I would like to draw your attention to the following blog (click the post title to be redirected). Please read the following description and hopefully you'll check us out.
About the Project
Two Cousins, Ten Questions is a summer debate project started by two cousins from Canton, Ohio. The discussion will be based on the Chicago Tribune's tongue-in-cheek, ten question foreign policy test for any prospective presidential candidate. The questions can be found in the original article here. We intend to devote one week to a careful discussion of each question.
This project started as an effort between two cousins (us) with very different political views to engage in a civilized, reasoned debate on issues that we care passionately about - and that are crucial topics in the 2008 presidential election. In case you're unfamiliar with us, Ryan intends to vote for John McCain while Josh is currently supporting Barack Obama. After vigorous discussions (via Facebook, e-mails, and our personal blogs) concerning hot-button issues such as abortion, the Iraq war, religion, and politics, we decided to start the blog to facilitate a more open discourse on American foreign policy.
Here's how we hope everything will play out: At the start of each week we'll each post our individual response (approximately 1000 words) to the week's question. After both answers are posted, we'll begin a debate between the two of us, and open a thread for our visitors to post their answer to the question, respond to our answers, and debate with other visitors and ourselves.
At the end of the week, we'll each finish everything up by posting a short (no more than 300 words) closing argument. When Sunday rolls around, we'll start over again and head onto the next question.
One final note - we've deemed a couple of the questions (#4 and #7) inappropriate for our purposes and are looking to replace these with better debate questions. Please send us your suggestions and we'll read through them and choose a few replacements. Please help make this blog a success by contributing to the discussions, responses, and analysis. We both hope to provide a forum for discussion over one of the most important issues (foreign policy) in the upcoming November presidential elections and would greatly appreciate your help!
http://twocousinstenquestions.blogspot.com/
Monday, May 26, 2008
Withdraw Now!
To open, I do not believe the question of whether one agrees or disagrees with General Petraeus’ assessment that there is no military solution to the wide range of complicated problems can be answered with a simple “yes” or “no.” Instead of outright disagreeing with him – as I do believe there is an Iraqi military option to solve these same problems – I will qualify his statements in the context of the Bush administration’s goals for this mismanaged, ill-planned, and murderous venture into Iraq. General Petraeus obviously means that far more is needed than a military solution to achieve everything the Bush administration and most neo-conservative observers believe can be achieved when the final curtain has closed and America has claimed “victory” in the country. However, looking beyond the simple pipe dreams current American presidential administration (and much of Congress) propagates, it is clear to see that a military solution does exist to overcome the present and future problems facing Iraq. This solution will be planned and executed by strong-willed, ideological Iraqis who believe it is their duty to rise up against foreign elements causing trouble in their country (the American occupation included) and regain total control of their homeland. Maliki does indeed have a military solution to the problems facing him as Prime Minister. That solution is simple: by utilizing elements of the Iraq Security Force and various local militias loyal to the PM, Maliki can assert his will, bypass the broken, partisan, and dead-locked Iraqi legislature, and fight those who oppose him in the streets of Iraq. The military solution is a civil war Maliki believes he can win – mainly due to his ability to use some loyal militias he’s supposed to be disarming and the availability of American weaponry to forces loyal to him. It is currently unclear if Maliki could use force to become the next Iraq strongman, how long it would take him to consolidate total power over Iraq, and how Maliki’s rule would affect the lives of Iraqis – but it is certainly not outside the realm of possibility that Maliki believes this is possible and is considering it as a legitimate solution to the problems plaguing him and his fledgling government. This program is already being carried out in a limited way against his main Shi’a opposition leader Moqtada al-Sadr. Maliki should not be viewed as the democratic vanguard of Iraq, standing strong for liberal, secular, pro-Western Iraq. The Bush administration trumpets him as such and this is surely a gross error, one of many they continue to make. To conclude, Petraeus is not incorrect in his assertion that there is no military solution in Iraq, but he makes his comment in the very limited scope of the majority of American coverage and analysis of the Iraq War. He speaks only in reference to American political goals in Iraq, disregarding the will of Iraqis and PM Maliki.
Now to the second more consequential, debatable, and pundit-attracting part of the question. I want to make my view very clear on this matter. While there does exist an Iraqi military solution to the political problems facing Iraq, the political solutions necessary to create a stable Iraq, safe for its people, with a government marginally responsible to its people cannot be achieved through further American occupation of the country. The Iraqi people and government must be given a clear timeline for withdrawal, based not on ambiguous “benchmarks” but on simple calendar dates. 90-95% of American troops must be withdrawn to achieve reasonable political and national goals in Iraq.
The reasons for unilateral withdrawal are compelling, and the facts supporting it are plentiful. A complete American withdrawal from the country will be good for the Iraqi people. Withdrawal will bring increased legitimacy to the shaky, less-than-popular Iraqi government, greater stability and “normalcy” for Iraq’s 20 million remaining citizens, decrease factional violence, undermine foreign elements operating in the country, and provide a foundation to empower democratic forces in Iraqi society. Full withdrawal will be good for the American economy, foreign policy, and standing in the world. Ending the Iraq War by returning the country to Iraqis will be righting a massive wrong and will begin to restore trust in the United States – especially in the Middle East where we need it most.
The costs of continuing this useless military venture are staggering: $10 billion, 180-200 American military personnel, and approximately 3000 Iraqis dead every month. Since the invasion in 2003 the Iraqi people have suffered their own monthly (if not bi-weekly) 9/11. Roughly 1/5 of Iraqis are either dead or exiled from their homes because of the violence caused by the invasion and subsequent occupation. There are over four million refugees and as many as 650,000 Iraqis dead. The Iraqi Security Forces are well-equipped and experienced, yet their loyalties do not lie entirely with Maliki’s government. Electricity, sewage treatment, and access to safe water are still below pre-war levels. How can the Iraqi people trust American forces to secure their country when they’ve had trouble keeping the lights on and the water running? The Iraqi parliament is no closer to passing an oil sharing law than it was four years ago. Political reconciliation is simply not happening on a scale that will bring about stable democracy in the next 15 years. The Parliament does not need to confront tough issues while American forces are in the country while the US ensures Maliki’s military supremacy indefinitely. Providing a strict timeline to end the occupation of Iraq will provide a much needed impulse to the Iraqi government and especially PM Maliki. The prospect of American troops leaving the country will force him to either a.) consolidate power where he can and try to seize the country as I have talked about previously or b.) begin political reconciliation in earnest with the opposition factions and lay the groundwork for true Iraqi democracy. I believe Maliki can be persuaded (by trade agreements, military aid, economic aid, and even the threat of sanctions) to choose the latter choice. Furthermore, withdrawal will increase the legitimacy of the Iraqi government and cause moderate Iraqis who have been hesitant to support Maliki (because of his indifference to the US occupation of his country) to rally behind him. Pursuing political reconciliation and bringing opposition factions into the government will also increase the legitimacy of the government in the eyes of the Iraqi people. Maliki does not need American promises to choose reconciliation over military force. He’s simply not strong enough to seize the entire country. Withdrawing before he reaches this point will insure that democracy, no matter how fragile, will have a chance to survive.
Withdrawal of American forces will also undermine the various militias, fundamentalist religious leaders, and foreign elements (such as Al-Qaeda in Mesopotamia) currently running wild in Iraq. The opposition to the American occupation has become their strongest selling point to normal Iraqis and one of the major reasons citizens are supporting these groups instead of the Iraqi government. The Iraqi government appears weak, indifferent to American occupation and a puppet to the will of American foreign policy. Setting a timeline for withdrawal and the Iraqi government beginning to take a stronger stance on security (as it recently has in Basra and Sadr City) will cause moderate, nationalistic Iraqis to support Maliki instead of the militias, who will certainly be linked with the instability and violence in Iraq. The Iraqi people have had enough of this and support for these militias and leaders will wane following an American withdrawal. If the government is seen as exercising the will of Iraqis instead of the American occupiers, its strength will greatly increase. Withdrawing troops will help put this in motion.
On a related note, Arab Iraqis are now and have always been strongly nationalistic – the same cannot be generally said for Kurdish Iraqis. Just as Iraqis have fought the American occupation, so too will they fight obvious foreign influences (especially from Iran and groups like Al-Qaeda. With a strong, legitimate government to rally behind Iranian pressures can be stemmed and increasingly unpopular foreign Jihadist elements chased from the country. Continued occupation only helps Iran and foreign groups in Iraq as the populace must look to them to end the occupation instead of the American puppet government they believe is running their country. As these groups tend to be far more fundamentalist, apocalyptic, and violent than mainstream factions, religious groups, Maliki’s government, and the Iraqi people, the American occupation only increases support for fundamentalist Islam and pushes many moderate Iraqis further into the arms of the militant Islamic leaders.
Far from being only good for Iraq, withdrawal in the best option to strengthen American soft power, increase trust, and relieve the American people and economy of a massive, counter-productive burden. Occupation has undermined our power in the Israeli-Palestinian peace process, decreased our ability to fight Jihadist groups where they actually are strong and able to train largely unharassed (Afghanistan and Pakistan), and strengthened Iranian influence in the region (and made it much harder to seriously press Iran and address their civilian nuclear program from a position of strength). An Iraq independent of US occupation will serve as a counter to Iranian monolithic influence in the Middle East. Ending our military venture in Iraq will increase our international standing and allow us to repair our strained relationship with our European allies and Middle Eastern friends (Israel, Egypt, Turkey, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and one day Iraq) alike. Economically, $10 billion per month can be spent on a great deal else aside from occupation of a foreign country. These funds can be used at home, in Iraq to help with reconstruction (Iraqi-led reconstruction), in Afghanistan to combat Jihadist elements more effectively, to care for Iraq War veterans, and to rebuild American military forces.
