Bloody Iranians! They Almost Tortured Us...

The irony of torture is not so much that it is reprehensible (not to mention counterproductive), but rather that it can be employed by anyone... and, unfortunately, what's good (or rather bad) for the goose is good (bad) for the gander.

Yet, the international anger at the treatment of the 15 British servicemen and woman, is understandable. So when the "officer in charge Lt Carman said they were taken to a prison in Tehran where they were stripped and dressed in pyjamas", I couldn't help but understand their outrage.

And when, "Royal Marine Joe Tindell told how they feared for their lives in prison" with what must have been a horrifying moment, I felt the same outrage. "We had a blindfold and plastic cuffs, hands behind our backs, heads against the wall. Basically there were weapons cocking. Someone, I'm not sure who, someone said, I quote 'lads, lads I think we're going to get executed'."

(Oh, sorry, wrong graphics!)

Yet, when the 15 British servicemen and woman were returned, unharmed (and untortured), in fact, after being treated "humanely" according to their own rendition of events, I find the outrage, even my own, a little bit disingenuous. (Funny how both BBC and CNN - the two website I checked - don't mention that "humanely treated" comment although I watched and heard one of the sailors say it.)

Yes, I am happy for their safe return, but let's not be too quick to throw rocks from own glass house. In fact, as far as torture goes, this can only rate as high as a slight inconvenience.

More to the point, as mortified as I am sure these 15 Brits were, and as undeserving of this treatment that they are, I can only think about all those poor souls locked up for years in Guantanamo, Abu Gharib, CIA torture sites around the world, and all those renditioned to the bowels of Middle Eastern and Asian torture dungeons. Are they all deserving of their treatment? Did any of them ever get their day in court? Is anyone ever deserving of such treatment?

Yet, when the leader of the free world, as the US is, declares that torture is at times necessary, that is when all bets are off. Game over! As far as the rest of the world is concerned, we no longer reign over the moral high ground.

(Yes, that is why international law matters and respecting our treaty obligations is in our self-interest!)

But that is not where the tragedy of all this ends. The Iranians beat us at our own game. They have the initiative. Long after anyone cares whether or not those sailors were in Iraqi or Iranian waters, what the world will remember is that the Iranians did not really harm them, returned them safely, and still the US and Britain decried their actions while never apologizing or atoning for their own far greater misdeeds.

This PR round goes to the Iranians!

It is almost as if it would have been better if the Iranians had behaved as poorly as we have... And maybe they have, but that is not what the world sees.....

Rule of Law Triumphs in Canada

While the struggle between insecurity and rule of law continues to wage in the US, Canada has put its foot down and declared the winner - rule of law, hence democracy. As noted by Tony Arend in two recent posts, what the Canadian Supreme Court decided is indeed laudable. By a vote of 9 - 0, with both liberals and conservatives on the Court, the decision indicates that the issue rises above political partisanship and speaks to the basic tenets of democratic society.

Canada's Chief Justice Beverly McLachlin says in the ruling: “The overarching principle of fundamental justice that applies here is this: before the state can detain people for significant periods of time, it must accord them a fair judicial process.”

This decision should also be viewed in comparison to the US stance on the issue. The Military Commission Act of 2006 blatantly retracts basic rights, such as habeas corpus, from non-US citizens (see previous posts). Furthermore, recent court rulings underscore the slippery slope the justice system is sliding down. Last week a federal court in Washington DC upheld that Act and struck down petitions representing the aspirations of dozens of Guantanamo detainees to a fair day in court.

Here are excerpts from some articles on the decision:

New York Times - Canadian Court Limits Detention in Terror Cases
OTTAWA, Feb. 23 — Canada’s highest court on Friday unanimously struck down a law that allows the Canadian government to detain foreign-born terrorism suspects indefinitely using secret evidence and without charges while their deportations are being reviewed.

The detention measure, the security certificate system, has been described by government lawyers as an important tool for combating international terrorism and maintaining Canada’s domestic security. Six men are now under threat of deportation without an open hearing under the certificates.
....
“We’ve started to see the rollback,” said Alex Neve, the secretary general of Amnesty International Canada. “Today the Supreme Court of Canada has said, ‘Make sure you put human rights at the center of how you prevent terrorism.’ ”

Top court overturns federal security certificates
CTV.ca News Staff Updated: Fri. Feb. 23 2007 10:38 PM ET
The Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) unanimously ruled today that federal security certificates, used to detain suspected terrorists, are unconstitutional. The 9-0 judgment found that the system violated the Charter of Rights.

The certificates allowed government officials to use secret court hearings, indefinite prison terms and summary deportations when dealing with non-citizens accused of having terrorist ties.
...
That process is a violation of fundamental justice, wrote Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin.
....
The judgment is not saying that the detentions are wrong, but that the accused must have access to the evidence against them, said Thompson.

Another Toast To Carter, Freedom of Thought and Speech

I couldn't resist sharing this piece by George Bisharat in the Houston Chronicle. So here is another toast to the real American Way.....

Jan. 27, 2007, 8:00PM
From personal experience
Some of Israel's supporters occasionally cross the line into suppression of speech. When they do, U.S. policy is the loser.
By GEORGE BISHARAT

One day in 1981, my late father, Maurice Hanna Bisharat, returned from a long day at his Sacramento, Calif., medical office with an extra bounce in his step, his eyes dancing with excitement. His friend, Michael Himovitz, the young owner of a local art gallery, had called, offering to hold a one-person show of my father's paintings — mostly California landscapes.

My father had taken up painting after immigrating to this country from Palestine in the late 1940s, and although an amateur, had won a national art award within two years. But the demands of medical practice, raising a large family, and other avocations took their toll. It had been many years since my father's art had been publicly exhibited, and he was tickled.

My father was not a politician, but like any Palestinian living in the United States, he felt obligated to relate his people's experience to American friends. Educated and articulate, he spoke publicly in defense of Palestinian rights, and was a frequent commentator on Middle East events in the local media. Michael, a Jew, was perfectly aware of this side of my father's life. It did nothing to diminish his appreciation of my father's art, nor to inhibit their friendship.

