Japanese organization Nihon Hidankyo waws today awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. Credit: Niklas Elmehed/Nobel Prize
UNITED NATIONS, Oct 11 2024 (IPS) – The United Nations Secretary General António Guterres congratulated grassroots Japanese organization Nihon Hidankyo on being awarded the 2024 Nobel Peace Prize.
“The atomic bomb survivors from Hiroshima and Nagasaki, also known as the hibakusha, are selfless, soul-bearing witnesses of the horrific human cost of nuclear weapons,” he said in a statement.
“While their numbers grow smaller each year, the relentless work and resilience of the hibakusha are the backbone of the global nuclear disarmament movement.”
The Norwegian Nobel Committee awarded the 2024 Peace Prize for “its efforts to achieve a world free of nuclear weapons and for demonstrating through witness testimony that nuclear weapons must never be used again.”
The committee said the global movement arose in response to the atom bomb attacks of August 1945.
“The testimony of the Hibakusha—the survivors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki—is unique in this larger context. These historical witnesses have helped to generate and consolidate widespread opposition to nuclear weapons around the world by drawing on personal stories, creating educational campaigns based on their own experience, and issuing urgent warnings against the spread and use of nuclear weapons. The Hibakusha help us to describe the indescribable, to think the unthinkable, and to somehow grasp the incomprehensible pain and suffering caused by nuclear weapons.”
It singled out Nihon Hidankyo, who reportedly cried following the announcement and other representatives of the Hibakusha to have contributed greatly to the establishment of the “nuclear taboo.”
The Norwegian Nobel Committee acknowledged one encouraging fact: “No nuclear weapon has been used in war in nearly 80 years.”
The award comes as the world prepares to mark 80 years since two American atomic bombs killed an estimated 120 000 inhabitants of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. A comparable number died of burn and radiation injuries in the months and years that followed.
“Today’s nuclear weapons have far greater destructive power. They can kill millions and would impact the climate catastrophically. A nuclear war could destroy our civilization,” the committee said.
“The fates of those who survived the infernos of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were long concealed and neglected. In 1956, local Hibakusha associations along with victims of nuclear weapons tests in the Pacific formed the Japan Confederation of A- and H-Bomb Sufferers Organizations. This name was shortened in Japanese to Nihon Hidankyo. It would become the largest and most influential Hibakusha organisation in Japan.”
The Nobel Peace Prize for 2024 fulfills Alfred Nobel’s desire to recognize efforts of the greatest benefit to humankind.
Guterres said he would “never forget my many meetings with them over the years. Their haunting living testimony reminds the world that the nuclear threat is not confined to history books. Nuclear weapons remain a clear and present danger to humanity, once again appearing in the daily rhetoric of international relations.”
He said the only way to eliminate the threat of nuclear weapons is to eliminate them altogether. IPS UN Bureau Report
Oct 1 2024 (IPS) – CIVICUS discusses the recent Pacific Islands Forum (PIF) meeting in Tonga with Jacynta Fa’amau, Pacific Campaigner at 350.org, a global civil society organisation campaigning for climate action.
Representatives from 18 countries gathered in Tonga for the 53rd Pacific Islands Forum Leaders Meeting from 26 to 30 August, seeking to address issues including the climate crisis, socio-economic challenges and political conflict in New Caledonia. A key agenda item was securing funding for the Pacific Resilience Facility, a climate finance mechanism aimed at supporting communities affected by climate change. Civil society called on Australia, the world’s third largest fossil fuel exporter and a co-founder of the Forum, to demonstrate real climate leadership by phasing out fossil fuels and transitioning to renewable energy.
Jacynta Fa’amau
What was on the agenda at the recent PIF Leaders Meeting?
The PIF is an intergovernmental body that aims to improve cooperation between Pacific states and territories, Australia and New Zealand. We may be divided by national borders, but we are united by the ocean, and many of the issues that affect one island can provide valuable lessons for another. As a Samoan, I know my future is linked to that of a sister in the Solomon Islands or a brother in the atolls of Kiribati.
