EXCLUSIVE: Ousted Honduran President Manuel Zelaya Speaks from Nicaraguan Border on Who’s Behind the Coup, His Attempts to Return Home, the Role of the United States and More
In a Democracy Now! national broadcast exclusive, ousted Honduran president Manuel Zelaya joins us from the Nicaragua-Honduras border for a wide-ranging interview on his attempts to return home, who’s behind the coup, the role of the United States, and much more. “I think the United States is going to lose a great deal of influence in Latin America if it does not turn the coup d’état around,” Zeleya says. “It will not be able to put forth its idea about democracy. It won’t be credible before anyone.” On his message to the Honduran people, Zelaya says they should “maintain their resistance against those who want to take their rights away…so that no one will be able to disrespect them, which is what the coup regime is doing today.” [includes rush transcript]
AMY GOODMAN: Governments around the world should continue sanctions against the coup regime in Honduras. Those are the comments of the Nobel Peace Prize-winning Costa Rican President Oscar Arias, who’s trying to mediate negotiations between ousted Honduran president and the coup leaders. He was speaking at a Latin American summit in Costa Rica a day after the US State Department’s decision Tuesday to revoke the visas of four Honduran coup officials, though the US has not cut off more than $180 million in economic aid.
The Honduran coup officials have indicated a willingness to negotiate. They have, quote, “not yet recognized that President Zelaya should be reinstated,” Arias told reporters in Costa Rica on Wednesday night.
Meanwhile, protests in support of Zelaya continue in the Honduran capital and near the border with Nicaragua.
Well, today, in a Democracy Now! broadcast exclusive, we bring you an interview with the ousted Honduran president, Manuel Zelaya, who is on the border with Honduras and Nicaragua on the Nicaragua side. I spoke to President Zelaya on Wednesday afternoon, a month after he was seized by armed soldiers and flown out of his country.
AMY GOODMAN: Do you have any breaking news for us at this hour?
PRESIDENT MANUEL ZELAYA: [translated] The presidents of Central America are meeting now in Costa Rico, and they’re also putting together a condemnation of the coup. And I think they’re going to take more measures against the coup leaders throughout Latin America.
AMY GOODMAN: Do you have any plans to join them in Costa Rica?
PRESIDENT MANUEL ZELAYA: [translated] I have sent my representative, who is the Vice President, Aristides Mejia. He will be there representing me and also recognizing the effort being made by President Obama by revoking the visas of the coup leaders. It’s a good sign that declares the coup leaders as enemies of humanity.
AMY GOODMAN: It’s widely recognized that the coup would not stand without US support. What more do you think the United States has to do now?
PRESIDENT MANUEL ZELAYA: [translated] I realize that President Barack Obama and the State Department were not involved in the coup, but some very conservative sectors in the United States, sectors of the extreme right wing, have a double standard. They talk about democracy on the inside, and outside they talk about dictatorship.
AMY GOODMAN: Hillary Clinton, the Secretary of State, said your going over the border from Nicaragua into Honduras was “reckless.” Your response?
PRESIDENT MANUEL ZELAYA: [translated] Well, she doesn’t have all the necessary information that I have on the repression in the country that’s being suffered by the people. I have to get close to the people to give them support.
AMY GOODMAN: Do you plan to go into Honduras again over the border?
PRESIDENT MANUEL ZELAYA: [translated] I would do it right now, if I could. But the military are threatening to assassinate me, to kidnap me. I have never been tried or condemned. This is a de facto regime that’s null and void.
AMY GOODMAN: What about your family? They are attempting to reach you in Nicaragua. What is the situation?
PRESIDENT MANUEL ZELAYA: [translated] My family will only go through the military checkpoints, without breaking the state of siege, when they give them security for their safety going in and out.
AMY GOODMAN: They have not got assurances at this point, Mr. President?
PRESIDENT MANUEL ZELAYA: [translated] Not at all. Last night, in a community that’s sixty kilometers from the border, El Paraiso, twelve kilometers from there, last night, they went to machine-gun the hotel and shout at them with megaphones. The police, supported by the military, are trying to terrorize my family.
AMY GOODMAN: While President Obama called your ouster a coup originally, the State Department is refusing to call it a coup now. Your response, Mr. President?
PRESIDENT MANUEL ZELAYA: [translated] Everyone in the world—governments, international organizations, all the lawyers and judges in the world—have called the fact of capturing a president at 5:00 a.m. without trying him, shooting arms—that’s a coup d’état. No one doubts that that’s a coup d’état.
AMY GOODMAN: Would it matter if the US government proclaimed this loudly now? Do you want to hear the President, the Secretary of State, call it a coup?
PRESIDENT MANUEL ZELAYA: [translated] Well, if they look at the analysis, they should call for an international tribunal to condemn them and make this coup guilty of assassination of a political leader, because a coup d’état takes power away from people to name their president. The president can only be named by the people, not by the United States and not by the armed forces.
AMY GOODMAN: Have you accepted the Arias accords, the Costa Rica accords? What do you want to see, in order to return to your country?
PRESIDENT MANUEL ZELAYA: [translated] We accepted the original proposal of President Arias that had seven points. We accepted the OAS and the UN proposals. The coup leaders have not accepted it.
AMY GOODMAN: In an article in the Wall Street Journal, Micheletti says they will abide by the Arias accords. Is this true? Though they say they do want to see you prosecuted.
PRESIDENT MANUEL ZELAYA: [translated] I am willing to submit to a trial at any time, but not to the justice of Micheletti or the military justice of the coup leaders. That’s not justice. That’s an illegal regime and a de facto one.
AMY GOODMAN: Do you want to see the coup leaders tried?
PRESIDENT MANUEL ZELAYA: [translated] Of course. That should be a norm in any country in order to prevent coup d’états. If the reactionary right begins to use arms, there are going to be uprisings. The guerrilla will reappear. There will be insurrections as a method. And no one will be able to govern in these countries. There is hot blood running.
AMY GOODMAN: Lanny Davis, President Clinton’s lawyer, is the lawyer for the Honduras chapter of the Business Council of Latin America. He says he represents Camilo Atala and Jorge Canahuati. Who are they, as he speaks against your government?
PRESIDENT MANUEL ZELAYA: [translated] The coup has three actors: those who finance it are them—they finance it; the intellectual authors are political structures; and those who carry it out, which are the military. Those are the three actors in the coup.
AMY GOODMAN: And who are—who is keeping—who is providing the finances? Are you saying that it is these people, Atala and Canahuati?
PRESIDENT MANUEL ZELAYA: [translated] There are others on the list. There are ten economic groups.
AMY GOODMAN: Vasquez Velasquez was trained at the School of the Americas at Fort Benning, Georgia. Now there are Honduran soldiers training there. Do you think that the training should stop?
PRESIDENT MANUEL ZELAYA: [translated] I think training should take place based on democratic values, not based on values of coup d’états. There are many honorable and patriotic military. These military have betrayed the armed forces and betrayed the people.
AMY GOODMAN: Do you think the US should cut off economic aid—what, more than $180 million—to Honduras until you are restored?
PRESIDENT MANUEL ZELAYA: [translated] I think the United States is going to lose a great deal of influence in Latin America if it does not turn the coup d’état around. It will not be able to put forth its idea about democracy. It won’t be credible before anyone.
AMY GOODMAN: What do you think is the most single—the single most important action the United States can do now?
PRESIDENT MANUEL ZELAYA: [translated] The United States is trying to resolve the coup in a peaceful and diplomatic way, and I agree with those manners, but I feel that it must be stronger, because when a coup d’état takes place, this is an act of international terrorism, which affects security in the hemisphere, because it revives the desire for machine guns as opposed to democratic dialogue, and it produces violence. And it should be stopped with greater force.
AMY GOODMAN: Ousted Honduran president Manuela Zelaya, in our national broadcast exclusive. We’ll come back to this discussion after break, where the ousted Honduran president will talk about his attempts to return home and who’s behind the coup and more. Then we’ll go to Colorado Springs. “The Hell of War Comes Home.” We’ll look at the 2nd Battalion, 12th Infantry Regiment. They’re known as the “Lethal Killers.” That’s in Iraq, Afghanistan, and on the streets of Colorado Springs. Stay with us.
[break]
AMY GOODMAN: We return to our exclusive interview with the ousted Honduran president Manuel Zelaya.
AMY GOODMAN: Mr. President, some see the coup in Honduras as a new strategy against progressive independent governments in Latin America. Can you put the conflict, the coup, in a larger context in Latin America right now?
PRESIDENT MANUEL ZELAYA: [translated] I’d be pleased to. The coup in Honduras was made by a group of ambitious businessmen that want to maintain their privileges associated to multinational companies with political puppets and corrupt military. Trying to give it an ideological tint—left, right, Chavism, US right—is an intent to change the face of the coup and to distract attention to other ideological problems, when the problem are the economic privileges of the sectors that want to maintain it.
AMY GOODMAN: Do you plan to visit Washington again?
PRESIDENT MANUEL ZELAYA: [translated] As long as I’m invited, I’ll go to Washington, to the OAS, or the United Nations, or the Department of State, Congress, the Senate. This month, I went to Washington five times to respond to these invitations.
AMY GOODMAN: Has the Obama administration invited you now to come back from Nicaragua to Washington?
PRESIDENT MANUEL ZELAYA: [translated] No, they invited me once, and I went to speak with Secretary Clinton, but they have not invited me since.
AMY GOODMAN: What did Hillary Clinton tell you? And what did you tell her?
PRESIDENT MANUEL ZELAYA: [translated] Mrs. Clinton suggested Arias’s mediation to me, and I accepted it. I went to those negotiations. And I think that the United States now has a great responsibility, because the negotiations did not produce the desired results, and they have a greater need to resolve this coup than other countries.
AMY GOODMAN: Do you think that the coup government is trying to just run out the clock until the election?
PRESIDENT MANUEL ZELAYA: [translated] No, I think they want to legitimize the elections through my return, but the two candidates participating approved the coup, supported the coup. And that’s like legitimizing the coup through other people. The elections should be held, but in a broad and democratic way, not with the coup regime, because it would be like extortion for the candidates.
AMY GOODMAN: Do you see a split in the coup government?
PRESIDENT MANUEL ZELAYA: [translated] Yes, of course. There is division in the armed forces, in the society. They have installed a repressive regime that’s only sustained by arms. When the armed forces remove their support from the coup regime, five minutes later they will have to leave power.
AMY GOODMAN: Can you talk about the significance of the Nobel Peace Prize winners and their role in the process against the coup—Perez Esquivel, Rigoberta Menchu, as well as Oscar Arias?
PRESIDENT MANUEL ZELAYA: [translated] President Arias did what he could. He dealt with the coup leaders with kid gloves, but he did what he could, responding to his limitations. And I am grateful to him for what he was able to do.
AMY GOODMAN: Rigoberta Menchu, about three days into the coup, went to report on the human rights situation in Honduras.
PRESIDENT MANUEL ZELAYA: [translated] Yes, she has been condemning the coup and has done so very firmly. I think this is a good action, and it speaks well of her.
AMY GOODMAN: Can you talk about the role of the Church in the coup, please?
PRESIDENT MANUEL ZELAYA: [translated] The Church is divided. The cardinal, the only cardinal before the Vatican in Honduras, conspired with the coup leaders. He betrayed the people, the poor. He took off his robes to put on a military uniform. And with his words, he really contributed to the assassinations that have taken place in Honduras.
AMY GOODMAN: What about the beating of the priests, Andres Tamayo and Padre Fausto Milla, leading a protest against the coup?
PRESIDENT MANUEL ZELAYA: [translated] All the social organizations have been in opposition, very firmly, for thirty-two days against the coup. They have—which speaks very well of the ability to resist and to not accept a coup d’état.
AMY GOODMAN: What reports, Mr. President, do you have of the human rights situation right now in Honduras—the murders, the beatings, the bombings?
PRESIDENT MANUEL ZELAYA: [translated] There are thousands of prisoners. There are illegal entries without search warrants into homes. Civilian rights have been denied. There’s a state of siege. There is not freedom of movement or of press. Youth are being assassinated. This is—there is terror like we have never seen in Honduras in this new twenty-first century coup.
AMY GOODMAN: And the role of Billy Joya, who was one of the heads of Battalion 3-16, notorious for its human rights abuse in the early 1980s? His role today as the security aide to Micheletti?
PRESIDENT MANUEL ZELAYA: [translated] He has a number of charges against him open for human rights. They accuse him of committing several crimes. And now he is an adviser to the coup regime.
AMY GOODMAN: Battalion 3-16, do you see it being revived?
PRESIDENT MANUEL ZELAYA: [translated] With a different name, it’s already operating. The crimes being committed is torture to create fear among the population, and that’s being directed by Mr. Joya.
AMY GOODMAN: You have not seen your family now for more than a month. Can you talk personally about the effect of this, of your separation?
PRESIDENT MANUEL ZELAYA: [translated] A great deal of pain for the people and for my family, which are resisting alongside the people, suffering all the attacks of the mass media, who have sold themselves to the coup. Their spirits are being formed. Their consciousness is being formed, and it’s a consciousness that’s very strong, that will come out after this coup so that no one will be able to hurt the people and humiliate them again.
AMY GOODMAN: Some people have commented on your conversion, on changing from allying with the oligarchy to where you are today, with the popular movements. Can you talk about that change?
PRESIDENT MANUEL ZELAYA: [translated] I practiced liberalism as an ideological method that respects private property, private investment, and respects public freedoms. I turned—I went to a social liberalism, a pro-socialist liberalism, so that the economy benefits the people and not just the economic elites. And this irritated the economic elites. They thought it was dangerous for me to organize the social sectors, and they planned the coup d’état.
AMY GOODMAN: John Negroponte, who was the ambassador to Nicaragua—to Honduras in the early ’80s, also worked with Battalion 3-16. Do you see his hand today, or others, like Otto Reich of the United States?
PRESIDENT MANUEL ZELAYA: [translated] Otto Reich has already made statements about it. Also Ramon Carmona, who’s a Venezuelan exile in the United States. They have already unmasked themselves. I can’t talk about other people, but I know that there are many hawks from the old guard in the United States and the CIA supporting violence and arms as a method to solve problems. I’m someone who professes peaceful means and nonviolence, and I don’t support force to resolve things, but rather dialogue.
AMY GOODMAN: What is your message to the American people and to the Honduran people?
PRESIDENT MANUEL ZELAYA: [translated] The people of the United States, their security is linked to the security, the safety of the world. If violence and force explodes in the US’s backyard, it will affect them. They should support peace and nonviolence and not be supporting coup d’états.
AMY GOODMAN: And the people of Honduras?
PRESIDENT MANUEL ZELAYA: [translated] That they maintain their resistance against those who want to take their rights away and firm up their social conquest. This will help the people acquire the maturity, so that no one will be able to disrespect them, which is what the coup regime is doing today.
AMY GOODMAN: If you were to return, if you are president again in Honduras, will you call for a constitutional assembly to change the constitution?
PRESIDENT MANUEL ZELAYA: [translated] I would call for a national dialogue. I am a Christian. I know how to forgive. I think that all human beings have the right to rectify and repent and to be forgiven. Those who commit sins should be taken to justice, to the courts, so that they are judged. I am not a judge. I am president. And my work is always to dialogue to find solutions to the problems.
AMY GOODMAN: Do you plan to run for president again?
PRESIDENT MANUEL ZELAYA: [translated] I never had that intention. Honduras doesn’t permit reelection. There’s no way legally, within the constitutional order, to make reforms. That could only happen at some point in the future, and that will not depend on me, and it cannot happen at this time, legally.
AMY GOODMAN: Would you accept a moving up of the elections, as was discussed in Costa Rica?
PRESIDENT MANUEL ZELAYA: [translated] I don’t have any problem with that. I’ve accepted the Arias plan. It’s the coup leaders that have not accepted it.
AMY GOODMAN: Is there anything else you would like to add, Mr. President?
PRESIDENT MANUEL ZELAYA: [translated] To thank you and congratulate you, because during the thirty days I’ve been in exile, it’s the best interview I’ve had. Many thanks.
AMY GOODMAN: Ousted Honduran president Manuel Zelaya, in this national broadcast exclusive. You can go to our website at democracynow.org for the video or audio podcast and the transcript of the entire interview in both English and in Spanish. A very special thanks to Andrés Conteris of Democracy Now! en Español. As well, we want to thank our translator, Victoria Furrio.