Finally, and perhaps most importantly for most Americans, the withdrawal of American troops from Iraq will make the Middle East and the United States safer. The US occupation has been the greatest recruiting tool imaginable for Jihadists because it increases funding and recruiting while reinforcing their apocalyptic, violent beliefs. These groups believe the US is out to dominate the Middle East through imperialistic campaigns (Lebanon, Iraq), and colonial ventures (Israel, Saudi Arabia, Iraq again). These Jihadists believe the US seeks to control Middle Eastern oil and greatly weaken or destroy Islam. We are acting just as they prophesize in Iraq. They perpetuate stories to gain recruits and funding and we only help them by making every last one of their predictions come true. Advocates of continued occupation argue that, “if we don’t fight them there, we’ll be fighting them here” (in the US presumably). This is nothing more than circular logic. Foreign militants attack American forces in Iraq for the very reason that they are foreign forces occupying a Muslim country. Iraqis will stop killing Americans when Americans stop occupying and killing Iraqis. The foreign elements are the ones our intelligence community and military must keep an eye on. Currently, these fighters are attempting to kill Americans in Iraq. If Americans leave Iraq, they may try to plan attacks inside the US – that is true. But, this is no reason to indefinitely keep Americans in Iraq. Leaving Iraq and ending the occupation will undermine the funding and recruits that are pouring into these groups and in turn, make Americans safer. The argument that a withdrawal from Iraq will be viewed as a victory for the terrorists is as stupid as it is simplistic. Groups like Al-Qaeda will view their battle in Iraq as a victory whether we withdraw tomorrow or in 100 years. They mistakenly believe we are there to destroy Islam and steal Iraqi oil. If Islam is still standing when we leave (as it certainly will be), they will claim victory. As for regular Iraqis, Middle Easterners, and the rest of the world – their views will be much different.
What I am calling for is full withdrawal of all American troops as soon as humanly possible. Barack Obama says 16 months. This is too long. If possible, we should announce our intentions to leave Iraq to the current Iraqi government in as soon as 6 months (let’s shoot for Christmas 2008). We should surely retain close diplomatic, economic, and security ties to Iraq and help them to rebuild their own country through aid packages for infrastructure, economic development, and security arrangements. This is not about placing blame for faulty intelligence, the decision to go to war, the execution of policy and strategy. This is about moving on, getting out of Iraq, saving lives, saving face, restoring trust in American foreign policy and trying to salvage the best possible outcome out of a very bad situation. We must stop viewing our occupation in terms of victory and defeat – a disgusting debate – but more in terms of what can reasonably be achieved, what serves American national security, and what will help save lives (Iraqi and American).
Monday, April 21, 2008
A Ray of Truth
Through the dark clouds of lies and misinformation swirling ominously around the Bush administration and its conduct regarding the war in Iraq, comes a single desperate ray of truth. On April 2, 2008, retired 3-Star general William Odom testified before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on Iraq. Odom provided scathing criticisms of the Bush administration's strategy and tactics in Iraq and hotly contested the highly touted reports of the success of last year's "troop surge."
From Wikipedia:
William Eldridge Odom (born June 23, 1932) is a retired U.S. Army 3-star general, and former Director of the NSA under President Ronald Reagan, which culminated a 31 year career in military intelligence, mainly specializing in matters relating to the Soviet Union. After his retirement from the military he became a think tank policy expert and a university professor and has since became known for his outspoken criticism of the Iraq War and warrantless wiretapping of American citizens.
Here is the full transcript of General Odom's testimony:
"Good morning Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. It is an honor to appear before you again. The last occasion was in January 2007, when the topic was the troop surge. Today you are asking if it has worked. Last year I rejected the claim that it was a new strategy. Rather, I said, it is a new tactic used to achieve the same old strategic aim, political stability. And I foresaw no serious prospects for success.
I see no reason to change my judgment now. The surge is prolonging instability, not creating the conditions for unity as the president claims.
Last year, General Petraeus wisely declined to promise a military solution to this political problem, saying that he could lower the level of violence, allowing a limited time for the Iraqi leaders to strike a political deal. Violence has been temporarily reduced but today there is credible evidence that the political situation is far more fragmented. And currently we see violence surge in Baghdad and Basra. In fact, it has also remained sporadic and significant inseveral other parts of Iraq over the past year, notwithstanding the notable drop in Baghdad and Anbar Province.
More disturbing, Prime Minister Maliki has initiated military action and then dragged in US forces to help his own troops destroy his Shiite competitors. This is a political setback, not a political solution. Such is the result of the surge tactic.
No less disturbing has been the steady violence in the Mosul area, and the tensions in Kirkuk between Kurds, Arabs, and Turkomen. A showdown over control of the oil fields there surely awaits us. And the idea that some kind of a federal solution can cut this Gordian knot strikes me as a wild fantasy, wholly out of touch with Kurdish realities.
Also disturbing is Turkey's military incursion to destroy Kurdish PKK groups in the border region. That confronted the US government with a choice: either to support its NATO ally, or to make good on its commitment to Kurdish leaders to insure their security. It chose the former, and that makes it clear to the Kurds that the United States will sacrifice their security to its larger interests in Turkey.
Turning to the apparent success in Anbar province and a few other Sunni areas, this is not the positive situation it is purported to be. Certainly violence has declined as local Sunni shieks have begun to cooperate with US forces. But the surge tactic cannot be given full credit. The decline started earlier on Sunni initiative. What are their motives? First, anger at al Qaeda operatives and second, their financial plight.
Their break with al Qaeda should give us little comfort. The Sunnis welcomed anyone who would help them kill Americans, including al Qaeda. The concern we hear the president and his aides express about a residual base left for al Qaeda if we withdraw is utter nonsense. The Sunnis will soon destroy al Qaeda if we leave Iraq. The Kurds do not allow them in their region, and the Shiites, like the Iranians, detest al Qaeda. To understand why, one need only take note of the al Qaeda public diplomacy campaign over the past year or so on internet blogs. They implore the United States to bomb and invade Iran and destroy this apostate Shiite regime. As an aside, it gives me pause to learn that our vice president and some members of the Senate are aligned with al Qaeda on spreading the war to Iran.
Let me emphasize that our new Sunni friends insist on being paid for their loyalty. I have heard, for example, a rough estimate that the cost in one area of about 100 square kilometers is $250,000 per day. And periodically they threaten to defect unless their fees are increased. You might want to find out the total costs for these deals forecasted for the next several years, because they are not small and they do not promise to end. Remember, we do not own these people. We merely rent them. And they can break the lease at any moment. At the same time, this deal protects them to some degree from the government's troops and police, hardly a sign of political reconciliation.
Now let us consider the implications of the proliferating deals with the Sunni strongmen. They are far from unified among themselves. Some remain with al Qaeda. Many who break and join our forces are beholden to no one. Thus the decline in violence reflects a dispersion of power to dozens of local strong men who distrust the government and occasionally fight among themselves. Thus the basic military situation is far worse because of the proliferation of armed groups under local military chiefs who follow a proliferating number of political bosses.
This can hardly be called greater military stability, much less progress toward political consolidation, and to call it fragility that needs more time to become success is to ignore its implications. At the same time, Prime Minister Maliki's military actions in Basra and Baghdad, indicate even wider political and military fragmentation. We are witnessing is more accurately described as the road to the Balkanization of Iraq, that is, political fragmentation. We are being asked by the president to believe that this shift of so much power and finance to so many local chieftains is the road to political centralization. He describes the process as building the state from the bottom up.
I challenge you to press the administration's witnesses this week to explain this absurdity. Ask them to name a single historical case where power has been aggregated successfully from local strong men to a central government except through bloody violence leading to a single winner, most often a dictator. That is the history of
feudal Europe's transformation to the age of absolute monarchy. It is the story of the American colonization of the west and our Civil War. It took England 800 years to subdue clan rule on what is now the English-Scottish border. And it is the source of violence in Bosnia and Kosovo.
How can our leaders celebrate this diffusion of power as effective state building? More accurately described, it has placed the United States astride several civil wars. And it allows all sides to consolidate, rearm, and refill their financial coffers at the US expense.
To sum up, we face a deteriorating political situation with an over extended army. When the administration's witnesses appear before you, you should make them clarify how long the army and marines can sustain this band-aid strategy.
The only sensible strategy is to withdraw rapidly but in good order. Only that step can break the paralysis now gripping US strategy in the region. The next step is to choose a new aim, regional stability, not a meaningless victory in Iraq. And progress toward that goal requires revising our policy toward Iran. If the president merely renounced his threat of regime change by force, that could prompt Iran to lessen its support to Taliban groups in Afghanistan. Iran detests the Taliban and supports them only because they will kill more Americans in Afghanistan as retaliation in event of a US attack on Iran. Iran's policy toward Iraq would also have to change radically as we withdraw. It cannot want instability there. Iraqi Shiites are Arabs, and they know that Persians look down on them. Cooperation between them has its limits.
No quick reconciliation between the US and Iran is likely, but US steps to make Iran feel more secure make it far more conceivable than a policy calculated to increase its insecurity. The president's policy has reinforced Iran's determination to acquire nuclear weapons, the very thing he purports to be trying to prevent.
Withdrawal from Iraq does not mean withdrawal from the region. It must include a realignment and reassertion of US forces and diplomacy that give us a better chance to achieve our aim.
A number of reasons are given for not withdrawing soon and completely. I have refuted them repeatedly before but they have more lives than a cat. Let try again me explain why they don't make
sense.
First, it is insisted that we must leave behind military training element with no combat forces to secure them. This makes no sense at all. The idea that US military trainers left alone in Iraq can be safe and effective is flatly rejected by several NCOs and junior officers I have heard describe their personal experiences. Moreover, training foreign forces before they have a consolidated political authority to command their loyalty is a windmill tilt. Finally, Iraq is not short on military skills.
Second, it is insisted that chaos will follow our withdrawal. We heard that argument as the "domino theory" in Vietnam. Even so, the path to political stability will be bloody regardless of whether we withdraw or not. The idea that the United States has a moral responsibility to prevent this ignores that reality. We are certainly to blame for it, but we do not have the physical means to prevent it. American leaders who insist that it is in our power to do so are misleading both the public and themselves if they believe it. The real moral question is whether to risk the lives of more Americans. Unlike preventing chaos, we have the physical means to stop sending more troops where many will be killed or wounded. That is the moral responsibility to our country which no American leaders seems willing to assume.
Third, nay sayers insist that our withdrawal will create regional instability. This confuses cause with effect. Our forces in Iraq and our threat to change Iran's regime are making the region unstable. Those who link instability with a US withdrawal have it exactly backwards. Our ostrich strategy of keeping our heads buried in the sands of Iraq has done nothing but advance our enemies' interest.
I implore you to reject these fallacious excuses for prolonging the commitment of US forces to war in Iraq.
Thanks for this opportunity to testify today."
So, correct me if I am wrong - General Petraeus doesn't believe there is a military solution in Iraq, yet the Bush administration isn't really doing anything beyond "staying the course." This is directly causing more American military casualties and horrific numbers of Iraqi civilian (and military) deaths while providing no political progress. Iraq is falling apart at the seams, factions are splitting into other factions, the government is desperately fighting off any opponents (not exactly paving the way to political reconciliation) and the military is bribing tribal leaders not to kill American or Iraqi government troops (which costs as much as $250,000 a day PER LEADER!) It just seems so absurd to me. Of course, our lame duck president doesn't feel any of the consequences nor does he seem to be affected by the situation HE and his administration has created and continues to blindly support.
