mahmoud. "They can't get any treatment because none of the hospitals in Beit Hanoon are operational."
Separately, Al-Jazeera reports Sunday that an Israeli bombing killed three members of the Palestinian civil defense search-and-rescue team in central Gaza's Nuseirat refugee camp. The new agency also reported that one of its own staff, cameraman Ahmed al-Louh, was killed in the same attack.
Ahram Online reports:
In its first response to the incident, Gaza's government media office condemned the killing of al-Louh and called on the international community to act against the systematic crimes against Palestinian journalists. "The number of martyred journalists has now risen to 195 with the martyrdom of colleague Ahmed al-Louh," the office stated.
Al Jazeera reiterated its condemnation of the attack, describing al-Louh's death as part of a broader assault on press freedom in Gaza. "Ahmed al-Louh was dedicated to documenting the realities of the ongoing conflict under the most dangerous conditions," the network said.
"The unprecedented killing of journalists by the Israeli military continues with impunity," said fellow reporter Sharif Kouddous.
On Dec. 5, Amnesty International released a 296-page report—featuring interviews with survivors and witnesses of Israel's large-scale campaign of bombing, displacement, arbitrary detention, and destruction of Gaza's agricultural land and civilian infrastructure—that conclude what Israel has been doing in Gaza amounts to genocide.
"Month after month, Israel has treated Palestinians in Gaza as a subhuman group unworthy of human rights and dignity, demonstrating its intent to physically destroy them," said Agnès Callamard, Amnesty's secretary-general, upon release of the document. "Our damning findings must serve as a wake-up call to the international community: this is genocide. It must stop now."
As the weekend's latest catalog of death and injuries suggests, it has not stopped.
'No Way' We Let Trump Privatize Postal Service, Say Progressives
Instead of privatization, said one Democratic lawmaker, "Fire his former pick for postmaster, DeJoy, and let a real professional run it like it should be run. The first priority is delivering mail. Cut the Pentagon's bloat if you want to save money."
Dec 15, 2024
After weekend reporting indicated President-elect Donald Trump is actively thinking about avenues to privatize the U.S. Postal Service, progressives decried any such efforts and once again directed their ire on the much-reviled Postermaster General, appointed to run the USPS during Trump's first term.
Citing people familiar with recent talks within the incoming team's camp, the Washington Post reported Saturday that Trump is "keen" for a privatization scheme that would hand the USPS over to for-profit, private interests.
According to the Post:
Trump has discussed his desire to overhaul the Postal Service at his Mar-a-Lago estate with Howard Lutnick, his pick for commerce secretary and the co-chair of his presidential transition, the people said. Earlier this month, Trump also convened a group of transition officials to ask for their views on privatizing the agency, one of the people said.
Told of the mail agency's annual financial losses, Trump said the government should not subsidize the organization, the people said. The people spoke on the condition of anonymity to reflect private conversations.
Trump's hostility to government programs that serve the public interest—including Medicare, Social Security, public education, and consumer protection agencies—is well-documented.
"The United States Postal Service is a crucial asset that was built and is owned by all of us, and there is zero mandate from the public to turn it over to an oligarch."
Trump's attacks on the Postal Service, including his blessing of the 2020 appointment of Postmaster General Louis DeJoy, a former logistics industry executive, sparked alarm about Republican desires to gut the agency from the inside out.
While calls to fire DeJoy from the USPS top leadership post persisted during the last year of Trump's first term and remained constant during Biden's time in office, he remains Postmaster General despite repeated accusations that his ultimate aim is to diminish the agency to such an extend that it will be more possible to justify its dismantling.
While the Post's reporting on Saturday stated that Trump's "specific plans for overhauling the Postal Service" in his upcoming term "were not immediately clear," it did quote Casey Mulligan, who served as a top economic advisor during the last administration, who touted the private sectors performance compared to a Postal Service he claimed was too slow and costly.
"We didn't finish the job in the first term, but we should finish it now," said Mulligan.
Progressive defenders of the Postal Service, in response, denounced any future effort to privatize the agency, one of the most popular among the U.S. public.
"The Post Office is in our constitution," said Rep. Mark Pocan (D-Wis.) on Saturday. "There is no way we let Donald Trump privatize it. Fire his former pick for postmaster, DeJoy, and let a real professional run it like it should be run. The first priority is delivering mail. Cut the Pentagon's bloat if you want to save money."
Former Ohio state senator Nina Turner also defended the USPS, saying that "72% of Americans approve of the U.S. Postal Service, it's how many seniors receive medication, especially in rural areas."
Progressive critics of right-wing attacks on the Postal Service have noted for years that the "financial performance" issues are a direct result of the "burdensome and unnecessary" pre-funding of liabilities mandated by the 2006 Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act, which forces the USPS to pay billions each year towards future postal worker retirement benefits.
"No matter what your partisan stripe," said Micah Rasmussen, director of the The Rebovich Institute for New Jersey Politics at Rider University, "we should be able to agree the United States Postal Service is a crucial asset that was built and is owned by all of us, and there is zero mandate from the public to turn it over to an oligarch."
Holiday Season Ultimatum From Amazon Workers: Bargain or We Strike!
"If Amazon chooses to ignore us, they’re the ones ruining Christmas for millions of families. We’re not just fighting for a contract; we’re fighting for the future of worker power at Amazon and beyond."
