[A-List] Fwd: The Other Oil Spill

[Suzanne de Kuyper]

Religious tolerance pales next to U.S. funded and protected Israeli
genocidal hatred of it's neighbors.  Suzanne


---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Sid Shniad <shniad at gmail.com>
Date: Fri, Sep 10, 2010 at 9:53 PM
Subject: The Other Oil Spill
To:


http://www.commondreams.org/view/2010/09/09-2

CommonDreams.org
                                                September 9, 2010

The Other Oil Spill

When the victims of a massive oil spill are not the predominantly
white residents along the northern shores of the Gulf of Mexico, but
instead are Arabs living in the eastern Mediterranean, the reaction
from Congress and environmentalists is very different.

by Stephen Zunes

Leading congressional Democrats are outraged at British Petroleum and
others responsible for the massive oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico.
But that stands in sharp contrast to their outspoken support of those
responsible for a major oil spill in the eastern Mediterranean in
2006, the largest in that region's history.

On July 13 and 15 of that year, as part of a major bombardment of the
civilian infrastructure of Lebanon, Israeli planes bombed the fuel
tanks for the Jiyeh power plant on the coast near Beirut, releasing
10,000-15,000 tons of oil.  A giant oil slick spread northward by
Mediterranean currents, contaminated the Lebanese and Syrian coasts,
and went as far as Turkey and Cyprus. Meanwhile, large deposits of the
densest parts of the heavy oil dropped to the seabed to form black
toxic mats, destroying sea life below.

The ongoing Israeli navy blockade of the Lebanese coast made an
emergency response impossible in the critical early hours and days of
the disaster. Israeli airstrikes in the immediate area kept
firefighters and others away from the disaster site, while damaged
roads and bridges from other airstrikes prevented crews and equipment
from dealing with the growing spill. With the support of both parties
in Congress, the Bush administration blocked efforts at the United
Nations to impose a ceasefire for another five weeks. Full-scale
operations to contain and clean up the spill therefore did not get
underway until well into August, by which time the spill had already
stretched hundreds of miles.  As a result, two months after the spill,
only 3 percent of the oil had been cleaned up. Indeed, it took a full
six months before the spill was even contained. It took a full year
before most of the beaches had been cleaned, primarily by local young
volunteers.

Legacy of the Spill

Lebanese Environmental Minister Yacoub Sarraf called the spill "the
biggest environmental disaster in Lebanon's history." Scientists,
fishermen, and activists were particularly concerned for local marine
ecosystems. Eggs from bluefin tuna, a species already driven to the
edge by overfishing, are particularly sensitive to such contamination.
The oil covered the beaches just as endangered sea turtles were
hatching, killing an untold number of hatchlings.

The costs of the disaster, in terms of fishing, tourism, and cleanup,
have been estimated at up to $200 million. Although the United States
provided Israel with the jets and ordinance that caused the oil spill,
the U.S. government refused to contribute more than $5 million to the
cleanup effort.

The environmental damage was not restricted to the oil spill. The
total fuel capacity of the storage tanks at the Jiyeh plant was
approximately 75,000 cubic meters. None of the oil was salvaged,
meaning that what did not spill into the sea or seep into the ground
burned up. The blaze lasted 10 days, sending toxic fumes into the
surrounding area, including greater Beirut, with a population of over
two million residents. Plumes of black smoke were visible for over 40
miles. Ash deposits covered a wide area, more than a foot deep in some
places.

Contrasting Reactions in Congress

Congressional Democrats in large part recognized the extent of the
disaster in the Gulf of Mexico, and were outspoken in their
denunciation of BP and others responsible. For example, Rep. Jan
Schakowski (D-IL) declared that "the environmental catastrophe in the
Gulf region is one of biblical proportions, and the economic and
emotional toll on the people there is beyond devastating," insisting
that the "responsible parties must be held accountable." Similarly,
Diana DeGette (D-CO) declared, "This is a massive environmental
disaster that we are really going to be living with and dealing with
for many years to come...We're really going to have to hold BP's feet
to the fire and make sure businesses are adequately compensated."
Other members of Congress were clear that they would insure that those
at fault would be held responsible, with Majority Whip Jim Clyburn
(D-SC) declaring that "it is important that BP be held fully
accountable for their negligence" and Rosa DeLauro (D-CT) insisting,
"We need to make companies pay."

