Israel burns UN food, medical relief warehouses

Just when you thought things couldn't get any worse, they do.

Overnight Israeli forces shelled the headquarters of UNRWA, the United Nations relief agency for Gaza, sparking a massive fire. The UNRWA site also happens to be the main warehouse for all of the UN's medical and food aid to Gaza and, according to the BBC, was a makeshift shelter for more than 700 Palestinian civilians. CNN is reporting that all of the food and all of the medicine stored in the warehouse has burned and that UN staff are now trying to keep the rest of the compound from going up as well (because of the war Palestinian emergency services are in shambles and water service to the Gaza Strip is unreliable).

UN chief Ban Ki-Moon, in the region to help prod the cease-fire negotiations along, was described as being furious and expressed his outrage over the attack to Israeli officials. According to Ban, the Israelis told him the HQ was hit “by mistake”, though Defense Minister Ehud Barak later publicly denied the ‘mistake’ explanation (so they attacked the UN HQ on purpose?). Israel also hit a building that houses most of the foreign press agencies in Gaza and, according to some reports, a hospital overnight as well.

Israel apparently used white phosphorus artillery shells to hit the UN compound. White phosphorus is a material that burns fiercely on contact with air and cannot be extinguished with water. Militaries use white phosphorus shells to create smokescreens on the battlefield, but their use against people (soldiers or otherwise) or their use against structures are both considered violations of international law.

With the conflict about to finish its third week, the death toll among the Palestinians has passed 1,000, with half that number being women and children according to most accounts. It's no wonder then that diplomats from around the world are warning Israel that the conflict is causing serious, long-term damage to their global image. Israel's Haaretz newspaper spoke with a number of diplomats and ambassadors from around the world, the message from all was basically the same - Israel's Gaza offensive has gone too far. One unnamed European ambassador, described by Haaretz as a ‘great friend of Israel’ told the paper: “your action is brutal and you don't realize how much damage this is causing you in the world. This is not only short term. It's damage for years. Is this the Israel you want to be?”

Burning down the UN aid warehouse certainly won’t help Israel’s image.

Why I’m fed up with Israel (and Bush)

Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert is sticking by his story that ordered the United States to abstain from a UN Security Council vote for a cease-fire in the Gaza conflict, despite claims from the US side that the incident never happened.

In case you missed it – Olmert said that when he heard US Secretary of State Condi Rice was ready to vote in favor of a cease-fire resolution (that she helped to negotiate), he angrily called Pres. Bush, and when told that Bush was on the podium at an event in Philadelphia, he demanded that Bush take his call immediately. Bush left the stage (again, according to Olmert) talked to him, then ordered Condi to abstain from voting for the measure that she negotiated – “shaming her” in Olmert’s words.

This whole story has me pissed off for several reasons: 1) that a foreign head of state would order our president around; 2) that Bush would let himself be ordered around like that by a foreign head of state; and 3) that Bush left the stage at an event to take a phone call from Ehud Olmert, yet on the morning of the worst terrorist attack ever on US soil Bush wouldn’t interrupt reading “My Pet Goat” to a bunch of schoolkids to, oh, go do his job as Commander and Chief.

Much is made of the ‘special relationship’ between the United States and Israel, but relationships are two-way streets. We give Israel foreign aid money, military support and wield our veto against any UN resolution they don’t like, but what do we get from they? Respect? Gratitude? Apparently not…

We do get one thing from the relationship – the ire of much of the Middle East. Last week in the LA Times, Hamas spokesman Mousa Abu Marzook noted, “when Palestinians see an F-16 with the Star of David painted on its tail, they see America.” The same goes when they see an Apache helicopter or a white phosphorus shell bursting over Gaza City. CNN had a pretty telling clip on Monday – during a brief opening in the border to allow wounded Palestinians into Egypt, when a Palestinian medic realized he was speaking to an American reporter said “I want to congratulate America on its weapons. They are very effective.” No wonder a majority of Americans surveyed in a recent poll think that Israel’s Gaza campaign only makes it more likely there will be a terrorist attack on American soil.

I am sure some will read this and think I am being anti-Israel. But like I argued in an earlier post, I think it is just the opposite. Ending the Bush Administration’s support Israel right-or-wrong attitude and compelling both sides to commit to the ‘two-state’ solution is ultimately in Israel’s best interest.

Hamas rocket attacks on Israel are wrong, but so is Israel’s bombing campaign of Gaza City. It’s about time we stop giving them the bombs.

Europe is still gasless

Almost as soon as natural gas from Russia started flowing into pipelines bound for Europe, Ukraine cut off the supplies, continuing the energy crisis that has gripped much of Central and Southern Europe for two weeks now.

