Contemporary history is usually written by academics with access to the main protagonists, usually politicians or military commanders, inert archives, and press accounts. This history is usually antiseptic – there are no rotting piles of corpses to embarrass the generals. It is also imbued with certainty – historians usually don’t question the politician’s say-so. It is rare for mainstream historians to listen to victims; their accounts are seldom incorporated into the victor’s history. What sets Joe Sacco apart is that not only is he a great artist, but also a peoples’ historian who is willing to listen to the victims; his historiography is imbued with sympathy and respect for the these victims; their history is worthwhile recording. Sacco also focused on a usually-ignored slice of history. In 2001, he travelled in Gaza with Chris Hedges, the American journalist, to research an article about the 1956 massacres for an article for Harper’s magazine. When the article finally appeared, the history of the massacres had been editorially expunged; not all histories are treated equally. Perhaps it was this incident that piqued his interest to write about the neglected massacres.

Sacco quotes Abed El-Rantisi, the Hamas leader who was subsequently assassinated, saying about the 1956 massacres: “… this sort of action can never be forgotten… they planted hatred in our hearts.” To understand the Palestinians it is important to take into account the history that moulded their politics and social currents; this history should also inform future discussions about possible solutions. It is cynically facile for the likes of Shimon Peres, the Israeli president, to urge Palestinians to “look forward” and ignore the past. Alas negotiations and a future reconciliation will only be possible if the victims of the Israeli colonial project are accorded a modicum of justice and recognition for their suffering. Barring a proper war crimes tribunal, a future reconciliation will require a South African-style Truth and Reconciliation Commission where the massacres at Deir Yassin, Safat, Jenin 2002, Gaza 2009, … and Khan Yunis and Rafah 1956 are acknowledged.

The massacre

The massacre at the Rafah school's entrance as recounted by one of the victims and drawn by Joe Sacco.

Sacco’s images depicting the massacres are haunting. The men older than 15-years of age were herded along a road constantly beaten, pushed against walls, terrorized with over-the-head gunfire, and then forced to pass a gauntlet at a school entrance where soldiers with large wooden clubs beat the entrants; those who passed this deadly hurdle had to jump over rolls of barbed wire. Thereafter the Palestinians were either singled out if they were wearing uniforms, if they were betrayed by collaborators, or merely if they stood out because of their appearance. In Rafah, some of the “wanted” men were taken to a side road and shot or beaten to death; others were loaded onto buses and taken to prison in Israel. Sacco’s images not only capture the horror of the events, but also the painful memories, or the conflicting reports. It is a slightly blurred rendition of history, very much like the nature of the witnesses’ memories.

The tyranny of explanations

Contemporary reportage about Gaza or the Palestinian condition usually describes the latest barbarity dispensed by the Israelis, and then automatically adds an Israeli-justification helpfully provided by the smooth Israeli military public relations officers. These are some of the lame justifications: “the men were killed because they were ‘wanted men’”; “the house was demolished because there were ‘militants’ there”; “the wall is being built for security”; “Gaza was attacked in 2009 to ‘stop the rocket attacks’”; and so on. Much of the Israeli rationale provided for the latest outrage is self-serving and often simply suggests that there was a justification in a given action. If there was a rationale, then the killing of civilians is deemed “understandable” and, the spokesman will add in an undertone, that the so-called collateral damage — the civilians killed — is regrettable, and it was unintentional. Seldom are such banal justifications challenged.

At the end of the book Sacco inserts Moshe Dayan’s rationale for the 1956 assault on Gaza and it looks absurd when juxtaposed to the victims’ accounts. However, earlier Sacco provides an Israeli rationale for the massacres, and possibly this is a questionable part of the book. Israelis purportedly rounded up the Palestinians to root out the fedayeen who were conducting raids into what is considered Israel. Sacco quotes Mordechai Bar-On, Moshe Dayan’s right-hand-man, to provide this self-serving justification. However, one only has to remember what happened a few years earlier, in 1948, to find a more plausible rationale for the massacre. Yosef Nahmani, an Israeli witness to the massacre in Safat on 6 November 1948, described how that massacre was conducted, and it is eerily reminiscent of what happened in Rafah 1956.² In both instances, the men were herded down the streets into a corridor where they were beaten with wooden clubs and gunned down. Unlike 1956, the 1948 massacre did not require a pretext. However, what unifies both sordid episodes is that they were part of the means to make the Israeli colonial project possible, i.e., driving the people off the land. Alas, some more history is needed to provide this more accurate rationale.