Yet when the victims of a massive oil spill are not the predominantly
white residents along the northern shores of the Gulf of Mexico, but
instead are Arabs living in the eastern Mediterranean, their
perspective is very different. Shakowski, DeGette, Clyburn, and
DeLauro - along with the overwhelming majority of their House
Democratic colleagues - joined their Republican counterparts in not
only refusing to demand Israel be held accountable, but actually
defending the Israeli assault. Like most targets of the Israeli war on
Lebanon that summer, the Jiyeh power plant and its fuel tanks had no
relation with the militant group Hezbollah, the alleged target of the
Israeli attacks. Just two days after the bombing and the resulting oil
spill, however, the U.S. House of Representatives - in a resolution
that passed by a 410-8  vote, referred to the Israeli attacks as
"appropriate action[s] to defend itself." Congress even went as far as
claiming that such attacks against Lebanon's civilian infrastructure
were "in accordance with international law."

Such an assertion runs counter to a broad consensus of international
legal authorities, however. For example, Amnesty International
concluded, after extensive research and analysis that included a
review of Israeli interpretations of the laws of war, that the
"Israeli forces committed serious violations of international human
rights and humanitarian law, including war crimes." The International
Red Cross, long recognized as the guardian of the Geneva Conventions
on the conduct of war, declared that Israel violated the principle of
proportionality in the conventions as well as the prohibition against
collective punishment. Similarly, UN High Commissioner for Human
Rights Louise Arbour - who served as a prosecutor in the international
war crimes tribunals on Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia - noted how
the Israeli government was engaging in war crimes and Jan Egeland,
head of United Nations relief operations, referred to the
"disproportional response" by Israel to Hezbollah's provocations -
such as the attack on the Jiyeh power plant - as "a violation of
international humanitarian law."

The House resolution also insisted that the Israeli attacks on Lebanon
were in accordance with Article 51 of the UN Charter, which grants the
right of self-defense. None of the congressional offices I contacted,
however, was able to explain how this kind of environmental warfare
constituted legitimate self-defense. Furthermore, a reading of the UN
Charter reveals that Article 33 requires all parties to "first of all,
seek a solution by negotiation, enquiry, mediation, conciliation,
arbitration, judicial settlement, resort to regional agencies or
arrangements, or other peaceful means of their own choice," which
Israel had refused to do. John B. Larson (D-CT), speaking in reference
to Republican apologists for the major oil companies, declared, "I
don't know how anyone could side with the CEO of BP over the victims
of the Gulf oil spill at a time like this." He has been unable to
explain, however, how he and his fellow Democrats could side the
Israeli government in this heinous act of environmental warfare.

Political Fallout?

Interestingly, the willingness by such congressional representatives
to accept such large-scale environmental destruction and other war
crimes as legitimate acts of self-defense did not prompt any major
environmental groups or other key liberal constituencies to withdraw
their support.  Instead, leading environmental groups endorsed the
re-election of scores of Democratic supporters of Israel's attacks on
Lebanon, essentially communicating that politicians who defend serious
acts of ecological sabotage need not worry about the political
consequences of their actions.

One of the most important lessons of environmentalism is the
understanding of the interconnectedness of the world's ecology: that
we are living on one planet.  The willingness of so many Democrats in
Congress to self-righteously decry the negligence of BP for causing a
massive oil spill on America's shores only to defend the wanton
destruction of U.S.-provided weaponry that caused a massive oil spill
on foreign shores primarily affecting people of color may be
indicative of a kind of environmental racism.

If the planet is going to survive, both politicians and self-described
environmental organizations must defend the environment whatever the
geopolitics of a particular region and whoever the most immediate
victims of its destruction may be.

Stephen Zunes is Middle East editor for Foreign Policy In Focus. He is
a professor of Politics at the University of San Francisco and the
author of Tinderbox: U.S. Middle East Policy and the Roots of
Terrorism (Common Courage Press, 2003.)