Dec 14, 2024
Workers at a Amazon warehouse and delivery center in New York announced approval of strike authorizations on Friday, giving the retail giant—who have refused to negotiate for months—until Sunday to come to the bargaining table or risk a major work stoppage at the height of the holiday shopping season.
The unions representing Amazon workers at two New York City facilities—the JFK8 warehouse on Staten Island and the DBK4 delivery center in Queens—cited the company's "illegal refusal to recognize their union and negotiate a contract" to address low wages and dangerous working conditions as the reason for the strike authorization.
"We just want what everyone else in America wants—to do our jobs and get paid enough to take care of ourselves and our families. And Amazon isn't letting us do that."
"Amazon is pushing its workers closer to the picket line by failing to show them the respect they have earned," said Teamsters General President Sean M. O’Brien in a statement. "We've been clear: Amazon has until December 15 to come to the table and bargain for a contract. If these white-collar criminals want to keep breaking the law, they better get ready for a fight."
The workers are demanding:
- A living wage with fair pay increases.
- Safer working conditions to prevent injuries and fatalities.
- Job security and protection from arbitrary firings.
- Dignity and respect for all employees.
In June, over 5,500 workers at JFK8—who first voted in favor of creating a union in 2022—joined the Teamsters and chartered the Amazon Labor Union (ALU)-IBT Local 1. Despite consolidating their organizing strength with the backing of the Teamsters, Amazon management has dragged their feet on bargaining a first contract, hardly surprising given the company's long-standing hostility to organized labor.
"Amazon's refusal to negotiate is a direct attack on our rights," said Connor Spence, president of ALU-IBT Local 1, on Friday. "If Amazon chooses to ignore us, they’re the ones ruining Christmas for millions of families. We’re not just fighting for a contract; we’re fighting for the future of worker power at Amazon and beyond."
Rank-and-file members said their demands are reasonable, especially as the company—owned by the world's second-richest man, Jeff Bezos—continues to rake in massive profits year after year as one of the world's largest companies.
"We aren't asking for much," said James Saccardo, a worker at JFK8. "We just want what everyone else in America wants—to do our jobs and get paid enough to take care of ourselves and our families. And Amazon isn't letting us do that."
In Queens, where Amazon workers at DBK4—the corporation's largest delivery station in the city—voted nearly unanimously to authorize a strike of their own.
"Driving for Amazon is tough," said Luc Rene, a driver who works out of DBK4. "What's even tougher is fighting a mega-corporation that constantly breaks the law and games the system. But we won't give up."
"Every horror story you read about Amazon is true, but worse," said Justine, a warehouse worker in New York in a video produced by More Perfect Union.
BREAKING: Amazon workers in NYC are going on strike right before Christmas — the company's busiest time.
The first unionized Amazon warehouse is going to shut down in a historic walkout.
Workers plan to hit the company where it hurts to win their first union contract. pic.twitter.com/CwnrRWg4be
— More Perfect Union (@MorePerfectUS) December 13, 2024
A strike at this time of year, the busiest for the retail giant, reports labor correspondent Jessica Burbank for Drop Site News, "would hit them where it hurts. The scale of the strike would be unprecedented, including the major hubs of New York and San Bernadino, California."
According to Burbank:
Amazon now has a workforce of over 700,000, making it the largest employer of warehouse workers in the nation. If a contract is won at these initial 20 bargaining units, it has the potential to impact working conditions for thousands of workers, and inspire union organizing efforts at Amazon facilities across the country.
For Amazon workers who voted to unionize their warehouses in March of 2022, this has been a long time coming. “Thousands of Amazon workers courageously cast their ballots to form a union at JFK8 in Staten Island,” Smalls said in a text. “We shocked the world, we had won against a corporate giant and hoped that step would propel us forward to help create a better workplace.” For years, Amazon stalled on recognizing the union, and has not yet met union representatives at the negotiating table.
Smalls said, “I’m excited to see workers take control, take the next step and move even further down the path to victory when they exercise their right to strike.” He continued, “We celebrated as we inspired thousands of others to hope for the same.”
Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) on Saturday issued his support for the union workers.
"Amazon delivery drivers and warehouse workers deserve decent wages, benefits and working conditions—and the right to form a union," said Sanders. "I strongly support the thousands of Amazon workers who will go on strike tomorrow if Amazon doesn't end its illegal union busting."
The workers at JFK8 said people could support the union's effort in various ways "at this critical time," including:
- Donate to the Solidarity Fund: Help workers sustain their fight by contributing to the strike fund.
- Show Up on the Picket Line: Join workers at JFK8 to demonstrate solidarity and hold Amazon accountable for their illegal refusal to negotiate a union contract.
- Spread the Word: Use social media and local networks to raise awareness about the workers’ struggle and the importance of their fight for justice at Amazon.
- Contact Elected Officials: Urge representatives to publicly support JFK8 workers and pressure Amazon to negotiate in good faith.
- Sign the Petition: Stand with Amazon workers and demand that Amazon guarantee a safe return to work, free of harassment and retaliatory disciplinary action, to all workers participating in protected collective action.
For his part, former labor secretary and economist Robert Reich said he had no sympathy for the retail giant's refusal to bargain in good faith with the workers who make its business model possible.
"Amazon had $15 billion in profits last quarter," said Reich. "Don't tell me they can't afford to bargain a fair contract."
Most Popular
We cover the issues the corporate media never will.
Please support our journalism.