Want another absurdity? John McCain wants to increase American forces in Iraq to help stabilize the country. The presence of the American military in Iraq and the puppet Iraqi government are the two destabilizing forces themselves. Despite the assertion of our top military man in Iraq, McCain blazes his own trail. He wants more troops for an undisputed American victory. Talk of an American "victory" in Iraq is disgusting. Who cares about victory for the occupiers? Let's talk about saving lives, ending occupation, and leaving Iraq for the Iraqis.
Want another absurdity?
From Wikipedia:
William Eldridge Odom (born June 23, 1932) is a retired U.S. Army 3-star general, and former Director of the NSA under President Ronald Reagan, which culminated a 31 year career in military intelligence, mainly specializing in matters relating to the Soviet Union. After his retirement from the military he became a think tank policy expert and a university professor and has since became known for his outspoken criticism of the Iraq War and warrantless wiretapping of American citizens.
Here is the full transcript of General Odom's testimony:
"Good morning Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. It is an honor to appear before you again. The last occasion was in January 2007, when the topic was the troop surge. Today you are asking if it has worked. Last year I rejected the claim that it was a new strategy. Rather, I said, it is a new tactic used to achieve the same old strategic aim, political stability. And I foresaw no serious prospects for success.
I see no reason to change my judgment now. The surge is prolonging instability, not creating the conditions for unity as the president claims.
Last year, General Petraeus wisely declined to promise a military solution to this political problem, saying that he could lower the level of violence, allowing a limited time for the Iraqi leaders to strike a political deal. Violence has been temporarily reduced but today there is credible evidence that the political situation is far more fragmented. And currently we see violence surge in Baghdad and Basra. In fact, it has also remained sporadic and significant inseveral other parts of Iraq over the past year, notwithstanding the notable drop in Baghdad and Anbar Province.
More disturbing, Prime Minister Maliki has initiated military action and then dragged in US forces to help his own troops destroy his Shiite competitors. This is a political setback, not a political solution. Such is the result of the surge tactic.
No less disturbing has been the steady violence in the Mosul area, and the tensions in Kirkuk between Kurds, Arabs, and Turkomen. A showdown over control of the oil fields there surely awaits us. And the idea that some kind of a federal solution can cut this Gordian knot strikes me as a wild fantasy, wholly out of touch with Kurdish realities.
Also disturbing is Turkey's military incursion to destroy Kurdish PKK groups in the border region. That confronted the US government with a choice: either to support its NATO ally, or to make good on its commitment to Kurdish leaders to insure their security. It chose the former, and that makes it clear to the Kurds that the United States will sacrifice their security to its larger interests in Turkey.
Turning to the apparent success in Anbar province and a few other Sunni areas, this is not the positive situation it is purported to be. Certainly violence has declined as local Sunni shieks have begun to cooperate with US forces. But the surge tactic cannot be given full credit. The decline started earlier on Sunni initiative. What are their motives? First, anger at al Qaeda operatives and second, their financial plight.
Their break with al Qaeda should give us little comfort. The Sunnis welcomed anyone who would help them kill Americans, including al Qaeda. The concern we hear the president and his aides express about a residual base left for al Qaeda if we withdraw is utter nonsense. The Sunnis will soon destroy al Qaeda if we leave Iraq. The Kurds do not allow them in their region, and the Shiites, like the Iranians, detest al Qaeda. To understand why, one need only take note of the al Qaeda public diplomacy campaign over the past year or so on internet blogs. They implore the United States to bomb and invade Iran and destroy this apostate Shiite regime. As an aside, it gives me pause to learn that our vice president and some members of the Senate are aligned with al Qaeda on spreading the war to Iran.
Let me emphasize that our new Sunni friends insist on being paid for their loyalty. I have heard, for example, a rough estimate that the cost in one area of about 100 square kilometers is $250,000 per day. And periodically they threaten to defect unless their fees are increased. You might want to find out the total costs for these deals forecasted for the next several years, because they are not small and they do not promise to end. Remember, we do not own these people. We merely rent them. And they can break the lease at any moment. At the same time, this deal protects them to some degree from the government's troops and police, hardly a sign of political reconciliation.
Now let us consider the implications of the proliferating deals with the Sunni strongmen. They are far from unified among themselves. Some remain with al Qaeda. Many who break and join our forces are beholden to no one. Thus the decline in violence reflects a dispersion of power to dozens of local strong men who distrust the government and occasionally fight among themselves. Thus the basic military situation is far worse because of the proliferation of armed groups under local military chiefs who follow a proliferating number of political bosses.
This can hardly be called greater military stability, much less progress toward political consolidation, and to call it fragility that needs more time to become success is to ignore its implications. At the same time, Prime Minister Maliki's military actions in Basra and Baghdad, indicate even wider political and military fragmentation. We are witnessing is more accurately described as the road to the Balkanization of Iraq, that is, political fragmentation. We are being asked by the president to believe that this shift of so much power and finance to so many local chieftains is the road to political centralization. He describes the process as building the state from the bottom up.
I challenge you to press the administration's witnesses this week to explain this absurdity. Ask them to name a single historical case where power has been aggregated successfully from local strong men to a central government except through bloody violence leading to a single winner, most often a dictator. That is the history of
feudal Europe's transformation to the age of absolute monarchy. It is the story of the American colonization of the west and our Civil War. It took England 800 years to subdue clan rule on what is now the English-Scottish border. And it is the source of violence in Bosnia and Kosovo.
How can our leaders celebrate this diffusion of power as effective state building? More accurately described, it has placed the United States astride several civil wars. And it allows all sides to consolidate, rearm, and refill their financial coffers at the US expense.
To sum up, we face a deteriorating political situation with an over extended army. When the administration's witnesses appear before you, you should make them clarify how long the army and marines can sustain this band-aid strategy.
The only sensible strategy is to withdraw rapidly but in good order. Only that step can break the paralysis now gripping US strategy in the region. The next step is to choose a new aim, regional stability, not a meaningless victory in Iraq. And progress toward that goal requires revising our policy toward Iran. If the president merely renounced his threat of regime change by force, that could prompt Iran to lessen its support to Taliban groups in Afghanistan. Iran detests the Taliban and supports them only because they will kill more Americans in Afghanistan as retaliation in event of a US attack on Iran. Iran's policy toward Iraq would also have to change radically as we withdraw. It cannot want instability there. Iraqi Shiites are Arabs, and they know that Persians look down on them. Cooperation between them has its limits.
No quick reconciliation between the US and Iran is likely, but US steps to make Iran feel more secure make it far more conceivable than a policy calculated to increase its insecurity. The president's policy has reinforced Iran's determination to acquire nuclear weapons, the very thing he purports to be trying to prevent.
Withdrawal from Iraq does not mean withdrawal from the region. It must include a realignment and reassertion of US forces and diplomacy that give us a better chance to achieve our aim.
A number of reasons are given for not withdrawing soon and completely. I have refuted them repeatedly before but they have more lives than a cat. Let try again me explain why they don't make
sense.
First, it is insisted that we must leave behind military training element with no combat forces to secure them. This makes no sense at all. The idea that US military trainers left alone in Iraq can be safe and effective is flatly rejected by several NCOs and junior officers I have heard describe their personal experiences. Moreover, training foreign forces before they have a consolidated political authority to command their loyalty is a windmill tilt. Finally, Iraq is not short on military skills.
Second, it is insisted that chaos will follow our withdrawal. We heard that argument as the "domino theory" in Vietnam. Even so, the path to political stability will be bloody regardless of whether we withdraw or not. The idea that the United States has a moral responsibility to prevent this ignores that reality. We are certainly to blame for it, but we do not have the physical means to prevent it. American leaders who insist that it is in our power to do so are misleading both the public and themselves if they believe it. The real moral question is whether to risk the lives of more Americans. Unlike preventing chaos, we have the physical means to stop sending more troops where many will be killed or wounded. That is the moral responsibility to our country which no American leaders seems willing to assume.
Third, nay sayers insist that our withdrawal will create regional instability. This confuses cause with effect. Our forces in Iraq and our threat to change Iran's regime are making the region unstable. Those who link instability with a US withdrawal have it exactly backwards. Our ostrich strategy of keeping our heads buried in the sands of Iraq has done nothing but advance our enemies' interest.
I implore you to reject these fallacious excuses for prolonging the commitment of US forces to war in Iraq.
Thanks for this opportunity to testify today."
So, correct me if I am wrong - General Petraeus doesn't believe there is a military solution in Iraq, yet the Bush administration isn't really doing anything beyond "staying the course." This is directly causing more American military casualties and horrific numbers of Iraqi civilian (and military) deaths while providing no political progress. Iraq is falling apart at the seams, factions are splitting into other factions, the government is desperately fighting off any opponents (not exactly paving the way to political reconciliation) and the military is bribing tribal leaders not to kill American or Iraqi government troops (which costs as much as $250,000 a day PER LEADER!) It just seems so absurd to me. Of course, our lame duck president doesn't feel any of the consequences nor does he seem to be affected by the situation HE and his administration has created and continues to blindly support.
Want another absurdity? John McCain wants to increase American forces in Iraq to help stabilize the country. The presence of the American military in Iraq and the puppet Iraqi government are the two destabilizing forces themselves. Despite the assertion of our top military man in Iraq, McCain blazes his own trail. He wants more troops for an undisputed American victory. Talk of an American "victory" in Iraq is disgusting. Who cares about victory for the occupiers? Let's talk about saving lives, ending occupation, and leaving Iraq for the Iraqis.
Want another absurdity?
Clever Comments
Recently a visitor to this blog (a Palestinian with excellent English language skills I assume) posted a comment regarding the op-ed in Haaretz entitled "10 Commandments for Israel and Palestine." I wanted to highlight his/her comments regarding the difference between Zionist and Palestinian claims.
"...[the author] sells the conflict as a 'Islam vs. Judaism', when it is anything but. It is Zionism vs. everyone who gets in their way. Palestinians are made up of Muslims, Christians and Jews. All of whom oppose the Zionist state and its occupation. This is not a trivial point. We (Muslims and Christians) do not have a faith based claim on Palestine... it is the natural claim of people living there, and who have lived for over 2 thousand years. This applies to Palestinian Jews, but I list them seperately for it is my understanding that Jews have a faith based claim on Palestine (their promised land) when the Messiah returns to release them from the exile, and to restablish Palestine. This is not the Zionist claim, not the Zionist aim in Palestine. Their aim is to establish a land for Jews, and to reenter the European domain as an independenent Jewish state and people. So that they will be respected, and be freed from the subbordinate status that the Europeans subjected them to (this is what I got from the book 'From Hertzl to Rabin: a history of Zionism'). The two claims are NOT the same."