Thursday, July 30, 2009
Thursday, July 23, 2009
From a friend and fellow Metta Mentee
Pace e Bene Blog
The Greatness of a Smile
July 16th, 2009 - by Leah Watkiss
Last Friday, my fellow Metta Mentees and I participated in a day of service at St. Anthony’s Foundation in San Francisco. Founded in the Franciscan tradition in 1950, the foundation was built to repsond to the needs of the hungry and the homeless. Located in San Francisco’s notorious Tenderloin District, known for its significant poverty, homelessness, and crime, the foundation has served over 34 million free meals to the San Francisco community. Its services have grown over the years so it now includes a free medical clinic, a clothing and housewares program, rehabilitation programs and services, and a social work center in addition to serving approximately 2,600 meals a day. After learning about the foundation, our group was divided into several smaller groups. Each group was sent to assist in a different service. I was in the group assigned to the dining room. I spent equal amounts of time serving and cleaning tables.
Now, I have a vast amount of experience in the customer service sector. I have worked as a customer service representative in a bookstore, a garden centre, a kitchenware store, and a non-profit organization. In each of these positions I wore a nametag or identified myself when answering phone calls. In all of my time as a customer service representative, I might have one person per week of work bother to call me by my name. Most people just called me "Miss" or "Ma’am." I was not a human person with feelings and dignity, I was an appendage of the company that I worked for. This was especially true of interactions on the phone, where I was not physically present to the person I was helping. In fact, if someone did ask me my name, I would get nervous. Occasionally, I would help a customer/donor who made a note of my name to make a personal connection. But more usually, a customer/donor making note of my name created a paranoia in me that they were going to report me to my superiors for inadequate or unsatisfactory service. Because of this past experience, I was not prepared for what happened at the St. Anthony’s Foundation dining room.
As I went around serving meals and cleaning tables, almost every person in the room addressed me by name. Those who didn’t were usually addressing me from behind and could not see my nametag. Not only did people call me by name, they even bothered to ask me how to pronounce it! In my life, I have often been called "Lee-ah" instead of "Lay-ah." Some have even called me "Lee." As a child this caused me no end of frustration. However, as I’ve gotten older I’ve learned to respond to what I’m called, especially when it’s by someone I will likely never see again. But not only did people in the dining room call me by my name, many of them stopped to ask me what the pronunciation was and would continue to use my name as I made my rounds and returned to their table. I cannot express adequately in words the effect that their using my name had on me. But I felt a real connection with these people in a way I had rarely experienced in my other service experiences. I felt like a person, and individual with dignity. As a customer service representative, I have been judged, verbally abused, harassed, yelled at, and sworn at. I have been dehumanized and humiliated by people who ignored the fact that I am a human being with feelings and emotions. I won’t pretend that everybody at the dining hall was this friendly, and I am sure that they have had people come in who engaged in those violent actions, but whereas in my previous experience anonymity was the norm, here is was the exception. These people who live largely anonymous lives on the street - passed by without a second glance in a large, bustling city - reached out and connected with me at a basic, human level. This is an experience I will remember whenever I walk past someone needy on the street.
Last night, I was walking to the train station in the late evening. I stopped by a bank and got out some cash beside a bus stop with two obviously underprivileged men. The old me, the person I was before I came to the Metta Center and Pace e Bene and learned about nonviolence, would have felt very intimidated. In fact, the old me would likely have chosen to visit the bank on another day rather than show these men I had cash and walk past these men with my head firmly facing the ground or the other side of the street. But the new me calmly walked by, turned my head, smiled, and wished the men a good evening. They, in turn, asked me how I was. I replied that I was well and asked how they were. They responded in kind and told me I had a beautiful smile. I thanked them and continued on to the train station, beaming.
Many people do not know how to lead a nonviolent life. They think of large, social movements like Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr. "They were different," people say. "They were born different: to lead, to do great things." But we are all born to lead and do great things. Great things does not have to mean freeing India from British rule or overcoming Jim Crow laws. It can be something as simple as smiling at a stranger and, by your smile, saying "You are important. You are a human being. I am glad that you are alive."
Peace and all good.
The Greatness of a Smile
July 16th, 2009 - by Leah Watkiss
Last Friday, my fellow Metta Mentees and I participated in a day of service at St. Anthony’s Foundation in San Francisco. Founded in the Franciscan tradition in 1950, the foundation was built to repsond to the needs of the hungry and the homeless. Located in San Francisco’s notorious Tenderloin District, known for its significant poverty, homelessness, and crime, the foundation has served over 34 million free meals to the San Francisco community. Its services have grown over the years so it now includes a free medical clinic, a clothing and housewares program, rehabilitation programs and services, and a social work center in addition to serving approximately 2,600 meals a day. After learning about the foundation, our group was divided into several smaller groups. Each group was sent to assist in a different service. I was in the group assigned to the dining room. I spent equal amounts of time serving and cleaning tables.
Now, I have a vast amount of experience in the customer service sector. I have worked as a customer service representative in a bookstore, a garden centre, a kitchenware store, and a non-profit organization. In each of these positions I wore a nametag or identified myself when answering phone calls. In all of my time as a customer service representative, I might have one person per week of work bother to call me by my name. Most people just called me "Miss" or "Ma’am." I was not a human person with feelings and dignity, I was an appendage of the company that I worked for. This was especially true of interactions on the phone, where I was not physically present to the person I was helping. In fact, if someone did ask me my name, I would get nervous. Occasionally, I would help a customer/donor who made a note of my name to make a personal connection. But more usually, a customer/donor making note of my name created a paranoia in me that they were going to report me to my superiors for inadequate or unsatisfactory service. Because of this past experience, I was not prepared for what happened at the St. Anthony’s Foundation dining room.
As I went around serving meals and cleaning tables, almost every person in the room addressed me by name. Those who didn’t were usually addressing me from behind and could not see my nametag. Not only did people call me by name, they even bothered to ask me how to pronounce it! In my life, I have often been called "Lee-ah" instead of "Lay-ah." Some have even called me "Lee." As a child this caused me no end of frustration. However, as I’ve gotten older I’ve learned to respond to what I’m called, especially when it’s by someone I will likely never see again. But not only did people in the dining room call me by my name, many of them stopped to ask me what the pronunciation was and would continue to use my name as I made my rounds and returned to their table. I cannot express adequately in words the effect that their using my name had on me. But I felt a real connection with these people in a way I had rarely experienced in my other service experiences. I felt like a person, and individual with dignity. As a customer service representative, I have been judged, verbally abused, harassed, yelled at, and sworn at. I have been dehumanized and humiliated by people who ignored the fact that I am a human being with feelings and emotions. I won’t pretend that everybody at the dining hall was this friendly, and I am sure that they have had people come in who engaged in those violent actions, but whereas in my previous experience anonymity was the norm, here is was the exception. These people who live largely anonymous lives on the street - passed by without a second glance in a large, bustling city - reached out and connected with me at a basic, human level. This is an experience I will remember whenever I walk past someone needy on the street.
Last night, I was walking to the train station in the late evening. I stopped by a bank and got out some cash beside a bus stop with two obviously underprivileged men. The old me, the person I was before I came to the Metta Center and Pace e Bene and learned about nonviolence, would have felt very intimidated. In fact, the old me would likely have chosen to visit the bank on another day rather than show these men I had cash and walk past these men with my head firmly facing the ground or the other side of the street. But the new me calmly walked by, turned my head, smiled, and wished the men a good evening. They, in turn, asked me how I was. I replied that I was well and asked how they were. They responded in kind and told me I had a beautiful smile. I thanked them and continued on to the train station, beaming.
Many people do not know how to lead a nonviolent life. They think of large, social movements like Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr. "They were different," people say. "They were born different: to lead, to do great things." But we are all born to lead and do great things. Great things does not have to mean freeing India from British rule or overcoming Jim Crow laws. It can be something as simple as smiling at a stranger and, by your smile, saying "You are important. You are a human being. I am glad that you are alive."
Peace and all good.
Monday, July 20, 2009
Messages of Peace...on the Moon
Apollo 11 moon landing: messages of peace from world leaders left on moon
When the Apollo 11 mission reached the Moon on July 20 1969, astronauts Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin deposited a tiny silicon disk on the lunar surface containing messages of peace from 73 world leaders. Here is a selection of the best.
By Heidi Blake
Published: 11:00AM BST 19 Jul 2009
20 July, 1969: Apollo 11 astronauts Neil Armstrong and Edwin E.
The silicon disk was left underneath the US flag which Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin planted on the Moon's surface Photo: NASA
1) "On behalf of the British people I salute the skill and courage which have brought man to the moon. May this endeavour increase the knowledge and wellbeing of mankind." The Queen
2) "In rejoicing together with the government and the people of the United States of America for the event of the century, I pray God that this brilliant achievement of science remain always at the service of peace and of mankind." Artur da Costa e Silva, president of Brazil
Related Articles
*
Apollo 11 astronauts call for mission to Mars
*
Apollo 11 moon landing: how it happened
*
Astronauts struggle to fix flooded toilet in space
*
Moon landings: British scientists salute space heroes
*
Why Neil Armstrong remains an elusive hero
*
Buzz Lightyear 'first man on moon' some believe
3) "This is a message from black militants. It is a message of human solidarity, a message of peace. In this first visit to the Moon, rather than a victory of technology we salute a victory of human will: research and progress, but also brotherhood." Léopold Sédar Senghor, president of Senegal
4) "On this unique occasion when man traverses outer space to set foot on Earth’s nearest neighbour, Moon, I send my greetings and good wishes to the brave astronauts who have launched on this great venture. I fervently hope that this event will usher in an era of peaceful endeavour for all mankind." Indira Gandhi, prime minister of India
5) "Although we are not suggesting any message from the Polish Head of State, please be assured that the achievements of the U.S. astronauts are followed by us with great interest, appreciation and best wishes for the success in their endeavour." Jerzy Michalowski, Polish ambassador
6) The Government and the people of Trinidad and Tobago acclaim this historic triumph of science and the human will. It is our earnest hope for mankind that while we gain the moon, we shall not lose the world. Eric Williams, prime minister of Trinidad and Tobago
7) "Man has reached out and touched the tranquil moon. May that high accomplishment allow man to rediscover the Earth and find peace there." Pierre Elliott Trudeau, prime minister of Canada
8) "On this occasion when Mr. Neil Armstrong and Colonel Edwin Aldrin set foot for the first time on the surface of the Moon from the Earth, we pray the Almighty God to guide mankind towards ever increasing success in the establishment of peace and the progress of culture, knowledge and human civilisation." Mohammad Reza Pahlavi Aryamehr, Shahanshah of Iran
9) "May He whose glory the heavens declare grant that mankind may grow in the knowledge of His purposes as we probe into the secrets of His universe." Hugh Lawson Shearer, prime minister of Jamaica
10) "The age-old dream of man to cut his bonds to planet Earth and reach for the stars has given him not only wings, but also the intellect and the intrepid spirit which has enabled him to overcome formidable barriers and accomplish extraordinary feats in the exploration of the unknown, culminating in this epochal landing on the Moon." Ferdinand Marcos, president of the Philippines
When the Apollo 11 mission reached the Moon on July 20 1969, astronauts Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin deposited a tiny silicon disk on the lunar surface containing messages of peace from 73 world leaders. Here is a selection of the best.
By Heidi Blake
Published: 11:00AM BST 19 Jul 2009
20 July, 1969: Apollo 11 astronauts Neil Armstrong and Edwin E.
The silicon disk was left underneath the US flag which Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin planted on the Moon's surface Photo: NASA
1) "On behalf of the British people I salute the skill and courage which have brought man to the moon. May this endeavour increase the knowledge and wellbeing of mankind." The Queen
2) "In rejoicing together with the government and the people of the United States of America for the event of the century, I pray God that this brilliant achievement of science remain always at the service of peace and of mankind." Artur da Costa e Silva, president of Brazil
Related Articles
*
Apollo 11 astronauts call for mission to Mars
*
Apollo 11 moon landing: how it happened
*
Astronauts struggle to fix flooded toilet in space
*
Moon landings: British scientists salute space heroes
*
Why Neil Armstrong remains an elusive hero
*
Buzz Lightyear 'first man on moon' some believe
3) "This is a message from black militants. It is a message of human solidarity, a message of peace. In this first visit to the Moon, rather than a victory of technology we salute a victory of human will: research and progress, but also brotherhood." Léopold Sédar Senghor, president of Senegal
4) "On this unique occasion when man traverses outer space to set foot on Earth’s nearest neighbour, Moon, I send my greetings and good wishes to the brave astronauts who have launched on this great venture. I fervently hope that this event will usher in an era of peaceful endeavour for all mankind." Indira Gandhi, prime minister of India
5) "Although we are not suggesting any message from the Polish Head of State, please be assured that the achievements of the U.S. astronauts are followed by us with great interest, appreciation and best wishes for the success in their endeavour." Jerzy Michalowski, Polish ambassador
6) The Government and the people of Trinidad and Tobago acclaim this historic triumph of science and the human will. It is our earnest hope for mankind that while we gain the moon, we shall not lose the world. Eric Williams, prime minister of Trinidad and Tobago
7) "Man has reached out and touched the tranquil moon. May that high accomplishment allow man to rediscover the Earth and find peace there." Pierre Elliott Trudeau, prime minister of Canada
8) "On this occasion when Mr. Neil Armstrong and Colonel Edwin Aldrin set foot for the first time on the surface of the Moon from the Earth, we pray the Almighty God to guide mankind towards ever increasing success in the establishment of peace and the progress of culture, knowledge and human civilisation." Mohammad Reza Pahlavi Aryamehr, Shahanshah of Iran
9) "May He whose glory the heavens declare grant that mankind may grow in the knowledge of His purposes as we probe into the secrets of His universe." Hugh Lawson Shearer, prime minister of Jamaica
10) "The age-old dream of man to cut his bonds to planet Earth and reach for the stars has given him not only wings, but also the intellect and the intrepid spirit which has enabled him to overcome formidable barriers and accomplish extraordinary feats in the exploration of the unknown, culminating in this epochal landing on the Moon." Ferdinand Marcos, president of the Philippines
Wednesday, July 15, 2009
UNTOLD TRUTHS ABOUT THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION
UNTOLD TRUTHS ABOUT THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION
by Howard Zinn
THE PROGRESSIVE
July 06, 2009
There are things that happen in the world that are bad, and you want to do something about them. You have a just cause. But our culture is so war prone that we immediately jump from, "This is a good cause" to "This deserves a war."
You need to be very, very comfortable in making that jump.
The American Revolution—independence from England—was a just cause. Why should the colonists here be occupied by and oppressed by England? But therefore, did we have to go to the Revolutionary War?
How many people died in the Revolutionary War?
Nobody ever knows exactly how many people die in wars, but it's likely that 25,000 to 50,000 people died in this one. So let's take the lower figure—25,000 people died out of a population of three million. That would be equivalent today to two and a half million people dying to get England off our backs.
You might consider that worth it, or you might not.
Canada is independent of England, isn't it? I think so. Not a bad society. Canadians have good health care. They have a lot of things we don't have. They didn't fight a bloody revolutionary war. Why do we assume that we had to fight a bloody revolutionary war to get rid of England.
In the year before those famous shots were fired, farmers in Western Massachusetts had driven the British government out without firing a single shot. They had assembled by the thousands and thousands around courthouses and colonial offices and they had just taken over and they said goodbye to the British officials. It was a nonviolent revolution that took place. But then came Lexington and Concord, and the revolution became violent, and it was run not by the farmers but by the Founding Fathers. The farmers were rather poor; the Founding Fathers were rather rich.
Who actually gained from that victory over England? It's very important to ask about any policy, and especially about war: Who gained what? And it's very important to notice differences among the various parts of the population. That's one thing we’re not accustomed to in this country because we don't think in class terms. We think, "Oh, we all have the same interests.” For instance, we think that we all had the same interests in independence from England. We did not have all the same interests.
Do you think the Indians cared about independence from England? No, in fact, the Indians were unhappy that we won independence from England, because England had set a line—in the Proclamation of 1763—that said you couldn't go westward into Indian territory. They didn't do it because they loved the Indians. They didn't want trouble. When Britain was defeated in the Revolutionary War, that line was eliminated, and now the way was open for the colonists to move westward across the continent, which they did for the next 100 years, committing massacres and making sure that they destroyed Indian civilization.
