WITNESS IN PALESTINE

Posted on by asitoughttobemagazine

demonstration_Bil'ain

A demonstration in Bil’ain. Photobucket photo by phalistine.

PLANTING TREES WITH “THE PALESTINIAN GANDHI”

by Anna Baltzer

Two winters ago I attended a demonstration in the village of Bil’ain in protest of the Wall that Israel was building between the village and more than half of its land. It was the second Friday in a row that the community had come together to protest their collective imprisonment and dispossession. Now, two years later, the Wall around Bil’ain is complete. Yet the village continues, week after week, to come together to demonstrate in new and creative ways, in spite of the obstacles.

In two years of demonstrating, Bil’ain villagers have prayed on their land. They’ve constructed giant dioramas. They’ve marched with a giant paper-maché grey snake with a dove in its mouth to symbolize how the Wall is suffocating peace and the village. They’ve held a wedding on their “forbidden” land, and World Cup parties. They’ve invited drummers to give a beat to their marching for freedom. Bil’ain has dressed up like Abu Ghraib prisoners, and worn masks of Bush and Condi. They’ve spelled out their message with mosaics on their streets. They’ve resolved to build a hotel on their stolen land, where any person will be free to stay no matter what ethnicity or religion.

Bil’ain has paid a price for its determination. Villagers have withstood kidnappings, rubber bullets, sound bombs, tear gas, beatings, live ammunition, arrests, threats of deportation, arson, and more, yet they continue. When the Army declared overnight curfew on Bil’ain, villagers held a volleyball tournament from midnight to 3am between teams of Israelis, internationals, and Palestinians. When the Army declared internationals were forbidden from entering the village, they invited foreign musical groups to sing and dance on their land with them. When they lost their first court case, they filed another. When a nearby settlement continued expansion on Bil’ain land, villagers built their very own outpost!–a trailer resembling those used by ideological settlers to illegally squat Palestinian land, but this one open to internationals, Israelis, and villagers to affirm Palestinians’ right to live on their land. They call it the “Center for Joint Struggle,” and although the original was destroyed, another towed, and yet another burned, the villagers return each time to reassert their rights and build a new community home on their stolen groves.

I visited the Bil’ain outpost for the first time today. I arrived with a caravan of Israeli activists from Tel Aviv early in the morning, and was embarrassed to realize we had woken two villagers sleeping inside. One, named Ashraf, insisted he was already awake as he rubbed his eyes, and shuffled around to prepare tea and drag out mattresses for us to sit on under the olive trees. It was a beautiful day, and I admired the fort held together in part by sheets and tree trunks, and the organic garden they had created next to it. We chatted and munched on chocolate wafers as we waited for other villagers to arrive for the planned action. Ashraf was disappointed when his friend Yonatan–an Israeli vegan–declined each round of cookies, and squinted through the ingredients on everything in his snack stash desperate to find something without milk. Eventually the others arrived and we began walking towards the settlement of Modiin Elite.

I had forgotten how quickly settlements can grow. Modiin Elite is a large Jewish-only colony built on Bil’ain village land, home to more than 33,000 Israelis and about twice as many homes, according to an Israeli activist I drove through with. In spite of generous financial packages, the Israeli government has not succeeded in transferring as many Israeli families as they have made room for, yet construction continues aggressively.

Modiin Elite is also known as Kiryat Sefer, and its extensions are sometimes called Matityahu East or Green Park. According to my friend Kobi, an Israeli professor and activist, “Giving settlements different names are part of a general strategy of obstruction and disinformation by developers and the Civil Administration. Master plans are not available, construction is not announced, the planning laws are alternatively Ottoman, British, Jordanian, or Israeli, whichever suits the settlers’ purposes at any particular moment. This makes it harder for opponents to know what they’re up against and to monitor it.” If the court rules something illegal for one settlement, they continue activity under a different name. For example, the court recently required developers to cease all activity in certain areas that the settlement annexed from Bil’ain, but as we drove in we saw cranes working away.

Bil’ain villagers have filed a number of lawsuits against Modiin Elite. Today’s action was to plant olive trees on two fenced-in enclaves near the settlement that the court has finally determined do belong to Bil’ain villagers. Contractors have been required to remove all infrastructure and restore the land to its previous state. As expected, while digging holes–ostensibly for the trees–we uncovered all kinds of illegal activity. In the first enclave, we found water pipes, telephone lines, and remnants of an old concrete settler road. In the second enclave we found parts of a building foundation that had been simply covered up with mounds of dirt. As we dug, we were approached by settler security and eventually the contractor himself, who was visibly nervous. Half a dozen Israelis and internationals were extensively documenting his illegal work, and he’s likely to get into a lot of trouble. After we finished planting, the Israelis scooted back under the fence to the settlement where they’d parked, and we began the walk back to Bil’ain, where we hoped to catch transport back to our home in the West Bank.

It was upsetting to see the completed Wall in Bil’ain, knowing all the village had done to try and prevent it, or at least change its path. Now it separates the villagers from their land, including the outpost and enclaves where we’d been. The soldiers holding the key to the gate met us along the way, and declared strictly that village residents could pass to Bil’ain, but nobody else. Abdallah, one of the villagers, explained in Hebrew that we are his friends and he was inviting us to his village. He did not ask for permission, he stated clearly that this was his and our right and that we had come in peace. Then he began walking forward and motioned for us to come along.

The soldiers didn’t like that. They began yelling and formed a line to prevent us from passing. One soldier began to remove a tear gas canister from his belt. Convinced that the soldiers would not be moved, Abdallah sat down on the road in protest, and invited us to sit with him. He explained once again that there is no law against us passing, but made clear that we would not cause the soldiers any harm or use violence.

Abdallah is an active member of Bil’ain’s Popular Committee Against the Wall. He’s been called “the Palestinian Gandhi,” and remains committed to nonviolent resistance, no matter how many times the Army beats or arrests him. He was calm and poised, and I could tell that the soldiers were not accustomed to Palestinians neither validating them nor becoming upset.