Some weeks later I saw my father sitting, stony faced. He turned to me and whispered: "I just got a call from Michael. My show has been canceled." Michael, it transpired, had been visited by a group from the Sacramento Jewish community. Their message: "If you show Bisharat's art, we will boycott your gallery and close you down."

Michael may have been as crushed as my father, apologizing: "I just can't risk it — it's my livelihood." The indirect message to my father, of course, was: "If you speak critically of Israel, you will suffer pain." Fortunately, art was not my father's livelihood, and he survived this incident. But a deep sense of outrage never left him.

So when former New York Mayor Edward Koch and Rafael Medoff ask incredulously in a recent commentary critical of President Jimmy Carter's recent book Palestine: Peace not Apartheid "Are Jews suppressing speech?" — or when 14 Carter Center advisory board members resign in protest of the president's positions — the answer, for me, is not so straightforward.

The fact is that "Jews" are not suppressing speech. Michael Himovitz certainly didn't suppress my father's attempts to explain the Palestinian perspective to his fellow citizens. Many American Jews hold views not dissimilar to my father's — supporting peace, reconciliation and equal rights for Palestinians and Jews.

Yet, a minority of Jews, backed by some non-Jewish supporters, stridently protests any unflattering portrayal of Israel, often with unfounded accusations of anti-Semitism. Indeed, insinuations of anti-Jewish bias are now being unfairly raised against Carter. And some supporters of Israel, apparently, are willing to exploit economic clout to punish those who, like my father, buck the trend and defend Palestinian rights.

Nor is the example of my father isolated. Numerous variations are documented in former Illinois Republican Rep. Paul Findley's book, They Dare to Speak Out. More chilling, these efforts at intimidation are not always the spontaneous responses of individuals, as in my father's case, or likely in the resignations of the Carter Center advisory board members.

On the contrary, the pro-Israel lobby, joined by the Israeli government, sustains a systematic campaign to shape American public opinion. For example, the Committee on Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America (CAMERA) harangues journalists over alleged "mistakes." In 2002, CAMERA attacked National Public Radio, claiming anti-Israel bias, including failure to report Israeli deaths. Two Boston area businessmen associated with CAMERA organized a boycott of local NPR affiliate WBUR that significantly reduced revenue. Meanwhile, a scrupulous study of NPR's coverage by Fairness and Accuracy In Reporting (FAIR) showed that, in fact, NPR had disproportionately reported Israeli deaths.

Honest Reporting is a media organization that mobilizes 140,000 subscribers worldwide. Its Web site once touted "major editorial changes at CNN which greatly shifted public perception of the Arab-Israel conflict." The impetus, according to The Jerusalem Post, was "up to 6,000 e-mails per day to CNN executives, effectively paralyzing their internal e-mail system."

The Israeli government also applied pressure to CNN, according to verbatim notes of a conference call in 2000 obtained by advocate/researcher Phyllis Bennis. In the call, Israeli government spokesman Nachman Shai outlined Israel's media strategy with 30 to 60 U.S. Jewish leaders, focusing concern on CNN, and especially two Palestinian reporters. "We are putting real pressure on the heads of CNN to have them replaced with more objective pro-Israel reporters that are willing to tell our side of the story."

Monitoring media to ensure accuracy is a public service. Yet, as besieged journalists have concluded, the goal of this campaign is not truth, but pro-Israeli advocacy, and silencing dissent. WBUR's general manager, Jane Christo, described CAMERA's message as: "Report our point of view, or we'll shut you down."


Dissenting American Jews are not spared. Jilian Redford, head of the Hillel Jewish student group at the University of Richmond was dismissed in 2004 after protesting the Israeli Embassy's repeated e-mail propaganda directives. Redford saw Hillel's mission as facilitating Jewish religious life on campus, not doing hasbara (Hebrew for "propaganda") for the Israeli government. To reiterate: This is not a "Jewish" campaign. In fact, hasbara, coordinated with, if not directed by right-wing Israeli governments, is unrepresentative of largely liberal American Jews. Many, like Michael, would no doubt be horrified by the actions of these self-appointed guardians of thought. Nor does the Israel lobby "control" the media, as publication of Carter's book and this article attest.

But the price of our still mostly one-sided exposure to Middle East affairs is high, and it is much greater than the hurt inflicted on my father and others like him. Americans are shielded from diverse perspectives about a pivotal conflict, and are thus hampered in critically evaluating U.S. policies. Our unconditional support for Israel is a principal cause of global anger against us.

Last summer our government ran diplomatic cover for Israel's invasion of Lebanon, prolonging the attack for weeks. Israel killed more than a thousand Lebanese, mostly civilians, heavily damaged the country's civilian infrastructure, and displaced a quarter of the population. The consequence: National Intelligence Director John Negroponte, delivering the annual U.S. threat estimate in mid-January, moved the Lebanese group Hezbollah — which has not targeted Americans for decades — up to second. Meanwhile, UPI editor Arnaud de Borchgrave reports that former Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and other prominent Israelis are urging a public relations blitz to instigate a U.S. strike on Iran.

It is one thing to match ideas with ideas, facts with facts, perspectives with perspectives. It is different to threaten, bully, discredit and harass opponents of one's views — whether they are writers, artists, Jewish dissidents, ex-presidents or anyone else. And in this case, our resulting ignorance is not bliss. It is downright dangerous.

Bisharat is a professor of law at Hastings College of the Law in San Francisco, and writes frequently on the Middle East.

Proof In The Carter Defamation Pudding

In case anyone doubted that the Israeli "lobby" (I use the word loosely since the lobby is actually a wide-spread network) immediately circles the wagons at every opportunity and provocation, the recent hate-fest over President Carter's recent book, Palestine Peace Not Apartheid, is sad proof. As soon as anyone dares to shed light on the human tragedy suffered by the Palestinians at the hands of successive Israeli governments, the Israeli army and illegal Israeli settlers, the daggers are immediately drawn and cries of anti-semitism are heard.