It is all in a footnote…

What Sacco has done in this book is to rescue the 1956 massacres at Rafah and Khan Yunis from oblivion. The footnotes, the title of his book, really refer to the massacres in 1956. The importance of this history, albeit footnotes, is that it puts current events into perspective. The time frame explaining what is happening in Gaza doesn’t start with the rockets fired at Sderot in 2008; taking a broader context highlights the nature of the mass crimes perpetrated against the Palestinian people during many decades. It also shows that for a people without a future, the past and the present are compressed. The massacres of the past resonate closely with the everyday violence perpetrated against the Palestinians enduring a siege and further dispossession today.

Sacco has produced much more than a beautifully crafted book. It deserves to be read and studied by historians who might seek to transform these footnotes into a bona fide chapter of history that deserves to be remembered. Sacco’s book is also an act of solidarity; indicating that if someone’s history is important enough to write about, it suggests that one is in solidarity with those people today. And that is something the Palestinians under siege in Gaza today are in dire need of; never before in history have the victims of colonial oppression been boycotted and ostracized by Europeans and Americans. Reading about their history also reminds us that they have been treated in this shoddy and barbaric manner for decades.

1. Joe Sacco is perhaps best known for his Palestine (2001) and Safe Area Goražde (2000). Footnotes in Gaza (2009) was published by Jonathan Cape, London. All these books are oral histories brought to life in Sacco’s drawings.
2. Yosef Nahmani was the director of the Jewish National Fund office in eastern Galilee during the Nakba and in his diaries he documents the massacres and ethnic cleansing he witnessed in 1948.

The case of Tony Greenstein

In January 2008, an activist group in Brighton, UK, sought to host an event with Gilad Atzmon, a world renowned Jazz saxophonist, thinker, and writer (a frequent contributor to Dissident Voice). A church hall was found as a venue for the talk, but the event was undermined when Tony Greenstein initiated a smear campaign. TonyG sent defamatory letters to the venue director and threatened that a group would picket the event; similar defamatory flyers were distributed in the area. Instead of attending the talk where TonyG could have debated Gilad, he chose to shut down the event by levelling vile accusations of anti-semitism, holocaust denial, etc. Now, we happen to live in what is putatively still a democracy, and one would expect people to behave accordingly, to act in a civil manner and to engage in an open discussion. What TonyG chose to do has all the hallmarks of totalitarian societies, where debate is barred, and where dissenters are vilified and threatened. The only missing stage prop would have been for TonyG to distribute his vile flyers wearing jackboots.

And what causes TonyG’s tantrums? Gilad Atzmon and Paul Eisen have written some essays in which they examine the origins of the “conflict” in Palestine by looking at our own society. Some see the “conflict” as a post-1967 issue where only the occupied West Bank and Gaza are matters of contention (Israel “proper” has already been conceded as a Jewish state), others take a broader post-1948 framework, but Gilad Atzmon and Paul Eisen look at the broader Jewish society. It is a fact that the most fascistic and violent settlers are those who emigrated from the United States. So, why is it that American zionists arriving in Israel are eager to dispossess and ethnically cleanse Palestinians? What is it in American society that explains this behaviour? Similarly, why are American Jews (or other diaspora Jews) so intent on promoting the Israeli colonial project? Why does the “Israel Lobby” receive such wide support and funding? Why do politicians throughout Europe form pro-Israel groups like Labour Friends of Israel, European Friends of Israel…? All of these questions are pertinent to the “conflict” and the continued grand larceny of Palestinian land. It would seem that examining our own society to determine where the Israel imperative comes from would be a worthwhile and welcome research exercise, and this is exactly what Gilad Atzmon and Paul Eisen have done. Paul Eisen’s contributions can be found here, and the article that seems to have upset TonyG most is “Jewish Power.” Similarly, Gilad Atzmon’s contributions can be found here, and TonyG seems most upset by “The Protocols of the Elders of London.”

If we read Gilad’s and Paul’s contributions, we will find a very productive discussion about “our” society. It is usually very easy to discuss and criticize others, but when it is closer to home it becomes more uncomfortable, and possibly the reason TonyG is upset. Another reason TonyG may dislike Gilad’s articles is that TonyG is a humourless person. Many of Gilad’s articles are suffused with humour, but such wit is usually taken as an insult by humourless and insecure people.