PIF meetings bring together regional leaders to discuss the most pressing issues facing our region. At the 53rd session, the agenda focused on several issues, including climate change, climate finance, education, health and the Pacific Policing Initiative – an Australia-backed strategy to train and support police.
But climate issues were at the top of the agenda. As Pacific Islanders, we know that phasing out fossil fuels is critical to our survival. We deserve not just resilience, but the ability to thrive in the face of this crisis. To do this, we need access to adequate climate finance and affordable renewable energy. The Pacific Resilience Facility is part of the way to achieve this, with an emphasis on ensuring accessibility for communities. Leaders had already endorsed Tonga as the host country for this financial facility, so now the key priority is to secure the resources.
What were civil society’s priorities, and what did it bring to the table?
Civil society has a vital role to play in holding leaders to their promises and creating pathways for communities to get involved. The PIF’s Civil Society Village hosted remarkable groups such as the Pacific Islands Climate Action Network and the Pacific Network on Globalisation, which are working to bridge the gap between civil society and policymakers.
As for 350.org Pacific, our role has always been to ensure that communities have the tools they need to take part in multilateral discussions that often seem far removed from realities on the ground. There’s no point in making decisions about the people you serve if you do it without their input. Before the PIF began, we held the Our Pawa Training with over 200 young people and students across Tonga. ‘Pawa’ references the people power driving the climate movement and the promise of a Pacific built on safe, ethical renewable energy. This training equipped young Tongans with tools to engage in climate conversations.
Our top priority is to ensure a safe and liveable future for the Pacific. Scientists have made it abundantly clear that our survival depends on an immediate global phase out of fossil fuels. Wealthier nations must phase out first, and historical emitters must support the global south in achieving their phase out.
The Pacific mustn’t be left behind in the renewable energy revolution. It’s unfair that our islands should bear the financial burden of recovering from a crisis we didn’t cause. We need the resources and expertise to transform our energy systems on our own terms and put the land, sea and wellbeing of Pacific Islanders first. We call for accessible climate funding to meet the Pacific Resilience Facility’s US$500 million target.
For us, this means Australia must turn its climate rhetoric into action.
Why is Australia at the centre of civil society’s demands?
As the region’s biggest producer of fossil fuels and the third largest exporter in the world, Australia plays a significant role in the climate crisis that threatens our survival. To come to the lands of our ancestors and claim climate leadership while signing our death warrants with every gas project you approve is immoral and unacceptable.
But we also hold Australia to high standards because it claims to be our family. In the Pacific, kinship puts the welfare of the many before the greed of the one. There’s no world in which Australia can be a true partner to the Pacific while continuing to exploit fossil fuels. With every tonne of coal exported, Australia is exporting climate disaster to our islands.
Australia must commit to phasing out fossil fuels, domestically and in its exports. It must ensure the Pacific is not left behind in the transition to renewable energy and commit to the funding it’s historically owed to the victims of the climate crisis. The Ki Mua Report commissioned by the Fossil Fuel Non-Proliferation Treaty Initiative found that eight Pacific countries could transform their energy systems for less than a seventh of the amount Australia gives to the fossil fuel industry.
With its potential COP31 presidency on the horizon, Australia has the chance to become the climate leader it claims to be.
Did the outcomes of the PIF meeting meet your expectations?
We had high expectations, particularly on climate action, given the recent report by the World Meteorological Organisation on the accelerated sea level rise our region faces. The Pacific is particularly vulnerable, so we need to be exceptionally ambitious. Despite our negligible contribution to this climate crisis, we have set ourselves ambitious climate targets. We have been innovative in our adaptation strategies and ambitious in our climate finance goals.
And while the PIF’s final communiqué is an encouraging step towards securing the resources we need to tackle the climate crisis, there’s a disappointing lack of pressure on the region’s major fossil fuel producers to commit to a phase out.
The PIF’s focus on peace and stability was important given the current sovereignty struggles and the shadow of a geopolitical tug-of-war hanging over our islands. But the climate crisis remains the most pressing security threat we face. With each new cyclone comes increased instability, and with each displaced community comes a host of security issues.