After calling a number of Army hotlines for help (in vain), we resolved to try again to walk peacefully through the line of soldiers towards the village. Abdallah led the group, with his hands up in the air. As soon as he’d passed the soldiers began pushing me and my colleagues back, separating us from Abdallah. They pushed him against the gate, hastily opened it, pushed him onto the other side, and closed it. He did not resist. He just kept asking, “Lamma? Lamma?” (“Why? Why?” in Hebrew). Another villager approached the soldiers, holding the hand of his young daughter. He asked me, “Shall we go to my village?” and I said, “Yalla” (Let’s go). He stuck out his elbow for me to link arms with him, and we began to walk towards the soldiers. They immediately broke between us and shoved the man and his daughter through the opened gate before closing it. They threatened to arrest me. I said I hadn’t done anything illegal, but I backed off.

The only Palestinian left was Ashraf, who would probably stay in the outpost again. By this time I realized he was slightly mentally handicapped, and hoped he would make it back okay. Abdallah called to us through the fence that he would meet us at the checkpoint a couple miles away if we could hitch a ride there with a settler security man who had recently arrived, curious about the commotion. The man agreed–if only to get us out of there–and half an hour later we were in Abdallah’s car on the detour road back to Bil’ain. On the way Abdallah told us the bad news: Ashraf, whom we’d left at the scene, had been detained. We drove quickly from the village to the gate of the Wall, now opposite the soldiers we’d confronted earlier. We could see Ashraf sitting in an army tent, handcuffed and blindfolded. Abdallah called some Israeli friends and a lawyer, and I took some photos. When pressed, the soldiers explained that they had asked Ashraf if he wanted to return to his village and he said nothing. Then they asked if he wanted to return to the outpost and he said nothing. Now they were detaining him temporarily as punishment for not responding to their questions. When asked when he would be released they said they hadn’t decided yet but maybe in half an hour. Abdallah felt that rather than cause a big scene we should wait and hope they were telling the truth.

We sat down next to the gate. I reflected on how disempowering it is to witness injustice through an impenetrable Wall. I prayed the soldiers would not hurt Ashraf, not sure if I could handle watching through a fence unable to try and stop it. But they left him alone, and after about 40 minutes they removed his blindfold and handcuffs and escorted him to the gate. He walked through with a sheepish smile, clearly moved that we had waited to ensure his release. We drove back to Abdallah’s house–half of which he’s donated as a home for Israelis and internationals to have their own space in the village. We told Abdallah we’d see him next Friday, and started the long journey back to Haris.

Thanks for reading,

Anna

–Anna Baltzer

This piece was originally published on Anna Baltzer’s website: AnnaInTheMiddleEast.com on 2/13/07.

Further Reading:

Conversation with Hamas Supporters by Anna Baltzer, 9/4/09

Thieves in the Night by Anna Baltzer, 8/26/09

From Jericho to Hebron by Anna Baltzer, 8/17/09

The Olive Harvest by Anna Baltzer, 8/7/09

IS INFIDELITY THE END OF THE MARRIAGE?

Posted on by asitoughttobemagazine

lady esq 3

ASK LADY ESQ.

Relationship advice from a divorce attorney.

Dear Lady Esq.,

My wife of twelve years recently disclosed to me that two years ago she had an affair with a co-worker that lasted for three months. I had no idea that this happened and have been devastated by her admission. Up until now we have had what I thought was a happy marriage.

Her explanation of the affair is completely unsatisfactory to me. She explains that she enjoyed the attention she was getting from him and that it just went too far. She did not have many boyfriends before we were married and the attention she received was hard to resist according to her. The gentleman has since been transferred to an overseas office.

She states that she is happy and fulfilled in our marriage and that I was in no way the cause of this affair. I feel humiliated. I feel I can no longer trust my wife. I am contemplating a divorce, but we have three young children to consider. I cannot be in a relationship without trust. That is gone.

What advice can you give me for my situation?

– Cuckold in NYC


Dear Cuckold,

Your concerns are well-founded. Trust, once lost, is difficult (though not impossible) to regain. And yet a commitment to marriage is a commitment to work through difficult situations including the mistakes that are made, and a marriage with children may be even more of a reason to try to work things out.

Your wife betrayed you and your trust. The reasons she did what she did are irrelevant. At the end of the day, she cheated, and you are hurt and no longer trust her or look at her or the marriage in the same way.

Ignorance is bliss. The truth is, like you said, before you knew about this infidelity you thought you had a happy marriage. And the affair was two years ago. For two years you didn’t know about the affair and it didn’t hurt you. I wonder what prompted your wife to tell you about it now. Was it her guilty conscience? Or is she trying to let you know that there are things she needs from you and the relationship that she is not getting? Whatever her reasons for telling you, the truth is that when a person “comes clean” about infidelity, especially if the affair has ended, that person does so for their own reasons, to benefit themselves. Her telling you about this affair has caused you nothing but grief and confusion – you have gained nothing positive from knowing the truth.

Now you are in an awful position. What you thought was the state of your marriage is not. The person you thought you could trust you no longer think you can. That is hard to recover from, both as an individual and in the relationship.

Your children should not be the reason you stay in the marriage. Despite our cultural belief that having married parents is what’s best for the kids, staying in the marriage for their sake alone can actually be quite damaging to them. Children are highly intuitive. If you are with your wife for their sake, and not because you are in love with her and dedicated to her and the relationship, your children will sense it. This can shake the foundation of their future relationships. Your relationship must be built on honesty and a true desire to be in it and work on it if you expect your children to grow up seeking healthy relationships of their own.

So the first thing you need to explore is what you truly feel and what you truly want, for you. Do you still love your wife, despite her infidelity? Is this a relationship that you are still willing to put effort into and work to repair, because it is what you want and what will make you happy, regardless of how this decision affects others?

If the answers are yes, if you still love your wife and are willing to put in the work needed to repair your relationship, then, and only then, can and should you proceed with trying to make things work.

If you do want the marriage to work, you have to begin couple’s therapy together. You have to explore the reasons she strayed, the way it makes you feel, and most importantly you have to explore your shaken trust in her and how you can work together to rebuild it. Trust is imperative in a relationship. And you cannot be expected to trust a woman who has lied to you and cheated on you. That is to say, without outside help, you cannot be expected to rebuild that trust. If you choose to stay with your wife but do not seek professional help for the relationship you will carry around fear, bitterness, insecurity, anger, and resentment toward your wife. Without the proper tools to process through and overcome those very valid feelings your relationship won’t stand a chance.