So when you look at the American Revolution, there's a fact that you have to take into consideration. Indians—no, they didn't benefit.
Did blacks benefit from the American Revolution?
Slavery was there before. Slavery was there after. Not only that, we wrote slavery into the Constitution. We legitimized it.
What about class divisions?
Did ordinary white farmers have the same interest in the revolution as a John Hancock or Morris or Madison or Jefferson or the slaveholders or the bondholders? Not really.
It was not all the common people getting together to fight against England. They had a very hard time assembling an army. They took poor guys and promised them land. They browbeat people and, oh yes, they inspired people with the Declaration of Independence. It's always good, if you want people to go to war, to give them a good document and have good words: life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Of course, when they wrote the Constitution, they were more concerned with property than life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. You should take notice of these little things.
There were class divisions. When you assess and evaluate a war, when you assess and evaluate any policy, you have to ask: Who gets what?
We were a class society from the beginning. America started off as a society of rich and poor, people with enormous grants of land and people with no land. And there were riots, there were bread riots in Boston, and riots and rebellions all over the colonies, of poor against rich, of tenants breaking into jails to release people who were in prison for nonpayment of debt. There was class conflict. We try to pretend in this country that we're all one happy family. We're not.
And so when you look at the American Revolution, you have to look at it in terms of class.
Do you know that there were mutinies in the American Revolutionary Army by the privates against the officers? The officers were getting fine clothes and good food and high pay and the privates had no shoes and bad clothes and they weren't getting paid. They mutinied. Thousands of them. So many in the Pennsylvania line that George Washington got worried, so he made compromises with them. But later when there was a smaller mutiny in the New Jersey line, not with thousands but with hundreds, Washington said execute the leaders, and they were executed by fellow mutineers on the order of their officers.
The American Revolution was not a simple affair of all of us against all of them. And not everyone thought they would benefit from the Revolution.
We've got to rethink this question of war and come to the conclusion that war cannot be accepted, no matter what the reasons given, or the excuse: liberty, democracy; this, that. War is by definition the indiscriminate killing of huge numbers of people for ends that are uncertain. Think about means and ends, and apply it to war. The means are horrible, certainly. The ends, uncertain. That alone should make you hesitate.
Once a historical event has taken place, it becomes very hard to imagine that you could have achieved a result some other way. When something is happening in history it takes on a certain air of inevitability: This is the only way it could have happened. No.
We are smart in so many ways. Surely, we should be able to understand that in between war and passivity, there are a thousand possibilities
© 2009 The Progressive
by Howard Zinn
THE PROGRESSIVE
July 06, 2009
There are things that happen in the world that are bad, and you want to do something about them. You have a just cause. But our culture is so war prone that we immediately jump from, "This is a good cause" to "This deserves a war."
You need to be very, very comfortable in making that jump.
The American Revolution—independence from England—was a just cause. Why should the colonists here be occupied by and oppressed by England? But therefore, did we have to go to the Revolutionary War?
How many people died in the Revolutionary War?
Nobody ever knows exactly how many people die in wars, but it's likely that 25,000 to 50,000 people died in this one. So let's take the lower figure—25,000 people died out of a population of three million. That would be equivalent today to two and a half million people dying to get England off our backs.
You might consider that worth it, or you might not.
Canada is independent of England, isn't it? I think so. Not a bad society. Canadians have good health care. They have a lot of things we don't have. They didn't fight a bloody revolutionary war. Why do we assume that we had to fight a bloody revolutionary war to get rid of England.
In the year before those famous shots were fired, farmers in Western Massachusetts had driven the British government out without firing a single shot. They had assembled by the thousands and thousands around courthouses and colonial offices and they had just taken over and they said goodbye to the British officials. It was a nonviolent revolution that took place. But then came Lexington and Concord, and the revolution became violent, and it was run not by the farmers but by the Founding Fathers. The farmers were rather poor; the Founding Fathers were rather rich.
Who actually gained from that victory over England? It's very important to ask about any policy, and especially about war: Who gained what? And it's very important to notice differences among the various parts of the population. That's one thing we’re not accustomed to in this country because we don't think in class terms. We think, "Oh, we all have the same interests.” For instance, we think that we all had the same interests in independence from England. We did not have all the same interests.
Do you think the Indians cared about independence from England? No, in fact, the Indians were unhappy that we won independence from England, because England had set a line—in the Proclamation of 1763—that said you couldn't go westward into Indian territory. They didn't do it because they loved the Indians. They didn't want trouble. When Britain was defeated in the Revolutionary War, that line was eliminated, and now the way was open for the colonists to move westward across the continent, which they did for the next 100 years, committing massacres and making sure that they destroyed Indian civilization.
So when you look at the American Revolution, there's a fact that you have to take into consideration. Indians—no, they didn't benefit.
Did blacks benefit from the American Revolution?
Slavery was there before. Slavery was there after. Not only that, we wrote slavery into the Constitution. We legitimized it.
What about class divisions?
Did ordinary white farmers have the same interest in the revolution as a John Hancock or Morris or Madison or Jefferson or the slaveholders or the bondholders? Not really.
It was not all the common people getting together to fight against England. They had a very hard time assembling an army. They took poor guys and promised them land. They browbeat people and, oh yes, they inspired people with the Declaration of Independence. It's always good, if you want people to go to war, to give them a good document and have good words: life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Of course, when they wrote the Constitution, they were more concerned with property than life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. You should take notice of these little things.
There were class divisions. When you assess and evaluate a war, when you assess and evaluate any policy, you have to ask: Who gets what?
We were a class society from the beginning. America started off as a society of rich and poor, people with enormous grants of land and people with no land. And there were riots, there were bread riots in Boston, and riots and rebellions all over the colonies, of poor against rich, of tenants breaking into jails to release people who were in prison for nonpayment of debt. There was class conflict. We try to pretend in this country that we're all one happy family. We're not.
And so when you look at the American Revolution, you have to look at it in terms of class.
Do you know that there were mutinies in the American Revolutionary Army by the privates against the officers? The officers were getting fine clothes and good food and high pay and the privates had no shoes and bad clothes and they weren't getting paid. They mutinied. Thousands of them. So many in the Pennsylvania line that George Washington got worried, so he made compromises with them. But later when there was a smaller mutiny in the New Jersey line, not with thousands but with hundreds, Washington said execute the leaders, and they were executed by fellow mutineers on the order of their officers.
The American Revolution was not a simple affair of all of us against all of them. And not everyone thought they would benefit from the Revolution.
We've got to rethink this question of war and come to the conclusion that war cannot be accepted, no matter what the reasons given, or the excuse: liberty, democracy; this, that. War is by definition the indiscriminate killing of huge numbers of people for ends that are uncertain. Think about means and ends, and apply it to war. The means are horrible, certainly. The ends, uncertain. That alone should make you hesitate.
Once a historical event has taken place, it becomes very hard to imagine that you could have achieved a result some other way. When something is happening in history it takes on a certain air of inevitability: This is the only way it could have happened. No.
We are smart in so many ways. Surely, we should be able to understand that in between war and passivity, there are a thousand possibilities
© 2009 The Progressive
Tuesday, July 14, 2009
Letter from Venceremos Brigade to Obama
President Barack Obama July 13, 2009
The White House
Washington DC
Dear President Obama,
On August 3rd, 2009, over 140 of us will be returning from Cuba-without a government license-in defiance of the travel restrictions and economic embargo that our government has imposed on that nation for close to 50 years.
We are traveling to Cuba in order to denounce a failed and inhumane policy towards Cuba, and to express our solidarity with the Cuban people and their struggles. We are aware that we face repercussions for our act of civil disobedience, but are strengthened by Martin Luther King Jr.’s conviction that “one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws”.
For the past half-century, the United States has pursued a policy implemented with the explicit purpose of making the Cuban people suffer to such an extent that they-out of misery and poverty-overthrow their government. The Cuban people can no longer be collateral damage for an outdated foreign policy. We reject such hostilities, and call for your administration to realize its own pledges for a more diplomatic and humane U.S. that respects the sovereignty of other nations. We strongly urge you to take meaningful steps towards ending the economic embargo and lifting all travel restrictions to Cuba for all U.S. citizens and residents.
Many of us identify with the philosophical principle that you were elected on-a platform of change-and that is our incentive towards contacting you. At this historical moment, your administration has the opportunity to start that new beginning you mentioned the U.S. was seeking. We agree and call for more engagement.
We are students, teachers, medical personnel, autoworkers, social workers, artists, professors, lawyers and community organizers, among other occupations. We are an intergenerational group of different races, ethnicities, sexes, and sexual orientations, and are traveling from throughout the U.S. We will be doing volunteer work (in the past 40 years, this has varied from sugar cane harvests to painting neighborhood hospitals to renovating schools) and meeting with Cubans throughout the island (from rappers to hurricane relief workers to those fighting for LGBT equality to the Federation of Cuban Women); opening up engagement and dialogue among both people while exercising our constitutional right to travel.
This is what unites us: our affirmation of our constitutional right to travel, solidarity with the Cuban people, and an absolute condemnation of a foreign policy that has used the Cuban people’s suffering as a political pawn, blocking off engagement between both countries.
The time for rectifying U.S. foreign policy towards Cuba is past due.
Your administration has recently taken steps towards dialogue with Cuba. There is bipartisan support in both houses of Congress for further opening. The majority of the U.S. population-including Cuban Americans-is in favor of these measures. In addition, congressional momentum towards easing the embargo has been in line with the expansion of internet-based technologies within Cuba, as well as economic benefits for the U.S., particularly for the agricultural industry and small, minority- and women-owned businesses. Furthermore, the very constitutionality of the travel restrictions, a means of enforcing the embargo, will soon be challenged in our federal courts.
In Cuba, the highest-ranking leadership has repeatedly expressed its willingness to discuss any topic-even offering to release all individuals the U.S. considers political prisoners. In just the past few years, there have been new, developing social and cultural spaces where political critiques are being expressed-independently-by Cubans themselves. These have been accompanied by several deregulatory measures by the new President there.
Internationally, U.S. foreign policy towards Cuba is overwhelmingly denounced. From the U.N General Assembly condemning the embargo for 17 consecutive years to the Organization of American States (OAS) recently deciding to rectify the act of excluding Cuba, the international community has clearly called for a multilateral approach that includes-not isolates-Cuba.
Thus, the question is not why we should lift the embargo-with the travel restrictions as part of their enforcement-but why is it still in place? Such a justification is inconsistent with our constitutional rights, your electoral pledge for foreign relations based on respect and equality and the most decent, humanitarian sentiments of the U.S. people. Such sentiments require an opening of exchange, an end to the embargo and all other acts against Cuba, including the incarceration of the 5 Cuban patriots-sent here to cooperate with the U.S. government against terrorism-whom you can, and should free through a presidential pardon.
Therefore, we ask that you-with your authority as President-transcend the old, stalled politics of yesterday. We urge you to support lifting the travel restrictions for all U.S. citizens and residents, and take serious steps towards ending the economic embargo on Cuba. Only then can a new beginning begin, where the U.S. and Cuba lay the foundation for a relationship based on friendship and mutual respect.
Until then, we will travel to Cuba as the 40th contingent of the Venceremos Brigade, demanding a U.S. foreign policy that respects our rights and our sentiments towards the Cuban people.
Sincerely,
Diego Iniguez-Lopez
(Tel 201-294-0941)
Bonnie Massey
(Tel 917-607-2264)
On behalf of the Venceremos Brigade, 40th contingent
Venceremos Brigade
PO Box 5202
Englewood, NJ 07631-5202
email: vbrigade@yahoo.com
voicemail: 212-560-4360
website: www.venceremosbrigade.org
"...one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws"
Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr.
The White House
Washington DC
Dear President Obama,
On August 3rd, 2009, over 140 of us will be returning from Cuba-without a government license-in defiance of the travel restrictions and economic embargo that our government has imposed on that nation for close to 50 years.
We are traveling to Cuba in order to denounce a failed and inhumane policy towards Cuba, and to express our solidarity with the Cuban people and their struggles. We are aware that we face repercussions for our act of civil disobedience, but are strengthened by Martin Luther King Jr.’s conviction that “one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws”.
For the past half-century, the United States has pursued a policy implemented with the explicit purpose of making the Cuban people suffer to such an extent that they-out of misery and poverty-overthrow their government. The Cuban people can no longer be collateral damage for an outdated foreign policy. We reject such hostilities, and call for your administration to realize its own pledges for a more diplomatic and humane U.S. that respects the sovereignty of other nations. We strongly urge you to take meaningful steps towards ending the economic embargo and lifting all travel restrictions to Cuba for all U.S. citizens and residents.
Many of us identify with the philosophical principle that you were elected on-a platform of change-and that is our incentive towards contacting you. At this historical moment, your administration has the opportunity to start that new beginning you mentioned the U.S. was seeking. We agree and call for more engagement.
We are students, teachers, medical personnel, autoworkers, social workers, artists, professors, lawyers and community organizers, among other occupations. We are an intergenerational group of different races, ethnicities, sexes, and sexual orientations, and are traveling from throughout the U.S. We will be doing volunteer work (in the past 40 years, this has varied from sugar cane harvests to painting neighborhood hospitals to renovating schools) and meeting with Cubans throughout the island (from rappers to hurricane relief workers to those fighting for LGBT equality to the Federation of Cuban Women); opening up engagement and dialogue among both people while exercising our constitutional right to travel.
This is what unites us: our affirmation of our constitutional right to travel, solidarity with the Cuban people, and an absolute condemnation of a foreign policy that has used the Cuban people’s suffering as a political pawn, blocking off engagement between both countries.
The time for rectifying U.S. foreign policy towards Cuba is past due.
Your administration has recently taken steps towards dialogue with Cuba. There is bipartisan support in both houses of Congress for further opening. The majority of the U.S. population-including Cuban Americans-is in favor of these measures. In addition, congressional momentum towards easing the embargo has been in line with the expansion of internet-based technologies within Cuba, as well as economic benefits for the U.S., particularly for the agricultural industry and small, minority- and women-owned businesses. Furthermore, the very constitutionality of the travel restrictions, a means of enforcing the embargo, will soon be challenged in our federal courts.
In Cuba, the highest-ranking leadership has repeatedly expressed its willingness to discuss any topic-even offering to release all individuals the U.S. considers political prisoners. In just the past few years, there have been new, developing social and cultural spaces where political critiques are being expressed-independently-by Cubans themselves. These have been accompanied by several deregulatory measures by the new President there.
Internationally, U.S. foreign policy towards Cuba is overwhelmingly denounced. From the U.N General Assembly condemning the embargo for 17 consecutive years to the Organization of American States (OAS) recently deciding to rectify the act of excluding Cuba, the international community has clearly called for a multilateral approach that includes-not isolates-Cuba.
Thus, the question is not why we should lift the embargo-with the travel restrictions as part of their enforcement-but why is it still in place? Such a justification is inconsistent with our constitutional rights, your electoral pledge for foreign relations based on respect and equality and the most decent, humanitarian sentiments of the U.S. people. Such sentiments require an opening of exchange, an end to the embargo and all other acts against Cuba, including the incarceration of the 5 Cuban patriots-sent here to cooperate with the U.S. government against terrorism-whom you can, and should free through a presidential pardon.
Therefore, we ask that you-with your authority as President-transcend the old, stalled politics of yesterday. We urge you to support lifting the travel restrictions for all U.S. citizens and residents, and take serious steps towards ending the economic embargo on Cuba. Only then can a new beginning begin, where the U.S. and Cuba lay the foundation for a relationship based on friendship and mutual respect.
Until then, we will travel to Cuba as the 40th contingent of the Venceremos Brigade, demanding a U.S. foreign policy that respects our rights and our sentiments towards the Cuban people.
Sincerely,
Diego Iniguez-Lopez
(Tel 201-294-0941)
Bonnie Massey
(Tel 917-607-2264)
On behalf of the Venceremos Brigade, 40th contingent
Venceremos Brigade
PO Box 5202
Englewood, NJ 07631-5202
email: vbrigade@yahoo.com
voicemail: 212-560-4360
website: www.venceremosbrigade.org
"...one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws"
Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr.
