Why bombing Ashkelon is the most tragic irony

Robert Fisk:

How easy it is to snap off the history of the Palestinians, to delete the narrative of their tragedy, to avoid a grotesque irony about Gaza which – in any other conflict – journalists would be writing about in their first reports: that the original, legal owners of the Israeli land on which Hamas rockets are detonating live in Gaza.

That is why Gaza exists: because the Palestinians who lived in Ashkelon and the fields around it – Askalaan in Arabic – were dispossessed from their lands in 1948 when Israel was created and ended up on the beaches of Gaza. They – or their children and grandchildren and great-grandchildren – are among the one and a half million Palestinian refugees crammed into the cesspool of Gaza, 80 per cent of whose families once lived in what is now Israel. This, historically, is the real story: most of the people of Gaza don't come from Gaza.

But watching the news shows, you'd think that history began yesterday, that a bunch of bearded anti-Semitic Islamist lunatics suddenly popped up in the slums of Gaza – a rubbish dump of destitute people of no origin – and began firing missiles into peace-loving, democratic Israel, only to meet with the righteous vengeance of the Israeli air force. The fact that the five sisters killed in Jabalya camp had grandparents who came from the very land whose more recent owners have now bombed them to death simply does not appear in the story.

Both Yitzhak Rabin and Shimon Peres said back in the 1990s that they wished Gaza would just go away, drop into the sea, and you can see why. The existence of Gaza is a permanent reminder of those hundreds of thousands of Palestinians who lost their homes to Israel, who fled or were driven out through fear or Israeli ethnic cleansing 60 years ago, when tidal waves of refugees had washed over Europe in the aftermath of the Second World War and when a bunch of Arabs kicked out of their property didn't worry the world.

Well, the world should worry now. Crammed into the most overpopulated few square miles in the whole world are a dispossessed people who have been living in refuse and sewage and, for the past six months, in hunger and darkness, and who have been sanctioned by us, the West. Gaza was always an insurrectionary place. It took two years for Ariel Sharon's bloody "pacification", starting in 1971, to be completed, and Gaza is not going to be tamed now.

Alas for the Palestinians, their most powerful political voice – I'm talking about the late Edward Said, not the corrupt Yassir Arafat (and how the Israelis must miss him now) – is silent and their predicament largely unexplained by their deplorable, foolish spokesmen. "It's the most terrifying place I've ever been in," Said once said of Gaza. "It's a horrifyingly sad place because of the desperation and misery of the way people live. I was unprepared for camps that are much worse than anything I saw in South Africa."

Of course, it was left to Israeli Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni to admit that "sometimes also civilians pay the price," an argument she would not make, of course, if the fatality statistics were reversed. Indeed, it was instructive yesterday to hear a member of the American Enterprise Institute – faithfully parroting Israel's arguments – defending the outrageous Palestinian death toll by saying that it was "pointless to play the numbers game". Yet if more than 300 Israelis had been killed – against two dead Palestinians – be sure that the "numbers game" and the disproportionate violence would be all too relevant. The simple fact is that Palestinian deaths matter far less than Israeli deaths. True, we know that 180 of the dead were Hamas members. But what of the rest? If the UN's conservative figure of 57 civilian fatalities is correct, the death toll is still a disgrace.

To find both the US and Britain failing to condemn the Israeli onslaught while blaming Hamas is not surprising. US Middle East policy and Israeli policy are now indistinguishable and Gordon Brown is following the same dog-like devotion to the Bush administration as his predecessor.

As usual, the Arab satraps – largely paid and armed by the West – are silent, preposterously calling for an Arab summit on the crisis which will (if it even takes place), appoint an "action committee" to draw up a report which will never be written. For that is the way with the Arab world and its corrupt rulers. As for Hamas, they will, of course, enjoy the discomfiture of the Arab potentates while cynically waiting for Israel to talk to them. Which they will. Indeed, within a few months, we'll be hearing that Israel and Hamas have been having "secret talks" – just as we once did about Israel and the even more corrupt PLO. But by then, the dead will be long buried and we will be facing the next crisis since the last crisis.

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/fisk/robert-fisk-why-bombing-ashkelon-is-the-most-tragic-irony-1216228.html

Someday they'll give a war and nobody will come.