I think this really adds a great deal to the original article and helps to clarify some of the author's statements. Thanks for the comment and analysis!
"Like gang warfare"
Gideon Levy (Haaretz) compares the Israeli-Gaza fighting to gang warfare.
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/976462.html
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/976462.html
Wednesday, April 2, 2008
More Links...
I have posted two new links to the "Inform Yourself" section
Middle East Report: This is a monthly publication by the Middle East Research and Information Project. They have tons of interesting web-only articles available on a variety of Middle East topics ranging from woman's issues to the Oslo peace process. This is a great site to wander around in your free time if you're looking for very objective information on Middle East issues.
24 Steps to Liberty: An Iraqi journalist keeps this very insightful blog on the American occupation of Iraq. His opinion posts are extremely informative and definitely shed light on the occupation from Iraqi eyes - a view we so rarely have the opportunity to see.
Enjoy the new links! I promise a few new articles written by me for the blog pretty soon. I'm currently working on an essay about John McCain's foreign policy so be on the lookout for that.
Later...
Middle East Report: This is a monthly publication by the Middle East Research and Information Project. They have tons of interesting web-only articles available on a variety of Middle East topics ranging from woman's issues to the Oslo peace process. This is a great site to wander around in your free time if you're looking for very objective information on Middle East issues.
24 Steps to Liberty: An Iraqi journalist keeps this very insightful blog on the American occupation of Iraq. His opinion posts are extremely informative and definitely shed light on the occupation from Iraqi eyes - a view we so rarely have the opportunity to see.
Enjoy the new links! I promise a few new articles written by me for the blog pretty soon. I'm currently working on an essay about John McCain's foreign policy so be on the lookout for that.
Later...
Saturday, March 29, 2008
Too Good to Pass Up
My own personal Middle East superhero, Daniel Levy has a post on his blog about future American foreign policy in the region. It is pretty much a step by step, "How-To" guide to the next president of the United States (Barack Obama, hopefully). It is, again, too good to pass up. Read and be enlightened. Mr. Levy will help you avoid the murky "swamp of ignorance" and "bog of misunderstanding", and lead you to the promised land of just and lasting peace in the Middle East.
Friday, March 14, 2008
The Ten Commandments for Israel & Palestine
Haaretz has an op-ed article today that was very refreshing to read. The author did a great job, I can't really add anything that would improve it. Perhaps this could be the "declaration of principles" Bush and Condi are trying to get Abbas and Olmert to agree on? What I wouldn't give to see both sides sign off on this document.
Wednesday, March 12, 2008
Bridging the Gap with John McCain
Here's a little break from the Middle East and a look at the 2008 elections:
Today I decided to take an in-depth look at the Repulican Party Nominee John McCain to see if there were issues that I agreed with him on. With the exception of Ron Paul, I always believed John McCain to be the most tolerable Republican candidate. With that said, here are my opinions about John McCain
Foreign Policy:
McCain is a huge supporter of military interventionism (unilateral if necessary) on the foreign policy front. I disagree entirely with him on this position with one exception: if the country/regime/group poses an IMMEDIATE and real threat to American citizens. The US military should only intervene unilaterally to protect American lives that are in immediate danger. I absolutely do not believe the Iraq war fit into this category and cannot support his foreign policy beliefs. His statement regarding keeping American troops in Iraq for 100 years "if needed" betrays a great ignorance regarding conflicts, tensions, and ideas in the Middle East. A continued presence in Iraq fuels terror groups bent on attacking American targets wherever is easiest and only creates more "undeterrable" terror cells. On a positive note, I do agree with his lack of confidence in Donald Rumsfeld.
As most anyone that knows me already understands, I oppose his policy of non-negotiation with Iran and Syria. We've tried this policy for the last decade and it hasn't worked, why continue?
I am fully behind him regarding torture and Guantanamo Bay. It's refreshing to hear a Republican argue fervently against both. However, he voted against a bill banning the use of waterboarding by CIA agents. I'm worried he's going to take a stance similar to GW: "We don't torture, but we're not going to discuss what we do to 'enemy combatants'"
Social Security and Health Care:
He's in favor of privatized social security. I agree with him. His health care plan isn't awful. I just don't think it's far-reaching enough. I can support his plan to allow individuals to buy insurance nationwide (rather than just in-state) and providing tax credits to people that get health insurance. I would like to see a non-mandatory federal health care plan similar to Obama's though. We've got the money, we've got the smarts. A plan like that would really help to fill in the gaps in our current system. It's not a pipe dream, it's a possibility. Pointing to flaws in European systems doesn't constitute a strong enough criticism. We have the resources to make it work.
Campaign Finance:
The McCain-Feingold Reform act was needed. Kudos to him for that. I support his views on campaign finance reform, but again, think any candidate that takes a lot of money from PACs and lobbying groups has a tendency to let his/her views be too strongly influenced by those interests.
Social Policy:
Voted yes on a $75 million bill to provide money for abstinence only education. He opposed a $100 million bill to decrease teen pregnancy through sex education and contraceptives. These abstinence only programs don't work, we know this, the government knows this. He's wasting money. Teach abstinence, but teach safe sex too. Otherwise, we fail 50% of our youth. He wants to repeal Roe v. Wade. That's a supreme court/constitutional issue. I support abortion rights as a right a woman has concerning her own body. I agree with his support of stem cell research. Bravo McCain, there's some smarts, finally. He's a big supporter of the War on Drugs. That program doesn't work either. Why throw more money down the drain, McCain? I support his opposition to the Federal Marriage Amendment. He believes each state should decide whether to legalize gay marriage. This is a rights issue. On these type of issues, we need the same guarantees regardless of state. I support legalizing gay marriage. He opposes it. I think it's a basic rights issue. It's discriminatory to not allow gays to marry and it's unneeded government babysitting. McCain supports teaching intelligent design in schools. No science supports this theory. There's no place for this in our public schools. As a country we're falling behind in education, let's reverse the trend by teaching real science. Intelligent design has a place - private schools, churches, and the home. Science has a place - public schools, universities, and laboratories.
Environment and Energy:
Again, it's refreshing to hear a Republican actually admit climate change is worrisome. He's been at odds with the Bush administration over these views. I could support his environmental views. He wants to build new nuclear power plants to get us off of oil. I applaud that. I like Obama's initiatives to provide money for research into alternative energy sources. McCain's has good views, but it seems their not far-reaching enough. This is beginning to become a theme of his candidacy for me.
Immigration:
I like his views on immigration. He favors creating a guest worker program and promoted a bill to legalize 12-20 million illegal residents. I support those.
Conclusion:
McCain is not an awful candidate, not by any means. I disagree with him regarding most (if not all) social issues and that makes it hard for me to vote for him. I think his foreign policy is more of the same failed cowboy antics we've been up to since before the end of the Cold War. He comes off as an honest man with passion for politics and making the country better. On a few issues (health care, environment, energy) he has good policies but I don't think they are far-reaching. I believe he's really a "don't rock the boat" candidate. He's not really into change on a large scale, which I believe is throughly needed in this country after the Bush administration. He's not a bad guy and it does restore a bit of my confidence in our country that he is the Republican nominee. If he is elected, things will get better - not worse, and that's what I need to see.
Regardless, I'd support either Clinton or Obama over him in November.
Today I decided to take an in-depth look at the Repulican Party Nominee John McCain to see if there were issues that I agreed with him on. With the exception of Ron Paul, I always believed John McCain to be the most tolerable Republican candidate. With that said, here are my opinions about John McCain
Foreign Policy:
McCain is a huge supporter of military interventionism (unilateral if necessary) on the foreign policy front. I disagree entirely with him on this position with one exception: if the country/regime/group poses an IMMEDIATE and real threat to American citizens. The US military should only intervene unilaterally to protect American lives that are in immediate danger. I absolutely do not believe the Iraq war fit into this category and cannot support his foreign policy beliefs. His statement regarding keeping American troops in Iraq for 100 years "if needed" betrays a great ignorance regarding conflicts, tensions, and ideas in the Middle East. A continued presence in Iraq fuels terror groups bent on attacking American targets wherever is easiest and only creates more "undeterrable" terror cells. On a positive note, I do agree with his lack of confidence in Donald Rumsfeld.
As most anyone that knows me already understands, I oppose his policy of non-negotiation with Iran and Syria. We've tried this policy for the last decade and it hasn't worked, why continue?
I am fully behind him regarding torture and Guantanamo Bay. It's refreshing to hear a Republican argue fervently against both. However, he voted against a bill banning the use of waterboarding by CIA agents. I'm worried he's going to take a stance similar to GW: "We don't torture, but we're not going to discuss what we do to 'enemy combatants'"
Social Security and Health Care:
He's in favor of privatized social security. I agree with him. His health care plan isn't awful. I just don't think it's far-reaching enough. I can support his plan to allow individuals to buy insurance nationwide (rather than just in-state) and providing tax credits to people that get health insurance. I would like to see a non-mandatory federal health care plan similar to Obama's though. We've got the money, we've got the smarts. A plan like that would really help to fill in the gaps in our current system. It's not a pipe dream, it's a possibility. Pointing to flaws in European systems doesn't constitute a strong enough criticism. We have the resources to make it work.
Campaign Finance:
The McCain-Feingold Reform act was needed. Kudos to him for that. I support his views on campaign finance reform, but again, think any candidate that takes a lot of money from PACs and lobbying groups has a tendency to let his/her views be too strongly influenced by those interests.
Social Policy:
Voted yes on a $75 million bill to provide money for abstinence only education. He opposed a $100 million bill to decrease teen pregnancy through sex education and contraceptives. These abstinence only programs don't work, we know this, the government knows this. He's wasting money. Teach abstinence, but teach safe sex too. Otherwise, we fail 50% of our youth. He wants to repeal Roe v. Wade. That's a supreme court/constitutional issue. I support abortion rights as a right a woman has concerning her own body. I agree with his support of stem cell research. Bravo McCain, there's some smarts, finally. He's a big supporter of the War on Drugs. That program doesn't work either. Why throw more money down the drain, McCain? I support his opposition to the Federal Marriage Amendment. He believes each state should decide whether to legalize gay marriage. This is a rights issue. On these type of issues, we need the same guarantees regardless of state. I support legalizing gay marriage. He opposes it. I think it's a basic rights issue. It's discriminatory to not allow gays to marry and it's unneeded government babysitting. McCain supports teaching intelligent design in schools. No science supports this theory. There's no place for this in our public schools. As a country we're falling behind in education, let's reverse the trend by teaching real science. Intelligent design has a place - private schools, churches, and the home. Science has a place - public schools, universities, and laboratories.