'Breaking the Silence' in Gaza
Israel soldiers speak out on Gaza
BBC (click here for the original)B
Israeli soldiers deployed on the Israel-Gaza border 28 Decmeber 2008
Soldier testimonies appear to contradict official Israeli statements
Israeli soldiers have described the use of "permissive" rules of engagement that cost civilian lives during the recent military campaign in Gaza.
The troops said they had been urged to fire on any building or person that seemed suspicious and said civilians were sometimes used as human shields.
Breaking the Silence, a campaign group made up of Israeli soldiers, gathered the anonymous accounts.
Israel denies breaking the laws of war and dismissed the report as hearsay.
Breaking the Silence described most of the testimonies of soldiers who took part in Operation Cast Lead as "sober, regretful and shocked".
GAZA REPORT
Breaking the Silence report on Operation Cast Lead[469KB]
Most computers will open this document automatically, but you may need Adobe Reader
Download the reader here
Many of the testimonies are in line with claims made by human-rights organisations that Israeli military action in Gaza was indiscriminate and disproportionate.
According to testimonies from the 14 conscripts and 12 reserve soldiers:
• Rules of engagement were either unclear or encouraged soldiers to do their utmost to protect their own lives whether or not Palestinian civilians were harmed.
• Civilians were used as human shields, entering buildings ahead of soldiers
• Large swathes of homes and buildings were demolished. Accounts say that this was often done because the houses might be booby-trapped, or cover tunnels. Testimony mentioned a policy referred to as "the day after", whereby areas near the border where razed to make future military operations easier
• Many troops had a generally aggressive, ill-disciplined attitude
• There was widespread vandalism of property of Palestinians
• Soldiers firing at water tanks because they were bored, at a time of severe water shortages for Gazans
• White phosphorus was used in civilian areas gratuitously and recklessly
• Many of the soldiers said there had been very little direct engagement with Palestinian militants
The report says Israeli troops and the people who justify their actions are "slid[ing] together down the moral slippery slope".
DIFFERENT DEATH TOLLS
Palestinians killed during Israeli military offensive in Gaza, 27 Dec to 18 Jan - Palestinian claims followed by Israelis claims:
Total dead: 1,434 / 1,166
Fighters: 235 / 710-870
Non-combatants: 906 / 295-460
Women: 121 / 49
Children under 16: 288 / 89
Sources: Palestinian Centre for Human Rights and Israeli Defence Intelligence Research Dept
Amnesty details Gaza 'war crimes'
Israelis followed law in Gaza
Gaza conflict: Who is a civilian?
"This is an urgent call to Israeli society and its leaders to sober up and investigate anew the results of our actions," Breaking the Silence says.
Israeli officials insist troops went to great lengths to protect civilians, that Hamas endangered non-combatants by firing from civilian areas and that homes and buildings were destroyed only when there was a specific military need to do so.
Israel said the purpose of the 22-day operation that ended on 18 January 2009 had been to end rocket fire from Gaza aimed at its southern towns.
Palestinian rights groups say about 1,400 Palestinians died during the operation. Thirteen Israelis died in the conflict, including 10 soldiers serving in Gaza.
According to the UN, the campaign damaged or destroyed more than 50,000 homes, 800 industrial properties, 200 schools, 39 mosques and two churches.
Investigations
Reacting to the report, Israeli military spokeswoman Lt Col Avital Leibovich said:
"The IDF regrets the fact that another human rights organisation has come out with a report based on anonymous and general testimony - without investigating their credibility."
Destroyed Palestinian home in Rafah, southern Gaza
Thousands of Gazan's were made homeless by Israel's operation
She dismissed the document as "hearsay and word of mouth".
"The IDF expects every soldier to turn to the appropriate authorities with any allegation," Lt Col Leibovich added. "This is even more important where the harm is to non-combatants. The IDF has uncompromising ethical values which continue to guide us in every mission."
There have been several investigations into the conduct of Israel's operation in Gaza, and both Israel and Hamas, the Palestinian militant group that runs the territory, have faced accusations of war crimes.
An internal investigations by the Israeli military said troops fought lawfully, although errors did take place, such as the deaths of 21 people in a house that had been wrongly targeted.
UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon has requested more than $11m (£7m) in compensation from Israel for damage to UN property in Gaza. A limited UN inquiry blamed Israel in six out of nine attacks on UN facilities, resulting in casualties among civilians sheltering there.
Meanwhile, a fact-finding team commissioned by the Arab League concluded there was enough evidence to prosecute the Israeli military for war crimes and crimes against humanity, and that "the Israeli political leadership was also responsible for such crimes".
It also said Palestinian militants were guilty of war crimes in their use of indiscriminate rocket attacks on civilians.
BBC (click here for the original)B
Israeli soldiers deployed on the Israel-Gaza border 28 Decmeber 2008
Soldier testimonies appear to contradict official Israeli statements
Israeli soldiers have described the use of "permissive" rules of engagement that cost civilian lives during the recent military campaign in Gaza.
The troops said they had been urged to fire on any building or person that seemed suspicious and said civilians were sometimes used as human shields.
Breaking the Silence, a campaign group made up of Israeli soldiers, gathered the anonymous accounts.
Israel denies breaking the laws of war and dismissed the report as hearsay.
Breaking the Silence described most of the testimonies of soldiers who took part in Operation Cast Lead as "sober, regretful and shocked".
GAZA REPORT
Breaking the Silence report on Operation Cast Lead[469KB]
Most computers will open this document automatically, but you may need Adobe Reader
Download the reader here
Many of the testimonies are in line with claims made by human-rights organisations that Israeli military action in Gaza was indiscriminate and disproportionate.
According to testimonies from the 14 conscripts and 12 reserve soldiers:
• Rules of engagement were either unclear or encouraged soldiers to do their utmost to protect their own lives whether or not Palestinian civilians were harmed.
• Civilians were used as human shields, entering buildings ahead of soldiers
• Large swathes of homes and buildings were demolished. Accounts say that this was often done because the houses might be booby-trapped, or cover tunnels. Testimony mentioned a policy referred to as "the day after", whereby areas near the border where razed to make future military operations easier
• Many troops had a generally aggressive, ill-disciplined attitude
• There was widespread vandalism of property of Palestinians
• Soldiers firing at water tanks because they were bored, at a time of severe water shortages for Gazans
• White phosphorus was used in civilian areas gratuitously and recklessly
• Many of the soldiers said there had been very little direct engagement with Palestinian militants
The report says Israeli troops and the people who justify their actions are "slid[ing] together down the moral slippery slope".
DIFFERENT DEATH TOLLS
Palestinians killed during Israeli military offensive in Gaza, 27 Dec to 18 Jan - Palestinian claims followed by Israelis claims:
Total dead: 1,434 / 1,166
Fighters: 235 / 710-870
Non-combatants: 906 / 295-460
Women: 121 / 49
Children under 16: 288 / 89
Sources: Palestinian Centre for Human Rights and Israeli Defence Intelligence Research Dept
Amnesty details Gaza 'war crimes'
Israelis followed law in Gaza
Gaza conflict: Who is a civilian?
"This is an urgent call to Israeli society and its leaders to sober up and investigate anew the results of our actions," Breaking the Silence says.
Israeli officials insist troops went to great lengths to protect civilians, that Hamas endangered non-combatants by firing from civilian areas and that homes and buildings were destroyed only when there was a specific military need to do so.
Israel said the purpose of the 22-day operation that ended on 18 January 2009 had been to end rocket fire from Gaza aimed at its southern towns.
Palestinian rights groups say about 1,400 Palestinians died during the operation. Thirteen Israelis died in the conflict, including 10 soldiers serving in Gaza.
According to the UN, the campaign damaged or destroyed more than 50,000 homes, 800 industrial properties, 200 schools, 39 mosques and two churches.
Investigations
Reacting to the report, Israeli military spokeswoman Lt Col Avital Leibovich said:
"The IDF regrets the fact that another human rights organisation has come out with a report based on anonymous and general testimony - without investigating their credibility."
Destroyed Palestinian home in Rafah, southern Gaza
Thousands of Gazan's were made homeless by Israel's operation
She dismissed the document as "hearsay and word of mouth".
"The IDF expects every soldier to turn to the appropriate authorities with any allegation," Lt Col Leibovich added. "This is even more important where the harm is to non-combatants. The IDF has uncompromising ethical values which continue to guide us in every mission."
There have been several investigations into the conduct of Israel's operation in Gaza, and both Israel and Hamas, the Palestinian militant group that runs the territory, have faced accusations of war crimes.
An internal investigations by the Israeli military said troops fought lawfully, although errors did take place, such as the deaths of 21 people in a house that had been wrongly targeted.
UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon has requested more than $11m (£7m) in compensation from Israel for damage to UN property in Gaza. A limited UN inquiry blamed Israel in six out of nine attacks on UN facilities, resulting in casualties among civilians sheltering there.
Meanwhile, a fact-finding team commissioned by the Arab League concluded there was enough evidence to prosecute the Israeli military for war crimes and crimes against humanity, and that "the Israeli political leadership was also responsible for such crimes".
It also said Palestinian militants were guilty of war crimes in their use of indiscriminate rocket attacks on civilians.
Sunday, July 12, 2009
Fuel for a Coup: The Perils of Latin America's Ovesized Militaries
Fuel for a Coup
The Perils of Latin America's Oversized Militaries
By Oscar Arias
THE WASHINGTON POST
Thursday, July 9, 2009
Latin America is enveloped in a climate of uncertainty and turmoil that I had hoped our region would never experience again. The recent coup d'état in Honduras, which has embroiled that country in a constitutional crisis, has provided a sad reminder that despite the progress our region has made, the errors of our past are still all too close. I have been asked by the leaders of our region to serve as the mediator in this crisis. Once again, we must trust that dialogue -- so often scorned as too slow or too simple -- is the only path to peace and the light that can guide us through these dark hours.
The resolution of the Honduran conflict will be known in time. Yet we need not see into the future to know that this incident should serve as a wake-up call for the hemisphere. We should recognize that such events are not random acts. They are the result of systematic errors and missteps that many of us have been warning about for decades. They are the price we pay for one of our region's greatest follies: its reckless military spending.
This coup d'état demonstrates, once more, that the combination of powerful militaries and fragile democracies creates a terrible risk. It demonstrates, once more, that until we improve this balance, we will always leave open the door to those who would obtain power through force -- whether a little or a great deal, approved by the majority or only by a few. Furthermore, it shows what happens when our governments divert to their militaries resources that could be used to strengthen their democratic institutions, to build a culture of respect for human rights and to increase their levels of human development. Such foolish choices ensure that a nation's democracy is little more than an empty shell, or a meaningless speech.
This year alone, the governments of Latin America will spend nearly $50 billion on their armies. That's nearly double the amount spent five years ago, and it is a ridiculous sum in a region where 200 million people live on fewer than $2 a day and where only Colombia is engaged in an armed conflict. More combat planes, missiles and soldiers won't provide additional bread for our families, desks for our schools or medicine for our clinics. All they can do is destabilize a region that continues to view armed forces as the final arbiter of social conflicts.
None of this is news. These are skewed priorities that many of us have spent years struggling to change. These are skewed priorities that prompted the government of my country to propose the Costa Rica Consensus, which would create mechanisms to forgive debts and provide international aid to developing countries that spend more on education, health care, housing and environmental conservation, and less on weapons and war. This initiative would do more to defend human rights and protect regional democracies than any agreement or declaration ever could.
At one time in the history of the Americas, weapons and armies were associated with liberty and independence, and with new opportunities for our peoples. At one time in the history of the Americas, there were liberating armies. But today, we have seen far too many stories of tyranny, violations of human rights and political instability -- stories traced in the dust by the boots of our militaries. The liberating army we need in the Americas today is one of leaders who come together in peace, in the spirit of cooperation. We need an army of doctors and teachers, of engineers and scientists. We need a force that recognizes that only through development and liberty, through education and health care, through better priorities and wiser investments, can we achieve the stability we seek.
Two decades ago, when I introduced a peace plan designed to end the violence that was sweeping our region, I dreamed of a Central America that would embrace these principles. I hoped for a Central America that would become the world's first demilitarized region. Despite the tremendous gains and improvements we have made since that time, the recent events in Honduras have confirmed that this dream of peace is as urgent and as challenging as ever. Those of us who seek to protect democracies in this hemisphere have no time to waste. I urge all leaders in the Americas to see the Honduran crisis for what it is: an urgent call for the profound social and institutional changes our region has delayed for far too long.
The writer, who won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1987, is serving his second term as president of Costa Rica.
The Perils of Latin America's Oversized Militaries
By Oscar Arias
THE WASHINGTON POST
Thursday, July 9, 2009
Latin America is enveloped in a climate of uncertainty and turmoil that I had hoped our region would never experience again. The recent coup d'état in Honduras, which has embroiled that country in a constitutional crisis, has provided a sad reminder that despite the progress our region has made, the errors of our past are still all too close. I have been asked by the leaders of our region to serve as the mediator in this crisis. Once again, we must trust that dialogue -- so often scorned as too slow or too simple -- is the only path to peace and the light that can guide us through these dark hours.
The resolution of the Honduran conflict will be known in time. Yet we need not see into the future to know that this incident should serve as a wake-up call for the hemisphere. We should recognize that such events are not random acts. They are the result of systematic errors and missteps that many of us have been warning about for decades. They are the price we pay for one of our region's greatest follies: its reckless military spending.
This coup d'état demonstrates, once more, that the combination of powerful militaries and fragile democracies creates a terrible risk. It demonstrates, once more, that until we improve this balance, we will always leave open the door to those who would obtain power through force -- whether a little or a great deal, approved by the majority or only by a few. Furthermore, it shows what happens when our governments divert to their militaries resources that could be used to strengthen their democratic institutions, to build a culture of respect for human rights and to increase their levels of human development. Such foolish choices ensure that a nation's democracy is little more than an empty shell, or a meaningless speech.
This year alone, the governments of Latin America will spend nearly $50 billion on their armies. That's nearly double the amount spent five years ago, and it is a ridiculous sum in a region where 200 million people live on fewer than $2 a day and where only Colombia is engaged in an armed conflict. More combat planes, missiles and soldiers won't provide additional bread for our families, desks for our schools or medicine for our clinics. All they can do is destabilize a region that continues to view armed forces as the final arbiter of social conflicts.
None of this is news. These are skewed priorities that many of us have spent years struggling to change. These are skewed priorities that prompted the government of my country to propose the Costa Rica Consensus, which would create mechanisms to forgive debts and provide international aid to developing countries that spend more on education, health care, housing and environmental conservation, and less on weapons and war. This initiative would do more to defend human rights and protect regional democracies than any agreement or declaration ever could.
At one time in the history of the Americas, weapons and armies were associated with liberty and independence, and with new opportunities for our peoples. At one time in the history of the Americas, there were liberating armies. But today, we have seen far too many stories of tyranny, violations of human rights and political instability -- stories traced in the dust by the boots of our militaries. The liberating army we need in the Americas today is one of leaders who come together in peace, in the spirit of cooperation. We need an army of doctors and teachers, of engineers and scientists. We need a force that recognizes that only through development and liberty, through education and health care, through better priorities and wiser investments, can we achieve the stability we seek.
Two decades ago, when I introduced a peace plan designed to end the violence that was sweeping our region, I dreamed of a Central America that would embrace these principles. I hoped for a Central America that would become the world's first demilitarized region. Despite the tremendous gains and improvements we have made since that time, the recent events in Honduras have confirmed that this dream of peace is as urgent and as challenging as ever. Those of us who seek to protect democracies in this hemisphere have no time to waste. I urge all leaders in the Americas to see the Honduran crisis for what it is: an urgent call for the profound social and institutional changes our region has delayed for far too long.
The writer, who won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1987, is serving his second term as president of Costa Rica.
Saturday, July 11, 2009
Nonviolent Responses to Sexual Assault
I have been thinking about the idea of nonviolent resistance to sexual assault/rape for at least a year, trying to gather my thoughts in a way that will avoid the criticism that will likely result from taking on such a sensitive subject. I guess it's not something that most people, particularly men, devote their minds to, but it's relevant to the work I do as a nonviolence theorist, a feminist activist, and a crisis counselor for the Rape, Abuse & Incest National Network (RAINN).