Tony’s tribe

TonyG is a member of “Jews against Zionism” (JAZ), a London-based groupuscle of former ultra-lefties who consider themselves to be the real anti-zionists. However, much of their evident activity seems to be directed against Gilad Atzmon and Paul Eisen who also happen to be anti-zionists! If JAZ actually spent the same effort railing against carnivore zionists as they expend against Gilad and Paul Eisen, then one could say that the groupuscle had some merit. However, most of their public effort is directed against Gilad.

The creation of a solidarity group with the Palestinians which is premised on the exclusion of all but a certain “in-group”, replicates the apartheid that we are supposedly fighting. In London there are several “Jews this/that groups” like “Jews against Zionism”, or “Jews for Justice”, etc. Instead of becoming part of a wider movement, they segregate themselves and recreate the tribal components that might actually be part of the problem. Many of the members of these groupuscles attend solidarity meetings and are easily detected because (1) they often preface their statements with “as a Jew I think…”; (2) they seek to “raise awareness” to issues dealing with “anti-semitism” or the holocaust; and (3) often raise objections about comments made about Israel, the Israel lobby, or media bias with statements such as “that is anti-semitic”, and thereby attempt to smother discussion.

While JAZ may be a worthwhile groupuscle if they actually confronted their own society, their activity becomes meaningless or detrimental if they merely segregate themselves, or if they primarily criticize others about their stance on zionism, anti-semitism, or the holocaust. While JAZ may be putatively in favour of a boycott of Israeli products or academia, they subvert the project by producing lists of recondite conditions which must be met to make a boycott acceptable. Such groups are also detrimental if their excessive zeal about anti-semitism results primarily in censoring discussion. By simply broadening the frame of reference of the Israeli colonial project to include analysis of the Jewish society, Gilad Atzmon and Paul Eisen earned themselves the vile “anti-semitic” label. Thus JAZ is accusing two Jews of being “anti-semitic”; this accusation is virtually the same as the “self-hating-Jew” accusation-of-last-resort flung by the usual zionist apologists. JAZ and TonyG are possibly indicating that Gilad and Paul are not part of their tribe but belong to some unacceptable “Other”.

Maybe Jews are too accustomed to requiring kosher labels in everything they consume. A visit to the supermarket shows that kosher products have a little label on the package. Maybe in societal discourse, magazines or intellectual life we are also starting to see the same phenomenon. Thus speakers at events will require their little stamp of approval before they are even allowed near the podium. This is already evident when Palestinians are invited to speak at events. Before they are accepted they will be asked what they think of the one-state vs. two-state solutions, and those who are critical of the one-state will not be invited, or even invited, but then dis-invited to really rub it in. Anyone having something positive to say about Hamas or Islamic groups will also suffer the same fate. And when anyone wants to discuss zionism, then the same censoring process seems to take place. JAZ and TonyG are there to hand out kosher labels to “anti-zionists”. Those who don’t pass their rigid qualification standards are then barred or vilified. Better yet, those who encompass Jewish society in their critique are branded with nasty labels, and the self-censoring crowd will not attend their events or read their articles. Maybe orthodoxy certificates have already become standard means to censor.

Against censorship and in favour of civil discourse

The attempts to bar or censor the Brighton event incensed me. Who is the little — and that is really the only adjective that comes to mind — squirt who has been vilifying Gilad Atzmon and Paul Eisen, sending out defamatory letters and picketing their events? I wrote a brief comment about TonyG’s efforts to bar Gilad Atzmon’s talk, and this elicited another TonyG-tantrum. Our email exchange quickly degenerated with TonyG’s brusque “don’t write to me again”. In the meantime he used sections of my direct email exchange with him to write a vile article castigating me for my defence of Gilad and PaulE — TonyG labelled me an apologist for holocaust deniers and anti-semites. Well thank you Tony, but I am not going to be too bothered by insults spewed by a pipsqueak who happens to have a criminal record; your desire to insult me also devalues the meaning of your favourite terms of abuse. First, I find it absurd and obscene that Gilad Atzmon and Paul Eisen are smeared with “anti-semite” labels, and I find it mildly amusing that my defence of their freedom of speech lands me with an “apologist for anti-semites”. Second, the holocaust has been milked for propaganda purposes as Norman Finkelstein’s masterful book The Holocaust Industry has demonstrated, and it is necessary to wrest the appropriation of the holocaust from zionist misuse. There is also a need to do away with the cult of exclusive remembrance — the genuflecting at Yad Vashem; the construction of hundreds of holocaust memorials, etc. There is a need to transform the lessons of the holocaust into a universal message where “never again” applies to all. Alas, taking this stance may cause TonyG to throw further tantrums.