Environment and Energy:
Again, it's refreshing to hear a Republican actually admit climate change is worrisome. He's been at odds with the Bush administration over these views. I could support his environmental views. He wants to build new nuclear power plants to get us off of oil. I applaud that. I like Obama's initiatives to provide money for research into alternative energy sources. McCain's has good views, but it seems their not far-reaching enough. This is beginning to become a theme of his candidacy for me.
Immigration:
I like his views on immigration. He favors creating a guest worker program and promoted a bill to legalize 12-20 million illegal residents. I support those.
Conclusion:
McCain is not an awful candidate, not by any means. I disagree with him regarding most (if not all) social issues and that makes it hard for me to vote for him. I think his foreign policy is more of the same failed cowboy antics we've been up to since before the end of the Cold War. He comes off as an honest man with passion for politics and making the country better. On a few issues (health care, environment, energy) he has good policies but I don't think they are far-reaching. I believe he's really a "don't rock the boat" candidate. He's not really into change on a large scale, which I believe is throughly needed in this country after the Bush administration. He's not a bad guy and it does restore a bit of my confidence in our country that he is the Republican nominee. If he is elected, things will get better - not worse, and that's what I need to see.
Regardless, I'd support either Clinton or Obama over him in November.
Friday, February 29, 2008
"Patience"
This article in Maan today was an appropriate and extremely saddening followup to my post on Dimona earlier today. Killing is killing. The quote made by the grandmother in a time of unimaginable sorrow and perhaps anger does bring me a tiny bit of comfort and hope. She asks God for what? Patience. This just does not seem to fit the image we are shown by the Western media everyday of Palestinians and Gaza in general. Where is the screaming woman promising to sacrifice all of her children and grandchildren to "kill the Jews?" This woman wants peace, as many Israelis and Palestinians do.
My greatest hope right now is that Israel with exercise restraint and not invade the Gaza Strip. So many more will die needlessly. Will they have enough patience?
A 5 month old baby boy. Just more "collateral damage?" A sad, but understandable casualty in the "War on Terror?" Absolutely not. Murder at its most technologically advanced and morally ambiguous. What of the pilot who fired the missile? Is there remorse? Will he hold his own baby boy in his arms tonight, never knowing he took another man's greatest love with the push of a button?
The one word that keeps running through my head from the grandmother: "Patience." There is just so much meaning and symbolism. The very thing that is running out so quickly on both sides is what this grieving woman prays for.
My greatest hope right now is that Israel with exercise restraint and not invade the Gaza Strip. So many more will die needlessly. Will they have enough patience?
A 5 month old baby boy. Just more "collateral damage?" A sad, but understandable casualty in the "War on Terror?" Absolutely not. Murder at its most technologically advanced and morally ambiguous. What of the pilot who fired the missile? Is there remorse? Will he hold his own baby boy in his arms tonight, never knowing he took another man's greatest love with the push of a button?
The one word that keeps running through my head from the grandmother: "Patience." There is just so much meaning and symbolism. The very thing that is running out so quickly on both sides is what this grieving woman prays for.
Dimona
During the first week of February I traveled to Jordan to visit a friend living in Amman before the semester at Birzeit University started. The day before I intended to travel to the Israeli-manned border crossing I became aware of the bombing attack by two Palestinians on a shopping mall in Dimona. The attack was carried out by two suicide bombers who had entered Gaza through Egypt and then subsequently into southern Israel. 1 Israeli woman was killed and 11 others wounded. This marked the first suicide attack in Israel in over a year.
I postponed my journey to the border an extra day to avoid the delays and increased security checks at the crossing, and found myself deeply disturbed by the attacks. The Israeli and American media largely attributed the attacks to the destroyed border fence between Egypt and the Gaza Strip, talked of the possibility of a ground operation in Gaza, and spouted cliches along the lines of "the terrorists hate our freedom." The woman and 11 other wounded Israelis became excuses to discuss Israeli security policy and the "War on Terror." The two Palestinian murderers were cast as truly evil and mindless men ruled by an irrational hatred of Jews and a strict obedience to Islam. Just 14 more statistics in the world's favorite propaganda war.
International activists and strong supporters of the Palestinian cause used the occasion to highlight the fact that one year had passed without a suicide bombing in Israel, arguing that regardless of the frequency of attacks Israel had not eased the effects of the occupation on the populace. They pointed out that more Palestinian civilians had indeed been killed that day than Israelis, that the ratio of dead is as high as 10:1, depending on when you begin counting. They used the dead to talk about the harsh and oppressive conditions for the Palestinians in the occupied territories, especially the Gaza Strip. Some used the disgusting euphemism "martyrdom bombing" when referencing the killing - a term I will NEVER use and vigorously oppose of.
I found almost nobody in the worldwide press who lamented the murder for the ones that were killed and wounded and condemned the bloody actions of the day/week/month/year/past 60 years. More dead Jews in a shopping mall. More dead Palestinians crushed beneath the rubble of their homes. Why could not anyone stand up and say, "Enough, these actions - every action that continues this conflict - are wrong and should be opposed by anyone who values human life!" Instead the victims are always forgotten and attributed to an intractable conflict Americans couldn't care less about.
Who deserves the blame? Everyone. The British of 100 years ago for thinking they could carve up the world to their liking - breaking promises they never intended to keep. Olmert and Abbas for leaving Annapolis with empty hands and saying, "we'll have a solution by the end of 2008, we're peacemakers!" Every drop of blood spilled this year is on their hands. Israelis for not standing up and telling their government to end the occupation and find a peaceful solution. Palestinians for not standing up and collectively opposing anyone or any group that commits violent attacks in Israel. American politicians for not pushing Israel hard enough to make peace. George W. Bush for trumpeting his role in the peace process and then letting everyone down through his always-present bumbling incompetence. Yasser Arafat for being a corrupt, petty, and thoroughly stupid leader. Ariel Sharon for being a racist madman. The media in general for using dead bodies as an excuse to talk policy and bring in "experts" on terrorism and miliant Islam. You for turning the page when you see the article in the newspaper, or turning the channel when the story comes on the 5:00 news. Everytime you say, "they'll never get along, they've been fighting for thousands of years," you damn another innocent caught in the middle to death. Me for not having any kind of real plan as to what I am personally going to do to help bring peace for both sides.
Killing civilians is evil. I rarely use that word because of all the baggage that comes along with it, but I cannot think of a strong enough word at the present. Whether they're blow up in an Israeli pizzeria or by a bomb in their homes, evil is evil. A term nearly as horrific as "martyrdom bombing?" "Collateral Damage." Killing is killing. Murder is murder. I don't care if an accused militant who at one point fired a weapon at Israeli soldiers is killed in the blast. That 5 month old little girl is dead and whoever ordered that missile strike should rot in hell. This conflict is about death and destroyed lives. Dreams that will never ever come true because someone in a suit and tie decided another man needed to die. Lives and families blown apart because some man filled with hatred strapped a bomb to himself and looked innocent children in the eyes and pushed the detonator.
I'm not here primarily because I want a state for the Palestinian people. I am here because I want this conflict to come to a conclusion. The Palestinians talk of justice, the Israelis of security. When will they come together, with tears in their eyes for the ones who have died, and talk peace?
Of course I dream for the day, far in the future, when Israelis and Palestinians will come to Jerusalem and celebrate peace. Where pictures of dead children won't be used to make a political point. I care about the conflict because my tax dollars encourage it. Because my president says he wants peace and instead wages war. Because the missiles, tanks, and helicopters that destroy people's lives are stamped with "Made in the USA." But mostly I care about the conflict because I value human lives, dreams, and hopes. Every bullet fired by either side is a failure of the human spirit.
Missile attacks and suicide bombings destroy more than just lives. They destroy a chance for peace. They undermine the Israeli and Palestinian peace movements. They fill others with hate and an appetite for revenge. They desecrate the memories of those who have fought and died for peace. In the flash and smoke and sound of every explosion hope for a better tomorrow disappears.
I postponed my journey to the border an extra day to avoid the delays and increased security checks at the crossing, and found myself deeply disturbed by the attacks. The Israeli and American media largely attributed the attacks to the destroyed border fence between Egypt and the Gaza Strip, talked of the possibility of a ground operation in Gaza, and spouted cliches along the lines of "the terrorists hate our freedom." The woman and 11 other wounded Israelis became excuses to discuss Israeli security policy and the "War on Terror." The two Palestinian murderers were cast as truly evil and mindless men ruled by an irrational hatred of Jews and a strict obedience to Islam. Just 14 more statistics in the world's favorite propaganda war.
International activists and strong supporters of the Palestinian cause used the occasion to highlight the fact that one year had passed without a suicide bombing in Israel, arguing that regardless of the frequency of attacks Israel had not eased the effects of the occupation on the populace. They pointed out that more Palestinian civilians had indeed been killed that day than Israelis, that the ratio of dead is as high as 10:1, depending on when you begin counting. They used the dead to talk about the harsh and oppressive conditions for the Palestinians in the occupied territories, especially the Gaza Strip. Some used the disgusting euphemism "martyrdom bombing" when referencing the killing - a term I will NEVER use and vigorously oppose of.
I found almost nobody in the worldwide press who lamented the murder for the ones that were killed and wounded and condemned the bloody actions of the day/week/month/year/past 60 years. More dead Jews in a shopping mall. More dead Palestinians crushed beneath the rubble of their homes. Why could not anyone stand up and say, "Enough, these actions - every action that continues this conflict - are wrong and should be opposed by anyone who values human life!" Instead the victims are always forgotten and attributed to an intractable conflict Americans couldn't care less about.
Who deserves the blame? Everyone. The British of 100 years ago for thinking they could carve up the world to their liking - breaking promises they never intended to keep. Olmert and Abbas for leaving Annapolis with empty hands and saying, "we'll have a solution by the end of 2008, we're peacemakers!" Every drop of blood spilled this year is on their hands. Israelis for not standing up and telling their government to end the occupation and find a peaceful solution. Palestinians for not standing up and collectively opposing anyone or any group that commits violent attacks in Israel. American politicians for not pushing Israel hard enough to make peace. George W. Bush for trumpeting his role in the peace process and then letting everyone down through his always-present bumbling incompetence. Yasser Arafat for being a corrupt, petty, and thoroughly stupid leader. Ariel Sharon for being a racist madman. The media in general for using dead bodies as an excuse to talk policy and bring in "experts" on terrorism and miliant Islam. You for turning the page when you see the article in the newspaper, or turning the channel when the story comes on the 5:00 news. Everytime you say, "they'll never get along, they've been fighting for thousands of years," you damn another innocent caught in the middle to death. Me for not having any kind of real plan as to what I am personally going to do to help bring peace for both sides.