I strive for consistency, even though I agree with Gandhi that truth is more important. Nonetheless I believe that what I am about to say is both true and consistent.
It is consistent with my stance on violence in general: I believe that violence is inherently destructive and cannot, in the long run (and usually the short run as well), lead to any sense of peace, security, or unity. And when I say "violence" I mean the intentional harming of the body or the dignity of another human being through words or actions. Of course there are other forms of violence, many of which tie into the conditions that allow sexual assault to exist, but for the purposes of this essay, I will hold to the aforementioned definition.
A woman under the threat of sexual assault or rape who strikes her attacker is committing a violent act under my definition. Her attacker, denoted by the label, is also guilty of such. I'm not concerned here with what many people might refer to as "legitimate self-defense" on the part of the woman in distress. I will preface my argument for nonviolence under the threat of rape by saying that I would prefer the woman kill her rapist rather than submit to the indignity of the assault. I say this boldly so that a reader who has not studied the theory and/or practice of nonviolent resistance does not misunderstand my argument. I am not advocating inaction or passivity. Such a brutal attack on the body and on the dignity of a human being must be resisted and only the most reactionary elements of society would argue otherwise. The question is how it should be resisted.
The first turning-point in my crisis counseling career came during a late night conversation with a woman who had just recently been raped by an ex-boyfriend in a secluded area he drove her to in the middle of the night. He had never raped her before, so she couldn't have known what was in store before she got into his truck. She was caught off guard and submitted with little resistance. She said she eventually felt distance from what was happening, as if her mind had come away from her body. Afterward, she had few options and ended up accepting a ride home from him, suffering another indignity on top of the rape.
I would propose that in this scenario fighting back would have failed both in the short run and in the long run. I don't think I have to elaborate: Her ex-boyfriend was a military man. It's highly unlikely that she could have fought him off. And even if she had, where would she go all alone in the middle of the night knowing that he's out there? Assuming she could get away and make it home somehow, what if he decided to come after her later? She was in a very tight spot to say the least.
In my view the only way a man can rape a woman (or another man) is if he sees her as less than human - as an object, as someone to dominate and oppress, as a means to an end. If she could have stayed calm right when he started trying to kiss her (as the story went), looked him in the eye, and told him that while she cared about him and was happy to see him, she was not interested in kissing him at that moment, she might have defused the situation. She could then insist that he drive her home. All the while it would be crucial for her not to show fear, as fear only reinforces the victim/perpetrator relationship.
By pulling away from him swiftly, he might feel somehow inadequate or rejected. This would likely escalate the situation. By going ahead with the kiss that she does not want to participate in, she is encouraging him to take what he wants without asking. This would be a dangerous mistake. Men are often rewarded for aggressive behavior in American culture. They are asked in the morning by their fellows if they "got some." The question of what it took to "get some" is hardly ever asked. It is easy to see how a woman, or even another, weaker man, can become a means to an end with this in mind. When you couple this with a man's supposed lack of sentiment and the need to be "macho," it becomes clear how deep the problem is (and make no mistake, rape is a MAN's problem. Women almost never rape) and how difficult it is to solve it.
So the answer is not to pull away or to submit but to assert oneself and one's right to determine how one's body is used. This ideally should be done in all situations where a man seeks to impose his will, even if it is only a small, but unwanted, touch. The nonviolent resistance must start long before a rape situation occurs and continue long afterward.
But I am not attempting to divert attention from the original case. It is quite possible that the woman's attempts to humanize herself and her attacker could fail. He might not listen to her at all.
Nonetheless, is it not worth an attempt? Rape, after all, is about power. Men have a lot of physical power, but women tend to be stronger when it comes to the heart. The darkness of a bad man can certainly be converted by the light of a good woman. This is so true it's become a cliche.
It is almost never in a woman's heart to fight back violently just as it is almost never in a man's heart to do nothing, to surrender. Why not find the middle ground? There is another way.
I strive for consistency, even though I agree with Gandhi that truth is more important. Nonetheless I believe that what I am about to say is both true and consistent.
It is consistent with my stance on violence in general: I believe that violence is inherently destructive and cannot, in the long run (and usually the short run as well), lead to any sense of peace, security, or unity. And when I say "violence" I mean the intentional harming of the body or the dignity of another human being through words or actions. Of course there are other forms of violence, many of which tie into the conditions that allow sexual assault to exist, but for the purposes of this essay, I will hold to the aforementioned definition.
A woman under the threat of sexual assault or rape who strikes her attacker is committing a violent act under my definition. Her attacker, denoted by the label, is also guilty of such. I'm not concerned here with what many people might refer to as "legitimate self-defense" on the part of the woman in distress. I will preface my argument for nonviolence under the threat of rape by saying that I would prefer the woman kill her rapist rather than submit to the indignity of the assault. I say this boldly so that a reader who has not studied the theory and/or practice of nonviolent resistance does not misunderstand my argument. I am not advocating inaction or passivity. Such a brutal attack on the body and on the dignity of a human being must be resisted and only the most reactionary elements of society would argue otherwise. The question is how it should be resisted.
The first turning-point in my crisis counseling career came during a late night conversation with a woman who had just recently been raped by an ex-boyfriend in a secluded area he drove her to in the middle of the night. He had never raped her before, so she couldn't have known what was in store before she got into his truck. She was caught off guard and submitted with little resistance. She said she eventually felt distance from what was happening, as if her mind had come away from her body. Afterward, she had few options and ended up accepting a ride home from him, suffering another indignity on top of the rape.
I would propose that in this scenario fighting back would have failed both in the short run and in the long run. I don't think I have to elaborate: Her ex-boyfriend was a military man. It's highly unlikely that she could have fought him off. And even if she had, where would she go all alone in the middle of the night knowing that he's out there? Assuming she could get away and make it home somehow, what if he decided to come after her later? She was in a very tight spot to say the least.
In my view the only way a man can rape a woman (or another man) is if he sees her as less than human - as an object, as someone to dominate and oppress, as a means to an end. If she could have stayed calm right when he started trying to kiss her (as the story went), looked him in the eye, and told him that while she cared about him and was happy to see him, she was not interested in kissing him at that moment, she might have defused the situation. She could then insist that he drive her home. All the while it would be crucial for her not to show fear, as fear only reinforces the victim/perpetrator relationship.
By pulling away from him swiftly, he might feel somehow inadequate or rejected. This would likely escalate the situation. By going ahead with the kiss that she does not want to participate in, she is encouraging him to take what he wants without asking. This would be a dangerous mistake. Men are often rewarded for aggressive behavior in American culture. They are asked in the morning by their fellows if they "got some." The question of what it took to "get some" is hardly ever asked. It is easy to see how a woman, or even another, weaker man, can become a means to an end with this in mind. When you couple this with a man's supposed lack of sentiment and the need to be "macho," it becomes clear how deep the problem is (and make no mistake, rape is a MAN's problem. Women almost never rape) and how difficult it is to solve it.
So the answer is not to pull away or to submit but to assert oneself and one's right to determine how one's body is used. This ideally should be done in all situations where a man seeks to impose his will, even if it is only a small, but unwanted, touch. The nonviolent resistance must start long before a rape situation occurs and continue long afterward.
But I am not attempting to divert attention from the original case. It is quite possible that the woman's attempts to humanize herself and her attacker could fail. He might not listen to her at all.
Nonetheless, is it not worth an attempt? Rape, after all, is about power. Men have a lot of physical power, but women tend to be stronger when it comes to the heart. The darkness of a bad man can certainly be converted by the light of a good woman. This is so true it's become a cliche.
It is almost never in a woman's heart to fight back violently just as it is almost never in a man's heart to do nothing, to surrender. Why not find the middle ground? There is another way.
Charity v. Justice
I have gotten in more than a few debates (sometimes internally, sometimes externally) over the question of charity versus justice. If you need a clear example of the issue, think of reparations for slavery or advocating for job creation instead of donating money. I don't always use the two terms in opposition. I don't really see them in opposition, and I don't want to play a semantics game. I want to examine the importance of SERVICE - of what service really means and how it can be both just (righting a wrong) and charitable (giving something you can afford to give). Is the act of service volunteering at a soup kitchen every week? Is it smiling at a frown to induce it to turn upside down? Is it washing a poor man's feet? Perhaps picking a stranger up off the ground?
I can't create a formula for service. I have no interest in rating one type of service as better or worse than another. I don't think utilitarian arguments or statistics involving effectiveness and productivity are what's important because not everyone who wants to serve others has the time or inclination to measure "success" in that way. Some people say "it's the thought that counts." Sounds good. But what if it's a bad thought? What if the man engaging in the service thought he might volunteer at a women's shelter in order to impress his girlfriend? Clearly the intention is important.
Is the intention more important than the result? Rather than get into a philosophical debate, I would offer that if you make the intention simple enough, you need not worry about a negative result. The intention I'm suggesting is to strive to make a human connection with someone who is desperately in need of that connection. This connection will almost certainly benefit both parties. It could be a vagabond, a widow, an orphan, a friend, or even a family member. The connection can be made through any means of communication. It can be done consistently or occasionally. It does not have to involve a material transaction of any kind.
This is based on the belief that what people really need from other individuals (I exclude governments, churches, and large organizations from this designation) is love and kindness. I just met a man who works at a Franciscan charity in San Francisco who used the words "respect" and "dignity" to describe how he felt the guests should be treated by the volunteers. All these words are closely linked. Unfortunately many people are not shown enough love, kindness, or respect in their lives, least of all those who are most dependent on charity. Love and kindness are what sustain people in the long run. Giving people food, water, and shelter is, in the end, only helping them survive another few days - and most of us lack the resources to provide much in the way of food and shelter to anyone but ourselves and our immediate family.
But we do not lack the resources to bestow kindness on every stranger we happen to meet, whether in the midst of planned service or during our daily routine. We do not lack the resources to smile at them and laugh with them. We can show them the same respect we would want for ourselves at no cost. We can help them feel a sense of dignity by "listening them into existence," as a good friend of mine likes to say, and we can do it without having to worry about them using our kindness to buy drugs instead of food.
I can't create a formula for service. I have no interest in rating one type of service as better or worse than another. I don't think utilitarian arguments or statistics involving effectiveness and productivity are what's important because not everyone who wants to serve others has the time or inclination to measure "success" in that way. Some people say "it's the thought that counts." Sounds good. But what if it's a bad thought? What if the man engaging in the service thought he might volunteer at a women's shelter in order to impress his girlfriend? Clearly the intention is important.
Is the intention more important than the result? Rather than get into a philosophical debate, I would offer that if you make the intention simple enough, you need not worry about a negative result. The intention I'm suggesting is to strive to make a human connection with someone who is desperately in need of that connection. This connection will almost certainly benefit both parties. It could be a vagabond, a widow, an orphan, a friend, or even a family member. The connection can be made through any means of communication. It can be done consistently or occasionally. It does not have to involve a material transaction of any kind.
This is based on the belief that what people really need from other individuals (I exclude governments, churches, and large organizations from this designation) is love and kindness. I just met a man who works at a Franciscan charity in San Francisco who used the words "respect" and "dignity" to describe how he felt the guests should be treated by the volunteers. All these words are closely linked. Unfortunately many people are not shown enough love, kindness, or respect in their lives, least of all those who are most dependent on charity. Love and kindness are what sustain people in the long run. Giving people food, water, and shelter is, in the end, only helping them survive another few days - and most of us lack the resources to provide much in the way of food and shelter to anyone but ourselves and our immediate family.
But we do not lack the resources to bestow kindness on every stranger we happen to meet, whether in the midst of planned service or during our daily routine. We do not lack the resources to smile at them and laugh with them. We can show them the same respect we would want for ourselves at no cost. We can help them feel a sense of dignity by "listening them into existence," as a good friend of mine likes to say, and we can do it without having to worry about them using our kindness to buy drugs instead of food.
Tuesday, July 7, 2009
McNamara and Me
When I first heard of Robert McNamara's death, I did not immediately recognize the influence his life and legacy has had on me. I had not heard the name or thought of the man in a long time. My last memory of McNamara was being repulsed at his factual distortions regarding the Cuban Missile Crisis in the popular film, "Fog of War" (which I don't think I even bothered to finish).
It was a round-table discussion on Democracy Now! today featuring Howard Zinn and other prominent experts on U.S. history and foreign policy that touched on the significance of McNamara to a young radical like me. I had heard the name in history class, but it was not until I read David Halberstam's The Best and the Brightest that 'McNamara' became an intriguing name. He was quite possibly the very best and brightest of the best and brightest: the description given by Halberstam to President John F. Kennedy's highly intellectual team of advisers. Kennedy himself quipped: "I think this is the most extraordinary collection of talent, of human knowledge, that has ever been gathered at the White House - with the possible exception of when Thomas Jefferson dined alone." Nonetheless, McNamara, Dean Rusk, McGeorge Bundy, and other Kennedy administration officials would be better known for their failures in Vietnam than their Rhodes Scholarships.
Despite the large cadre of failures who were swept into the historical dustpan with him, it was McNamara and his story that led me to give up on government. I doubted that any dramatic "change from within" was possible. I identified much more with the activists camped outside the White House screaming "Hey, LBJ, whaddaya say? How many kids did you kill today?" than with the misguided officials inside, who may have had greater access to power but had far less access to reality. I didn't see myself as a yes man or as someone who could ever compromise on my values. I couldn't identity much with even the likes of Daniel Ellsberg because despite his courage, he still played for the wrong team for much of his life. I can hardly see myself wearing a suit to work.
But McNamara gave me hope as well as disillusionment. He helped me realize that you don't have to have a 4.0 GPA to understand foreign policy or warfare. In fact, less-educated Americans were more heavily against the War in Vietnam than their university-taught counterparts. The masses took to the streets while McNamara was trying to figure out how many pounds of bombs to drop on Hanoi's children. Humanity is not something that comes from a campus or a book. While reading about McNamara for the first time, I was proud of myself for taking a bold stance against the War in Iraq and organizing my fellow students to do the same. I was proud of myself for NOT being a stooge of empire.
I may not have the opportunity to run the Ford Motor Company, the Pentagon, or the World Bank (McNamara ran all three at different times in his life), but I can run a peace group - and maybe a small non-profit some day. I'm certain I'll sleep better at night in my later years than McNamara did. Of course, that's not saying much.
I don't know how McNamara will be remembered by most Americans (if he is remembered at all). I just hope that history books don't continue to present him as someone who beat the drum the loudest for one of the bloodiest and shameful U.S. military campaigns only to recant his hawkish views and become a dove. This is an over-simplistic view of the man at best. He may have admitted that the so-called Vietnam War was a mistake, but he never acknowledged the blood on his hands; he never apologized to the military families back at home or to the children of Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia. He may have spoken out against nuclear weapons, but so have some of the most unapologetic American imperialists, such as Henry Kissinger. I question his motives for abolition: Every foreign policy wonk knows that if nuclear weapons were abolished from the earth, there would be no longer any (violent) means of deterring the United States' conventional military superiority for countries like North Korea.
It's quite possible that McNamara never saw the light. And I'm sure he doesn't see it now. I just hope the architects of the current occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan come to join the millions of Americans and the billions of people worldwide who have grown weary of war. I hope they become architects of peace.
It was a round-table discussion on Democracy Now! today featuring Howard Zinn and other prominent experts on U.S. history and foreign policy that touched on the significance of McNamara to a young radical like me. I had heard the name in history class, but it was not until I read David Halberstam's The Best and the Brightest that 'McNamara' became an intriguing name. He was quite possibly the very best and brightest of the best and brightest: the description given by Halberstam to President John F. Kennedy's highly intellectual team of advisers. Kennedy himself quipped: "I think this is the most extraordinary collection of talent, of human knowledge, that has ever been gathered at the White House - with the possible exception of when Thomas Jefferson dined alone." Nonetheless, McNamara, Dean Rusk, McGeorge Bundy, and other Kennedy administration officials would be better known for their failures in Vietnam than their Rhodes Scholarships.
Despite the large cadre of failures who were swept into the historical dustpan with him, it was McNamara and his story that led me to give up on government. I doubted that any dramatic "change from within" was possible. I identified much more with the activists camped outside the White House screaming "Hey, LBJ, whaddaya say? How many kids did you kill today?" than with the misguided officials inside, who may have had greater access to power but had far less access to reality. I didn't see myself as a yes man or as someone who could ever compromise on my values. I couldn't identity much with even the likes of Daniel Ellsberg because despite his courage, he still played for the wrong team for much of his life. I can hardly see myself wearing a suit to work.