It would seem that the Israeli genocidal project against the Palestinians should trigger vigorous action — implement boycotts, stop the preferential access Israelis have to Europe, etc. It is necessary to confront the collusion of European governments with the Israeli colonial project. Instead one finds contemptible groupuscles engaging in vilification campaigns and disruptive tactics at the time when clear action is needed. Maybe this is where TonyG really demonstrates his true colours — his actions distract Palestine solidarity organizations from the most important task on hand. And wouldn’t that be what zionist groups actually desire?

Tony Greenstein is a contemptible person who has wasted much time, degraded civil discourse, and insulted important pro-justice activists. Palestinian solidarity organizations should be aware that individuals may be disruptive due to their personal insecurity and emotional hang-ups, but they also may be deliberate agents provocateurs. Or as our African friends like to say, beware of the snakes in the grass.

Most inhabitants of Western countries are afflicted by nefarious delusions about the nature of their societies and government policy; the public at large is led to believe that their societies are superior, and their governments’ policies are noble and generous. The illusions have to do with the dissonance between the fabricated image and the reality of state power, especially when it entails wars waged against third world countries. Awful wars are waged for crass motives, yet they are sold on the basis that they are driven by benevolent intent. Promotion of democracy, freedoms, human rights, women’s rights, and even religious tolerance are some of the purported motives for current interventions, subversion or wars. Since the 1990s, in the lead-up to the wars against former Yugoslavia, the primary justification offered to wage war was that it was necessary to safeguard human rights or to improve the humanitarian conditions of the target population. If the blatant hypocrisy wasn’t bad enough, the Left’s delusions regarding the stated humanitarian rationale for wars has had a distinctly deleterious effect on the Left as a movement and the organized opposition to the depredations of their states. Jean Bricmont’s Humanitarian Imperialism is an extensive analysis of the “humanitarian war” rationale, and how its twisted arguments should be countered and its rationale for war rejected. One of the defining aspects of the Left of yesteryear was an opposition to imperialism and its consequent wars; Bricmont’s important contribution aims to resurrect the principled opposition to the new imperial wars waged primarily by the United States and Britain.

Subversion of International Law

Perhaps the most important point addressed in this book is that the “humanitarian intervention” rationale served as a cynical means to sideline international law; it is usually presented as one requiring utmost speed to avert further disaster and therefore there is no time for formalities such as observing the UN Charter or international law in general. For at least two decades, the US has been itching to emasculate the UN even further and to undermine the basis of international law; the means to obtain this objective has been to promote “humanitarian wars” or even “humanitarian bombing” (it is difficult to concoct a nicer oxymoron).¹ What is disconcerting is that this Trojan horse wasn’t repelled by the principal human rights organizations, the so-called public intellectuals, or groups on the Left. The acceptance of the justification for wars has undermined the anti-war movement and it seems that few are aware of the stark implications of a debilitated international legal framework, i.e., a world afflicted with incessant wars and ruled by the law of the jungle. Those seeking to resist imperial wars or obtain a modicum of justice ought to defend the principle of international law, and certainly not allow it to be undermined by disingenuous appeals for war.

Kissing your SUV goodbye

If the US and its allies wage wars on the basis of false justifications, then the question arises what their real motives are. Another important section of Bricmont’s book analyzes the nature of state power and the real reasons for wars or interventions. His analysis suggests that one of the reasons wars are waged is to guarantee access to raw materials and markets.² It is also fair to say that most western societies owe their economic development very much to the access to cheap resources, and most interventions seek to continue to guarantee such access. Even the tiniest/poorest third world countries are whipped into compliance – no deviation is tolerated. If one rejects the notion of wars to guarantee cheap resources then there are serious implications for our societies; our economies will have to be weaned from such cheap supplies entailing costly restructuring. To change our societies so that they are less destructive to others requires rejecting delusions about our states, it demands rejecting interventionist wars, and certainly confronting specious justifications for such wars.