Killing civilians is evil. I rarely use that word because of all the baggage that comes along with it, but I cannot think of a strong enough word at the present. Whether they're blow up in an Israeli pizzeria or by a bomb in their homes, evil is evil. A term nearly as horrific as "martyrdom bombing?" "Collateral Damage." Killing is killing. Murder is murder. I don't care if an accused militant who at one point fired a weapon at Israeli soldiers is killed in the blast. That 5 month old little girl is dead and whoever ordered that missile strike should rot in hell. This conflict is about death and destroyed lives. Dreams that will never ever come true because someone in a suit and tie decided another man needed to die. Lives and families blown apart because some man filled with hatred strapped a bomb to himself and looked innocent children in the eyes and pushed the detonator.
I'm not here primarily because I want a state for the Palestinian people. I am here because I want this conflict to come to a conclusion. The Palestinians talk of justice, the Israelis of security. When will they come together, with tears in their eyes for the ones who have died, and talk peace?
Of course I dream for the day, far in the future, when Israelis and Palestinians will come to Jerusalem and celebrate peace. Where pictures of dead children won't be used to make a political point. I care about the conflict because my tax dollars encourage it. Because my president says he wants peace and instead wages war. Because the missiles, tanks, and helicopters that destroy people's lives are stamped with "Made in the USA." But mostly I care about the conflict because I value human lives, dreams, and hopes. Every bullet fired by either side is a failure of the human spirit.
Missile attacks and suicide bombings destroy more than just lives. They destroy a chance for peace. They undermine the Israeli and Palestinian peace movements. They fill others with hate and an appetite for revenge. They desecrate the memories of those who have fought and died for peace. In the flash and smoke and sound of every explosion hope for a better tomorrow disappears.
Sunday, February 24, 2008
Barack's Record
The DailyKos had a good article a couple of days back about Barack Obama's record in the Senate as compared to Hillary Clinton. Very good article, and it definitely helps to silence the critics of Obama's experience.
Saturday, February 23, 2008
Memories of Azzun
The small town of Azzun has recently (and sadly) been making headlines in Maan, Haaretz, and even on Reddit. In almost all cases, when a Palestinian town is featured in a news headline it is not for good reasons. I made a weekend visit to the town and a few of its perimeter villages (Izbet al-Tabib included) at the end of last semester and had intended on writing about the experience but never had the chance. The experience was the most deeply depressing, dismaying, yet influential one of my first three months in the West Bank, and really gave me a firsthand view of the harshness of curfews, travel restrictions, the annexation wall, and general military terror imposed on Palestinians living in their own towns and villages. Azzun, for me, was the unyielding, naked, and frightening truth of the Israeli occupation.
I arrived with three other Americans at the outskirts of Azzun in late November of last year during a period of on-and-off Israel Defense Force curfews in the town and the surrounding villages. Upon stepping out of the taxi, we were greeted by three young IDF soldiers guarding eight imposing cement blocks cutting Azzun off from the main highway between the cities of Qalqilya and Ramallah. These blocks have effectively cut off the town from the rest of the West Bank and prohibit any and all vehicles from leaving or entering the town. After making our way past the soldiers and the roadblocks, we were met by the enthusiastic town leaders who showed us to an apartment in the municipality building – our home away from home for the weekend.
The apartment afforded us a spectacular view of the main road and town square in Azzun, allowing us to watch the IDF patrols (armored personnel carriers, humvees, and patrol jeeps) ominously barrel through the town. During the day, we watched IDF trucks careen through the central square, conducting self-fulfilling hunts for young “terrorists.” As the convoy would arrive, Palestinian youth would hide around corners and in small shops with empty soda cans, water bottles, and the occasional small stone – waiting to “ambush” the invaders. Every time an object found its mark – the bulletproof steel of a humvee or patrol jeep – a strangely satisfying “clank” would ring out and the boys would disappear down alleyways or into shops.
During one of these patrol runs we watched from the rooftop of the municipality as an IDF jeep came to a screeching halt after being hit with an aluminum soda can. The back doors opened and out jumped two heavily armed soldiers, each equipped with flash bangs, tear gas, and an American-provided M-16 assault rifle. The soldiers took off sprinting down an alleyway after the boys while another soldier, rifle raised and ready, stood guard at the patrol jeep. The fact that two soldiers operating in a hostile “enemy” area had sprinted, weapons hanging loosely around their hips, down a twisting alleyway struck me as strange, if not reckless. Were they not afraid of an ambush by “terrorists” wielding pistols or AK-47s, kuffiyas wrapped around their faces? After much thought, I believe my initial reaction was incorrect. The IDF does not move in a cautious, military manner. They absolutely know they enjoy complete control over the population of Azzun. The individual soldiers obviously do not feel the least bit threatened driving (or even recklessly sprinting) down the roads and alleyways of the town. Why then, all the patrols, arrests, curfews, and oppression? We would later learn that soldiers had run down a 16 year old boy and dragged him back to the jeep, before transporting him to an Israeli prison.
Our contacts at the municipality informed us that Azzun had been under curfew 50% of the time for the last three weeks. In that period of time, roughly 30 Palestinians (the youngest a 13 year old boy) had been taken by IDF patrols, most arrested for the same stone-throwing that we witnessed. Three were still unaccounted for and had not returned.
After an anxious first night we awoke the next morning and followed a Palestinian family to their olive orchards to help with the harvest. This specific family’s orchards (or what is left of them) occupy a small peninsula approximately 300 yards wide by 600 yards long – surrounded on all sides by an illegally built Israeli settlement. The family must obtain permits each year to visit their own land during the olive harvest. Permits can be denied for any reason, and often allow for a window of time too small to adequately harvest the entire orchards – another Israeli policy which has greatly undermined or “de-developed” the Palestinian economy. As we finished with the day’s harvest in the late afternoon our host family received a phone call informing us that a village just outside Azzun had been placed under curfew.
Returning from the olive orchards, we arrived in the small village of Izbet al-Tabib just in time to see an Israeli convoy of two humvees and a huge military bulldozer rumble across the intersection toward Azzun. Although the vehicles were not stopping this time in Izbet al-Tabib, I could not help thinking about the uncertainty and fear the village’s residents live in. The village, one of the “unrecognized villages” in the West Bank, is not officially on any Israeli military map and thus, is considered by the Israeli government as an illegal Palestinian settlement. Nearly every structure in the village has an IDF demolition order and can be bulldozed at any time, regardless of the fact that this is in the West Bank on undisputed Palestinian land. The residents live in constant fear that each day holds the possibility that they could lose everything they’ve earned and built. Compound this with the ominous, nearly incessant rumble of Israeli bulldozers and armored vehicles around the village, and sanity becomes a guarded resource.
After a twisting, 30 minute round-a-bout journey through villages and towns because of curfews, roadblocks, and checkpoints, we arrived back at our generous host’s home near the center of Azzun. As per Arab custom, we were enthusiastically led into the sitting room, where mint tea graciously served to the four of us by our host’s wife and oldest daughter. We were carefully introduced to every member of the family and any visitors who happened to be at the house as well. A jovial, carefree attitude permeated the occasion, despite all we had seen of the Israeli presence in and around the town. The host, his family, and his many visitors laughed and sat together in the cozy living room. Dinner was prepared, and we listened to stories, jokes, and Palestinian poetry from an oversized and intricately decorated volume of poems. A light rain had begun outside, adding to the intimacy of the occasion.
As the smell of roasted chicken and rice began to emanate from the kitchen and tease our senses, the evening’s atmosphere took a startling turn. The electricity snapped off and an eerie silence, albeit for the sound of rain on the windows replaced the happy conversation and laughing. Our host quietly whispered to one of his older sons, probably close to my age, who quickly left the room to retrieve candles to light the room. One of the other visitors, a man we had met from the Azzun municipality building, received a call on his cell phone. Israeli military vehicles had entered the town and imposed a curfew on Azzun’s 10,000 citizens. He also announced, calmly, that two Palestinian boys, one 16 and another 18, had been taken to an Israeli prison near the Hawara checkpoint, presumably for throwing stones. Shira (whose own experience can be found here) asked about the electricity. Had the Israelis cut power to the town in addition to the military curfew? The man from the municipality simply shook his head, remarking that the rain could have something to do with the power outage.
Our host began ordering us not to worry, adding that we were all safe as long as we were inside and inviting us to claim places at the long table in his dining room. We all quietly made our way to the table, only the occasional whisper between the younger boys breaking the tense silence. Approximately 20 family members, neighbors, and other visitors (along with the four of us) sat down to our improvised candlelit dinner. As we began the meal, our host trying to force conversation into the uneasy dining room, a menacing blue light darted around the darkened room. “Everyone of Azzun into your homes. Stay in your homes!” a mechanical-sounding voice boomed in Arabic. Through the window we watched an Israeli patrol vehicle, its spinning sapphire emergency light bathing the street and homes with an eerie glow. The jovial atmosphere of the sitting room was now completely gone, victim to the worry and anxiety of yet another curfew. Dinner finished in this same concerned fashion, and everyone quietly filed back into the sitting room at the conclusion of the meal.
The man who had informed us of the curfew via cell phone from earlier, made hurried calls concerning the arrested boys in the dark, candlelit room. Forced conversation was punctuated by the disembodied Israeli voice and accompanying ominous blue lights from outside. When we asked, would the curfew be over? Could we return to our apartment at the municipality or must we stay here? Would there be home invasions during the curfew? Our questions had an almost frantic quality to them, and our worry was noticed by our hosts. The same worry was not shared with the Palestinians we were with. Perhaps they had grown accustomed to this, or had simply quietly resigned themselves to the helplessness of the situation in Azzun. Our hosts unanimously replied that the curfew could be over at any time and would not be announced by the Israeli military. The armored vehicles would patrol and then leave as quickly as they had come, lifting the curfew. Palestinians would then cautiously leave their homes and return to the tasks they had abandoned when the curfew was imposed. After an hour or so, the electricity came back on and our guide from the municipality offered to show us a nearby home that had been invaded a few nights before during a curfew. As we had not seen a patrol vehicle for quite some time, we reluctantly agreed, bid farewell and repeatedly thanked our hosts, and exited into the rain and darkness outside.