If you do choose to work things out and seek professional help, in doing so you may find that there are changes you need to make to make the relationship work. You may need to give your wife the attention she needs that made her stray in the first place. You may need to work harder, do more, be more attentive to her needs. It may seem unfair to you that she was the one who cheated and now you’re the one who has to change and put forth the effort to repair things, but it is important that you realize this is a possibility and are willing to take on the challenge as part of making your marriage work.

If, on the other hand, your wife’s infidelity has caused you to fall out of love with her or has caused you to no longer want to work on the relationship, then you have to end the marriage. A marriage attempted half-heartedly or without the underlying desire to be in the relationship will fail, and it will fail in a slower more painful way that will be more damaging to your children. If you look into your heart and realize your marriage cannot be saved, you owe it to yourself, to your children, and even to your wife to end the marriage. And if you do go down this path I implore you and your wife to promise to always be civil to each other and to continue to co-parent in a positive way with mutual respect for one another, for the sake of the children, despite whatever bad blood may be between you and your wife.

You can walk away from the marriage and still not damage your children. But if you find yourself in a place where the two of you cannot discuss choices involving your children in a positive and civil way, where lawyers and courts have to make decisions for you, where you can’t talk to each other kindly, where you only have negative things to say about each other, this will damage your children. So for their sake, no matter what path you choose, always put them first and implore your wife to do the same. The actions you take along these lines will be what impacts your children, not whether or not you remain in the marriage.

– Lady Esq.

askLadyEsq.com

CENTRAL AMERICA

Posted on by asitoughttobemagazine

StelaH_Copan_Rabbit18

Close-up of Stela H at Copan in Honduras, depicting the Mayan ruler Uaxaclajuun Ub’aah K’awiil (18 Rabbit). Flickr photograph by Youngrobv.

THE LIES ABOUT HONDURAS WE BELIEVED

by Jim Dorenkott

President Zelaya was ousted in a coup in the early hours of June 28, and flown in his pajamas to Costa Rica. The world recoiled and universally condemned it The coup outraged but the pro-coup spin hung out there believed by way too many people. Why?

Scripps Howard News Service published immediately after the coup  this account, “Zelaya, encouraged by his friend Hugo Chavez in Venezuela, scheduled a vote to change the constitution so he could remain president after next year. .. The annoying thing about this power play is how Zelaya tried to use democracy ― he called for a vote ― to keep himself in office beyond his one allowed term.”

Was it just the conservative media? Sadly no as PBS’s Ray Suarez wrote 3 days after the coup, “Zelaya was ousted Sunday. He had tried to organize a referendum to end the constitutional limit on his presidential term. That enraged the country’s congress and armed forces.”

And even Al Jazeera repeated the phrase “after he tried to carry out a referendum to extend his term in office.” With the Christian Scientist Monitor repeating similar phrases a month later.

Fortunately, some people, though, stepped back to look at the facts, and began to understand that it was logically impossible for Zelaya to extend his term. Among those Alberto Vallente Thorensen an El Salvador lawyer writing in Counterpunch pictures the context of his ouster, “In their rage, the almighty gods of Honduran politics have punished an aspiring titan, President Manuel Zelaya, for attempting to give Hondurans the gift of participatory democracy. This generated a constitutional conflict that resulted in president Zelaya’s banishment and exile”

Most importantly Thorensen urges us to be less gullible when we hear these stories. “… If we, the spectators, are not attentive to these words, we risk succumbing intellectually, willfully accepting the facts presented by the angry coup-makers and Honduran gods of politics.” This for sure happened even in Latin America where polls showed that 50% there believed the official line.

He explains that when the Supreme Court ruled Zelaya couldn’t legitimately carry out a referendum so close to an election he made it informal. “The poll was certainly non-binding, and therefore also not subject to prohibition.”

Even if it had been a referendum which it wasn’t, “the objective was not to extend Zelaya’s term in office. In this sense, it is important to point out that Zelaya’s term concludes in January 2010. In line with article 239 of the Honduran Constitution of 1982, Zelaya is not participating in the presidential elections of November 2009, meaning that he could have not been reelected.” It is now pretty obvious that Zelaya could not have extended his term in office.

The Constitution left over from the oligarchy military rule days needs revision or replacement. Would that have allowed Zeleya to extend his term?

“Moreover, it is completely uncertain what the probable National Constituent Assembly would have suggested concerning matters of presidential periods and re-elections. These suggestions would have to be approved by all Hondurans and this would have happened at a time when Zelaya would have concluded his term. Likewise, even if the Honduran public had decided that earlier presidents could become presidential candidates again, this disposition would form a part of a completely new constitution.

“Therefore, it cannot be regarded as an amendment to the 1982 Constitution and it would not be in violation of articles 5, 239 and 374.”

So Zelaya duly elected President is in exile much like Haiti’s President Aristide and the attempted kidnapping of Venezuela’s President Chavez. Critics of US behaviour describe its complicity in a range from the typical green light to dragging its feet at restoring democracy.

In the meantime many Hondurans every day risk their lives to demand the restoration of their democracy. Understanding how we have been misled by the media accounts is very important in supporting their efforts and in refuting the propaganda which has been so unbelievably successful at misleading so many.

–Jim Dorenkott

PETER CAMEJO

Posted on by asitoughttobemagazine

PeterCamejoForPresident1976

Peter Camejo, Socialist Workers Party candidate for US President, 1976.

REMEMBERING PETER CAMEJO

by Matt Gonzalez

Yesterday marked the one-year anniversary of Peter Camejo’s death. He had been battling cancer (lymphoma) for over a year. It was in remission then came back suddenly and killed him.

I spoke to Peter the last week of his life, in fact, just a couple of days before his death while I was in Ohio campaigning with Ralph Nader. Nader and I took turns talking with Peter by telephone. It was apparent that he was going to die, so there were many heartfelt words exchanged. I made sure to tell him that he had much to be proud of, that we loved him greatly, and that we would miss having him at our side.

Most people know Peter Camejo as a three-time Green Party candidate for Governor of California and for his run with Ralph Nader in 2004. Others recall his days with the Socialist Workers Party (SWP), when he ran for US President in 1976 (with running mate Willie Mae Reid) against both Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter.