The time for deliberation is long past and the time for action is upon us. The PIF may be over, but the journey to COP29 is just beginning. We Pacific climate warriors will continue to celebrate our culture and ancestors as we advocate for decisive climate action that will help us achieve a safe and sustainable future for the Pacific. We hope those with the power to effect change will choose to join us.
The panel for the session on “Remembering Hiroshima and Nagasaki: Imagining a World without Nuclear Weapons.” Credit: AD McKenzie/IPS
PARIS, Sep 27 2024 (IPS) – In any discussion of world peace and the future of humanity, the issue of nuclear arms must be addressed, and now.
That was the message from a range of delegates at the “Imaginer la Paix / Imagine Peace” conference, held in Paris September 22 to 24, and organized by the Sant’Egidio Community, a Christian organization founded in Rome in 1968 and now based in 70 countries.
Describing its tenets as “Prayer, service to the Poor and work for Peace,” the community has hosted 38 international, multi-faith peace meetings, bringing together activists from around the world. This is the first time the conference has been held in Paris, with hundreds traveling to France, itself a nuclear-weapon state.
Occurring against the backdrop of brutal, on-going conflicts in different regions and a new race by some countries to “upgrade” their arsenal, the gathering had a sense of urgency, with growing fears that nuclear weapons might be used by warlords. Participants highlighted current and past atrocities and called upon world leaders to learn from the past.
“After Hiroshima and Nagasaki, we have been blessed with many who have said ‘no’—’no’ a million times, creating movements and treaties, (and) awareness… that the only reasonable insight to learn from the conception and use of nuclear weapons is to say ‘no’,” said Andrea Bartoli, president of the Sant’Egidio Foundation for Peace and Dialogue, based in New York.
Participating in a conference forum Monday titled “Remembering Hiroshima and Nagasaki: Imagining a World Without Nuclear Weapons,” Bartoli and other speakers drew stark pictures of what living in a world with nuclear weapons entails, and they highlighted developments since World War II.
“After the two bombs were used against Hiroshima and Nagasaki, humans built more than 70,000 nuclear weapons and performed more than 2,000 tests. Still today we have more than 12,500, each of them with power greatly superior to the two used in August 1945,” Bartoli said.
Despite awareness of the catastrophic potential of these weapons and despite a UN treaty prohibiting their use, some governments argue that possessing nuclear arms is a deterrent—an argument that is deceptive, according to the forum speakers.
Anna Ikeda, program coordinator for disarmament at the UN Office of Soka Gakkai International. Credit: AD McKenzie/IPS
Jean-Marie Collin, director of ICAN (the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons, a movement launched in the early 2000s in Australia and recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize in 2017), said that leaders who cite deterrence “accept the possibility of violating” international human rights.
“Nuclear weapons are designed to destroy cities and kill and maim entire populations, which means that all presidents and heads of government who implement a defense policy based on nuclear deterrence and who are therefore responsible for giving this order, are aware of this,” Collin told the forum.
ICAN campaigned for the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons that was adopted at the United Nations in 2017, entering into force in 2021. The adoption came nearly five decades after the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), which entered into force in 1970.
The terms of the NPT consider five countries to be nuclear weapons states: the United States, Russia, the United Kingdom, France, and China. Four other countries also possess nuclear weapons: India, Pakistan, North Korea, and Israel.
According to a 2024 ICAN report, these nine states jointly spent €85 billion (USD 94,6 billion) on their atomic weapon arsenals last year, an expenditure ICAN has called “obscene” and “unacceptable.” France, whose president Emmanuel Macron spoke about peace in broad, general terms at the opening of the conference, spent around €5,3 billion (about USD 5,9 billion) in 2023 on its nuclear weapons, said the report.
The policy of “deterrence” and “reciprocity,” which essentially means “we’ll get rid of our weapons if you get rid of yours,” has been slammed by ICAN and fellow disarmament activists.