After a few nervous minutes walking along the shadows in the street, we arrived at a street where two adolescent boys had been keeping watch for Israeli patrols. They accompanied us to the house where we met the victims of the home invasion. The family, which included a young father, his pregnant wife, and four children, eagerly invited us in and served us mint tea and strong Arabic coffee. The oldest son swiftly prepared an arguileh (an Arabic water pipe) while the youngest son and daughter happily played with Shira. The father and owner of the house sat and slowly explained what had happened a few nights before.
That night a curfew had been imposed by the IDF at roughly 9 P.M. The family stayed inside, prepared the youngest children for bed and then the father worriedly stayed awake watching for Israeli patrols from the kitchen until he too, retired to bed around midnight. Between puffs on a cigarette, he talked of how he was awakened by loud explosions outside the house. Israeli soldiers smashed in the front door, shattering the dead bolt lock, and stormed into the house. The soldiers then threw a flashbang grenade into room where the youngest children were sleeping and crashed into the bedroom. A flashbang grenade emits an ear-shattering bang and a magnesium-based compound to stun and disorient potential hostiles. Another group of soldiers burst into the room where the man and his pregnant wife were, using another flashbang to stun the room’s occupants. The family was then rounded up into the living room, where soldiers with assault rifles guarded over these “criminals” the two young children (both less than six years) included. After a frightening few minutes, the soldiers left as quickly as they came – but not before shooting holes into the family’s rooftop water canisters, emptying the containers and depriving the home of its only water source. The man then detailed the damage to his house, leading us on a tour where we witnessed the smashed lock and door, bullet-ridden water canisters on his roof, and two spent flashbang grenades. He explained that he had indeed repaired the canisters, but not yet undertaken the extremely expensive process of having them refilled.
“They did not arrest anyone! They did not even question us,” he lamented. “Why do they break into the homes for no reason?” None of us had the answer. The man was becoming restless after telling the story, one I am sure he had told many times before in just the last few days. Before leaving the room, he informed us that his wife had been complaining of chest aches and trouble breathing since the assault. His children, no doubt, were also left scarred by the experience.
Shira talked to the daughters and mother, while the other three of us smoked arguileh with the son, some neighbors, and the municipality man. The son was in a very pleasant mood, and cracked jokes in between draws from the water pipe. A younger neighbor stood watch a few hundred yards down the street for patrol trucks. Every time a car could be heard nearby, the group snapped to attention, sentences cut off, ascertaining whether the sound was an IDF vehicle or a Palestinian car braving the arbitrary curfew. As the night wore on, we thanked our family, wished them better days ahead, and returned to our apartment in the municipality for another fitful night of sleep
We awoke early the next morning and called a taxi driver from the nearby town of Qalqilya to save four seats in his shared service to Ramallah. He met us at the roadblocks outside of Azzun and we left the town, memories of the day before deeply embedded in our minds.
I left the West Bank after an extremely busy and rushed two weeks without writing or seriously reflecting on all that had happened in Azzun. I have also not returned to the town since this November visit. After reading an article in the Israeli newspaper Haaretz, I was reminded of the people I met and the situations I saw in the town. As usual, the situation has only worsened since my visit. Haaretz described the atmosphere there as that of the second Intifada. A new, brasher, and far more brutal Israeli military commander has assumed control of Azzun and life for the Palestinians there is harsher and more frightening. Azzun is not a special case. There are many more towns and many hundreds of thousands of Palestinians in the West Bank (Gaza is a different case entirely) that share these experiences of occupation and Israeli military oppression. Sadly, occupation spares no one.
This piece was written with the intent of further thanking my generous hosts in Azzun by sharing their story. The conflict has so many intricacies, viewpoints, and counterpoints. But it also has a disgusting number of human victims. It is so easy to separate the political situation from the individual stories and experiences of the victims of this tragedy. This is an attempt, however small, to cast light on the victims of the conflict. Please share this with friends and family if you feel motivated, and do not shy away from a discussion of these very real, yet seemingly hopeless situations. There is hope, although small, here in Palestine. Most importantly, please be thankful of the gifts, both big and small, in your own life. If freedom is one of those gifts, cherish it every single day, and never give up even a small piece.
I arrived with three other Americans at the outskirts of Azzun in late November of last year during a period of on-and-off Israel Defense Force curfews in the town and the surrounding villages. Upon stepping out of the taxi, we were greeted by three young IDF soldiers guarding eight imposing cement blocks cutting Azzun off from the main highway between the cities of Qalqilya and Ramallah. These blocks have effectively cut off the town from the rest of the West Bank and prohibit any and all vehicles from leaving or entering the town. After making our way past the soldiers and the roadblocks, we were met by the enthusiastic town leaders who showed us to an apartment in the municipality building – our home away from home for the weekend.
The apartment afforded us a spectacular view of the main road and town square in Azzun, allowing us to watch the IDF patrols (armored personnel carriers, humvees, and patrol jeeps) ominously barrel through the town. During the day, we watched IDF trucks careen through the central square, conducting self-fulfilling hunts for young “terrorists.” As the convoy would arrive, Palestinian youth would hide around corners and in small shops with empty soda cans, water bottles, and the occasional small stone – waiting to “ambush” the invaders. Every time an object found its mark – the bulletproof steel of a humvee or patrol jeep – a strangely satisfying “clank” would ring out and the boys would disappear down alleyways or into shops.
During one of these patrol runs we watched from the rooftop of the municipality as an IDF jeep came to a screeching halt after being hit with an aluminum soda can. The back doors opened and out jumped two heavily armed soldiers, each equipped with flash bangs, tear gas, and an American-provided M-16 assault rifle. The soldiers took off sprinting down an alleyway after the boys while another soldier, rifle raised and ready, stood guard at the patrol jeep. The fact that two soldiers operating in a hostile “enemy” area had sprinted, weapons hanging loosely around their hips, down a twisting alleyway struck me as strange, if not reckless. Were they not afraid of an ambush by “terrorists” wielding pistols or AK-47s, kuffiyas wrapped around their faces? After much thought, I believe my initial reaction was incorrect. The IDF does not move in a cautious, military manner. They absolutely know they enjoy complete control over the population of Azzun. The individual soldiers obviously do not feel the least bit threatened driving (or even recklessly sprinting) down the roads and alleyways of the town. Why then, all the patrols, arrests, curfews, and oppression? We would later learn that soldiers had run down a 16 year old boy and dragged him back to the jeep, before transporting him to an Israeli prison.
Our contacts at the municipality informed us that Azzun had been under curfew 50% of the time for the last three weeks. In that period of time, roughly 30 Palestinians (the youngest a 13 year old boy) had been taken by IDF patrols, most arrested for the same stone-throwing that we witnessed. Three were still unaccounted for and had not returned.
After an anxious first night we awoke the next morning and followed a Palestinian family to their olive orchards to help with the harvest. This specific family’s orchards (or what is left of them) occupy a small peninsula approximately 300 yards wide by 600 yards long – surrounded on all sides by an illegally built Israeli settlement. The family must obtain permits each year to visit their own land during the olive harvest. Permits can be denied for any reason, and often allow for a window of time too small to adequately harvest the entire orchards – another Israeli policy which has greatly undermined or “de-developed” the Palestinian economy. As we finished with the day’s harvest in the late afternoon our host family received a phone call informing us that a village just outside Azzun had been placed under curfew.
Returning from the olive orchards, we arrived in the small village of Izbet al-Tabib just in time to see an Israeli convoy of two humvees and a huge military bulldozer rumble across the intersection toward Azzun. Although the vehicles were not stopping this time in Izbet al-Tabib, I could not help thinking about the uncertainty and fear the village’s residents live in. The village, one of the “unrecognized villages” in the West Bank, is not officially on any Israeli military map and thus, is considered by the Israeli government as an illegal Palestinian settlement. Nearly every structure in the village has an IDF demolition order and can be bulldozed at any time, regardless of the fact that this is in the West Bank on undisputed Palestinian land. The residents live in constant fear that each day holds the possibility that they could lose everything they’ve earned and built. Compound this with the ominous, nearly incessant rumble of Israeli bulldozers and armored vehicles around the village, and sanity becomes a guarded resource.
After a twisting, 30 minute round-a-bout journey through villages and towns because of curfews, roadblocks, and checkpoints, we arrived back at our generous host’s home near the center of Azzun. As per Arab custom, we were enthusiastically led into the sitting room, where mint tea graciously served to the four of us by our host’s wife and oldest daughter. We were carefully introduced to every member of the family and any visitors who happened to be at the house as well. A jovial, carefree attitude permeated the occasion, despite all we had seen of the Israeli presence in and around the town. The host, his family, and his many visitors laughed and sat together in the cozy living room. Dinner was prepared, and we listened to stories, jokes, and Palestinian poetry from an oversized and intricately decorated volume of poems. A light rain had begun outside, adding to the intimacy of the occasion.
As the smell of roasted chicken and rice began to emanate from the kitchen and tease our senses, the evening’s atmosphere took a startling turn. The electricity snapped off and an eerie silence, albeit for the sound of rain on the windows replaced the happy conversation and laughing. Our host quietly whispered to one of his older sons, probably close to my age, who quickly left the room to retrieve candles to light the room. One of the other visitors, a man we had met from the Azzun municipality building, received a call on his cell phone. Israeli military vehicles had entered the town and imposed a curfew on Azzun’s 10,000 citizens. He also announced, calmly, that two Palestinian boys, one 16 and another 18, had been taken to an Israeli prison near the Hawara checkpoint, presumably for throwing stones. Shira (whose own experience can be found here) asked about the electricity. Had the Israelis cut power to the town in addition to the military curfew? The man from the municipality simply shook his head, remarking that the rain could have something to do with the power outage.
Our host began ordering us not to worry, adding that we were all safe as long as we were inside and inviting us to claim places at the long table in his dining room. We all quietly made our way to the table, only the occasional whisper between the younger boys breaking the tense silence. Approximately 20 family members, neighbors, and other visitors (along with the four of us) sat down to our improvised candlelit dinner. As we began the meal, our host trying to force conversation into the uneasy dining room, a menacing blue light darted around the darkened room. “Everyone of Azzun into your homes. Stay in your homes!” a mechanical-sounding voice boomed in Arabic. Through the window we watched an Israeli patrol vehicle, its spinning sapphire emergency light bathing the street and homes with an eerie glow. The jovial atmosphere of the sitting room was now completely gone, victim to the worry and anxiety of yet another curfew. Dinner finished in this same concerned fashion, and everyone quietly filed back into the sitting room at the conclusion of the meal.