To all those 14 "friends" and advisors of the Carter Center, who felt the compulsion to resign, and to all those frenzied critics, including all the Alan Dershowitz's and the Jeffrey Goldberg's out there, I have have a few questions. If you don't like the word "apartheid", what would you call what the Palestinians are suffering? Second question: if it was you or your kin who were suffering it, what would you call it? Third question: what would you call those who were perpetrating it against you and/or your kin? Fourth question: wouldn't you want the world to know about your suffering? Fifth question: wouldn't you hope and pray (since you have scant little else by way of defense) that someone would make the suffering stop, let alone hold those causing the suffering accountable?

And, please, don't even try to respond with, "they brought it on themselves." Blaming the victim is not only lame, it is wrong.

What is sadder is that this insane, completely emotional, and totally counterproductive, not to mention, divorced from reality on the ground, stance of the pervasive Israeli "lobby" is neither beneficial to Israel, the United States, or Palestinians (but, on that last score, who really cares, right?). This fact has long dawned on many Israelis, as well as level-headed US-based organizations such as Tikkun. The uproar facing Carter is mostly US-based. Any cursory review of the Israeli press will find even more scathing commentary on the apartheid-like policies perpetrated against the Palestinians.

For example, read this article by Former Israeli Minister of Education Shulamit Aloni, who argues that apartheid is alive and well in the West Bank under Israeli rule. (Thanks to Tony B. for bringing this to my attention).

"Hebrew original: Yediot Aharonot, Israel's largest circulating newspaper
Indeed there is Apartheid in Israel
A new order issued by the GOC Central command bans the conveyance of Palestinians in Israeli vehicles. Such a blatant violation of the right to travel joins the long list of humans rights violations carried out by Israel in the [Occupied] Territories.
by Shulamit Aloni

Jewish self-righteousness is taken for granted among ourselves to such an extent that we fail to see what's right in front of our eyes. It's simply inconceivable that the ultimate victims, the Jews, can carry out evil deeds. Nevertheless, the state of Israel practises its own, quite violent, form of Apartheid with the native Palestinian population.

The US Jewish Establishment's onslaught on former President Jimmy Carter is based on him daring to tell the truth which is known to all: through its army, the government of Israel practises a brutal form of Apartheid in the territory it occupies. Its army has turned every Palestinian village and town into a fenced-in, or blocked-in, detention camp. All this is done in order to keep an eye on the population's movements and to make its life difficult. Israel even imposes a total curfew whenever the settlers, who have illegally usurped the Palestinians' land, celebrate their holidays or conduct their parades.

If that were not enough, the generals commanding the region frequently issue further orders, regulations, instructions and rules (let us not forget: they are the lords of the land). By now they have requisitioned further lands for the purpose of constructing "Jewish only" roads. Wonderful roads, wide roads, well-paved roads, brightly lit at night - all that on stolen land. When a Palestinian drives on such a road, his vehicle is confiscated and he is sent on his way.

On one occasion I witnessed such an encounter between a driver and a soldier who was taking down the details before confiscating the vehicle and sending its owner away. "Why?" I asked the soldier. "It's an order - this is a Jews-only road", he replied. I inquired as to where was the sign indicating this fact and instructing [other] drivers not to use it. His answer was nothing short of amazing. "It is his responsibility to know it, and besides, what do you want us to do, put up a sign here and let some antisemitic reporter or journalist take a photo so he that can show the world that Apartheid exists here?"

Indeed Apartheid does exist here. And our army is not "the most moral army in the world" as we are told by its commanders. Sufficient to mention that every town and every village has turned into a detention centre and that every entry and every exit has been closed, cutting it off from arterial traffic. If it were not enough that Palestinians are not allowed to travel on the roads paved 'for Jews only', on their land, the current GOC found it necessary to land an additional blow on the natives in their own land with an "ingenious proposal".

Humanitarian activists cannot transport Palestinians either.

Major-General Naveh, renowned for his superior patriotism, has issued a new order. Coming into affect on 19 January, it prohibits the conveyance of Palestinians without a permit. The order determines that Israelis are not allowed to transport Palestinians in an Israeli vehicle (one registered in Israel regardless of what kind of numberplate it carries) unless they have received explicit permission to do so. The permit relates to both the driver and the Palestinian passenger. Of course none of this applies to those whose labour serves the settlers. They and their employers will naturally receive the required permits so they can continue to serve the lords of the land, the settlers.

Did man of peace President Carter truly err in concluding that Israel is creating Apartheid? Did he exaggerate? Don't the US Jewish community leaders recognise the International Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Racial Discrimination of 7 March 1966, to which Israel is a signatory? Are the US Jews who launched the loud and abusive campaign against Carter for supposedly maligning Israel's character and its democratic and humanist nature unfamiliar with the International Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid of 30 November 1973? Apartheid is defined therein as an international crime that among other things includes using different legal instruments to rule over different racial groups, thus depriving people of their human rights. Isn't freedom of travel one of these rights?

In the past, the US Jewish community leaders were quite familiar with the meaning of those conventions. For some reason, however, they are convinced that Israel is allowed to contravene them. It's OK to kill civilians, women and children, old people and parents with their children, deliberately or otherwise without accepting any responsibility. It's permissible to rob people of their lands, destroy their crops, and cage them up like animals in the zoo. From now on, Israelis and International humanitarian organisations' volunteers are prohibited from assisting a woman in labour by taking her to the hospital. [Israeli human rights group] Yesh Din volunteers cannot take a robbed and beaten-up Palestinian to the police station to lodge a complaint. (Police stations are located at the heart of the settlements.) Is there anyone who believes that this is not Apartheid?

Jimmy Carter does not need me to defend his reputation that has been sullied by Israelophile community officials. The trouble is that their love of Israel distorts their judgment and blinds them from seeing what's in front of them. Israel is an occupying power that for 40 years has been oppressing an indigenous people, which is entitled to a sovereign and independent existence while living in peace with us. We should remember that we too used very violent terror against foreign rule because we wanted our own state.And the list of victims of terror is quite long and extensive.