Peter was also an author. He wrote about post-American Civil War politics (Racism, Revolution, Reaction 1861-1877, The Rise and Fall of Radical Reconstruction) and about progressive financial investing (The SRI Advantage: Why Socially Responsible Investing Has Outperformed Financially).

Many of his speeches from his period with the SWP were published by Pathfinder press in pamphlet form including: Who Killed Jim Crow?; Allende’s Chile: Is It Going Socialist?; Liberalism, Ultraleftism, Or Mass Action; How to Make a Revolution in the US; and Cuba and the Central American Revolution.

Peter marched with Martin Luther King Jr. in Selma and participated in the Berkeley Free Speech Movement, culminating in his expulsion from the University of California and subsequent run for mayor of Berkeley. It was during this era when then Governor Ronald Reagan declared Peter “one of the 10 most dangerous men in California”.

It is without question that Peter was one of the important members of the American Left of the last half-century. He had combated injustice his entire life and helped plant the seeds for many progressive ideas that are popular now.

None of the things we fight for today: gay marriage, equal rights for women, fair wage laws, immigrant rights, universal health care, would exist or even be conceived of, had there not been men and women like Peter pushing from one side — agitating and making people uncomfortable. It amazes me how once these ideas are commonplace, we celebrate the politicians who joined the effort at the last moment, when victory was all but assured. There’s little credit given to how we got on the beachhead in the first place.

What does it mean to stand up against something that won’t budge, long before it’s poised to be the majority sentiment?

Peter knew the system would crumble someday. Politics as we know it will someday buckle under the pressure of human desires for a more egalitarian and democratic world. And when it happens, the “successful” politicians will not be remembered. They were the ones that took the easy path. Worked for change on the margin. Wanted the winner’s circle at all cost. Even if it meant denying what they knew to be the truth.

Peter believed the two-party system was a failure, pure and simple. He mused how years from now historians will scratch their heads and wonder how people tolerated its oppressiveness? Its days are numbered. Just as slavery was, just as the overt subjugation of woman was, just as concentrated capital’s refusal to pay decent wages and give human beings the benefits they deserve cannot be sustained for much longer.

Peter stood up to say that both parties defended corporations such that the differences, we’re told matter, hardly alleviate any true suffering.

Peter wanted to live in a democracy. He wanted an economic system that produced for human needs not profits. He often said that the only reason someone hires you when you’re looking for a job is that they decide you can make them more money than what they’re going to pay you. He dared to say this was wrong.

He noted that the wealthy mistakenly believed they had earned their wealth and that they believed the poor just didn’t work hard enough. He pointed out that the notion that people should be allowed to do as they please with their earnings overlooked that the manner in which this wealth was invested and enjoyed often meant whether you and I would have a job, whether there would be pollution in the air, and what wars we would be fighting.

PCamejobutton

Many disparaged Peter’s electoral efforts. The press often referred to the “perennial candidate”, as if to say “here we go again, this candidate doesn’t have a chance”. In their minds they’d say, he barely registered, in terms of percentage of the vote, when he ran for president (91,000 votes or 0.1% of the vote in 1976) or governor (in his best showing, 400,000 votes or 5.3% of the vote in 2002) so why should they cover his efforts?

But Peter wasn’t discouraged by these election results because he understood that the things we fight for today will come to pass, if only by the sheer strength of the logic and decency of the principles we advocate. He was very aware of Latin American examples of minor parties becoming ruling parties in a matter of a single generation.

Peter spoke of Hugo Blanco who led a peasant revolt among the Quechua in Peru in the early 1960s. He was nearly killed by the government and ultimately was given a 25-year jail sentence. Peter visited him at the prison on the Island of El Fronton, during the period of his “exile”. 15 years later in 1978, Blanco was elected to Parliament, as a member of the Workers Revolutionary Party.

There are many stories like this one, where political efforts are totally marginalized, before becoming the dominant strand. Luiz Inacio “Lula” da Silva helped found the Brazilian Workers Party in 1980. He ran three times for the presidency unsuccessfully, finally winning the 4th time in 2002.

It only took two decades, Peter would have said.

Peter placed his vision of what was possible in the context of these struggles. He couldn’t be dissuaded of his politics just because they weren’t in fashion yet.

Our society has a way of romanticizing past radicals. We don’t think twice when we see Che Guevara on a t-shirt. Many hold up the agrarian revolution that Emiliano Zapata participated in, and think romantically that they would have fought at his side, but the truth is far from that. How many of these people condemn the efforts of politicians like Peter Camejo? How many would have said the timing isn’t right? How many wouldn’t have lifted a finger to help?

Peter Camejo was a beautiful man. He was unreasonable. He thought the timing was right now. He didn’t capitulate like so many of his contemporaries did. He was a socialist.

–Matt Gonzalez

Peter Camejo’s memoir, North Star, will be published in 2010 by Haymarket Books.


JOY

Posted on by asitoughttobemagazine

joy

JOY

by Eve Toliman

This is what it feels like to be lost: an unnameable sadness; a tender, probing affinity with alienation. Is that an oxymoron — affinity with alienation? I gingerly touch the world around me, searching, affirming, “This does not feel right to me, either. I am lost, too.”
City trees have lost their forests. Collared in concrete, their branches strain to mingle with other trees while their stout trunks remain constrained and isolated for the sake of order. The university has simulated wildness in tight pockets. Small groves of like trees are allowed to intertwine on well-bordered islands of ivy or bark. In front of the rent-a-car’s plastic sign, a lone teen sycamore seems to gaze longingly across four busy lanes at the university’s small redwood clan. Their long evergreen branches weave together and caress each other in the breeze.

Here and there true wildness asserts itself. Roots push under the concrete in front of the music store. The sidewalk cracks and bulges. A long branch outside the deli reaches into wires strung between tall poles. The wind gusts and up and down the block, the electricity goes out. A large limb falls. It sweeps across the paint store, shattering the facade on its way down.

There is a kind of freedom in the decay as our idea of order loses ground. Scrabbling at the edges of an eroding bank, our control, our suppressions, our repressions, our bindings, our propriety, our impositions finally swirl into the powerful, unavoidable current of another order. I recognize myself in this torrent. I breathe deeply, surprised to realize that I’ve been dizzy from shallow breathing for a long time.