Clearing up arguments

Bricmont provides a lengthy analysis of the pro-war humanitarian arguments, and, in order to do so, also addresses the ineffective anti-war arguments used by some on the Left. Maybe it is fair to suggest that the Left in western countries has sometimes engaged in less-than-clear thinking. In the past Leftist groups opposed wars against third world countries as a matter of principle, but beginning in the late 1990s some succumbed to the humanitarian interventionist ideology; what is surprising is how effective this ploy has been. Others reject wars, but do so using weak, confusing or even contradictory arguments. In countering the pro-war arguments, Bricmont provides analysis suggesting the strongest counter-arguments, and how the twisted historical analogies used to sell wars are best dealt with (e.g., appeasement, or confronting Hitler early on). Bricmont’s analysis of the Second World War analogies – a favorite with the human rights crusaders – should certainly be studied by anyone opposing wars.

What is missing

While the book deals with pro-war humanitarian arguments, it doesn’t mention that some humanitarian disasters haven’t elicited the same reaction. For human rights crusaders some cases deserve the intervention imperative, yet others are neglected. While they demand intervention in Darfur they are mysteriously silent about Congo; Palestine is perhaps the most neglected issue. Since part of the book deals with exposing the hypocrisy in the way wars are sold, maybe the book could have highlighted the cases where the vocal advocates for war apply a double standard.

The book is perhaps best read in conjunction with Diana Johnstone’s Fools’ Crusade (Johnstone is also the translator of Bricmont’s book). While Humanitarian Imperialism deals with the humanitarian war topic in general, Fools’ Crusade deals with a case history of this issue, i.e., the war against Yugoslavia, a particularly important chapter for the humanitarian war rationale and the origins of this ideology. Her book provides a historical background of the way the wars against Yugoslavia were deliberately and cynically planned. Kirsten Sellars’ The Rise and Rise of Human Rights is another important book providing additional context. Sellars presents a history of how human rights have been exploited by the United States and Britain, and it also provides an unflattering history of the principal human rights organizations. Human Rights Watch in particular has been a key organization pushing for humanitarian wars, and a proper appreciation of such organizations is necessary to counter their influence. Finally, while Bricmont refers to a few of the principal proponents of humanitarian wars, the so-called public intellectuals or Liberals, more of these human rights crusaders need to be taken to task about their positions.³ Edward S. Herman and David Peterson have compiled a list of these operators and it is also worth reading in conjunction with Bricmont’s book.⁴ One of the listed crusaders is Bernard Kouchner, the recently appointed French Foreign Minister, and his interventionist proclivities may well explain the changing French policy aligning itself closer to US policy.

Applying the lessons to Darfur

Bricmont’s book doesn’t deal with Darfur in any great detail, but one should apply its lessons to this case in rejecting calls for intervention. There are several reasons for this, and the primary one is that it has been a stated objective of the neocons to “take out” Sudan⁵, and if this rotten gang bays for intervention, it behooves one to reconsider joining the chorus. The US has stepped up its presence in the region by organizing an invasion of Somalia, establishing a military presence in Chad, arming some Sudanese rebel groups, etc. The US seeks to undermine Sudan for reasons unrelated to the humanitarian situation, e.g., denying oil resources to its competitors. The US has also used the Darfur issue to deflect attention from its own depredations in Iraq or Afghanistan. Furthermore, several US-based zionist groups have taken up the Darfur issue for equally cynical ends. Pushing the Darfur issue is viewed among some of these groups as a means of deflecting attention from Israel, suggesting that the situation in Darfur is worse and therefore “why single out Israel”. Divestment from companies doing business in Sudan serves the similar purpose of undermining efforts in the US to launch a divestment from Israel or boycott campaign. The situation in Darfur was also exploited after the Israeli war of aggression against Lebanon in 2006; as soon as the war ended, the media focus shifted immediately and preponderantly to cover the Darfur situation in order to deflect attention from a criminal war by US/Israel. There is also the question of focus as a humanitarian catastrophe of a much higher magnitude in Congo has barely elicited a peep. Finally, it is also clear that much of the conflict has to do with population dislocations due to environmental change, and it is likely that armed interventions aren’t the best solution.

If we reject intervention as Bricmont urges us to do, there is an issue about what must be done. According to Jonathan Steele, negotiations among local groups will likely result in accommodation and conflict resolution.⁶ Armed intervention on the other hand could only make matters worse.