“With the constant flow of information, we often tend to lose sight of the reality of figures,” Collin said at the peace conference. “I hope this one will hold your attention: it is estimated that more than 38,000 children were killed in the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Children!”
All those killed—an estimated 210,000 people by the end of 1945—died in horrific ways, as survivors and others have testified. Delegates said that this knowledge should be the real “deterrent.”
At the forum, Anna Ikeda, program coordinator for disarmament at the UN Office of Soka Gakkai International, a global Buddhist movement, described testimony from a Hiroshima a-bomb survivor, Reiko Yamada, as one she would never forget.
“She (Yamada) stated, ‘A good friend of mine in the neighbourhood was waiting for her mother to return home with her four brothers and sisters. Later, she told me that on the second day after the bombing, a moving black lump crawled into the house. They first thought it was a black dog, but they soon realized it was their mother; she collapsed and died when she finally got to her children. They cremated her body in the yard,” Ikeda told the audience with emotion.
“Who deserves to die such a death? Nobody!” she continued. “Yet our world continues to spend billions of dollars to upkeep our nuclear arsenals, and our leaders at times imply readiness to use them. It is utterly unacceptable.”
Ikeda said that survivors, known as the “hibakusha” in Japan, have a fundamental answer to why nuclear weapons must be abolished—it is that “no one else should ever suffer what we did.”
Note: This article is brought to you by IPS Noram in collaboration with INPS Japan and Soka Gakkai International in consultative status with ECOSOC.
UNDP’s peacebuilding work in Afghanistan coordinates efforts, from international to local, and ensures community members, particularly disadvantaged groups, have a meaningful role in shaping their future. Credit: UNDP Afghanistan
UNITED NATIONS, Sep 26 2024 (IPS) – As global peace hits its lowest point since the Second World War, the International Day of Peace on September 21 offered a critical moment to reflect on and strengthen our peacebuilding efforts.
This year’s theme, ‘Cultivating a Culture of Peace’, is a powerful reminder that for peace to be possible, everyone must play a part.
This sentiment is at the heart of the UNDP’s conflict prevention and peacebuilding work, which we call an ‘area-based approach’. Under this model, we ensure that all those who are working towards peace within a community are working together, and towards a common goal.
The work is tailored to the specific needs and conditions of each particular community, and is locally-led. Peace has its greatest chance when communities come together to address the underlying causes of tension or conflict.
Conflict is on the rise
Today’s conflicts are driven by complex factors including shifting global power dynamics, weak governance, rising inequalities, and a range of interconnected threats such as climate change, crime, and terrorism.
The toll of armed conflicts is staggering. By the end of 2023, conflict-related deaths had surged dramatically. Over 117 million people have been forcibly displaced. Violence has cost the global economy an astonishing US$19.1 trillion. Two billion people, one quarter of the world’s population, live in conflict zones.
If we don’t invest sufficiently in peace, we can’t hope to reverse these trends. Yet, international resources are increasingly focused on immediate humanitarian relief rather than at the root causes of conflict.
The OECD estimates humanitarian aid in fragile contexts has reached a historic high of 27.7 percent of the Development Assistance Committee’s official development assistance, while peace building funding has fallen to a 15-year low of 10.8 percent.
In response, the UN Secretary-General António Guterres’s vision for building a more peaceful world, the New Agenda for Peace, calls for greater international cooperation and a decisive shift towards prioritizing conflict prevention.
To effectively address the root causes of violence It emphasizes the importance of national ownership, people-centred strategies, and peace financing. One way of meeting the promise of the New Agenda for Peace is to employ an area-based approach.
Area-based responses keep local communitiess at the centre of the peacebuilding process. Credit: UNDP Syria
What is an area-based approach?
It delivers tailored recovery and development based on context and conflict analysis. It works with local authorities, community groups, and local businesses to analyze and plan locally tailored solutions. In places such as Syria it ensures that responses are locally rooted, and keeps communities at the centre of the process.
Local communities, including vulnerable and excluded groups, define the priorities of area-based approaches. This inclusive engagement creates a shared sense of purpose, which is the foundation for building peace.