Ukraine admitted to shutting down their pipeline network, blocking Russia from shipping gas to Europe, after Russian gas company Gazprom imposed "unacceptable conditions" on Ukraine. Between the charges flying back and forth between Russia and Ukraine, it's hard to figure out what exactly is going on, but it seems like the hold up now is over something called ‘technical gas’.

Think of trying to drink through a straw - you need to exert a certain amount of pressure to get the liquid to flow. The same is true of pipelines - they need a certain pressure to work. But Ukraine's pipeline network isn't in great shape and loses pressure over distance, so to ship gas in it you need to pump in an additional amount, called ‘technical gas’, to maintain a constant pressure from one end of the network to the other. For the network in Ukraine, this is working out to be about 7% of the total amount shipped. Gazprom wants Ukraine to pay for the technical gas, since Gazprom says it stays in Ukraine and that they ultimately use it; Ukraine thinks the technical gas is a cost Gazprom should absorb as the price of using their network.

So the taps are closed again. Europe at this point is fed up with the whole situation - Serbia is reporting that their electric grid is straining under record demand as people use electricity for heat rather than gas, Hungary issued its first-ever smog alert in Budapest as people switch from clean-burning natural gas to oil to keep warm, while other countries report they have less than two weeks of natural gas left in their reserves (in the middle of winter, of course). They are demanding that Ukraine and Russia come to an agreement to end the standoff once and for all.

And while Russia has been bearing the brunt of the ill will over the gas dispute so far, it seems like Europe is starting to give Ukraine an equal share of the blame. Slovakian Prime Minister Robert Fico said, “Ukraine is losing the trust of European partners because of its behavior.”

Past the shipment agreement, Russia and Ukraine still need to negotiate a separate deal for Gazprom to supply Ukraine with gas for them to use domestically.

Canadian report - oil sands and olympic villages

One item on the agenda when Barack Obama makes his first visit abroad as president has been revealed - Canada's Oil Sands.

Obama has made securing sources of clean energy one of the top priorities of his administration, but the oil sands though are far from clean. Instead of great pools of oil buried underground (say like you find in Saudi Arabia), in the Oil Sands, as the name implies, the oil is locked into deposits of clay and sand. So to get the oil out you have to mine the sand, like you would coal, then refine it into a sludge that you then refine again into useable oil. If it sounds like a messy process, it is. Native groups in Alberta (the heart of the Oil Sands region) have for years complained about the strip mining of their lands for sand and the pollution produced by the refining process.

Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper confirmed the Oil Sands would be on the agenda when he meets with Obama and says that he is committed to working with Obama on environmental issues.

Meanwhile, a little further to the west, the 2010 Winter Olympics in Vancouver could be running into trouble.

The city of Vancouver is desperately seeking funds to complete the Athlete's Village (where athletes stay during the games); they now need more than $400 million (in Canadian dollars) in additional funds to complete the project. The city is planning to ask the provincial government of British Columbia for a one-time exception to the city's charter to let them just borrow the money to finish the Village rather than having to put the issue to a public referendum, as the city charter states.

Honestly, if I were a Vancouverite I wouldn't be happy with the city government trying to skirt the law like this, but the city is warning that if they don't get a loan, they would be responsible for the entire cost of the project (around $850 million) because of an agreement signed by the city council back in 2007. Originally a private development firm was suppose to finance the construction of the Village, then take it over after the Games and turn it into apartments that they would then rent. But the firm, US-based Fortress Investment Group, cut their funding in September, because they thought they wouldn't cover their costs due to Vancouver's declining housing market.

No word on whether or not Vancouver will just buy lots of tents as a fallback measure.

One of the last surviving WWI veterans dies

Since there's less than a dozen of them still alive, I think whenever one of the remaining veterans of World War I passes away, it's worth noting.

Britain's Ministry of Defense announced that Bill Stone died over the weekend, age 108. Mr. Stone was the last British vet known to have served in both the first and second World Wars - he joined the crew of the HMS Tiger only weeks before WWI ended, and was still in the Royal Navy aboard the HMS Salamander when WWII broke out. His ship helped to evacuate British troops from the beaches of Dunkirk, when German troops drove them from the continent in 1940. The evacuation of British forces at Dunkirk kept their army from being wiped out and helped to prevent the Germans from invading England.

In November last year Mr. Stone appeared with two other British WWI vets to commemorate the 90th anniversary of the end of that war.

Europe to get gas?

Natural gas should start flowing from Russia to the rest of Europe tomorrow according to Russian gas giant Gazprom after a deal was struck for monitors to keep an eye on the gas pipeline system in Ukraine.

Russia cut off gas supplies last week after they accused Ukraine of stealing gas being shipped across their country to more than a dozen European countries. Gazprom cut Ukraine off after the country failed to pay a $2 billion debt owed to the company for gas supplied to Ukraine. Under the agreement, European Union and Russian monitors will be stationed where the pipelines enter and exit Ukraine and will compare the amount of gas going in and out of the country – a drop in the amount going out would indicate Ukraine was siphoning some off.