We do limit ourselves to denying the [Palestinian] people human rights. We not only rob of them of their freedom, land and water. We apply collective punishment to millions of people and even, in revenge-driven frenzy, destroy the electricity supply for one and half million civilians. Let them "sit in the darkness" and "starve".

Employees cannot be paid their wages because Israel is holding 500 million shekels that belong to the Palestinians.
And after all that we remain "pure as the driven snow".
There are no moral blemishes on our actions.
There is no racial separation.
There is no Apartheid.
It's an invention of the enemies of Israel.
Hooray for our brothers and sisters in the US!
Your devotion is very much appreciated.
You have truly removed a nasty stain from us.
Now there can be an extra spring in our step as we confidently abuse the Palestinian population, using the "most moral army in the world".
[Translated by Sol Salbe]"

From Child Pleasure Brides to Perspective

Is there a universal truth to morality? Is there a baseline we can all agree on, or are there intervening variables such as poverty, culture, and indifference? Do we see the other as worthy of the same humanity as we see in ourselves? So many questions, each pregnant with possibility, yet aborted with each point and counter-point..

I came across the below article concerning the regrettable practice of subjecting young girls to the paying paws of degenerate men who prey on the realities of poverty and desperation. In this case, the sad story comes out of Egypt, and it is a reality that I knew existed yet failed to speak against...... Ignorant parents and family sell these young girls to stave the hunger and need of their siblings, and themselves. It is a sad story that has been playing itself out in the various forms of the human slave trade. Same stories abound from China, to India to Albania...

Yet, from afar, we ask questions such as those I started with above. Where is the humanity of those girls? Is it worth quieting the hunger of others? And from where I sit, what right do I even have to ask?

Then there is the gift of perspective, distance and observation we can embrace. While I can empathize, I can not sympathize.... And, I can declare with certitude, and perhaps a spot of righteousness, that there is a baseline, and we are all accountable.

From Reuters
EGYPT: Minors sold for prostitution under guise of marriage
CAIRO, 16 November (IRIN) - Hanadi was a teenager when she was sold into a short-term marriage by her father. "When I was 14, my father told me I was to be married to a man from Saudi Arabia," said Hanadi, who did not want to use her real name.

"Later on, I discovered that my father and the man had agreed I would stay with him for a month, until he returned home [to Saudi Arabia] at the end of the summer. There was never any intention for us to remain together any longer than his holiday in Egypt."

Hanadi is now 20 years old. She lives in a shelter run by Cairo-based NGO the Hope Village Society, which cares for street children.

"Hanadi did not know at the time, but when her father agreed for her to spend a month with the Saudi tourist, he was paid a large sum of money in return in the form of a dowry, which she never had a share in," said Yasser Sobhi al-Okeili, who helps run the centre Hanadi lives in.
"Nor was the marriage officially registered, though she did not know it at the time. Eventually, after a failed marriage of her own choice, she found herself living in the streets. Many girls who have suffered a similar fate end up as street girls," al-Okeili said.

Although there is no specific law that bans the sale of girls and women into such temporary marriages, which amount to prostitution, the International Convention on the Rights of the Child, to which Egypt is a signatory, forbids the sale of children and bans marriage under the age of 16, said Mohamed Tag el-Din Labib, Hope Village Society training and research director.
In addition, Egyptian law bans both prostitution and the marriage of girls under 16. "Minors in prostitution are sent to a sort of corrective centre, where conditions are often as bad if not worse than they are in adult prisons," said Nihad Abul Qumsan, director of the Egyptian Centre for Women's Rights. "The man involved is not usually prosecuted, but rather acts as a witness in a trial."

However, rights workers say that because minors often go through at least some of the steps that would make a marriage seem legitimate make it difficult for any of the involved parties to be held accountable or be prosecuted. In addition, parents are almost always either in charge of a transaction of this kind, or at the very least are involved and have given their consent.

Superficially legal
When young girls are set up to be sold for sex, the matter is very often rendered superficially legal as the couple sign a civil marriage contract and are divorced upon the departure of the male party, or no marriage contract is signed at all, as was the case for Hanadi.
According to Qumsan, rules can be circumvented in a number of ways, including falsifying birth certificates or not registering the marriage at all.

Because of this, few statistics or studies on the matter exist. The government's General Department for Women's Affairs does not directly target this practice, according to a ministry official in the women's department speaking on condition of anonymity.

Similarly, rights advocates in several civil society organisations contacted by IRIN said they do not deal with the phenomenon outside the framework of violence against women.

Local activists agree that the main reason for early temporary marriages, as well as other forms of child exploitation such as child labour, is extreme poverty.

"Money is always the main incentive," said Malaka al-Kurdi, director of a campaign combating violence against women at Cairo-based NGO Alliance for Arab Women. An estimated quarter of Egypt's approximately 80 million inhabitants live just on or below US $2 per day, the United Nations-defined poverty line.


al-Kurdi added that the experience of going through a temporary marriage whose sole purpose was the gratification of the male partner was enough to affect a girl for life, particularly in a conservative society such as Egypt.

"The phenomenon is simply inhuman, in that a girl who undergoes such an experience is bound to lose out on her childhood," al-Kurdi said.

Hanadi believed it unlikely, despite her young age, that she would ever become fully reintegrated into society as a respected citizen. "After what I went through, no one respects me. The man I married after the Saudi left used to beat me and use me as a sex worker, inviting friends and acquaintances to the house and forcing me to sleep with them," said Hanadi.

"It was horrible. He kept all the money he made from me, of course, and for me it was a living nightmare," she added.

For Palestinians, Life is Nasty, Brutish and Short

Another day, another massacre, another "mistake" we are all to ignore....this time in Beit Hanoun, Gaza, where dozens have been mutilated, their bodies spewed in all directions, most women and children... another day the sun shines over Gaza. And, the march towards the extermination of the Palestinians goes on...

As I sit to write, my mind is filled with issues including the glorious results of the recent US elections. America has finally remembered that there are 3 branches of government for a reason!

Yet, I can not clear my thoughts long enough from the deafening cries coming from the hell that is Gaza and the West Bank. I can't even find the presence of mind to lay out, point-by-point, the number of international laws that Israel, not only flaunts, but spits on, with glee and impunity. New territory in state terrorism continues to be mapped by Israel.