In Mozambique this has helped address localized conflict and foster resilience, including ensuring meaningful local participation in navigating entrenched social and political barriers.
In southern Iraq, UNDP is using an area-based approach to harmonize crisis response coordination, basic service delivery, livelihood opportunities, and protection for at-risk groups. It addresses the many facets of recovery and resilience simultaneously, helping build a foundation for lasting peace.
Area-based approaches also provide a coordination framework for international organizations to assess local needs, and design cost-effective responses.
UNDP’s work in Afghanistan coordinates efforts, from international to local, increasing effectiveness and value for money while also supporting local ownership. This ensures that community members, particularly disadvantaged groups, have a meaningful role in shaping their future.
Leveraging over 30 years of experience, UNDP has found area-based approaches to be highly effective in addressing some of the key barriers to peace, such as poverty, inequality, and weak governance.
However, these approaches are not a panacea.
There are challenges in ensuring meaningful participation. Among them are coordinating diverse stakeholders, sustaining long-term impact, managing varying expectations, and overcoming capacity constraints. To be effective peacebuilding programmes must be integrated into broader frameworks, such as national prevention strategies, efforts to mitigate strategic risks, and international cooperation.
Despite their challenges, area-based approaches have great potential for preventing conflict, fostering peace and building community resilience. We’re already seeing the dividends in Mozambique, Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan and beyond.
By focusing on people-centred solutions, fostering national ownership and addressing the root causes of conflict, area-based approaches play a critical role in cultivating a culture of peace from the ground up.
Naysan Adlparvar is Core Government Functions and Research Advisor, UNDP; Giacomo Negrotto is Local Governance Specialist, UNDP; Adela Pozder-Cengic is Core Government Functions Specialist, UNDP
NEW YORK, Sep 13 2024 (IPS) – This opinion piece is being published exactly on the date when twenty-five years ago today the UN took its most forward-looking stride in ensuring a peaceful planet for all of us since the signing of the Charter of the United Nations in 1945.
The UN Charter arose out of the ashes of the Second World War and the UN Declaration and the Programme of Action on a Culture of Peace emerged in the aftermath of the long-drawn Cold War.
On this very day, the United Nations adopted by consensus and without reservation a monumental document on the Culture of Peace that transcends boundaries, cultures, societies, and nations.
Arduous journey
It was an honour for me to Chair the nine-month long open-ended negotiations that led to the agreement on that historic norm-setting document which is considered as one of the most significant legacies of the United Nations that would endure generations.
I introduced the agreed text of that document (A/RES/53/243) on behalf of all Member States for adoption by the Assembly with its President Didier Opertti of Uruguay chairing the meeting. Through this landmark adoption, the General Assembly laid down humanity’s charter for the new approaching millennium.
Ambassador Anwarul K. Chowdhury
This document explains, outlines, and defines everything that the international community has agreed on as the focus of the culture of peace. I would always treasure and cherish the opportunity to lead the process in its adoption and in its subsequent advocacy.
For me this has been a realization of my personal commitment to peace and my humble contribution to humanity. For more than two and a half decades, my focus has been on advancing the culture of peace and I have continued to devote considerable time, energy, and effort to do that.
It has been a long, arduous journey – a journey ridden curiously with both obstacles and indifference. Since July 1997, when I took the initiative to write to our much-loved and highly respected Secretary-General Kofi Annan to create a separate item of agenda of the General Assembly, the path and progress of the culture of peace at UN have been uneven to say the least. For being a part of this journey, I pay tribute to Bangladeshi diplomats who have been true co-travellers.
My life’s experience has taught me to value peace and equality as the essential components of our existence. They unleash the positive forces of good that are so needed for human progress. It is essential to remember that the culture of peace requires a change of our hearts, change of our mindset.
The objective of the culture of peace is the empowerment of people. We should not isolate peace as something separate. It is important to realize that the absence of peace takes away the opportunities that we need to better ourselves, to prepare ourselves, to empower ourselves to face the challenges of our lives, individually and collectively.