But Ukraine nearly sank the agreement at the last minute by inserting a hand-written declaration saying that Ukraine hadn’t stolen any gas and that they didn’t owe Gazprom any outstanding debt. Russian President Dmitry Medvedev said Ukraine was making “a mockery” of the negotiations by unilaterally inserting conditions at the last minute and said Russia would not resume shipments. Ukraine then withdrew their declaration after European officials said that it was not valid.

The gas shortage has hit countries in the Balkan and Central regions of Europe hard, causing crippling drops of heating and power supplies in some countries. It’s prompted Slovakia to begin the process of restarting a closed nuclear power plant, a move that is angering their neighbor, Austria, who don’t consider the site safe. The Bohunice plant is a Soviet-era nuclear reactor, that was finally shut down last year. Slovakia’s neighbors were so concerned about Bohunice, that its shut down was one of the conditions Slovakia had to meet to join the European Union. Bulgaria is also talking about firing up two Soviet-era reactors it shut down in 2006 in order to join the EU as well because of critical energy shortages caused by the gas crisis.

‘Joe the Reporter’ says “stop reporting!”

Remember ‘Joe the Plumber’, the presidential campaign sideshow who went on to become a mouthpiece for the McCain-Palin ticket? But Joe's real name is Samuel and he's not even a licensed plumber – now he's doing another job he's not qualified for: he’s been shipped to Israel by the conservative outfit Pajamas TV to work as a ‘war correspondent’ (honestly, I’m not making this up).

Joe's weighing in on the roll of reporters during wartime, which basically amounts to “sit down and shut up.” I'm posting Joe's quote in its near entirety because it’s just so good:

“I'll be honest with you: I don't think journalists should be anywhere allowed war. (sic) I mean, you guys report where our troops are at. You report what's happening day to day. You make a big deal out of it. I think it's asinine. You know, I liked back in World War I and World War II when you'd go to the theater and you'd see your troops on, you know, the screen and everyone would be real excited and happy for ‘em.”

I guess it escaped Joe that the whole reason people were able to see troops on the screen was because of the work of intrepid war correspondents, some of whom, like the late Ernie Pyle, gave their lives to bring the story of the war home and were beloved by the troops they covered. But no, Joe apparently rather than having a free press would like one where the government controlled what we did and didn't see, which if you think about it is kind of an odd position for a self-described conservative to hold since they usually view government as something not to be trusted in the first place.

Past that, banning war reporters in this modern world doesn't mean the story won't get out. The Israeli military has banned journalists from entering Gaza, defying an order from the Israeli Supreme Court in the process, yet the Net is filled with reports, blog posts and YouTube videos showing the war from inside Gaza.

Meanwhile we'll keep an eye out for more of Joe's dispatches from the front...

What will the new year bring for Russia?

Monday could give an indication of what the New Year has in store for Russia as the country comes out of its semi-official two-week winter break (which runs from around Christmas, past New Years Day and through Russian Orthodox Christmas on Jan. 7). Monday is also the day when Prime Minister Vladimir Putin's controversial tax on imported cars goes into effect.

Putin says the tax is meant to boost Russia's domestic auto industry and, in turn, support Russia's industrial base during the global recession. But many Russians balked at that explanation. They say that the quality of cars built by Russian companies is poor, which is why imported used cars are popular among working and middle class Russians, especially the further east you go in the vast country. The city of Vladivostok has a thriving industry in importing cars from Japan, people there say that the new law won't help the Russian economy it will only hurt theirs. Many Russians also asked if Putin thought so highly of Russian cars why did he and many other top lawmakers drive Mercedes?

The announcement of the tax sparked public protests across the country in December. Most were small, only a few hundred people on average, but what's more important is that the protests happened in the first place, since public protests have been very rare in Russia over the past few years. It will be interesting to see if more occur now that the tax is going into effect; people in Vladivostok have already staged one rally in opposition to the new law.

It will also be interesting to see how the Putin/Medvedev regime deals with the protests if they do spread across the country. For the past eight years the Russian public has generally been willing to follow Putin, wherever he led. But for most of that time Russia was also enjoying an economic boom. Russia was arguably a more democratic place during the 1990s, but it was also an economic mess - in the minds of many Russians the two ideas, Democracy and economic chaos, have been linked. That's why there's been little opposition things that Putin has done that have been seen as “anti-democratic”, people have identified Putin with stability and stability with better times (it's even been said that Russia is such a large country it needs a ‘strong leader’ in charge).