But McNamara gave me hope as well as disillusionment. He helped me realize that you don't have to have a 4.0 GPA to understand foreign policy or warfare. In fact, less-educated Americans were more heavily against the War in Vietnam than their university-taught counterparts. The masses took to the streets while McNamara was trying to figure out how many pounds of bombs to drop on Hanoi's children. Humanity is not something that comes from a campus or a book. While reading about McNamara for the first time, I was proud of myself for taking a bold stance against the War in Iraq and organizing my fellow students to do the same. I was proud of myself for NOT being a stooge of empire.
I may not have the opportunity to run the Ford Motor Company, the Pentagon, or the World Bank (McNamara ran all three at different times in his life), but I can run a peace group - and maybe a small non-profit some day. I'm certain I'll sleep better at night in my later years than McNamara did. Of course, that's not saying much.
I don't know how McNamara will be remembered by most Americans (if he is remembered at all). I just hope that history books don't continue to present him as someone who beat the drum the loudest for one of the bloodiest and shameful U.S. military campaigns only to recant his hawkish views and become a dove. This is an over-simplistic view of the man at best. He may have admitted that the so-called Vietnam War was a mistake, but he never acknowledged the blood on his hands; he never apologized to the military families back at home or to the children of Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia. He may have spoken out against nuclear weapons, but so have some of the most unapologetic American imperialists, such as Henry Kissinger. I question his motives for abolition: Every foreign policy wonk knows that if nuclear weapons were abolished from the earth, there would be no longer any (violent) means of deterring the United States' conventional military superiority for countries like North Korea.
It's quite possible that McNamara never saw the light. And I'm sure he doesn't see it now. I just hope the architects of the current occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan come to join the millions of Americans and the billions of people worldwide who have grown weary of war. I hope they become architects of peace.
A Celebrity Never Dies
American Idols
By Jamie L Manson
Created Jul 02, 2009
America's obsessive relationship with celebrities hit a fever pitch this past week with the death of Michael Jackson.
The NBC and ABC networks cancelled their evening programming to offer impromptu "remembering Michael Jackson" retrospectives. On news radio, nothing else seemed to be happening with the exception of the requisite traffic and weather notifications. It even made the cover of The New York Times, and NPR had it as one of their top stories.
JacksonJacksonOutside of the Apollo Theatre in Harlem, a church-like atmosphere was spontaneously generated. Candles, iconic images, and prayerful messages covered the sidewalks. Mourners gathered in collective worship, singing, dancing, and praising as if they were attending a religious revival meeting. Newly minted T-shirts boasting "Long Live the King" were printed and snatched up within hours of the news.
A group of teenagers from a church in North Carolina who were engaged in a service project at our homeless outreach program took a break to try to get into the Tuesday memorial service at the Apollo. Although most of them were born no earlier than 1993 and couldn't name a Jackson song a week ago, they were crushed to find that a line stretching ten city blocks prevented them from entering the theater. But they couldn't resist being caught up in the hysteria.
Jackson's artistic force and his innovative genius were thrilling examples of the extraordinary power of human creation to lift human beings up through music and dance. And, yet, this massive, communal mourning seems empty at its core. Up until June 25, Jackson was a punch line for many comedians and entertainment publications. His contributions to popular culture seemed long forgotten. The scandals of his life and bizarreness of his lifestyle were at the forefront of our memories. He lived as a recluse in Dubai for years after his trial and no one seemed to miss him.
We did not really know him, yet we get emotionally charged over his death. Would another person tried for molesting children, whose death appears to be a result of a massive addiction to opiates, cause us such heartache? I wonder how authentic our grief is, and how much of it is another, celebrity-induced emotional fad.
A few decades ago, the novelist Walker Percy was asked in an interview to define religion. Drawing on the word's Latin root religare, which means literally "to bind fast," Percy defined religion as a radical bond between a person and reality that confers meaning to his or her life.
Celebrity culture, it seems to me, has become our religion. It is unreality posing as reality. It devours our attention and shapes our values and concerns. It has a unique power to move us and propel us toward action. Sometimes it even helps mold our consciences. We donate to a cause if "American Idol" has decided to "give back" to it. We become interested in Darfur because George Clooney insists on it. When Oprah made a documentary about building a girls' school in South Africa, millions were moved by her generosity. And who has been a greater promoter of Kabbalah spirituality in its centuries-old history than Madonna?
As much as I appreciate celebrities who use their enormous power for the good, I cannot help but be troubled by their capacity to dominate our minds and hearts. They lift us up in frenzy of concern that seems to fade as quickly as it erupted. Celebrity culture is fickle and faddish, and very often the social awareness the celebrities promote suffers the same fate. Remember Jackson's "We Are the World/ USA for Africa" project that set out to end famine in Ethiopia? He received an extraordinary amount of celebrity support and a mega-hit was born from it. Sadly, 25 years later, the situation remains the same in that region of the world.
So, for this week at least, Jackson is the object of worship and veneration in our cult of the celebrity. The heightened sense of loss suggests that we are so hungry for meaning, for some sense of the sacred, that the moonwalk and an epic music video are being spoken about as if they are sacraments.
But what I believe fuels our obsession with celebrities most is not their artistic or philanthropic contributions -- or even their scandals -- but their fame which serves as a symbol of our own deep desire to be known. Our preoccupation with them is in many ways a mark of our own yearning to be well-known. As communities decline and the act of socializing becomes more isolated by communication devices and social networking sites, we become less and less present to one another. This is why, I believe, sites like Twitter are so popular. We are so anxious to be recognized, that we feel the need to tell our every move to anyone willing to read about it. Unfortunately, this does not create the quality of presence that feeds the spirit and leads us into more intimate levels of knowing and being known.
Our country's preoccupation with Jackson's death this week illuminated for me the role of celebrities in our society: they are cultural golden calves that distract us from being present to one another and from recognizing the sacred working in our midst. Our cultish attachment to celebrities reveals the pathos of our culture. In our obsession with them, we are at once crying out for attention and being distracted from those realities that are most in need of our authentic presence. At its core, it suggests that we are hungry for meaning that no other cultural entity seems to be willing or able to make for us. We are starving for presence and looking towards American idols to offer us a fantasy of being known and a diversion from the challenge to know more deeply.
Jamie Manson received her master of divinity degree from Yale Divinity School where she studied Catholic theology, personal commitments and sexual ethics with Mercy Sr. Margaret Farley. She is the former editor in chief of the Yale magazine Reflections, and currently serves as director of Social Justice Ministries at Jan Hus Presbyterian Church, working primarily with New York City’s homeless and poor populations. She is a member of the national board of the Women’s Ordination Conference
By Jamie L Manson
Created Jul 02, 2009
America's obsessive relationship with celebrities hit a fever pitch this past week with the death of Michael Jackson.
The NBC and ABC networks cancelled their evening programming to offer impromptu "remembering Michael Jackson" retrospectives. On news radio, nothing else seemed to be happening with the exception of the requisite traffic and weather notifications. It even made the cover of The New York Times, and NPR had it as one of their top stories.
JacksonJacksonOutside of the Apollo Theatre in Harlem, a church-like atmosphere was spontaneously generated. Candles, iconic images, and prayerful messages covered the sidewalks. Mourners gathered in collective worship, singing, dancing, and praising as if they were attending a religious revival meeting. Newly minted T-shirts boasting "Long Live the King" were printed and snatched up within hours of the news.
A group of teenagers from a church in North Carolina who were engaged in a service project at our homeless outreach program took a break to try to get into the Tuesday memorial service at the Apollo. Although most of them were born no earlier than 1993 and couldn't name a Jackson song a week ago, they were crushed to find that a line stretching ten city blocks prevented them from entering the theater. But they couldn't resist being caught up in the hysteria.
Jackson's artistic force and his innovative genius were thrilling examples of the extraordinary power of human creation to lift human beings up through music and dance. And, yet, this massive, communal mourning seems empty at its core. Up until June 25, Jackson was a punch line for many comedians and entertainment publications. His contributions to popular culture seemed long forgotten. The scandals of his life and bizarreness of his lifestyle were at the forefront of our memories. He lived as a recluse in Dubai for years after his trial and no one seemed to miss him.
We did not really know him, yet we get emotionally charged over his death. Would another person tried for molesting children, whose death appears to be a result of a massive addiction to opiates, cause us such heartache? I wonder how authentic our grief is, and how much of it is another, celebrity-induced emotional fad.
A few decades ago, the novelist Walker Percy was asked in an interview to define religion. Drawing on the word's Latin root religare, which means literally "to bind fast," Percy defined religion as a radical bond between a person and reality that confers meaning to his or her life.
Celebrity culture, it seems to me, has become our religion. It is unreality posing as reality. It devours our attention and shapes our values and concerns. It has a unique power to move us and propel us toward action. Sometimes it even helps mold our consciences. We donate to a cause if "American Idol" has decided to "give back" to it. We become interested in Darfur because George Clooney insists on it. When Oprah made a documentary about building a girls' school in South Africa, millions were moved by her generosity. And who has been a greater promoter of Kabbalah spirituality in its centuries-old history than Madonna?
As much as I appreciate celebrities who use their enormous power for the good, I cannot help but be troubled by their capacity to dominate our minds and hearts. They lift us up in frenzy of concern that seems to fade as quickly as it erupted. Celebrity culture is fickle and faddish, and very often the social awareness the celebrities promote suffers the same fate. Remember Jackson's "We Are the World/ USA for Africa" project that set out to end famine in Ethiopia? He received an extraordinary amount of celebrity support and a mega-hit was born from it. Sadly, 25 years later, the situation remains the same in that region of the world.
So, for this week at least, Jackson is the object of worship and veneration in our cult of the celebrity. The heightened sense of loss suggests that we are so hungry for meaning, for some sense of the sacred, that the moonwalk and an epic music video are being spoken about as if they are sacraments.
But what I believe fuels our obsession with celebrities most is not their artistic or philanthropic contributions -- or even their scandals -- but their fame which serves as a symbol of our own deep desire to be known. Our preoccupation with them is in many ways a mark of our own yearning to be well-known. As communities decline and the act of socializing becomes more isolated by communication devices and social networking sites, we become less and less present to one another. This is why, I believe, sites like Twitter are so popular. We are so anxious to be recognized, that we feel the need to tell our every move to anyone willing to read about it. Unfortunately, this does not create the quality of presence that feeds the spirit and leads us into more intimate levels of knowing and being known.
Our country's preoccupation with Jackson's death this week illuminated for me the role of celebrities in our society: they are cultural golden calves that distract us from being present to one another and from recognizing the sacred working in our midst. Our cultish attachment to celebrities reveals the pathos of our culture. In our obsession with them, we are at once crying out for attention and being distracted from those realities that are most in need of our authentic presence. At its core, it suggests that we are hungry for meaning that no other cultural entity seems to be willing or able to make for us. We are starving for presence and looking towards American idols to offer us a fantasy of being known and a diversion from the challenge to know more deeply.
Jamie Manson received her master of divinity degree from Yale Divinity School where she studied Catholic theology, personal commitments and sexual ethics with Mercy Sr. Margaret Farley. She is the former editor in chief of the Yale magazine Reflections, and currently serves as director of Social Justice Ministries at Jan Hus Presbyterian Church, working primarily with New York City’s homeless and poor populations. She is a member of the national board of the Women’s Ordination Conference
Letter from an Israeli Prison
Letter from an Israeli Prison
by Cynthia McKinney
Original audio message available here:
http://freegaza.org/it/home/56-news/984-a-message-from-cynthia-from-a-cell-block-in-israel
A funny thing happened to me on my way to Gaza. Before I left for Gaza, I was giddy with excitement. The children needed school supplies. It was a last-minute, but urgent request. Please bring crayons for the children. And so I accpeted congtributions of crayola crayons, #2 pencils, pencil sharpeners, paint brushes, and crayola watercolors.
When I told people that I was going shopping to buy crayons for the children of Gaza, everyone wanted to donate. By the time I left, my suitcase could hold no more. So, full of expectation, I entered the airport in the U.S. headed once again to Larnaca, Cyprus where the Hope Flotilla, consisting of the "gree Gaza" and the "Spirit of Humanity" were to embark to Gaza.
The "Free Gaza" was to be donated to the people of Gaa so they could replace some of the boats confiscated or bombed by the Israelis during Operation Cast Lead.
It was a beautiful dream. And dream it had to be because I had tried to get to Gaza before. At the outbreak of Israel's Ooperation Cast Lead, I boarded a Free Gaza boat, with one day's notice, and tried, as the U.S. representative in a mulitnational delegation, to deliver trhee tons of mnidical supplies to an already-besieged and ravaged Gaza. But, during Opertion Cast Lead, U.S.-supplied F-16s raised hell fire on a trapped people. Ethnic cleansing became full-scale, outright genocide.
U.S.-supplied white phosphorus, depleted uranium, robotic technology, DIME weapons, and cluster bombs - new weapons creating injuries never treated before by Jordanian and Norwegian doctors. I was later told by doctors who were there in Gaza during Israel's onslaught that Gaza had become Israel's veritable weapons testing laboratory; and the people used to test and improve the kill ratio of their weapons.
The world saw Israel's despicable violence thanks to al-Jazeera Arabic and Press TV that broadcast in English. I saw those broadcasts live and around the clock, not from the USA but from Lebanon, where my first attempt to get into Gaza had ended because the Israeli military rammed the boat I was on in international waters that carried medical supplies. That boat, the Dignity, was completely destroyed in its encounter with the Israeli military.
Again, on a humanitarian mission aborted by the Israeli military. I am now known as Israeli Prisoner #88794. I am in cell number 5, Ramle Prison. How could I be in prison for collecting crayons for kids and trying to get the crayons to them?
The Israeli authorities have tried to get us to confess that we committed a crime. And while in the cellblock, I have kaccess to my clothes and a cell phinbe, but not the crayons or any clothing that has the word "Gaza" on it. Zionism has surely run out of its last legitimacy if this is what it does to people who believe so deeply in human rights for all that they put their own lives on the line for someone else's children. Israel is the fullest expression of Zionism, but if Israel fears for its security because Gaza's children have crayons then not only has Israel lost its last shred of legitimacy, but Israel must be declared a failed state.
I am facing deportation from the state that brought me here at gunpoint after commandeering our boat. I was brought to Israel against my will. I am being held in this prison because I had a dream that Gaza's children could color & paint, that Gaza's wounded could be healed, and that Gaza's bombed-out houses could be rebuilt.
But I've learned an interesting thing by being inside this prison. First of all, it's incredibly black: populated mostly by Ethiopians who also had a dream. My five cellmates have been here for about six months each. One is pregnant; they are all in their twenties. They thought they were coming to the Holy Land. They had a dream that their lives would be better. The CIA-installed puppet in Addis Ababa, President Meles, whom I have met, has put the once-proud, never-colonized Ethiopia into the back pocket of the United States, and become a place of torture, rendition, and occupation. Ethiopians must flee their country because superpower politics became more important than human rights and self-determination.
My cellmates came to the Holy Land so they could be free from the exigencies of superpower politics. They committed no crime except to have a dream. They came to Israel because they thought that Israel held promise for them. Their journey to Israel through Sudan and Egypt was arduous. I can only imagine what it must have been like for them. And it wasn't cheap. Many of them represent their family's best collective efforts for self-fulfillment. They made their way to the United Nations High Commission for Refugees. They got their yellow paper of identification. They got their certificate for police protection. They are refugees from tragedy, and they made it to Israel. Only after they arrived, Israel told them "There is no UN in Israel."
The police have license to pick them up and suck them into the black hole of a farce for a justice system. These beautiful, industrious, proud young women represent the hopes of entire families. The idea of Israel tricked them and the rest of us. In a widely propagandized slick marketing campaign, Israel represented itself as a place of refuge and safety for the world's first Jews and Christians. I, too, believed that marketing and failed to look deeper. The truth is that Israel lied to the world. Israel lied to the families of these young women. Israel lied to the women themselves who are now trapped at Ramle.