Just like the chickenhawks, but more likely useful fools

The neocon chickenhawks are best known for urging the US military to go to war while they remained safely ensconced in their think tanks. The leftists or Liberals who have jumped on the humanitarian war bandwagon engage in very much the same hypocrisy. When anyone today prescribes “intervention”, they are really only urging the military of their state to attack other countries, while they themselves are sitting pretty. Someone else will die for the positions they propound, and it is certainly a very different attitude compared to those who joined the International Brigades in Spain – no chickens then. What makes matters worse is that the military was really not established to further humanitarian aims, but is meant to impose the interests of state power. Recently, the British military was concerned that “increasing emotional attachment to the outside world” had led the British public to expect humanitarian interventions.⁷ The UK military sought to shape public attitudes so that military activities wouldn’t be constrained or, let alone, face demands to have the military be used in legitimate peacekeeping! When the military are actually used for “humanitarian intervention” this means that the rationale has been exploited by state power to sell its wars and they have even managed to get some Lefty or Liberal dupes on board. Alternatively, if a state doesn’t care to intervene in a given country, it will simply ignore the humanitarian appeals. When the British government’s hypocrisy is exposed, e.g., with the “genocide” in Darfur, it simply states that it will “consider joining multilateral action” and, of course, it has been wringing its hands about what to do.⁸ The first indication that a state doesn’t want to use its military for humanitarian ends is when there are references to “multilateral action”; translation: do nothing or simply provide token forces subject to stringent “rules of engagement”. Anyone opposed to the imperialist trends of the US and its faithful poodles should reject calls for direct military intervention in the third world; there already have been too many interventions.

Tony Judt wrote: “In today’s America, neoconservatives generate brutish policies for which liberals provide the ethical fig leaf. There is no other difference between them.”⁹ His article’s apt title is “Bush’s Useful Idiots.” When jumping on the same bandwagon as the neocons, human rights crusaders might consider whether they are being jerked around.

Conclusion

The adoption of the humanitarian war rationale has had a particularly damaging effect on what remains of the Left in Western countries; one of the basic tenets for Leftists should have been to oppose imperial wars, and it has been disconcerting to witness the adoption of the human rights lingo to either co-cheerlead wars, accept portions of the rationale for war or simply to demonstrate unreflective muddled thinking. Jean Bricmont’s book, Humanitarian Imperialism, is a clearly written guide through this moral maze, an unmasking of tendentious interpretation of history, and an antidote to the principal malaise afflicting our times: hypocrisy. It is an important contribution to help the Left to assess critically history, and to break through an intellectual logjam surrounding the so-called humanitarian wars.

1. See Alexander Cockburn, “How the US State Dept. Recruited Human Rights Groups to Cheer On the Bombing Raids: Those Incubator Babies, Once More?”, CounterPunch Newsletter, April 1999.
2. Of course, there are other reasons too — some of them irrational, others to favor Israel, etc. For further discussion see: Jean Bricmont, “The De-Zionization of the American Mind,” 12 August 2006.
3. Public intellectuals are only public or “celebrity” in so far as they present a serviceable rationale for state power. As soon as their message deviates from the interests of the state, they are quickly demoted to the ranks of relegated intellectuals.
4. Edward S. Herman and David Peterson, “Morality’s Avenging Angels: The New Humanitarian Crusaders”, Znet, 30 August 2005.
5. Wesley Clark, the former NATO commander stated on DemocracyNow: ” . . . And he said, “This is a memo that describes how we’re going to take out seven countries in five years, starting with Iraq, and then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, *Sudan* and, finishing off, Iran.’” Amy Goodman interviewed Wesley Clark, Gen. Wesley Clark Weighs Presidential Bid: “I Think About It Everyday”, 2 March 2007.
6. Jonathan Steele, “Unseen by western hysteria, Darfur edges closer to peace,” 10 August 2007.
7. Mark Curtis quoted in David Miller (ed.), Tell Me Lies: Propaganda and Media distortion in the Attack on Iraq (Pluto Press, 2004).
8. Statement by Mike Gapes MP, member of the Foreign Affairs Select Committee, Compass Conference, London, 2006.
9. Tony Judt, “Bush’s Useful Idiots,” London Review of Books, 21 Sept. 2006.