This is fantastic.
Click
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)