And what are we to do? One of my cellmates cried today. She has been here for six months. As an American, crying with them is not enough. The policy of the United States must be better, and while we watch President Obama give 12.8 trillion dollars to the financial elite of the United States it ought now be clear that "hope," "change," and "yes we can" were powerfully presented images of dignity and self-fulfillment, individually and nationally, that besieged people everywhere truly believed in.
It was a slick marketing campaign, as slickly put to the world and to the voters of America as was Israel's marketing to the world. It tricked all of us but, more tragically, these young women.
We must cast an informed vote about better candidates seeking to represent us. I have read and re-read Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.'s Letter from a Birmingham Jail. Never in my wildest dreams would I have ever imagined that I, too, would one day have to do so. It is clear that taxpayers in Europe and the U.S. have a lot to atone for, for what they've done to others around the world.
What an irony! My son begins his law school program without me because I am in prison, in my own way trying to do my best, again, for other people's children. Forgive me, my son. I guess I'm experiencing the harsh reality which is why people need dreams. I'm lucky. I will leave this place. Has Israel become the place where dreams die?
Ask the people of Palestine. Ask the stream of black and Asian men whom I've seen being processed at Ramle. Ask the women on my cellblock. [Ask yourself:] what are you willing to do?
Let's change the world together and reclaim what we all need as human beings: Dignity.
I appeal to the United Nations to get these women of Ramle, who have done nothing wrong other than to believe in Israel as the guardian of the Holy Land, resettled in safe homes.
I appeal to the United States Department of State to include the plight of detained UNHCR-certified refugees in the Israel Country Report in its annual Human Rights Report.
I appeal, once again, to President Obama to go to Gaza: send your special envoy, George Mitchell there, and to engage Hamas as the elected choice of the Palestinian people.
I dedicate this message to those who struggle to achieve a free Palestine, and to the women I've met at Ramle.
Cynthia McKinney, July 2nd 2009, also known as Ramle prisoner number 88794.
by Cynthia McKinney
Original audio message available here:
http://freegaza.org/it/home/56-news/984-a-message-from-cynthia-from-a-cell-block-in-israel
A funny thing happened to me on my way to Gaza. Before I left for Gaza, I was giddy with excitement. The children needed school supplies. It was a last-minute, but urgent request. Please bring crayons for the children. And so I accpeted congtributions of crayola crayons, #2 pencils, pencil sharpeners, paint brushes, and crayola watercolors.
When I told people that I was going shopping to buy crayons for the children of Gaza, everyone wanted to donate. By the time I left, my suitcase could hold no more. So, full of expectation, I entered the airport in the U.S. headed once again to Larnaca, Cyprus where the Hope Flotilla, consisting of the "gree Gaza" and the "Spirit of Humanity" were to embark to Gaza.
The "Free Gaza" was to be donated to the people of Gaa so they could replace some of the boats confiscated or bombed by the Israelis during Operation Cast Lead.
It was a beautiful dream. And dream it had to be because I had tried to get to Gaza before. At the outbreak of Israel's Ooperation Cast Lead, I boarded a Free Gaza boat, with one day's notice, and tried, as the U.S. representative in a mulitnational delegation, to deliver trhee tons of mnidical supplies to an already-besieged and ravaged Gaza. But, during Opertion Cast Lead, U.S.-supplied F-16s raised hell fire on a trapped people. Ethnic cleansing became full-scale, outright genocide.
U.S.-supplied white phosphorus, depleted uranium, robotic technology, DIME weapons, and cluster bombs - new weapons creating injuries never treated before by Jordanian and Norwegian doctors. I was later told by doctors who were there in Gaza during Israel's onslaught that Gaza had become Israel's veritable weapons testing laboratory; and the people used to test and improve the kill ratio of their weapons.
The world saw Israel's despicable violence thanks to al-Jazeera Arabic and Press TV that broadcast in English. I saw those broadcasts live and around the clock, not from the USA but from Lebanon, where my first attempt to get into Gaza had ended because the Israeli military rammed the boat I was on in international waters that carried medical supplies. That boat, the Dignity, was completely destroyed in its encounter with the Israeli military.
Again, on a humanitarian mission aborted by the Israeli military. I am now known as Israeli Prisoner #88794. I am in cell number 5, Ramle Prison. How could I be in prison for collecting crayons for kids and trying to get the crayons to them?
The Israeli authorities have tried to get us to confess that we committed a crime. And while in the cellblock, I have kaccess to my clothes and a cell phinbe, but not the crayons or any clothing that has the word "Gaza" on it. Zionism has surely run out of its last legitimacy if this is what it does to people who believe so deeply in human rights for all that they put their own lives on the line for someone else's children. Israel is the fullest expression of Zionism, but if Israel fears for its security because Gaza's children have crayons then not only has Israel lost its last shred of legitimacy, but Israel must be declared a failed state.
I am facing deportation from the state that brought me here at gunpoint after commandeering our boat. I was brought to Israel against my will. I am being held in this prison because I had a dream that Gaza's children could color & paint, that Gaza's wounded could be healed, and that Gaza's bombed-out houses could be rebuilt.
But I've learned an interesting thing by being inside this prison. First of all, it's incredibly black: populated mostly by Ethiopians who also had a dream. My five cellmates have been here for about six months each. One is pregnant; they are all in their twenties. They thought they were coming to the Holy Land. They had a dream that their lives would be better. The CIA-installed puppet in Addis Ababa, President Meles, whom I have met, has put the once-proud, never-colonized Ethiopia into the back pocket of the United States, and become a place of torture, rendition, and occupation. Ethiopians must flee their country because superpower politics became more important than human rights and self-determination.
My cellmates came to the Holy Land so they could be free from the exigencies of superpower politics. They committed no crime except to have a dream. They came to Israel because they thought that Israel held promise for them. Their journey to Israel through Sudan and Egypt was arduous. I can only imagine what it must have been like for them. And it wasn't cheap. Many of them represent their family's best collective efforts for self-fulfillment. They made their way to the United Nations High Commission for Refugees. They got their yellow paper of identification. They got their certificate for police protection. They are refugees from tragedy, and they made it to Israel. Only after they arrived, Israel told them "There is no UN in Israel."
The police have license to pick them up and suck them into the black hole of a farce for a justice system. These beautiful, industrious, proud young women represent the hopes of entire families. The idea of Israel tricked them and the rest of us. In a widely propagandized slick marketing campaign, Israel represented itself as a place of refuge and safety for the world's first Jews and Christians. I, too, believed that marketing and failed to look deeper. The truth is that Israel lied to the world. Israel lied to the families of these young women. Israel lied to the women themselves who are now trapped at Ramle.
And what are we to do? One of my cellmates cried today. She has been here for six months. As an American, crying with them is not enough. The policy of the United States must be better, and while we watch President Obama give 12.8 trillion dollars to the financial elite of the United States it ought now be clear that "hope," "change," and "yes we can" were powerfully presented images of dignity and self-fulfillment, individually and nationally, that besieged people everywhere truly believed in.
It was a slick marketing campaign, as slickly put to the world and to the voters of America as was Israel's marketing to the world. It tricked all of us but, more tragically, these young women.
We must cast an informed vote about better candidates seeking to represent us. I have read and re-read Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.'s Letter from a Birmingham Jail. Never in my wildest dreams would I have ever imagined that I, too, would one day have to do so. It is clear that taxpayers in Europe and the U.S. have a lot to atone for, for what they've done to others around the world.
What an irony! My son begins his law school program without me because I am in prison, in my own way trying to do my best, again, for other people's children. Forgive me, my son. I guess I'm experiencing the harsh reality which is why people need dreams. I'm lucky. I will leave this place. Has Israel become the place where dreams die?
Ask the people of Palestine. Ask the stream of black and Asian men whom I've seen being processed at Ramle. Ask the women on my cellblock. [Ask yourself:] what are you willing to do?
Let's change the world together and reclaim what we all need as human beings: Dignity.
I appeal to the United Nations to get these women of Ramle, who have done nothing wrong other than to believe in Israel as the guardian of the Holy Land, resettled in safe homes.
I appeal to the United States Department of State to include the plight of detained UNHCR-certified refugees in the Israel Country Report in its annual Human Rights Report.
I appeal, once again, to President Obama to go to Gaza: send your special envoy, George Mitchell there, and to engage Hamas as the elected choice of the Palestinian people.
I dedicate this message to those who struggle to achieve a free Palestine, and to the women I've met at Ramle.
Cynthia McKinney, July 2nd 2009, also known as Ramle prisoner number 88794.
I plan to go...who's with me?
Activists plan March to break Gaza siege
By Richard Hall
Daily Star staff
Wednesday, July 01, 2009
BEIRUT: A coalition of activists belonging to various Palestinian solidarity organizations are planning an international march in Gaza aimed at ending the blockade of the territory. The event will aim to bring thousands of demonstrators from around the world to march alongside Gazans as they breach the blockade imposed upon the population since the election of Hamas in 2006.
"This march draws inspiration from Mahatma Gandhi," said a draft statement of purposes and principles written by the "Coalition to End the Illegal Siege of Gaza," obtained by The Daily Star. "Those of us residing in the United States also draw inspiration from the civil rights movement," it added.
The statement also outlines plans for the march, which will take place on January 1, 2010. "We will march the Long Mile across Erez checkpoint alongside the people of Gaza in a nonviolent demonstration that breaches the illegal blockade," it said, adding that "We conceive this march as the first step in a protracted nonviolent campaign ... If we bring thousands to Gaza and millions more around the world watch the march on the internet, we can end the siege without a drop of blood being shed."
Professor Norman Finkelstein, a political analyst and author of several books on the Israel-Palestine conflict, is one of the organizers of the march. "We want to send over several thousand people from around the world to march alongside several hundred thousand Gazans," he told The Daily Star.
Finkelstein hopes that large numbers of international activists and world leaders will attend the march, and as a result, prohibit a violent response from Israeli authorities. "If the likes of Jimmy Carter, Noam Chomsky, Bishop Tutu and Nelson Mandela are at the head of the march; if behind them are students holding high signs of the schools from which they hail - Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Oxford, Cambridge; if behind them are the ill and the lame, the young and the innocent of Gaza; if behind them are hundreds of thousands of others, unarmed and unafraid, wanting only to enforce the law; if around the world hundreds of thousands are watching the internet to see what happens - Israel can't shoot," he said.
"The first formal organizational meeting of the coalition is set for July 13," said Finkelstein. "We hope then to create an umbrella steering committee. Right now the working group consists of individuals who belong to organizations that have been active on the Israel-Palestine conflict such as CodePink."
Members of the coalition are now contacting Palestinian solidarity groups around the world in preparation for the march.
By Richard Hall
Daily Star staff
Wednesday, July 01, 2009
BEIRUT: A coalition of activists belonging to various Palestinian solidarity organizations are planning an international march in Gaza aimed at ending the blockade of the territory. The event will aim to bring thousands of demonstrators from around the world to march alongside Gazans as they breach the blockade imposed upon the population since the election of Hamas in 2006.
"This march draws inspiration from Mahatma Gandhi," said a draft statement of purposes and principles written by the "Coalition to End the Illegal Siege of Gaza," obtained by The Daily Star. "Those of us residing in the United States also draw inspiration from the civil rights movement," it added.
The statement also outlines plans for the march, which will take place on January 1, 2010. "We will march the Long Mile across Erez checkpoint alongside the people of Gaza in a nonviolent demonstration that breaches the illegal blockade," it said, adding that "We conceive this march as the first step in a protracted nonviolent campaign ... If we bring thousands to Gaza and millions more around the world watch the march on the internet, we can end the siege without a drop of blood being shed."
Professor Norman Finkelstein, a political analyst and author of several books on the Israel-Palestine conflict, is one of the organizers of the march. "We want to send over several thousand people from around the world to march alongside several hundred thousand Gazans," he told The Daily Star.
Finkelstein hopes that large numbers of international activists and world leaders will attend the march, and as a result, prohibit a violent response from Israeli authorities. "If the likes of Jimmy Carter, Noam Chomsky, Bishop Tutu and Nelson Mandela are at the head of the march; if behind them are students holding high signs of the schools from which they hail - Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Oxford, Cambridge; if behind them are the ill and the lame, the young and the innocent of Gaza; if behind them are hundreds of thousands of others, unarmed and unafraid, wanting only to enforce the law; if around the world hundreds of thousands are watching the internet to see what happens - Israel can't shoot," he said.
"The first formal organizational meeting of the coalition is set for July 13," said Finkelstein. "We hope then to create an umbrella steering committee. Right now the working group consists of individuals who belong to organizations that have been active on the Israel-Palestine conflict such as CodePink."
Members of the coalition are now contacting Palestinian solidarity groups around the world in preparation for the march.
Repression (and Hope) in Honduras
Hondurans Pour into the Streets Demanding Zelaya’s Return
by Medea Benjamin
The day started out full of joy, as thousands of Hondurans converged in front of the National Institute of Pedagogy, intent on marching about three miles to the airport to greet the plane that was supposed to bring deposed President Zelaya back to Honduras.
"Our president's coming home today, this is going to be a great day," said Jose Rodriguez, a campesino who came from Santa Barbara with his farmer's group to join the anti-coup movement. The military tried to stop them from getting to the capital, so they had to divide up and take local buses from town to town. "It took us two days to get here, and we slept outside in the forest last night, but we had to be here," said Rodriguez.
A group of young girls came with their church from Olancho. They were determined to greet Zelaya, who they said was sent by God to be president. "The Cardinal is against our president, but he doesn't represent many of us in the religious community. Our pastor is against the coup and so are we," said Alejandra Fernandez, a 23-year-old university student.
I asked why she supported Manuel Zelaya, or "Mel", as his supporters call him. "The government said he broke the law and is guilty of 18 crimes," she said. "Do you know what they are?" She pulled out her cell phone and started to read from a list: He raised the minimum wage, gave out free school lunches, provided milk for the babies and pensions for the elderly, distributed energy-saving lightbulbs, decreased the price of public transportation, made more scholarships available for students." Suddenly a crowd gathered around us and started chiming in. "He fixed the roads," said one. "He put schools in remote rural areas, like my little village, that never had them before," added another. "He let anyone go into the Presidential Palace and converted it from an elite residence to the people's house," said another.
"You see?," Alejandra smiled. "He is guilty of even more then 18 crimes. That's why the elite classes can't stand him and why we want him back. This is really a class struggle."
The march wound its way through the streets of Tegucigalpa, gathering more and more people along the way. The massive crowd sang and chanted slogans like "No somos cinco, no somos cien. Prensa vendida, cuentenos bien" (We're not five, we're not 100, you sold-out press, count us well")-referring to the fact that the mainstream press has been ignoring or grossly undercounting the movement that had been holding street demonstrations every day since the June 28 coup.
"I've never had anything like this in my lifetime," said an ecstatic Miriam Nunez, a 46-year-old teacher from Tegucigalpa. "Look around you-you can't even see the beginning or the end of this march! It's full of teachers, students, campesinos, union workers, indigenous people. One thing the coup succeeded in doing is bringing together the social movements in a way that never exited before in this country."
What made the march particularly exciting is that as it approached the airport, there were rows and rows of soldiers and police in riot gear blocking their path. Each time the security forces tried to stop the crowd, there would be negotiations with the police, who would finally back down and allow the protesters to get closer and closer to the airport.
Luis Sosa, a university professor and anti-coup leader, was one of those negotiating with Police Commissioner Mendosa. "Mendosa and I went to school together 20 years ago and we play soccer together every Sunday. So he knows that if his men get rough with us, there will be hell to pay next Sunday," laughed Sosa. "But seriously, we're trying hard to maintain discipline among our ranks-taking sticks and rocks away from people who want to provoke violence-and the police say that as long as we are peaceful, they'll let us go all the way to the airport."
Sure enough, the crowd made it to the airport peacefully and waited patiently for Zelaya's plane to arrive. Suddenly, a plane flew in low and circled around the airport. The crowd went wild, cheering and jumping up and down, but became angry when they saw that the plane was not able to land. Military vehicles and soldiers were on the runway, making it impossible for the pilot to maneuver safely.
On the far end of the airport, a group of mostly young people tried to get through the fence to make their way to the tarmac. According to Al Jazeera cameramen Alfredo Delara, some of them started throwing stones and bottles at security forces. The troops responded by lobbying tear gas and then firing their weapons in the air. Suddenly, at least one soldier pointed his weapon directly at the crowd.