- Carl Sandburg

Standard Operating Procedure
An important, and scary, film

Is it possible for a photograph to change the world? Photographs taken by soldiers in Abu Ghraib prison changed the war in Iraq and changed Americas image of itself. Yet, a central mystery remains. Did the notorious Abu Ghraib photographs constitute evidence of systematic abuse by the American military, or were they documenting the aberrant behavior of a few bad apples? We set out to examine the context of these photographs. Why were they taken? What was happening outside the frame? We talked directly to the soldiers who took the photographs and who were in the photographs. Who are these people? What were they thinking? Over two years of investigation, we amassed a million and a half words of interview transcript, thousands of pages of unredacted reports, and hundreds of photographs. The story of Abu Ghraib is still shrouded in moral ambiguity, but it is clear what happened there. The Abu Ghraib photographs serve as both an expose and a coverup. An expose, because the photographs offer us a glimpse of the horror of Abu Ghraib; and a coverup because they convinced journalists and readers they had seen everything, that there was no need to look further. In recent news reports, we have learned about the destruction of the Abu Zubaydah interrogation tapes. A coverup. It has been front page news. But the coverup at Abu Ghraib involved thousands of prisoners and hundreds of soldiers. We are still learning about the extent of it. Many journalists have asked about the smoking gun of Abu Ghraib. It is the wrong question. As Philip Gourevitch has commented, Abu Ghraib is the smoking gun. The underlying question that we still have not resolved, four years after the scandal: how could American values become so compromised that Abu Ghraiband the subsequent coverup could happen?

Opens in L.A. May 2
(To check out the website click here)

"The responsibility for war rests not only with those who directly cause war, but also with those who do not do everything in their power to prevent it."

~~ Pope John Paul II
Catholic Relief Services: the Beginning Years by Eileen Egan (NY: Catholic Relief Services, 1988), pp. 155-156

WAR


"War makes the victor stupid and the vanquished vengeful." ~~ Friedrich Nietzsche

"In forgiving, people are not being asked to forget. On the contrary, it is important to remember, so that we should not let such atrocities happen again. Forgiveness does not mean condoning what has been done. It means taking what happened seriously...drawing out the sting in the memory that threatens our entire existence." ~~ Bishop Desmond Tutu

"So long as governments set the example of killing their enemies, private citizens will occasionally kill theirs." ~~ Elbert Hubbard

Blinding light assaults the darkness;
Children wait for guns to cease.
In the midst of war’s confusion,
Make us instruments of peace.

Hungry for your visitation,
We are waiting –
lost,
afraid.

You alone,
O God,
can save us.
Heal the wounds that we have made.

- poet Jean McMullan, written the morning the Iraq War started

Christian Delegation in Iran




Right now there is a delegation of Christian leaders and thinkers in Iran talking to Muslim religious leaders, with the goal of diverting a potential American-Iranian conflict. One of the members of the Christian group is Jeff Carr, one of the head men from Sojourner's. You can find his letters and thoughts on God's Politics Blog, through BeliefNet.

Here's a link to one of his letters

American Withdrawal?

I am writing to hear thoughts of others, as well as voice some concerns about our current involvement in Iraq and the responsible and viable exit strategies that are being discussed.

I was one of those against the War before the US launched its unilateral campaign. As a pacifist, I was opposed to the direction of the war, and the reasons given to justify the action.

Obviously, I continue to see the war as a losing effort, the deaths of Iraqi's and Americans has gone on too long, however several issues confront me at this time and I would LOVE some input from others as well as some thoughtful and open reflection.

Don't we (America) have some responsibility to the Iraqi people to stay in Iraq until there is some order restored/legitimate government in place? The war never should have happened, and I am saddened by the actions that have taken place....however, leaving now seems to place the Iraqi people in a worse place than they were before the invasion.

I understand the reasoning behind pulling out of Iraq. I understand the questioning of the morality and wisdom of sending another 30,000 American troops to Iraq. Many politicians are (favorably) campaigning to bring back the troops and end the occupation. (notably Obama who would put a date on the exit strategy).

Now as a pacifist, I want the violence, occupation and war to end. However, I tend to think that the withdrawal of American forces would lead to MORE violence in Iraq due to a lack of strong police/military force (the Iraqi police has been ripped apart by corruption and sectarianism). Won't the Iraqi people be subject to more fear, violence and death by the evacuation?

Furthermore, I read that America is tired of losing troops in war with no forseeable end. Our casualty toll however is a fraction of that of Iraqi's. To cut out now potentially saves American lives, but at what cost for Iraqi's? Can anyone really justify the withdrawal of AMerican troops as moral, given the grave implications for the Iraqi future if we do so?

my thoughts: The war never should have happened the way it did. America should not have acted illegally, unilaterally and preemptively. But in doing so we have caused the spiral of destruction and chaos that currently dominates the Iraqi landscape. Because of American irresponsibility and poor anticipation, we MUST see that the Iraqi people do not suffer MORE when we evacuate because the costs of the War are no longer beneficial for US.

How are moral and peaceful thinkers justifying the withdrawal of American troops, when undoubtedly it will lead to the misery of Iraqi's subject to terrorism and sectarian violence?