Transformation is the essence
The essence of the culture of peace is its message of self-transformation and its message of inclusiveness, of global solidarity, of the oneness of humanity. These elements—individual and global, individual to global—constitute the way forward for the culture of peace.
‘Transformation’ is of the most essential relevance here. The Programme of Action identifies eight specific areas which encourage actions at all levels – the individual, the family, the community, the national, the regional and, of course, the global levels.
Though the Declaration and Programme of Action is an agreement among nations, governments, civil society, media, and individuals are all identified in this document as key actors.
The culture of peace begins with each one of us – unless we are ready to integrate peace and non-violence as part of our daily existence, we cannot expect our communities, our nations, our planet to be peaceful. We should be prepared and confident in resolving the challenges of our lives in a non-aggressive manner. In today’s world, more so, the humanity’s creed should be based on inner oneness and outer diversity.
Enhancing Member States engagement
To accord an enhanced profile to the concept of the culture of peace, since 2012, successive UN General Assembly Presidents convened an annual UN High Level Forum on The Culture of Peace to provide an inclusive, participatory platform for UN Member States, civil society, media, private sector and other interested parties to exchange ideas on the implementation of the Declaration and Programme of Action.
Since 2012, when the first UN High Level Forum was convened by the President of the 66th Session of the General Assembly Ambassador Nassir Al-Nasser, the UNGA mandated this annual Forum as “an opportunity for renewing the commitments to strengthen further the global movement for the culture of peace.”
At the global level, the Global Movement for The Culture of Peace (GMCoP), a coalition of civil society organizations, have been spearheading advocacy initiatives effectively since 2011 as well as in organizing the annual High-Level Forums on The Culture of Peace convened by the President of UN General Assembly.
Peace and Culture of Peace
Many treat peace and culture of peace synonymously. When we speak of peace, we expect others namely politicians, diplomats, or other practitioners to take the initiative while when we speak of the culture of peace, we know that initial action begins with each one of us.
SDGs and the Culture of Peace
The UN General Assembly decided on the culture of peace before the Millennium Development Goals. SDGs came 15 years later. Many would recall that Goal 16 – the so-called peace goal – was almost dropped when the developing countries wanted to include a reference to the culture of peace.
A compromise excluded it so that the negotiated Goal 16 could be agreed without it. Bangladesh brought the reference to the culture of peace in Goal 4 in its target 4.7 which identified culture of peace and non-violence as well as global citizenship in educational context.
All eight areas of action in the culture of peace programme are reflected in various SDGs. I can however say with pride that the Culture of Peace would outlast the SDGs and make more deep-rooted and longer-lasting contribution to a sustainable and peaceful planet of ours when the UN observes the 30th anniversary of The Culture of Peace.
Let me end by outlining the three integrated mainstream for the coming years bolstering the global movement for the culture of peace.
Education for global citizenship
Number one: education. All educational institutions need to offer opportunities that prepare the students not only to live fulfilling lives but also to be responsible and productive citizens of the world. This should more appropriately be called “education for global citizenship”. If our minds could be likened to a computer, then education provides the software with which to “reboot” our priorities and actions for transition from force to reason, from conflict to dialogue.
Equality of women’s participation
Number two: women. As I always say emphatically – “Without peace, development cannot be realized, without development, peace is not achievable, but without women, neither peace nor development is possible.”
Youth and children
And number three: youth and children. It is essential to recognize the empowerment of young people as a major element in building the culture of peace. Young people of today should embrace the culture of peace in a way that can not only shape their lives but can also shape the future of the world.
For this, I believe that early childhood affords a window of opportunity for us to sow the seeds of transition to the culture of peace from an early life.
Way forward
As former Secretary-General of the United Nations and Nobel Peace laureate Kofi Annan had profoundly said, “Over the years we have come to realize that it is not enough to send peacekeeping forces to separate warring parties. It is not enough to engage in peace-building efforts after societies have been ravaged by conflict. It is not enough to conduct preventive diplomacy. All of this is essential work, but we want enduring results. We need, in short, the culture of peace.”