But where is the world community? Where is the United Nations? Right now, the Security Council debates the new atrocities, and once again, all await a US veto of any resolution which would be so insolent as to suggest that Israel should be held to the same standards of international law and peaceable respect for the rights of others as it demanded of Iraq, North Korea, and Iran.

Has the world decided that Palestinians are sub-human? Or have we reached the point where no one really cares? Was Nietzsche right? Have we arrived to the point of the last man? What is the end of the "defense" of Israel against the sub-human Palestinians????? For too many Palestinians life is indeed "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short" with the short, as one professor noted (in a different context), being the best part.

Jennifer Loewenstein has put it just right:

"Nightmare in Beit Hanoun - How Gaza Offends Us All
By JENNIFER LOEWENSTEIN
An opened jaw with yellowed teeth gaped out of its bloodied shroud. The rest of the head parts were wrapped in a plastic bag placed atop the jaw and nostrils, as if to be close to the place to which it once belonged. The bag was red from the pieces that were stuffed inside it. Below the jaw was a human neck slit open midway down: a fleshy, wet wound smiling pink and oozing out from the browned skin around it, the neck that was still linked to the body below it. Above him, in the upper freezer of the morgue lay a dead woman, her red hennaed hair visible for the first time to strange men around her. More red plastic wrapped around an otherwise absent chin. She was dead for demonstrating outside a mosque in Beit Hanoun, northern Gaza where more than 60 men sheltered during the artillery onslaught by Israeli tanks and cannons.

Most of the others still had their faces intact. They lay on their silver morgue trays stiffly as unthawed frozen food. One man had a green Hamas band tied around his head; he looked like a gentle shepherd from some forgotten, pastoral age. Another's white eyes were partially opened, his face looking out in horror as if he'd died seeing it coming. Then a muddy, grizzled blob on the bottom left tray, black curls tangled and damped into its rounded head and blessedly shut eyes. A closer look revealed a child, a boy of 4: Majed, out playing his important childhood games when death came in like thunder and rolled him up in a million speckles of black mud. The other dead had already been taken away.

Muslim burials take place quickly, a god-send to the doctors, nurses and undertakers who, at the hospitals and morgues, desperately need the space for next batch of casualties who would sleep on the same sheets, same steel-framed beds, in the same humid heat, in the same close, crowded, grief-stricken rooms, often on the floors, with the same tired, unpaid attendants doing their rounds without the proper supplies to help them if they were still alive. And some would die on the operating table like the young man gone now to the Kamal Adwan hospital morgue when his wounds became too much for his body to bear. Two young girls preceded him earlier the same day. Blessed are they who leave this human wasteland washed and shrouded for a quiet, earthy grave.

Today the hospitals will be filled beyond capacity again when the 18 civilian dead from a pre-dawn attack on Beit Hanoun -- women, men and children blasted out of their sleep into human chunks -- roll out of the ambulances and into the freezers of Shifa or Kamal Adwan hospitals in the northern Gaza Strip. How dare they sleep in their houses at night when the tanks are barking out commands.

Do you believe this was an accident? that an international investigation will ever take place? Like after Jenin? Like after Dan Halutz and his 2000 pound bomb which was dropped on an apartment building in Gaza City killing 15 people, 9 of them women and children? Like after the siege of Jabalya in the fall of 2004? Like after Operation Rainbow in Rafah? Like after Huda Ghalia's family was blasted into nothingness during an outing on a Gaza beach? Will US eyes, glued to their glaucousy TV screens to find out which marketed candidate won the corporate-managed midterm elections, ever know that that another massacre of Palestinians took place?
At Shifa hospital, Gaza's central hospital, where Dr. Juma' Saqa and his staff cope with the daily shortages of supplies from kidney dialysis machines to fans and clean linens; where cancer medications are unavailable to the increasing rate of cancer patients and elective surgeries, such as for hernias or tonsils, are a thing of the past. This is where doctors and nurses witness how the water that Gazans drink causes innumerable ailments, rotting teeth, anemia in children and kidney dysfunction because of its brackish, poisonous quality. This is where children lie half naked in their beds, white tape across their noses holding tubes to their faces so that they may eat or breathe-- like Ahmad aged 3, also from Beit Hanoun, who took a bullet in the right side of his belly that exited on the left. His mother stands over him passively, grateful. Ahmad, at least, is going to live. But for what?

Each night in Gaza City that first week in November, explosions sounded in the northeastern corner of Gaza: a succession of bullets, booms, bombs, canon fire. On the first night of the onslaught we could still see lights from Beit Hanoun 10 miles from us blinking and twinkling as if nothing were really happening; it was all a dreamófireworks, a distant celebration perhaps. But then, by the second night only a swath of blacked out space lay in the place of Beit Hanoun, electricity-less and water-less as the booms continued unabated for an hour or more and the hum of the pilot-less drones circled round again and again above us, above Beit Hanoun, above Gaza, automated people-monitors taking stock of the activity below. Nobody from Beit Hanoun could leave by day to get to work without announcing to the tanks and the drones that he was prepared to sacrifice his life for a semblance of normalcy. All men between the ages of 16-35 were rounded up onto trucks and hauled away for "questioning". What will happen to them and their families? Will anyone follow up? Will they add to the 10,000 Palestinian prisoners in Israeli prisons, left to rot while their wives and children, sisters, brothers, parents go on struggling to survive?