Last night, something happened. I’m not even sure what it was but it hit something old and painful. As I lay in bed, in the dark, curled under blankets, I was absorbed by the experience of lying on the ground staring straight up at a bright blue sky with large, powder-grey doves flying overhead. Their fanned tails swooped just above my face, so close that for a moment as they flew directly overhead, the blue sky turned to grey. They flew round and round in figure eights on parallel planes. Rhythmic swooping motions; rhythmic blinking of grey to blue to grey to blue. Soothing and hypnotic, these worlds lull me. I do not need to feel or relate anymore. There is no taste, no smell, no real physical sensation at all. These colors, patterns, and soundless sounds are not palpable, they satisfy something much more: an all-embracing, textureless-texture surrounding and infusing me; a silent rumble; complete enfolding emptiness.

When I was twelve years old, I read a short story called “Silent Snow, Secret Snow” about a boy who chooses to permanently inhabit his secret world. It impressed me. I had my own secret worlds. When I was fourteen years old I understood something clearly for the first time: I realized that I, too, could choose to stay in these worlds. They offered me refuge from emotional pain, safe from the unpredictability of others and life. I also understood that the price for this tempting balm was to surrender all emotions; to forfeit my capacity to relate or feel; to stop caring.

For the sake of joy, I declined the offer. I have suffered all the rest, including an unnameable sadness, so that I could still know joy. I have since come to believe that our humanity is fulfilled by this choice — to choose to suffer all the rest, again and again, to be broken and broken open, to feel our hearts mingling and entwined across time and circumstance so that through our deep care we can know a glorious, simple joy.

–Eve Toliman

Further Reading:

COMMENTARY

Posted on by asitoughttobemagazine

VanJones

Van Jones, former White House Council on Environmental Quality’s Special Advisor for Green Jobs. Photograph from College Foundation when Jones worked with the Ella Baker Center for Human Rights.

IF YOU ARE A PROGRESSIVE, THE RESIGNATION OF VAN JONES SHOULD SCARE YOU

by John Dolan

I don’t know Van Jones personally, and I have not read much of his writings. What I know about him I have learned over the past few days, during the media frenzy surrounding his resignation. I am sorry that Van Jones has resigned, as he was probably doing good work in Washington, D.C. However what his resignation means for progressive American’s is more alarming to me than the loss of Mr. Jones from President Obama’s circle. I guess it is finally time for Progressive America to wake up and see that President Obama is not their friend. Like the proverbial wolf in sheep’s clothing, he has gained their confidence and he will eat them from the inside out. If he does not eat them, he will allow his fellow wolves to devour them and stand idly by.

Imagine the effect President Obama could have had if he showed some backbone and stood up for Van Jones? Imagine if he said simply “Van Jones is a valuable member of my staff, and just because he has different views on some issues than I do, does not mean he should resign, and he is not going to resign. In fact, it is these different viewpoints that make us stronger as a country.” He spoke in simple platitudes during the campaign; he could have done so now.

What the resignation clearly and explicitly illustrates is that President Obama will not allow anyone to float any challenging ideas in Washington. In fact, if you look at the below questions—the petition Mr. Jones signed is not in the least bit threatening. Why is it that 9-11 is some kind of sacred cow—something that can never be questioned?

Why can’t we ask our government about 9-11? Why can’t we call Republican’s assholes? They have bankrupted our country and led thousands to their deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan. President Obama shows what he really is with the resignation of Van Jones, and that is not a friend of progressives, not a friend of anyone who seeks to change the culture of Washington.

I have pulled up the petition Van Jones allegedly signed. Below are the questions he supported being asked of the United States Government. These questions are simple, factual based questions.

We want truthful answers to questions such as:

  1. Why were standard operating procedures for dealing with hijacked airliners not followed that day?
  2. Why were the extensive missile batteries and air defenses reportedly deployed around the Pentagon not activated during the attack?
  3. Why did the Secret Service allow Bush to complete his elementary school visit, apparently unconcerned about his safety or that of the schoolchildren?
  4. Why hasn’t a single person been fired, penalized, or reprimanded for the gross incompetence we witnessed that day?
  5. Why haven’t authorities in the U.S. and abroad published the results of multiple investigations into trading that strongly suggested foreknowledge of specific details of the 9/11 attacks, resulting in tens of millions of dollars of traceable gains?
  6. Why has Sibel Edmonds, a former FBI translator who claims to have knowledge of advance warnings, been publicly silenced with a gag order requested by Attorney General Ashcroft and granted by a Bush-appointed judge?
  7. How could Flight 77, which reportedly hit the Pentagon, have flown back towards Washington D.C. for 40 minutes without being detected by the FAA’s radar or the even superior radar possessed by the US military?
  8. How were the FBI and CIA able to release the names and photos of the alleged hijackers within hours, as well as to visit houses, restaurants, and flight schools they were known to frequent?
  9. What happened to the over 20 documented warnings given our government by 14 foreign intelligence agencies or heads of state?
  10. Why did the Bush administration cover up the fact that the head of the Pakistani intelligence agency was in Washington the week of 9/11 and reportedly had $100,000 wired to Mohamed Atta, considered the ringleader of the hijackers?
  11. Why did the 911 Commission fail to address most of the questions posed by the families of the victims, in addition to almost all of the questions posed here?
  12. Why was Philip Zelikow chosen to be the Executive Director of the ostensibly independent 911 Commission although he had co-authored a book with Condoleezza Rice?

Taken from:

http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20041026093059633

–John Dolan

COMMENTARY

Posted on by asitoughttobemagazine

NaderButton

NADER-GONZALEZ WOULD NEVER DITCH VAN JONES

by Jim Dorenkott

Obama has caved to the right wing talk show fanatics. He has allowed them to define what a “truther” is.

Van Jones is one of the few both extraordinarily gifted and committed to empowering all people that the administration has, and they let him go without a fight. He has a lot of respect in the community as both a great organizer and a stand up guy.

There was no signal from the White House that they would support him even a little bit.

What a shame.

This unfortunately for the Obama administration makes them look weak both to progressives and the Republicans.


They now smell blood in the water and are going to go on a feeding frenzy. Who is next?


The charges were baseless.