How do we build and promote the culture of peace? To turn the culture of peace into a global, universal movement, the most crucial element that is needed is for every one of us to be a true believer in peace and non-violence. A lot can be achieved in promoting the culture of peace through individual resolve and action.
By immersing ourselves in a culture that supports and promotes peace, individual efforts will–over time–combine and unite, and peace, security and sustainability will emerge. This is the only way we shall achieve a just and sustainable peace in the world.
The culture of peace is not a quick fix. It is a movement, not a revolution.
The seed of peace exists in all of us. It must be nurtured, cared for and promoted by us all to flourish. Peace cannot be imposed from outside – it must be realized from within.
Ambassador Anwarul K. Chowdhury, is Former Permanent Representative of Bangladesh to the UN; President of the UN Security Council (2000 and 2001); Senior Special Adviser to UN General Assembly President (2011-2012) and Former Under-Secretary-General and High Representative of the UN.
Much of the Gaza Strip has been destroyed in the conflict. Credit: UNRWA
UNITED NATIONS, Sep 13 2024 (IPS) – As the devastating 11-month-old conflict in Gaza keeps escalating, with over 41,000 mostly civilian killings, and more than 92,000 Palestinians injured –in retaliation for the 1,200 killings inside Israel last October– the Israelis continue to defy the United States which maintains its uninterrupted flow of heavy weapons to Tel Aviv.
There are two hardcore lessons in this conflict. Perhaps Israel should realize that you cannot continue biting the hand that feeds you while the Biden administration should realize that you cannot continue to feed the mouth that bites you.
The world’s weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) are categorized mostly as nuclear, chemical, biological and radiological weapons. But the US-supplied missiles and 2,000-pound bombs dropped on Gaza are best described as weapons of civilian destruction (WCDs) which have also reduced cities to rubble.
On September 11, the New York Times ran a story on the latest killings of civilians, titled “Israel Kills Gazans as its Air Power Hits a Humanitarian Zone”
The Times quoted Trevor Ball, a former US army explosive ordnance-disposal technician, as identifying a fragment found at the most recent bombing in Gaza as “the tail section of a SPICE-2000 kit, a precision guided kit used with 2,000-pound bombs.
If Israel is accused of genocide and war crimes, where does the US fit in as the major supplier of arms that are killing all these civilians?
And, on August 13, as the civilian killings continued unabated, the Biden Administration formally notified Congress of its plan to authorize the sale of a staggering list of arms to Israel including:
In June 2024, Reuters reported that the Administration had transferred at least 14,000 MK-84 2,000-pound bombs, 6,500 500-pound bombs, 3,000 Hellfire precision-guided air-to-ground missiles, 1,000 bunker-buster bombs, 2,600 air-dropped small-diameter bombs, and other munitions.
Dr Ramzy Baroud, a journalist and Editor of The Palestine Chronicle, told IPS “for Israel to commit its genocide against Palestinians in Gaza, it requires a large and steady supply of weapons. Most of these weapons come from the United States.”
“In fact, over 11 months of Israeli genocide and following numerous reports by international organizations, we know precisely how US bunker busters and other weapons and munitions intended for mass killings have been used,” he pointed out.
Yet, despite all of this, the US continues to give Israel all the bombs and rockets necessary to inflict most deadly violence against Palestinians, including those sheltered in displacement camps, at UN schools, at hospitals, and other areas that are intended to be ‘safe zones’.
But American support for Israel cannot be confined to that of weapon supplies, Dr Baroud said, because Washington remains Israel’s strongest backer and defender at international institutions, including the UN Security Council. This blind and unconditional support has emboldened Israel to carry on with the most despicable genocide against an innocent and besieged nation.
Even Biden’s so-called ‘ceasefire proposal’ last May was supposedly communicated on behalf of Israel, then, oddly rejected also on behalf of Israel.