There lies Gaza stretched 28 miles long in a tumbledown graying, decaying heap, yawning, tired, wretched, full of garbage. Tape gauze over your nose to avoid the smell of sewage and burning trash. Try not to notice the metal-shuttered shop fronts, the empty stores, the proliferation of horse- and donkey-carts clopping along the streets for lack of fuel, the ribs of the tired beasts jutting out from their bellies as boys whip them along to keep going. The joke is the cerulean blue sky illuminating the rubbish tip, the palm trees and purple flowers beaming in the November sun ñ natural non-sequiturs, like the box of fresh chocolates offered to the journalists filming the woman's wounded son as she yells out her frustrations and horror at the Americans and the Israelis who are killing her family. Why? She asks. Why, why, why?
Ask Mark Regev, Israel's eager, hideously sincere government spokesperson. On CNN's international news he tells us in earnest that this is Israeli self-defense. The Qassam fire into Sderot and Ashkelon must stop. Israelis have the right to defend themselves. The "operation" in Beit Hanoun will not stop until the Qassams stop. Each word drivels out of his mouth into a bubble of obscenity for everyone watching from the vantage point of Gaza. Verbal pornography, sado-masochistic jargon from the prince of Hasbara leaks onto the dust like poisonous bile bought, paid for and sought after by the lords of power and their occupying machinery.
The shoddy, home-made Qassams hiss like cornered alley cats when they are fired into the skies. Stupid and bestial, they zing across the border like crazed beasts not knowing where they are going. They'll dash forever like this until the occupation of Palestine ends. The Gazans know this, Hamas knows it, Fatah knows it, the PFLP knows it; In Israel, Labor and Likkud know it, Meretz knows it, Yisrael Beiteinu knows it, Shas knows it; Peretz, Olmert and Lieberman know it, Sharon knew it, the Israeli people know it, official America know this, so 40 years after 1967 and 58 years after 1948, why is the occupation not yet over?

Because Israel does not want it to end. Because Israel wants the land and the resources without the people. Because you have to eviscerate a culture in order to maintain total control over it. Because the United States says that's just fine with us, you serve our purpose well. You help make the war on terror convenient. You help fit Iraq into the scheme. You'll help us with Iran as well. Who the hell cares about a million and a half poverty-stricken Gazans and their dust, their sand, their stinking, crumbling heap of a disaster area homeland?

What a terrible shame it is that Gazans have not yet attained the status of Human in the eyes of the Western powers, for the resistance there will continue to be an enigma until this changes. For now, however, the slaughter will continue unabated.

Leaving Gaza 6:30am Saturday morning, November 4th 2006, I hear a loud explosion. My cab driver picks me up and we drive down the main street in Gaza City toward Erez. Suddenly, unexpectedly, there is a smoldering mass of wreckage in front of me, a car surrounded by boys picking at its still-hot exterior. Inside are four blackened, seared human shapes, crispy at the touch, faceless from the burns, charcoal, shreds of steaming cloth, a smell of barbecued human flesh, sirens in the distance. Burnt and vaporized metal looks like what you see in a science fiction movie. Burnt humans look like singed paper mache monsters whose pieces fall off at the hint of a breeze.

Gaza is sorry for these indiscretions, this poor taste, this unseemly topic of conversation. You are right to express your indignation. How Dare Gaza Speak of These Things!? But it can no longer contain its secrets even with the blockade of visitors to its vile shores; its voice is shrill even when sublimated through the layers of media deceit. The smoke rises higher in the skies each time. The prison is imploding and the resistance will never end."

Catching the Fire of Moral Depravity: What Israel and Guantanamo Have In Common

Last night I watched an overdue, yet deeply moving, dramatization of the struggle against apartheid in South Africa. The movie, Catch A Fire, starring Derek Luke and Tim Robbins, shows how humans have the capacity to inflict indignity, torture, pain, suffering, and other beastly manifestations on their fellow human beings with the audacity of moral self-righteousness that in a clinical setting could clearly be labeled as a depraved form of psychosis.

Derek Luke plays the innocent black South African who cared for his community in an apolitical way, provided for his family and tried to stay out of trouble. Tim Robbins plays the white Africans anti-terrorism tzar who in his struggle "to protect his people from the terrorists" reluctantly takes delight in torturing suspects. We see on screen the birth of a terrorist in the face of unspeakable injustice.

Yet, why has the South Africa story of moral depravity taken so long to make it to Hollywood? I will put forth a hypothesis - because it has too many parallels in the world today that we are not willing to either admit or deal with.

Apartheid South Africa could easily be Israel's Gaza and West Bank. Palestinians are today the world's black South Africans. The main difference is that while the US and the West reluctantly did not back South Africa, at least not toward the end, we are backing Israel. Hence, we accept all the "we are protecting our people" self-righteousness they utter and assuage ourselves by reorienting our moral compass - or rather throwing it overboard.

More recently, Guantanamo, Abu Gharib, CIA secret torture prisons, and the 2006 Military Commissions Act are all one long slide down the slippery slope of internalizing and accepting a moral contradiction. Yet, we tell ourselves it is OK because we are in a war to "protect ourselves against the terrorists". In the process, we are descending into a moral dark hole and losing what we are trying to protect and project - our moral standing, pride and freedom.

Hence, the movie is just too close for comfort. It's a mirror we just don't want to look in to.

For those concerned with the latest Israeli onslaught and continued criminal behavior against the Palestinians, see the gallery of pictures on Al Jazeera showing Israel's army aiming at and killing unarmed women in cold blood.

Where is the world's sense of human decency, justice, equality and honor? Apparently those seem to be fungible platitudes rather than steadfast principles... And I am clearly a hopeless fool.

Yet, perhaps there is a shimmering light. Some voices are trying to be heard above the fray. From today's Haaretz comes a shocking repudiation of Israel's quick march toward total disregard, with complete impunity, for human life. What is even sadder is that the entire world does not even seem to care. Perhaps when the messenger is from within their own ranks, people will listen.

"By Gideon Levy
A bloodbath is taking place in Beit Hanun, the Israel Defense Forces runs rampant and kills at least 37 people in four days - and Israeli public opinion yawns with indifference. A brigade commander tells his soldiers, who killed 12 people in one day: "You've won 12:0," and the soldiers grin broadly.

This is the moral nadir we have reached, following a long slide down a slippery slope: Human life has become cheap. Proof of this came at the end of the week from the big mouth of Major General Elazar Stern, the head of the IDF Personnel Directorate, who occasionally says true things. "The IDF's excessive sensitivity to human life led to some of the failures in the Lebanon war - and this should not happen," Stern told Channel 7. Stern should be praised for these forthright words: Those who embark with unbearable lightness on a futile war of choice cannot allow themselves the luxury of showing sensitivity for the lives of their soldiers. In war, soldiers not only kill, but are also killed. This should have been stated in advance.