Help me out. Thanks,

blessings

"We have not at all assimilated with the coalition forces. We have nothing to do with them, nor indeed do we have anything to do with the West. We are Christians; we are citizens like everyone else."

- Archbishop Louis Sako of Kirkuk, Iraq, speaking out against proposals by U.S. officials to create "safe havens" for Christians experiencing persecution there. (Source: The Catholic Herald)

This quote is especially interesting if looked at in the light of Bush Admin officials stating before the war, that soldiers would be "greeted as liberators."


On March 16, in an interview on NBC's "Meet the Press" Vice President Cheney said, "I think things have gotten so bad inside Iraq, from the standpoint of the Iraqi people, my belief is we will, in fact, be greeted as liberators." It was then he predicted that the regular Iraqi soldiers would not "put up such a struggle," and that even "significant elements of the Republican Guard . . . are likely to step aside." Asked if Americans are prepared for a "long, costly and bloody battle," Cheney replied: "Well, I don't think it's likely to unfold that way. . . . The read we get on the people of Iraq is there is no question but what they want to the get rid of Saddam Hussein, and they will welcome as liberators the United States when we come to do that." (Read: Article on language used by Bush officials before the war)

Even the Christian Church in Iraq seemingly desires to distance itself from American agenda or action.

While the ultimate effects of the war in Iraq remain to be seen, it is obvious very little good has transpired as a result of American military action. The region is ultimately more chaotic and lawless, there is no clear leadership and a seeming power struggle has brimmed on eruption.

What's outcome? Do troops need to start leaving? Do more troops need to come in as support? Both have been proposed recently.

Two sides to this argument: If American troops leave, it protects from suffering more American loss (in troops and in funds) and to some extent, admits, that indeed the Iraq War effort and motivation was lost. The region remains in mass chaos, suffering the damages of sectarian violence and a lack of real political power. America has to admit defeat and as long as violence and chaos reign in the region, the more America will be held responsible for their action and the lack of respect for international cooperation. Even more concerning is that Iraq may indeed be worse off (Read: UN Secretary General Kofi Annan's take). If future Iraqi government becomes closely aligned with Iran, or a brutal regime evolves as a result of sectarian violence and terror, America will look even more foolish and be held responsible for incompetence.

If American troops stay and bolster military support, it will undoubtedly continue to harm the image of the West in the Middle East, there will continue to be losses of American lives and simultaneously continue to fuel the recruitment and advances of terrorist activity, not just in Iraq, but around the globe. As exemplified since the beginning of the war, America has no effective course of action and no way to control guerilla and terrorist action. Not only does America's tarnished image suffer from further ineffectiveness, but it will also serve to similar groups as to what America can and cannot deal with.

America is in a tough spot. There seems to be no path or direction which will be helpful to the situation, or the country's image. So where does Bush go from here? He starts apologizing and admitting that "staying the course" isn't always viable. He makes amends with the United Nations and Kofi Annan. He meets with local and national figure heads in the Middle East and seeks to cooperate with them in achieving some stability in the region, bolstered by a combination of aid incentives and "eating crow". The American people were told that Iraq was a threat to national security. The American president however, has caused even more damage to the security through illegitimate action of unilateral war and preemptive strikes. It seems the only way to start to remedy these abuses and violations is to start by apologizing.

Nonviolence and The Strategy Against Terrorism
by David Cortright

In the months after 9/11, Jim Wallis challenged peace advocates to address the threat of terrorism. “If nonviolence is to have any credibility,” he wrote, “it must answer the questions violence purports to answer, but in a better way.” Gandhian principles of nonviolence provide a solid foundation for crafting an effective strategy against terrorism. Nonviolence is fundamentally a means of achieving justice and combating oppression. Gandhi demonstrated its effectiveness in resisting racial injustice in South Africa and winning independence for India. People-power movements have since spread throughout the world, helping to bring down communism in Eastern Europe and advancing democracy in Serbia, Ukraine, and beyond. The same principles - fighting injustice while avoiding harm - can be applied in the struggle against violent extremism.

Bush administration officials and many political leaders in Washington view terrorism primarily through the prism of war. Kill enough militants, they believe, and the threat will go away. The opposite approach is more effective and less costly in lives. Some limited use of force to apprehend militants and destroy training camps is legitimate, but unilateral war is not. In the three years since the invasion of Iraq, the number of major terrorist incidents in the world has increased sharply. War itself is a form of terrorism. Using military force to counter terrorism is like pouring gasoline on a fire. It ignites hatred and vengeance and creates a cycle of violence that can spin out of control. A better strategy is to take away the fuel that sustains the fire. Only nonviolent methods can do that, by attempting to resolve the underlying political and social factors that give rise to armed violence.