There can be no other interpretation of this: the genocide of the Palestinians in Gaza is carried out jointly by Israel and the United States, said Dr Baroud, a Non-resident Senior Research Fellow at the Center for Islam and Global Affairs (CIGA). www.ramzybaroud.net
According to a Cable News Network (CNN) report early this week US Secretary of State Anthony Blinken has called for “fundamental changes” to the way Israeli forces operate in the occupied West Bank after the killing of American activist Aysenur Ezgi Eygi at a protest last week.
US President Joe Biden condemned Eygi’s killing on Wednesday. ““I am outraged and deeply saddened by the death of Aysenur Eygi,” Biden said in a statement, adding that the shooting “is totally unacceptable.”
Biden called for “full accountability” for her death after Israel “has acknowledged its responsibility.” Israel, he added, “must do more to ensure that incidents like this never happen again.”
As an old Middle East saying goes: The dogs bark but the caravan moves on.
Is this a reflection of the unrestrained power of the Israeli lobby in the US Congress, which one-time Republican US presidential candidate Pat Buchanan, called “Israeli-occupied territory”? Does this now include the White House?
Unfortunately, there will be no accountability for the killing of the American-Turkish activist, Dr Baroud pointed out. “We know this for a fact because there has never been a precedent in history in which the US has held Israel accountable for anything”.
The family of American activist Rachel Corrie, who was deliberately run over by an Israeli army bulldozer, knows exactly how frivolous the US use of language in this kind of situation can be.
The US speaks of “accountability”, “responsibility”, “full investigations”, yet ultimately accepts the Israeli narrative as the truth. More recently, the US has used similar language following the murder of Palestinian journalist Shireen Abu Akleh, before circling back to accepting the Israeli story that her killing was not deliberate and was not part of a larger policy to target civilians.
Infuriatingly, but still unsurprisingly, the US is using the above language at a time when over 41,000 Palestinians have been confirmed killed in Gaza, with thousands more missing and tens of thousands wounded, he said.
Not only no such accountability has been achieved or even called for, but the US continues to give Israel the very murder weapon so that it may continue its genocide against Palestinian civilians, said Dr Baroud.
Meanwhile, UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres condemned the death of at least 18 people, including children, women, and six UNRWA staff, in Israeli airstrikes that hit a school serving as a shelter in Nuseirat on 11 September.
This incident raises the number of UNRWA staff killed in this conflict to 220. The IDF stated that they had targeted a command-and-control center in the compound. This incident must be independently and thoroughly investigated to ensure accountability.
The continued lack of effective protection for civilians in Gaza is unconscionable. Civilians and the infrastructure they rely on must be protected and the essential needs of civilians met. The Secretary-General calls upon all parties to refrain from using schools, shelters, or the areas around them for military purposes. All parties to the conflict have the obligation to comply with international humanitarian law at all times.
The Secretary-General also reiterated his call for an immediate ceasefire and the immediate and unconditional release of all hostages. This horrific violence must stop, he declared.
According to an October 2023 report from the US State Department’s Bureau of Political-Military Affairs, steadfast support for Israel’s security has been a cornerstone of American foreign policy for every U.S. Administration since the presidency of Harry S. Truman.
Since its founding in 1948, the United States has provided Israel with over $130 billion in bilateral assistance focused on addressing new and complex security threats, bridging Israel’s capability gaps through security assistance and cooperation, increasing interoperability through joint exercises, and helping Israel maintain its Qualitative Military Edge (QME).
This assistance has helped transform the Israel Defense Forces into “one of the world’s most capable, effective militaries and turned the Israeli military industry and technology sector into one of the largest exporters of military capabilities worldwide”.
Israel has also been designated as a U.S. Major Non-NATO Ally under U.S. law. This status provides foreign partners with certain benefits in the areas of defense trade and security cooperation and is a powerful symbol of their close relationship with the United States.
Thalif Deen, Senior Editor, UN Bureau, Inter Press Service (IPS) news agency, is a former Director, Foreign Military Markets at Defense Marketing Services; Senior Defense Analyst at Forecast International; military editor Middle East/Africa at Jane’s Information Group, USA; and one-time UN correspondent for Jane’s Defense Weekly, London.