But the general's remarks are also tainted with hypocrisy: Those who over a few months kill more than 1,000 Lebanese and 300 Palestinians for dubious reasons do not have the right to speak about sensitivity to human life. The fact that the public protest against the war did not take off demonstrates that after having lost all sensitivity for the lives of others, we are also gradually losing sensitivity for the lives of our children who are killed in vain. The contempt for human life starts with the lives of Arabs and ends with the lives of Jews.

What a long way we have come since the talk, as hypocritical as it may have been, about "the purity of arms." This concept has been totally deleted from the lexicon. What a long way we have come since the time when we took pride in the fact that, unlike the Arabs, we tried not to kill innocent civilians. And now we have arrived at the shocking reality of the second Lebanon war. For example, the number of people Israel killed is not only almost 10 times higher than the number of people Hezbollah killed, but the number of soldiers Hezbollah killed is three times higher than the number of Israeli civilians they killed, while the number of Lebanese civilians killed by Israel is about three times the number of Hezbollah fighters. So whose arms are purer?

A journalist from The Guardian who is currently in Israel was shocked to hear that these figures have not been the subject of public discussion here. The current stage of the moral decline began with the targeted assassinations in the territories. When they began, there was still an argument over their legality and justness. Who remembers that the assassinations were once limited, declaratively at least, to "ticking bombs"? The High Court of Justice, in its cowardice, has evaded taking a stance on this issue for years, despite the petitions on its doorstep. And the assassination project grew and expanded until it reached monstrous proportions.

In recent months, almost no day has gone by without Palestinians being killed in Gaza. Instead of asking why, we get a prime minister who boasts to the Knesset Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee about "300 terrorists" dead within four months, as if killing in itself were an enormous achievement. This is the lesson from Ehud Olmert, and it is immeasurably more grievous than all his alleged corruption affairs. No one asked who these fatalities were, whether they all deserved to die, and what benefit Israel derives from this wholesale killing.

Beyond the terrifying number of civilians killed, including dozens of women and children, we should also ask whether every armed person in Gaza - and there are tens of thousands of them - deserves the death penalty, without a trial. The day the IDF began the targeted assassinations, our sensitivity to human life was doomed to be erased. The IDF has been operating in the town of Beit Hanun for several days now. Operation Autumn Clouds is ostensibly intended to target Qassam launchers, but meanwhile it has only brought more Qassams on Sderot - besides the killing, destruction and terror it sows in the heart of the 30,000-resident town. I was at the Beit Hanun home of the Abu Ouda family twice recently. The first time was when a shell destroyed the family's home. The second time was when soldiers killed the father, his son and his daughter, who were innocent of any crime. And this was before Operation Autumn Clouds.

And how is the Israeli press covering Autumn Clouds? In Maariv on Thursday, you needed a magnifying glass to find an offhand reference to the killing of 10 Palestinians in one day; it was the same for Yedioth Ahronoth. The two newspapers with the country's largest circulation demonstrate a disgusting level of dehumanization. The statement by Yedioth Ahronoth's military commentator, Alex Fishman, that one of the operation's goals is drilling the troops for the "big operation," does not stir any protest. That the IDF is embarking on a "training operation" in a dense population center, sowing death and destruction - does this not show a frightening contempt for human life? The daily killing in Gaza receives scant mention. Futile operations aimed at restoring the IDF's lost honor do not arouse any debate about their aim, morality or chances of succeeding. No one wonders about the extent of Qassam damage versus the extent of the killing and destruction - including the bombing of the power station - in Gaza, where a million and a half people are encaged, impoverished and hungry.

These futile operations will not stop the Qassams, which are aimed at giving us and the rest of the world a painful reminder of the imprisoned and boycotted Gaza residents' distress, which no one would notice if it were not for the Qassams. The way to fight the Qassams is to stop the boycott, sit down at the negotiating table and reach an accord. Otherwise, we will continue to slide and become immune to their loss of life, and soon to our loss of life as well. Listen to Major General Stern."

Human Death Toll of the Travesty in Iraq

In case anyone wants to still argue that Iraq is better off ...... a new study estimates that the number of Iraqi's killed as a direct result of the US-led invasion is over 600,000, or 2.5% of the population of Iraq! That dwarfs all other estimates including that of Iraq Body Count who estimates an upper limit of less than 50,000. This report was also published in the medical journal, The Lancet. The study suggests that while 100,000 died after the first year of the invasion, the occupation since 2004 has seen an additional 5-fold increase.

A group of social scientists at Johns Hopkins University led by Les Roberts have completed a new poll of households in Iraq, which updates a previous study they undertook over a year ago. This study is financed by MIT and was done in collaboration with a group of Iraqi experts and doctors who have conducted numerous polls for various US-based polling outfits. The effort is financed by MIT.

Needless to say, the Bush administration and other war-hawks claim that the study grossly exaggerates the "collateral damage" resulting from coalition forces action, as well as insurgent violence. They are crying foul claiming that the release of the study now is nothing but a political ploy. Well, at least, people may stop talking about the Foley fiasco - if that is their silver lining. But, seriously, one must wonder why they might find 50,000 a more acceptable a number. In fact, is it even acceptable to discredit bad news just because it can be cast as having been divulged for political points? Does that mean that the news should be of less concern? Is it better that we don't know it?

On a CNN interview, John Zogby (of Zogby International), a leading US-based pollster, said today that, in his view, the methodology used by the study group was sound. He also endorsed the Iraqi experts who were part of the study effort saying that his company has relied on them, as well, in the past.

The bottom line is that no serious person can accept the low death figures being touted by the Bush administration unless they are either asleep or delusional. With 100 bodies showing up in Baghdad alone on a daily basis, anyone can do the math.

It is time for the US and the world to take a deep hard look both in our hearts and minds. What is happening in Iraq is not only sad, it is criminal.