"A young boy was hit right in the head, his brains gushing out. He was killed instantly," said Delara. "His mother came running, screaming hysterically ‘My son, my son, they've killed my son.'" Others in the crowd were wounded and it was reported that another person was killed.
Between the violence and the fact that President Zelaya was forced to fly on to El Salvador, the crowd became despondent. The organizers tried to keep up their hopes. "Perhaps the United Nations will send peacekeepers," one of the leaders shouted through the sound system. The crowd cheered and yelled, "We want the blue helmuts, we want the blue helmuts."
"Can you believe this?," asked indigenous leader Berta Caceres, her eyes welling up with tears. "Now they are killing our people. Where will this end? We need the international community to step in and stop the crazy people who have stolen our country."
Meanwhile, another piece of news circulated-that the government had just moved up the curfew from 10pm to 6:30pm. The crowd rushed to disperse, fearing they could be arrested for violating the curfew. But they vowed to keep up the fight. "We will be marching again tomorrow, come join us," the leaders announced. "This struggle is not over."
"If they think that were are going to give up, they are badly mistaken," said Caceres. "The events of today make us more determined than ever to overthrow this terrible coup."
Medea Benjamin (medea@globalexchange.org) is cofounder of Global Exchange (www.globalexchange.org) and CODEPINK: Women for Peace (www.codepinkalert.org ). She is part of a delegation an International Emergency Delegation to Honduras that includes members of Nonviolence International, Global Exchange, CODEPINK and Rights Action. For more information or to join the delegation, contact Andres@nvintl.net.
by Medea Benjamin
The day started out full of joy, as thousands of Hondurans converged in front of the National Institute of Pedagogy, intent on marching about three miles to the airport to greet the plane that was supposed to bring deposed President Zelaya back to Honduras.
"Our president's coming home today, this is going to be a great day," said Jose Rodriguez, a campesino who came from Santa Barbara with his farmer's group to join the anti-coup movement. The military tried to stop them from getting to the capital, so they had to divide up and take local buses from town to town. "It took us two days to get here, and we slept outside in the forest last night, but we had to be here," said Rodriguez.
A group of young girls came with their church from Olancho. They were determined to greet Zelaya, who they said was sent by God to be president. "The Cardinal is against our president, but he doesn't represent many of us in the religious community. Our pastor is against the coup and so are we," said Alejandra Fernandez, a 23-year-old university student.
I asked why she supported Manuel Zelaya, or "Mel", as his supporters call him. "The government said he broke the law and is guilty of 18 crimes," she said. "Do you know what they are?" She pulled out her cell phone and started to read from a list: He raised the minimum wage, gave out free school lunches, provided milk for the babies and pensions for the elderly, distributed energy-saving lightbulbs, decreased the price of public transportation, made more scholarships available for students." Suddenly a crowd gathered around us and started chiming in. "He fixed the roads," said one. "He put schools in remote rural areas, like my little village, that never had them before," added another. "He let anyone go into the Presidential Palace and converted it from an elite residence to the people's house," said another.
"You see?," Alejandra smiled. "He is guilty of even more then 18 crimes. That's why the elite classes can't stand him and why we want him back. This is really a class struggle."
The march wound its way through the streets of Tegucigalpa, gathering more and more people along the way. The massive crowd sang and chanted slogans like "No somos cinco, no somos cien. Prensa vendida, cuentenos bien" (We're not five, we're not 100, you sold-out press, count us well")-referring to the fact that the mainstream press has been ignoring or grossly undercounting the movement that had been holding street demonstrations every day since the June 28 coup.
"I've never had anything like this in my lifetime," said an ecstatic Miriam Nunez, a 46-year-old teacher from Tegucigalpa. "Look around you-you can't even see the beginning or the end of this march! It's full of teachers, students, campesinos, union workers, indigenous people. One thing the coup succeeded in doing is bringing together the social movements in a way that never exited before in this country."
What made the march particularly exciting is that as it approached the airport, there were rows and rows of soldiers and police in riot gear blocking their path. Each time the security forces tried to stop the crowd, there would be negotiations with the police, who would finally back down and allow the protesters to get closer and closer to the airport.
Luis Sosa, a university professor and anti-coup leader, was one of those negotiating with Police Commissioner Mendosa. "Mendosa and I went to school together 20 years ago and we play soccer together every Sunday. So he knows that if his men get rough with us, there will be hell to pay next Sunday," laughed Sosa. "But seriously, we're trying hard to maintain discipline among our ranks-taking sticks and rocks away from people who want to provoke violence-and the police say that as long as we are peaceful, they'll let us go all the way to the airport."
Sure enough, the crowd made it to the airport peacefully and waited patiently for Zelaya's plane to arrive. Suddenly, a plane flew in low and circled around the airport. The crowd went wild, cheering and jumping up and down, but became angry when they saw that the plane was not able to land. Military vehicles and soldiers were on the runway, making it impossible for the pilot to maneuver safely.
On the far end of the airport, a group of mostly young people tried to get through the fence to make their way to the tarmac. According to Al Jazeera cameramen Alfredo Delara, some of them started throwing stones and bottles at security forces. The troops responded by lobbying tear gas and then firing their weapons in the air. Suddenly, at least one soldier pointed his weapon directly at the crowd.
"A young boy was hit right in the head, his brains gushing out. He was killed instantly," said Delara. "His mother came running, screaming hysterically ‘My son, my son, they've killed my son.'" Others in the crowd were wounded and it was reported that another person was killed.
Between the violence and the fact that President Zelaya was forced to fly on to El Salvador, the crowd became despondent. The organizers tried to keep up their hopes. "Perhaps the United Nations will send peacekeepers," one of the leaders shouted through the sound system. The crowd cheered and yelled, "We want the blue helmuts, we want the blue helmuts."
"Can you believe this?," asked indigenous leader Berta Caceres, her eyes welling up with tears. "Now they are killing our people. Where will this end? We need the international community to step in and stop the crazy people who have stolen our country."
Meanwhile, another piece of news circulated-that the government had just moved up the curfew from 10pm to 6:30pm. The crowd rushed to disperse, fearing they could be arrested for violating the curfew. But they vowed to keep up the fight. "We will be marching again tomorrow, come join us," the leaders announced. "This struggle is not over."
"If they think that were are going to give up, they are badly mistaken," said Caceres. "The events of today make us more determined than ever to overthrow this terrible coup."
Medea Benjamin (medea@globalexchange.org) is cofounder of Global Exchange (www.globalexchange.org) and CODEPINK: Women for Peace (www.codepinkalert.org
Thursday, July 2, 2009
Meet Ezra Nawi
Unlikely Ally for Residents of West Bank
By ETHAN BRONNER
SAFA, West Bank — Ezra Nawi was in his element. Behind the wheel of his well-worn jeep one recent Saturday morning, working two cellphones in Arabic as he bounded through the terraced hills and hardscrabble villages near Hebron, he was greeted warmly by Palestinians near and far.
Watching him call for an ambulance for a resident and check on the progress of a Palestinian school being built without an Israeli permit, you might have thought him a clan chief. Then noticing the two Israeli Army jeeps trailing him, you might have pegged him as an Israeli occupation official handling Palestinian matters.
But Mr. Nawi is neither. It is perhaps best to think of him as the Robin Hood of the South Hebron hills, an Israeli Jew helping poor locals who love him, and thwarting settlers and soldiers who view him with contempt. Those army jeeps were not watching over him. They were stalking him.
Since the Israeli left lost so much popular appeal after the violent Palestinian uprising of 2000 and the Hamas electoral victory three years ago, its activists tend to be a rarefied bunch — professors of Latin or Sanskrit, and translators of medieval poetry. Mr. Nawi, however, is a plumber. And unlike the intellectuals of European origin with whom he spends most Saturdays, he is from an Iraqi Jewish family.
“My mother gave birth to me in Jerusalem when she was 14,” said Mr. Nawi, who is 57 and one of five siblings. “So my grandmother raised me. And she spoke to me in Arabic.”
His family has trouble understanding his priorities. His mother says she thinks he is wasting his time. And many Israelis, when told of his work, wonder why he is not helping his own. Mr. Nawi has an answer.
“I don’t consider my work political,” he said between phone calls as he drove. “I don’t have a solution to this dispute. I just know that what is going on here is wrong. This is not about ideology. It is about decency.”
For his activist colleagues, Mr. Nawi’s instinctual connection to the Palestinians is valuable.
“Ezra knows Palestinians better than any of us,” said Amiel Vardi, a professor who works closely with him. “This is not only because of the language, but because he gains their confidence the minute he starts talking with them. He has all sorts of intuitions as to what should be done, what are the internal relations — things we hardly ever notice.”
The difficulties of Palestinian life in the West Bank have been well documented: Israeli military checkpoints, a rising separation barrier and Israeli settlers. But in this area, the problems are more acute. The Palestinians, many of them Bedouin, are exceptionally poor, and the land they bought decades ago is under threat by a group of unusually aggressive local settlers. The settlers have been filmed beating up Palestinians. Settlers have been killed by Palestinians. But Mr. Nawi said that the law inevitably sided with the Israelis, and that occupation meant there could be no equity.
“The settlers keep the Palestinian farmers from their land by harassing them, and then after several years they say the land has not been farmed so by law it is no longer theirs,” Mr. Nawi said. “We are only here to stop that from happening.”
That is not the view of the settlers.
“He is a troublemaker,” asserted Yehoshua Mor-Yosef, a spokesman for Israeli settler communities in the area. “It’s true that from time to time there is a problem of some settlers coming out of their settlements to cause problems. But people like Nawi don’t want a solution. Their whole aim is to cause trouble.”
True or not, Mr. Nawi is now in trouble. Having spent several short stints in jail for his activism over the years, he now faces the prospect of a long one. He is due to be sentenced Wednesday for assaulting an Israeli policeman two years ago during a confrontation over an attempt to demolish Palestinians’ shacks on disputed land on the West Bank. The policeman said Mr. Nawi struck him during that encounter. Mr. Nawi denied it, but in March a judge convicted him.
What is left of the Israeli left is rallying around him, arguing that Mr. Nawi is a known pacifist who would not have raised his hand against anyone.
“Since I’ve known the man for decades and seen him in action in many extreme situations, I’m certain that the charge is untrue,” David Shulman, a Hebrew University professor and peace activist, wrote in the newspaper Haaretz. Of Mr. Nawi, he added, “He is a man committed, in every fiber of his being, to nonviolent protest against the inequities of the occupation.”
Mr. Nawi attributes his activism to two things: as a teenager, his family lived next door to the leader of Israel’s Communist Party, Reuven Kaminer, who influenced him. And he is gay.
“Being gay has made me understand what it is like to be a despised minority,” Mr. Nawi said.
Several years ago, he had a relationship with a Palestinian from the West Bank and ended up being convicted on charges of allowing his companion to live illegally in Israel. His companion was jailed for months.
Mr. Nawi said harassment against him had come in many forms. Settlers shout vicious antigay epithets. His plumbing business has been audited, and he was handed a huge tax bill that he said he did not deserve. He is certain that his phone calls are monitored. And those army jeeps are never far behind.
He is not optimistic about his coming sentencing, although he is planning an appeal. And he says the Israeli news media have lost interest in the work he and his fellow activists do. But he does not stop.
“I’m here to change reality,” he said. “The only Israelis these people know are settlers and soldiers. Through me they know a different Israeli. And I’ll keep coming until I know that the farmers here can work their fields.”
By ETHAN BRONNER
SAFA, West Bank — Ezra Nawi was in his element. Behind the wheel of his well-worn jeep one recent Saturday morning, working two cellphones in Arabic as he bounded through the terraced hills and hardscrabble villages near Hebron, he was greeted warmly by Palestinians near and far.
Watching him call for an ambulance for a resident and check on the progress of a Palestinian school being built without an Israeli permit, you might have thought him a clan chief. Then noticing the two Israeli Army jeeps trailing him, you might have pegged him as an Israeli occupation official handling Palestinian matters.
But Mr. Nawi is neither. It is perhaps best to think of him as the Robin Hood of the South Hebron hills, an Israeli Jew helping poor locals who love him, and thwarting settlers and soldiers who view him with contempt. Those army jeeps were not watching over him. They were stalking him.
Since the Israeli left lost so much popular appeal after the violent Palestinian uprising of 2000 and the Hamas electoral victory three years ago, its activists tend to be a rarefied bunch — professors of Latin or Sanskrit, and translators of medieval poetry. Mr. Nawi, however, is a plumber. And unlike the intellectuals of European origin with whom he spends most Saturdays, he is from an Iraqi Jewish family.
“My mother gave birth to me in Jerusalem when she was 14,” said Mr. Nawi, who is 57 and one of five siblings. “So my grandmother raised me. And she spoke to me in Arabic.”
His family has trouble understanding his priorities. His mother says she thinks he is wasting his time. And many Israelis, when told of his work, wonder why he is not helping his own. Mr. Nawi has an answer.
“I don’t consider my work political,” he said between phone calls as he drove. “I don’t have a solution to this dispute. I just know that what is going on here is wrong. This is not about ideology. It is about decency.”
For his activist colleagues, Mr. Nawi’s instinctual connection to the Palestinians is valuable.
“Ezra knows Palestinians better than any of us,” said Amiel Vardi, a professor who works closely with him. “This is not only because of the language, but because he gains their confidence the minute he starts talking with them. He has all sorts of intuitions as to what should be done, what are the internal relations — things we hardly ever notice.”
The difficulties of Palestinian life in the West Bank have been well documented: Israeli military checkpoints, a rising separation barrier and Israeli settlers. But in this area, the problems are more acute. The Palestinians, many of them Bedouin, are exceptionally poor, and the land they bought decades ago is under threat by a group of unusually aggressive local settlers. The settlers have been filmed beating up Palestinians. Settlers have been killed by Palestinians. But Mr. Nawi said that the law inevitably sided with the Israelis, and that occupation meant there could be no equity.
“The settlers keep the Palestinian farmers from their land by harassing them, and then after several years they say the land has not been farmed so by law it is no longer theirs,” Mr. Nawi said. “We are only here to stop that from happening.”
That is not the view of the settlers.
“He is a troublemaker,” asserted Yehoshua Mor-Yosef, a spokesman for Israeli settler communities in the area. “It’s true that from time to time there is a problem of some settlers coming out of their settlements to cause problems. But people like Nawi don’t want a solution. Their whole aim is to cause trouble.”
True or not, Mr. Nawi is now in trouble. Having spent several short stints in jail for his activism over the years, he now faces the prospect of a long one. He is due to be sentenced Wednesday for assaulting an Israeli policeman two years ago during a confrontation over an attempt to demolish Palestinians’ shacks on disputed land on the West Bank. The policeman said Mr. Nawi struck him during that encounter. Mr. Nawi denied it, but in March a judge convicted him.
What is left of the Israeli left is rallying around him, arguing that Mr. Nawi is a known pacifist who would not have raised his hand against anyone.
“Since I’ve known the man for decades and seen him in action in many extreme situations, I’m certain that the charge is untrue,” David Shulman, a Hebrew University professor and peace activist, wrote in the newspaper Haaretz. Of Mr. Nawi, he added, “He is a man committed, in every fiber of his being, to nonviolent protest against the inequities of the occupation.”
Mr. Nawi attributes his activism to two things: as a teenager, his family lived next door to the leader of Israel’s Communist Party, Reuven Kaminer, who influenced him. And he is gay.
“Being gay has made me understand what it is like to be a despised minority,” Mr. Nawi said.
Several years ago, he had a relationship with a Palestinian from the West Bank and ended up being convicted on charges of allowing his companion to live illegally in Israel. His companion was jailed for months.
Mr. Nawi said harassment against him had come in many forms. Settlers shout vicious antigay epithets. His plumbing business has been audited, and he was handed a huge tax bill that he said he did not deserve. He is certain that his phone calls are monitored. And those army jeeps are never far behind.
He is not optimistic about his coming sentencing, although he is planning an appeal. And he says the Israeli news media have lost interest in the work he and his fellow activists do. But he does not stop.
“I’m here to change reality,” he said. “The only Israelis these people know are settlers and soldiers. Through me they know a different Israeli. And I’ll keep coming until I know that the farmers here can work their fields.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)