But times have changed, now not only is Russia dealing with the economic slowdown that's hitting the rest of the world, they also are suffering from a steep drop in oil prices (which has fueled Russia's economic growth these past few years). Inflation and unemployment are growing problems, and there are creeping worries that the hard times of the 90s could return.

Will Russians continue to believe in Putin? This next week could give a good indication.

Winner of the Obama first foreign trip derby: Canada

It was announced yesterday that Canada would have the honor of being the first foreign country Barack Obama visits after being sworn in as president next week. Past that tidbit neither the Obama camp nor Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper offered any details on the planned visit.

Obama caused a stir on the campaign trail last summer by suggesting he would like to renegotiate some aspects of the NAFTA treaty (NAFTA established the free trade zone that includes the US, Canada and Mexico). Obama said on the campaign trail that he would like to see increased protections for labor and the environment included in an updated NAFTA agreement. But I would caution Obama that there is a danger in trying to crack open NAFTA for some reworking, many Canadians felt that they got a raw deal in the initial agreement in the early 90s, so if we start negotiating again, they'll probably have their own ideas on how to make the agreement better.

It's also likely that Obama will lobby Canada to keep their troops in Afghanistan past 2011, when they are scheduled to fully withdraw their forces. But again, this is a touchy issue with many Canadians who feel that their contributions to the war in Afghanistan aren't appreciated enough. More than 100 Canadian soldiers have died in service since the Afghan mission began in 2001. Add to that talks over the ongoing financial crisis that is hitting both of our countries and the fact that Harper himself may even be replaced as Prime Minister if the political opposition in Parliament has their way and you can see Pres. Obama's first trip abroad is going to be more than a few fluffy speeches and photo ops. The Canadian trip is expected to happen before the end of April.

Bush legacy spin-o-rama

Expect to see a lot of articles in the next couple of weeks defending the record of President Bush, I read two just this morning, the worst of which being this gem from the New York Post "Bush's Better World", by Peter Brookes, a fellow at the Heritage Foundation (a conservative think-tank). Brookes' main point is that Bush was a successful leader because he "kept us safe" in the seven years following 9/11.

Of course what this argument ignores is how Bush utterly failed to "keep us safe" before 9/11. The Bush Administration had ample warning that a major al-Qaeda attack was coming, including a briefing given directly to Bush in August of 2001, yet they never seemed to take the threat seriously. One excuse offered up by then National Security Advisor Condi Rice on why the US failed to stop the 9/11 attacks was that we couldn't have imagined that terrorists would ever strike in such a way. But this is utter nonsense. We knew of numerous plots in the past to specifically use commercial aircraft was weapons of terror, including plans to attack the Eiffel Tower and CIA headquarters from the air, along with a failed attempt back in 1974 to use a hijacked commercial airliner to assassinate Pres. Richard Nixon. The meeting of the G7 nations in July 2001, which Bush attended, included anti-aircraft missiles as part of its security perimeter because of an alleged plot to kill the gathered heads of state by crashing an airplane into the meeting, this was just two months before 9/11, so spare me the "we couldn't have imagined..." argument.

Bush also failed to respond to the al-Qaeda attack on the USS Cole in Yemen, an event that Osama bin Laden took as another sign of America's weakness in the face of terror. The Cole was severely damaged and 17 sailors aboard were killed when al-Qaeda operatives blew up a small boat packed with explosives next to its hull. The attack came in December 2000. Then Pres. Clinton felt that it wasn't right for a lame duck president to commit the US to military action, so he deferred to Bush to respond. You can argue that this was a stupid decision, but he did pass the buck to Bush, who then did nothing - except blame Clinton in hindsight for not forcefully responding to a terror attack against America. You have to wonder if Bush had actually done something in relation to the Cole attack if that would have made bin Laden reconsider giving the green light for 9/11.

Bottom line - making the argument that Bush has kept us safe these past seven years can't mask his ineptness at keeping us safe during the first year of his presidency.

And just to quickly run through a few of the other ways Brookes says Bush has given us a better world: he says that because of Bush " 30 million Afghans no longer labor under terrorist Taliban rule", something that will come as great news to our military commanders in Afghanistan who have been sounding the alarm that the Taliban is growing more powerful and controlling larger and larger parts of the country; he argues that the president got North Korea to "agree to end all its nuke programs", even though the Bush Administration itself doesn't believe North Korean claims that they have in fact stopped pursuing nuclear weapons, not to mention that relations between North and South Korea are at their worst point in years; finally he praises Bush for recognizing the independence of Kosovo last year, even though the recognition ran against all established principles of international law and has been used by Russia to justify their recognition of South Ossetia and Abkhazia as independent nations and may be used by Bosnian Serbs to bolster their claims of independence from that country as well.

If you want to argue that Bush was in fact the greatest president of all time, go ahead, that's your right. But remember, while everyone is entitled to their own opinions, you're not entitled to your own facts.