By the way, BBC has an excellent Bush opinion poll tracker covering the past 6 years (US media could really learn a couple things from their Brit allies).

Israel and the Principle of Proportionality

Today I was faced with a situation where I was expected to express my views on the legality of Israel's actions in Lebanon in terms of the international legal concept of proportionality. I was in an academic setting being questioned by a scholar with a clear pro-Israel stance. She challenged me to express a legal argument "free from personal bias." Despite the fact that her stance was anything but impersonally guided, I took her advice to heart and found great ease in expressing the illegality of Israel's atrocities in Lebanon from a "purely" academic perspective. I shall leave aside, for the moment, the preposterous belief that any legal view may be detached from a political bias, with the Supreme Court being a case in point.

On the question of what proportionality (in bello) in terms of international law means, there has been much confusion in the media and amongst the talking heads especially with respect to Israel's latest actions in both Gaza and Lebanon. Proportionality in international law does not refer to a situation where one side is constrained by the amount of force its enemy may or may not possess. In other words, because Hezbollah is limited in its weaponry does not mean that Israel must use the same level of force.

Proportionality in the conduct of war means that a state may unilaterally defend itself and/or undertake a reprisal provided the response is proportional to the injury sustained. The injury sustained, according to Israel, is the kidnapping of two of its soldiers. It was only after the commencement of its offensive against Lebanon that Israel expanded this injury to include ending the ability of Hezbollah to launch any further attacks against Israel. Whatever Israel is doing in Lebanon is supposedly in response to that wrong. Thus, proportionality must be evaluated in terms of that expressed wrong.

Fortunately, there is no positive law detailing numbers or ratios of acceptable "collateral damage". However, reasonable people can agree or disagree on what is considered "acceptable" and this level of acceptability is likely to be conditioned by what side of the conflict one sits, in addition to one's value of human life. For me, and for many others, that level has been exceeded in Lebanon. Thus, there are some who would argue that even one innocent civilian death is too many, while others at the other extreme, may draw the line at nuking a village or city if it means weeding out a "terrorist". The important issue here is that the principle does exist and what is in debate is where to draw the line.

However, the laws of war, as enumerated in numerous international conventions such as the Hague Conventions of 1907 and the Geneva Conventions of 1949, underline the fact that there are 2 overriding principles which should guide hostilities, namely, proportionality AND discrimination. This latter principle is defined by immunity of non-combatants from being targeted during times of war. This exclusion extends to civilian infrastructure and property.

Thus, when Israel bombs and kills over 1,200 civilians, decimates homes and destroys basic infrastructure needed by the civilian population to survive, in order, according to its own declarations, to root out 50 Hezbollah combatants, Israel may be held to account for contravening the laws of war - both proportionality and discrimination. The applicable terms are war crimes, genocide, and crimes against humanity.

The issue of proportionality and Israel's action in both Gaza and Lebanon were recently addressed by the Council on Foreign Relations and I quote:

"What is the doctrine of proportionality? The doctrine originated with the 1907 Hague Conventions, which govern the laws of war, and was later codified in Article 49 of the International Law Commission's 1980 Draft Articles on State Responsibility (PDF). The doctrine is also referred to indirectly in the 1977 Additional Protocols of the Geneva Conventions. Regardless of whether states are party to the treaties above, experts say the principle is part of what is known as customary international law. According to the doctrine, a state is legally allowed to unilaterally defend itself and right a wrong provided the response is proportional to the injury suffered. The response must also be immediate and necessary, refrain from targeting civilians, and require only enough force to reinstate the status quo ante. That said, experts say the proportionality principle is open to interpretation and depends on the context. "It's always a subjective test," says Michael Newton, associate clinical professor of law at Vanderbilt University Law School. "But if someone punches you in the nose, you don't burn their house down."

The Council article goes on to say: "How does the doctrine apply to the current context in Israel? Many legal experts say Israel's response to the recent abductions has not upheld the principle of proportionality and violates international humanitarian law."

Human Rights Watch website contains a discussion of the Israeli action in Lebanon from the perspective of International Humanitarian Law. One interesting issue discussed relates to the so-called humanitarian Israeli practice of dropping leaflets on trapped civilians exhorting them to leave the vicinity (yet not allowing them the means to comply). Quote:

"Do the warnings given to Lebanese civilians in advance of IDF attacks comply with international humanitarian law? The IDF, through leaflets dropped by aircraft, radio broadcasts and recorded messages to telephones, has repeatedly called on civilians in southern Lebanon to evacuate their areas. International humanitarian law requires that warring parties give “effective advance warning” of attacks that may affect the civilian population, so long as circumstances permit. What constitutes an “effective” warning will depend on the circumstances. Such an assessment would take into account the timing of the warning and the ability of the civilians to leave the area. In some cases the IDF are reported to have dropped leaflets giving residents only two hours warning before a threatened attack. Bomb damage to roads and bridges, as well as air attacks on civilian vehicles, would also affect the ability of civilians to flee an expected attack. Civilians who do not evacuate following warnings are still fully protected by international law. Otherwise, warring parties could use warnings to cause forced displacement, threatening civilians with deliberate harm if they did not heed them. So, even after warnings have been given, attacking forces must still take all feasible precautions to avoid loss of civilian life and property. This includes canceling an attack when it becomes apparent that the target is civilian or that the civilian loss would be disproportionate to the expected military gain."

Today Israel demanded from the civilians of Tyre to evacuate the vicinity yet, in the same leaflet, warned against any attempt to leave in vehicles as all moving vehicles would be targeted for bombing. Does Israel assume that the elderly, young, sick and even the healthy are supposed to make a run for it by foot under the rain of Israeli bombardment across rivers, hills, mountains, and otherwise difficult terrain? In the absence of any other logic, this is beginning to look like an extermination campaign.... and that is a conclusion filled with personal bias not due to any political view but rather as a human being!

The terrorizing and killing of innocent civilians is defined as terrorism, perpetrated by terrorists. Israel has placed this label on Hezbollah. However, righting the wrong that Israel claims does not come about by descending to the same level and sinking even further into moral deficit and legal delict. Shame!