Cheney can say “f*#% you” on the floor of the congress and Van Jones gets the axe because at one time he called Republicans “assholes”. Who hasn’t and who hasn’t said worse on their side?

What was the petition? It was that there ought to be an investigation into government complicity in allowing the 9/11 attack to occur. Most people agree there ought to be. There was a lapse in responsibility from Bush on down. He was adequately warned by the outgoing Clinton administration. Rice was so surprised, but apparently forgot they ringed the NATO conference in Europe the preceding year with anti-missile batteries.

In fact when he signed it Zogby Poll which found half of New Yorkers believed the worst. The petition was in support of an inquiry and signed by many well respected activists and intellectuals.

“On August 31, 2004, Zogby International, the official North American political polling agency for Reuters, released a poll that found nearly half (49.3%) of New York City residents and 41% of those in New York state believe US leaders had foreknowledge of impending 9/11 attacks and “consciously failed” to act. Of the New York City residents, 66% called for a new probe of unanswered questions by Congress or the New York Attorney General.

“In connection with this news, we have assembled 100 notable Americans and 40 family members of those who died to sign this 9/11 Statement, which calls for immediate public attention to unanswered questions that suggest that people within the current administration may indeed have deliberately allowed 9/11 to happen, perhaps as a pretext for war.”

Quite obviously this statement is broad enough that it runs the range from dereliction of duty in the Bush administration to adequately prepare, to ideologically twisted administration officials dragging their feet not realizing the scale of the coming horror, to neo-con renegades participating all the way to Bush family complicity. The statement does not say anything specific about those possibilities; it calls for investigations which New Yorkers want as well. Van Jones is well regarded, and yet he is let go.

What is the fundamental flaw here?

Was it some minor actions blown out of proportion by Glen Beck?

Or was it the lack of political cover?

Neither Ralph Nader or Matt Gonzalez would have thrown him under the bus. They would have defended him and cited his record, which speaks for itself. There are not that many people who are both highly skilled as community organizers and as decent.

Frankly we can’t be too surprised that the administration abandoned him. Van Jones’s politics are closer to Nader-Gonzalez than they are Obama-Biden. He even endorsed Matt Gonzalez when he ran for District Attorney in 1999; they both had the same position on the death penalty. No.

This country needs a multi-party system. We need a relatively strong 3rd party to the left of the Democratic Party. The left in this country needs to self-examine whether their vote for Obama was wasted. In many states it would have been safe to vote for Nader-Gonzalez or McKinney-Clemente without jeopardizing the Obama victory. Maybe if there had been more votes to his left Obama would have even appointed someone from the left to the cabinet or other important position. It is called political cover, and realistically without a strong turnout to Obamas left he couldn’t cite its existence.

As it is Van Jones is it. Or now that he is gone WAS it. Just like Lani Guinier…gone. How is it that in all other developed countries with mature democracies the left is represented, but not in this country?

Lest visions of Florida overwhelm the logic of the moment realize that there is an answer to the “spoiler problem.” It is instant runoff voting and it enables the left to vote their highest ideals first and then for a moderate Democrat. I say moderate Democrat because that is the only kind of Democrats who get elected and appointed in this country.

Van Jones was the exception.

–Jim Dorenkott


COMMENTARY

Posted on by asitoughttobemagazine

walkinglibertyhalfdollar2

The “Walking Liberty” half-dollar designed by Adolph Weinman and minted from 1916 to 1947.

ALL POWER TO THE PEOPLE: CHANGING THE ECONOMIC POWER STRUCTURE

by Mira Luna

“When I gave bread to the poor they called me a saint; but when I ask why the poor have no bread, they call me a Communist.” Archbishop Dom Helder Camara

Currently in the US the top 20% of the population own 80% of the wealth and the bottom 80% own 20% of the wealth. This begs the question what the hell they are doing with all that excess wealth while the rest of us are struggling to survive? Some of them are giving to pretty good causes. Bill Gates, the wealthiest man in the world, is donating money to help eradicate infectious disease in Africa. I am all for helping out Africa, but I question whether or not Bill Gates, a privileged white man from the USA, is the best person to be deciding the fate of Africa. And this is not wealth redistribution, it is funding specific charitable organizations handpicked by the Gates Foundation. Charity can have harmful unintended consequences: conservation programs that displace indigenous people, careless technology introduction that destroys cultures, energy projects that end up benefiting the rich and further impoverishing the poor, industrial agriculture programs that lead peasant farmers away from traditional sustainable agriculture, and creating economic dependency on unreliable foreign money. Additionally, there are often malevolent intentions for these projects as well, such as creating profit for corporations involved in the implementation of these projects instead of employing and empowering local people to run the projects. Then they may make the local people indebted to these corporations and banks for projects that marginally benefit them if at all.

Nonprofit organizations in the US are not immune to these kinds of problems though they may be more subtle. After working for over 12 years in the nonprofit world, I came to realize that funding through foundations, corporations or philanthropic individuals comes with many strings attached. The strings are there before you even solicit funding. The work of the organization, especially whether or not it challenges the economic status quo, will highly influence whether or not the organization is fundable. You may even choose not to do work that is probably not fundable- it is scratched off the drawing board from the get go. Then when you go to apply for funding, you moderate your request so as not to sound too challenging or radical and to some degree you have to stick to that in the implementation of your project or else you won’t get funded again. Or maybe you will lose your tax exempt status. This is why it is notoriously hard to get funding for projects that challenging the economic power structure. Why would a foundation or philanthropist fund work that challenges the source of their wealth and power? Do socialist-leaning organizations or grassroots alternative economic projects get funded as easily as pro-capitalist projects? This is not just my take, I have heard this over and over again from all kinds of nonprofit professionals.

So here we are decades post civil rights, women’s and the environmental movements’ beginnings. What’s changed? The Earth is being destroyed faster than ever, women and people of color still make a fraction on the dollar for the same work and same experience background, the rich are wealthier and the poor are poorer. Wars are raging on all over the world, often fighting over resources.

We have green businesses and worker cooperatives, but they are forced to compete with corporations that unethically exploit human and natural resources- sweatshops and polluting factories- hoping that consumers will want to and be able to spend their increasingly dwindling income on their more conscientious product. And there is only so much money to go around especially in times of recession. Nonprofits pit against each other for crumbs to stay alive and work at least as much on propping up their image as in doing the actual work, because in the world of funding as in the business world, image counts a lot.