The man who had informed us of the curfew via cell phone from earlier, made hurried calls concerning the arrested boys in the dark, candlelit room. Forced conversation was punctuated by the disembodied Israeli voice and accompanying ominous blue lights from outside. When we asked, would the curfew be over? Could we return to our apartment at the municipality or must we stay here? Would there be home invasions during the curfew? Our questions had an almost frantic quality to them, and our worry was noticed by our hosts. The same worry was not shared with the Palestinians we were with. Perhaps they had grown accustomed to this, or had simply quietly resigned themselves to the helplessness of the situation in Azzun. Our hosts unanimously replied that the curfew could be over at any time and would not be announced by the Israeli military. The armored vehicles would patrol and then leave as quickly as they had come, lifting the curfew. Palestinians would then cautiously leave their homes and return to the tasks they had abandoned when the curfew was imposed. After an hour or so, the electricity came back on and our guide from the municipality offered to show us a nearby home that had been invaded a few nights before during a curfew. As we had not seen a patrol vehicle for quite some time, we reluctantly agreed, bid farewell and repeatedly thanked our hosts, and exited into the rain and darkness outside.
After a few nervous minutes walking along the shadows in the street, we arrived at a street where two adolescent boys had been keeping watch for Israeli patrols. They accompanied us to the house where we met the victims of the home invasion. The family, which included a young father, his pregnant wife, and four children, eagerly invited us in and served us mint tea and strong Arabic coffee. The oldest son swiftly prepared an arguileh (an Arabic water pipe) while the youngest son and daughter happily played with Shira. The father and owner of the house sat and slowly explained what had happened a few nights before.
That night a curfew had been imposed by the IDF at roughly 9 P.M. The family stayed inside, prepared the youngest children for bed and then the father worriedly stayed awake watching for Israeli patrols from the kitchen until he too, retired to bed around midnight. Between puffs on a cigarette, he talked of how he was awakened by loud explosions outside the house. Israeli soldiers smashed in the front door, shattering the dead bolt lock, and stormed into the house. The soldiers then threw a flashbang grenade into room where the youngest children were sleeping and crashed into the bedroom. A flashbang grenade emits an ear-shattering bang and a magnesium-based compound to stun and disorient potential hostiles. Another group of soldiers burst into the room where the man and his pregnant wife were, using another flashbang to stun the room’s occupants. The family was then rounded up into the living room, where soldiers with assault rifles guarded over these “criminals” the two young children (both less than six years) included. After a frightening few minutes, the soldiers left as quickly as they came – but not before shooting holes into the family’s rooftop water canisters, emptying the containers and depriving the home of its only water source. The man then detailed the damage to his house, leading us on a tour where we witnessed the smashed lock and door, bullet-ridden water canisters on his roof, and two spent flashbang grenades. He explained that he had indeed repaired the canisters, but not yet undertaken the extremely expensive process of having them refilled.
“They did not arrest anyone! They did not even question us,” he lamented. “Why do they break into the homes for no reason?” None of us had the answer. The man was becoming restless after telling the story, one I am sure he had told many times before in just the last few days. Before leaving the room, he informed us that his wife had been complaining of chest aches and trouble breathing since the assault. His children, no doubt, were also left scarred by the experience.
Shira talked to the daughters and mother, while the other three of us smoked arguileh with the son, some neighbors, and the municipality man. The son was in a very pleasant mood, and cracked jokes in between draws from the water pipe. A younger neighbor stood watch a few hundred yards down the street for patrol trucks. Every time a car could be heard nearby, the group snapped to attention, sentences cut off, ascertaining whether the sound was an IDF vehicle or a Palestinian car braving the arbitrary curfew. As the night wore on, we thanked our family, wished them better days ahead, and returned to our apartment in the municipality for another fitful night of sleep
We awoke early the next morning and called a taxi driver from the nearby town of Qalqilya to save four seats in his shared service to Ramallah. He met us at the roadblocks outside of Azzun and we left the town, memories of the day before deeply embedded in our minds.
I left the West Bank after an extremely busy and rushed two weeks without writing or seriously reflecting on all that had happened in Azzun. I have also not returned to the town since this November visit. After reading an article in the Israeli newspaper Haaretz, I was reminded of the people I met and the situations I saw in the town. As usual, the situation has only worsened since my visit. Haaretz described the atmosphere there as that of the second Intifada. A new, brasher, and far more brutal Israeli military commander has assumed control of Azzun and life for the Palestinians there is harsher and more frightening. Azzun is not a special case. There are many more towns and many hundreds of thousands of Palestinians in the West Bank (Gaza is a different case entirely) that share these experiences of occupation and Israeli military oppression. Sadly, occupation spares no one.
This piece was written with the intent of further thanking my generous hosts in Azzun by sharing their story. The conflict has so many intricacies, viewpoints, and counterpoints. But it also has a disgusting number of human victims. It is so easy to separate the political situation from the individual stories and experiences of the victims of this tragedy. This is an attempt, however small, to cast light on the victims of the conflict. Please share this with friends and family if you feel motivated, and do not shy away from a discussion of these very real, yet seemingly hopeless situations. There is hope, although small, here in Palestine. Most importantly, please be thankful of the gifts, both big and small, in your own life. If freedom is one of those gifts, cherish it every single day, and never give up even a small piece.
Monday, February 11, 2008
(Another) New Link Posted
Now I am just putting off writing an actual post with substance (I promise sooner or later there will indeed be one). I have added the online edition of "This Week in Palestine", a monthly publication (go figure) full of interesting articles about Palestinian life and issues along with news about happenings in and around the West Bank (mostly) to the "Inform Yourself" section. This might be a better resource for those actually living in Palestine, but others will surely find the articles written by Palestinian journalists to be very eye-opening. This month's edition is about Palestine and the environment. There are a few articles detailing the effects of global climate change on Palestine and the greater Middle East that I thought were very informative.
Again...Enjoy! The next post will have substance, that's a promise - in writing of course.
Again...Enjoy! The next post will have substance, that's a promise - in writing of course.
Denzel's Anti-Torture Speech
I have always liked Denzel Washington, and "The Siege" is nothing but a great movie with some frightening parallels to today's America. For those unfamiliar with the film, it was released in 1998 and takes place in the wake of a major terrorist attack in New York City (disturbingly similar to 9/11). Following the attacks, martial law is declared in the city and the army moves in to impose law and begins rounding up Arab-American citizens. In a spooky bit of foresight, laws such as the Patriot Act and the Department of Homeland Security are passed, eroding civil liberties in the United States. Denzel Washington plays an FBI agent during these events and makes a passionate defense of all that is good and just in the United States, eloquently arguing why we should not - and must not torture.
Sunday, February 10, 2008
Cleveland Plain Dealer Endorses Obama
Here is my first post not about Palestine, but I feel it is relevant to the topics of this blog nonetheless. Here is the link to the Plain Dealer's editorial concerning its endorsement.
I love the quote:
"Who is more likely to change the world of a child born in 2008? The answer, we think, is Barack Obama."
and of course,
"Obama's frequent talk of hope strikes some people as naive. It leads others to question his toughness. But Obama understands something his critics do not: Change requires vision and optimism, shared sacrifice and mutual trust. Hope can sustain those elements; a presidency defined by political tactics cannot."
The country needs Barack Obama.
I love the quote:
"Who is more likely to change the world of a child born in 2008? The answer, we think, is Barack Obama."
and of course,
"Obama's frequent talk of hope strikes some people as naive. It leads others to question his toughness. But Obama understands something his critics do not: Change requires vision and optimism, shared sacrifice and mutual trust. Hope can sustain those elements; a presidency defined by political tactics cannot."
The country needs Barack Obama.
Saturday, February 9, 2008
Back to Birzeit
Well, here I am, back in Birzeit, Palestine after two months at home and a few days days in Amman, Jordan. I have been here just a few days but it has been great to see the ol' Birzeit Palestine and Arabic Studies crew again (and of course meet the newcomers to the program). More Arabic classes, a couple more political science lessons (one titled "Women in Arab Society) which should be extremely interesting), and sadly - more Israeli occupation. Judging by the news outlets it seems IDF control has loosened slightly in the West Bank at a cost to 1.5 million Gazans currently under siege in their tiny seaside prison. On the way to Birzeit from the King Hussein Bridge (between Jordan and the West Bank) both checkpoints were manned but not operating, simply allowing cars to pass right through. This was refreshing of course, but Israeli soldiers deployed that deep into Palestinian territory is always worrisome. Checkpoints can come and go at any time and they spare no one - not the businessman returning for a dinner with his family, not the university student traveling to her first day of classes, and not the paramedics transporting a heart attack victim to a hospital or medical center.
In other news, I am currently searching for an apartment in Birzeit. The search has proven fruitless so far. (I've even been shown two apartments where the confused tenants came to the door and politely informed us that the flat was indeed occupied and not for rent.) There is of course, still hope: Two apartments with decent location in town are open and the owners are looking for tenants (perhaps me?). With no classifieds section or yellow pages, finding an apartment is done by finding someone who knows another who knows someone who rents apartments to foreigners. It has been frustrating but it should be solved in just a matter of a few days.
That's all for now - and it is truly great to be back in Birzeit!
In other news, I am currently searching for an apartment in Birzeit. The search has proven fruitless so far. (I've even been shown two apartments where the confused tenants came to the door and politely informed us that the flat was indeed occupied and not for rent.) There is of course, still hope: Two apartments with decent location in town are open and the owners are looking for tenants (perhaps me?). With no classifieds section or yellow pages, finding an apartment is done by finding someone who knows another who knows someone who rents apartments to foreigners. It has been frustrating but it should be solved in just a matter of a few days.
That's all for now - and it is truly great to be back in Birzeit!
Thursday, February 7, 2008
New Link Posted
Hello readers (if any are left)
I just posted a new link on this site to GlobalVoicesOnline.org
According to the site:
"Global Voices aggregates, curates, and amplifies the global conversation online – shining light on places and people other media often ignore."
It is a pretty interesting site for those looking to get a first hand view of people living in certain regions of the world. You can even choose a specific country to read articles about.
Enjoy!
I just posted a new link on this site to GlobalVoicesOnline.org
According to the site:
"Global Voices aggregates, curates, and amplifies the global conversation online – shining light on places and people other media often ignore."
It is a pretty interesting site for those looking to get a first hand view of people living in certain regions of the world. You can even choose a specific country to read articles about.
Enjoy!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)