The most urgent priority for countering terrorism, experts agree, is multilateral law enforcement to apprehend perpetrators and prevent future attacks. Cooperative law enforcement and intelligence sharing among governments have proven effective in reducing the operational capacity of terrorist networks. Governments are also cooperating to block financing for terrorist networks and deny safe haven, travel, and arms for terrorist militants. These efforts are fully compatible with the principles of nonviolence.

Terrorism is fundamentally a political phenomenon, concluded the U.N. Working Group on Terrorism in 2002. To overcome the scourge, “it is necessary to understand its political nature as well as its basic criminality and psychology.” This means addressing legitimate political grievances that terrorist groups exploit - such as the Israel-Palestine dispute, repressive policies by Arab governments, and the continuing U.S. military occupation in Iraq. These deeply-held grievances generate widespread political frustration and bitterness in many Arab and Muslim countries, including among people who condemn terrorism and al Qaeda’s brutal methods. As these conditions fester and worsen, support rises for the groups that resist them. Finding solutions to these dilemmas can help to undercut support for jihadism. The strategy against terrorism requires undermining the social base of extremism by driving a wedge between militants and their potential sympathizers. The goal should be to separate militants from their support base by resolving the political injustices that terrorists exploit.

A nonviolent approach should not be confused with appeasement or a defeatist justification of terrorist crimes. The point is not to excuse criminal acts but to learn why they occur and use this knowledge to prevent future attacks. A nonviolent strategy seeks to reduce the appeal of militants’ extremist methods by addressing legitimate grievances and providing channels of political engagement for those who sympathize with the declared political aims. A two-step response is essential: determined law enforcement pressure against terrorist criminals, and active engagement with affected communities to resolve underlying injustices. Ethicist Michael Walzer wrote, counterterrorism “must be aimed systematically at the terrorists themselves, never at the people for whom the terrorists claim to be acting.” Military attacks against potential sympathizers are counterproductive and tend to drive third parties toward militancy. Lawful police action is by its nature more discriminating and is more effective politically because it minimizes predictable backlash effects.

Gandhi’s political genius was in understanding the power of third party opinion. He did not try to challenge the British militarily but instead organized mass resistance to weaken the political legitimacy of the Raj. The nonviolent method, Reinhold Niebuhr wrote, undermines the authority and “moral unction” of the adversary. Gandhi realized that political struggles are ultimately a battle for hearts and minds. In all his campaigns, he assiduously cultivated the support of third parties by avoiding harm to the innocent and addressing legitimate grievances. These are essential insights for the struggle against terrorism. The fight will not be won on the battlefield. The more it is waged on that front, the less likely it can be won. The goal of U.S. strategy, said the 9/11 Commission, must be “prevailing over the ideology that contributes to Islamic terrorism.” Nonviolent resistance is the opposite of and a necessary antidote to the ideology of extreme violence. Gandhi often said, “An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind.” Better to keep our eyes open as we search for more effective means of eroding support for extremism, while protecting the innocent and bringing violent perpetrators to justice.

David Cortright is the author of Gandhi and Beyond: Nonviolence for an Age of Terrorism (Paradigm Publishers, 2006) and co-founder of the Center on Global Counter-Terrorism Cooperation.

Absolute despair would be the wrong response. Instead, the disaster that is the West's current strategy in Iraq must be used as a constructive call to the international community to reconfigure its foreign policy around human security rather than national security, around health and well-being in addition to the protection of territorial boundaries and economic stability.

- Richard Horton
editor of British medical journal The Lancet which published a study by Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health estimating the total civilian death toll in the Iraq conflict to be approximately 655,000. (Source: The Guardian)

Just War

Theories of war. But how can anything, under any theory justify suffering, pain and death on those that are innocent. Men involved for no other reason than their goal of providing for those which they love. Women who's primary responsibility is to care and to love. Children who's only role is to grow old, to learn, live, love, play, with the prospect changing their world in the least. Is there anything that makes their slaughter "just". Them not us? Justice?
What is bravery?

Could bravery not be responding as snivelling backed-into-a-corner dogs? "No Choice" (apparently) we lash out.

Land of the free? Can anyone truly be free while others are in bondage? How about those that hold others in submission, are they brave?
All that I see in this Land is hypocrisy, shrouded in the fog of war, competing self-interested ideologies, using fear "rolling thunder" justice to achieve false security. Under veils of religious endowment, nothing just can come.

Just is only something attributed to righteous, humanitarian behavior that is operated with integrity and the highest moral and ethical action. Outside of this, NOTHING is just. No word. No action. No means & no ends is just, if victory comes at the expense, fatal or not, of an innocent, or of a rival (enemy).

For that matter,
if both sides suffer loss, does anyone truly win? How can one country "win" a war? What morally corrupt and substanceless framework could address such loss and atrocity and pain as VICTORY?
Our frame of mind must be abolished....maybe with the use of force?