So how do we change the system so that we are not always begging for crumbs from people who have no real connection to our problems and may not really want to solve those problems anyway? Let’s start with redistribution of wealth. Land and labor are the bases of wealth so let’s reclaim our land and our labor. How do we do that? We take back our land by eminent domain, occupation, taxation, and legal redistribution. Then we turn it over to the people to collectively run it based on good principles of earth stewardship and equality. We start urban farms that create healthy food for those that need it most. We tax commercial value of land and put the revenues into community land trusts. We abolish future absentee landownership (land as profit rather than land as place to live), which make real estate unaffordable to the people who actually live in the area. We turn land and buildings over to the people living and working in them to be owned and run collectively through community land trusts, which take land off the market to some extent. Occupation of land or eminent domain is often morally justified in that the people who owned the land for the most part did not earn it through hard work and their ownership does not benefit the people. It is hard to start and maintain a community project, an organic farm or a worker cooperative when you are facing outrageous land values that make rent challenging and ownership nearly impossible.

How do we take back our labor, our time? We start worker cooperatives that enable people to allow people to determine how they work together and what they do with their time and to keep their wealth in the community. We start community currencies to enable people and business to not have to wait until money flows their way or to wait for enough of it to be available in general. The people know what needs to be done, they just don’t have the money to do it, because the funding isn’t there, there aren’t enough US dollars floating around, and credit is only available to the well established. People are chained to their 9 to 5+ jobs that transfer their labor profit to someone else, often a corporation outside their community. Without these jobs, they would not survive, unless there were other sources of money and sustenance. If communities created their own money, they could lend them to community projects, cooperative business startups, and individuals to be self-employed. In general there would be three times the wealth in the community to fund local employment and community projects as wealth wouldn’t be leaking from the community into the pockets of corporate CEOs and shareholders. This would also increase local government budgets through a bigger tax base in order to fund projects for the common good. Small businesses wouldn’t have to wait for a bank to lend them credit at interest rates that they can’t repay. They would lend their credit to each other through mutual credit like the WIR Bank in Switzerland does. Community currencies make money available for projects, organizations and businesses that would be hard to get scarce US dollars for.

We should ban corporations and chain stores from participating in the local economy in areas where local business could provide needed community services and goods. If those businesses don’t already exist, then we need to support job training for community needs and funding for import replacement businesses. To redistribute wealth within businesses there should not only be a minimum living wage (or a basic guaranteed income for all), but a maximum wage as well. The ratio, according to Aristotle should be no more than 1:5. When some people are making much more that others, not only are the poor bringing in less money, but their relative purchasing power goes down and they also are spending any extra cash on paying back credit cards and loans rather than high return investments. The poor lose power in government to get the things they do need as they are pitted against corporations that give money to political campaigns. Corporations fight to pay less taxes and get more money for infrastructure that benefits their business more than the public good.

What are local governments spending their budgets on? Even when they are trying to do something as honorable as shifting their energy supply towards renewable energy, do they train and employ poor local folks to do the work or do they contract with outside corporations? When they are deciding whether to fund public transportation or roads, which do they prioritize? Public transportation benefits poor people most and roads benefit business most so we end up spending most our money on road infrastructure. I believe if the people of these municipalities were to be involved in budgeting and project implementation, budgeting priorities would look very different. And those funded projects would create more long term benefits for the community with greater benefits shifted to the poor. This is called participatory budgeting. It separates the financial interests that buy government officials from decision-making about where funding should go.

Even before some of these structural changes are in place, we can decide to focus our energy on just making the alternatives happen even without funding. Instead of taking that trip to Hawaii with your family, help reclaim a lot for community food production, volunteer to put solar panels and energy efficiency devices in poor folks homes, or volunteer at a community clinic. Invest the money that you do have in community projects instead of mutual funds. Share with your neighbors tools, housing, transportation. We already have a lot of untapped power. Let’s start using it for good.

I believe that if we stop spending so much time on begging for crumbs from foundations, corporations and corrupt government, we will create more lasting, effective and dramatic changes to the economic power structure. We need to focus our energy on taking our power back rather than appealing to those that already have power. The Zapatistas are doing it, why can’t we?

–Mira Luna

This piece was originally published on Mira Luna’s blog Trust Is The Only Currency on 9/2/09.

Further Reading:

Towards a Democratic, Cooperative, and Caring Economy by Mira Luna, 8/14/09


WITNESS IN PALESTINE

Posted on by asitoughttobemagazine

Hebronoldcity_Kids_marneri

Hebron youth. Flickr photo by Marneri.

CONVERSATION WITH HAMAS SUPPORTERS

by Anna Baltzer

While wandering around the Hebron Old City a week ago I met a young boy who told me not to take pictures of his younger siblings. He seemed suspicious of me, so I put my camera away and smiled, turning to walk away. The boy’s father, a blacksmith, was working in his shop nearby with his brother and invited me to chat. When the son saw me interacting so comfortably with his father and uncle he came over and apologized. Soon he wanted me to meet the rest of his family. After the requisite three invitations, I climbed with him through the twisted stairs and alleys of the ancient city up to his home, where his mother and sisters welcomed me warmly and forced heaps of food upon me; luckily I was famished. I ate and the family asked me questions about my work and my family, and invited me to stay the night.

The 13-year-old boy who had led me in turned out to be quite a Casanova. Not long after we arrived he asked me to marry him. I referred him to Turkey, where he could find many beautiful women who, unlike me, could also cook. Then the subject turned to an incident a few weeks ago in which the army came in the middle of the night and handcuffed and blindfolded the 13-year-old boy’s older brother, terrifying their sister’s 15-day-old son in the process. The family said they didn’t know why the army had come. The mother asked me if I knew about Ahmed Yassin. I didn’t know what she was talking about until she took out a poster of a man I recognized as the spiritual leader of Hamas.

I asked if the family supported Hamas. They did. I told them I didn’t know very much about Hamas, but that I would like to learn from them. I said that in the United States, we are told that Hamas is dangerous because it supports armed Palestinian attacks on Israel. I asked the family if they supported such attacks and they said they did. They were not altogether surprised to hear that in mainstream American media, Palestinian armed attacks on Israelis are called “terrorism,” while Israeli armed attacks on Palestinian civilians are often called “defense” or are simply not covered by the media at all. I asked them what they would say to a person who condemns suicide bombs because they are meant to kill civilians. They said that Israel has killed more than four times more Palestinian civilians than Palestinians have killed Israeli civilians, but it’s easy to criticize guerilla warfare when you have the luxury of an army doing your fighting for you.

My colleague Hannah said something similar once: “If you’re a pacifist, you have every right to express objections to Palestinian violence against Israelis (although you’d be a hypocrite if you weren’t also equally or more concerned about Israeli violence against Palestinians). If, however, you do believe there is a place for armed struggle, it is unfair to refer only to the oppressed Palestinians targeting their oppressors as terrorists when their actions are no more fear-inducing, politically-motivated, or inhumane than those employed by almost any country at war.”

The family also reminded me that the first people to use terrorism in Palestine were the Zionists in their own struggle against the indigenous Palestinians and the British occupiers before 1948. Zionists were the first to plant bombs in crowded market places, such as the electrically timed mines used against Palestinians in Haifa in July 1938.[1][2] Zionists sanctioned the first plane highjacking[3] and not only took hostages but whipped and murdered them. Zionists blew up ships and government offices with civilians inside,[4] and introduced the political extra-judicial assassinations that continue today.[5] Not only did early Zionists use terrorism, but they lauded it as a moral imperative in their struggle; after all, violence is a standard feature of nationalist movements, and Israel’s was no exception.[6] Zionists planted grenades in cafes and booby-trapped cars. They were the first to kill with letter bombs and parcel-post bombs. In July 1938 alone, Zionists murdered 76 Palestinians in terrorist attacks.

I asked the family if they hated the Zionists for what they’d done. The family said they did, not for what the Zionists had done but for what they continued to do. Then I asked if they would be willing to live in a Palestinian state with a Jewish state next door. The mother asked what kind of a Palestinian state it would be: “What about the settlers? What about the checkpoints, the roadblocks, the road permit system? What about the Wall?”

She pointed out the window to the house next door: “What about them?” Next door we could see a soldier occupying the neighbors’ house, using it to patrol the area. She shook her head. “We cannot allow a Jewish state that imprisons our own.”

I understood the mother’s hesitation. She—like most Palestinians—has learned to be cautious of tricky wording. “Palestinian state” can mean very different things. Israel’s various two-state proposals have always stipulated the continuation of many existing settlements, along with control over borders and most key water sources. Palestinians want a Palestine with viable borders, and a chance at real independence from Israel. No “peace” proposal has ever come close to that.[7] I clarified what I had meant:

“No, I mean what if all that was gone. What if the settlers were gone, the political prisoners were freed, the checkpoints and roadblocks were dismantled, and the Wall was torn down? What if you never had to let another soldier into your house, or show them another permit?”

She continued, “And my family could work and study freely? We could go to our mosques and to our land and nobody would stop us?” I nodded. She looked at me with wariness and a little hope in her eyes: “That would be wonderful.” I asked if she would still support killing Israeli civilians in that case and she thought for a moment and answered, “No. I want my children to live in peace, not war.”

We all went up to the roof to gaze down at the beautiful abandoned Old City. I told the family that I had something to tell them, and they instantly became silent. I was scared, but I knew it was something I had to do, to make a point and to know the answer myself. I spoke:

“I’m Jewish. My mother’s Jewish, and her mother’s Jewish, and so on, and that makes me a Jew. But I don’t support the Israeli government and I hate what it’s doing to your people. I love your country and people deeply, but I’m afraid that now you will hate me. Everyone told me you would.”

It took a moment to sink in. The family didn’t understand at first how I could be Jewish but not support Israel or believe in the religion. I tried to explain, and they tried to understand. I think they did, and they began talking amongst themselves too quickly for me to interpret. I interrupted (jokingly, but also a tad serious), “You don’t want to kill me, do you?” The mother broke into a smile and threw her arms around me. “Of course not! We were just discussing in whose room you will sleep tonight. You’ll stay, won’t you?”

Unfortunately, I couldn’t stay the night, and Casanova walked me back to the CPT house, where I was staying. On the way we passed the abandoned shops in the Old City and I asked him if he remembered the time when they were open. He began to tell me what it used to be like, with lots of people crowding by, children playing next to stands heaped with vegetables. I asked him what happened. He said the soldiers came and took everything away.

Now the old shops are covered with settler graffiti, spray-painted stars of David and the words, “Get out!” I peered into one shop whose windows were smashed, and a man’s voice behind me said, “I used to sell clothes there.” I turned to see a man pointing opposite the alley. “And my brother used to sell groceries over there. The settlers would parade through and take stuff from his shop without paying, just to show their power. Now they’ve taken everything.”

The young man’s name was Zafer. He showed me around the neighborhood and we snuck up to where we could see the bulldozers working to expand a new settlement next door to his house. He told me that the place where we were standing used to be a mechanic’s shop, but now it’s too close to the settler “security fence” to be safe. There was a run-over kid’s backpack on the ground and I wondered who had carried it, and what had happened to him or her. Just then Zafer’s brother, a toddler, ran up and hugged Zafer around the leg. Zafer picked him up and held him in the air above his head. The child squealed with joy. Zafer brought the boy close against his chest and declared to the world, “This kid makes me sooo happy!!” They both glowed. The settlers and soldiers have taken a lot, but I guess there are some joys that persist in spite of just about anything.

–Anna Baltzer

This piece was originally published on Anna Baltzer’s website: AnnaInTheMiddleEast.com on 3/13/05.

Further Reading:

Thieves in the Night by Anna Baltzer, 8/26/09

From Jericho to Hebron by Anna Baltzer, 8/17/09

The Olive Harvest by Anna Baltzer, 8/7/09

[1] Bombs in crowded marketplaces cited in Sefer Toldat Ha Haganah, Tel Aviv; Zionist Library and Marakot, 1954-1972; Grenades in cafes cited in Colonial 146, HM Stationary Office, London, 1938; Booby-trapped cars cited in R.D. Wilson, Cordon and Search (Aldershot: Gale and Polden, 1949), p. 259; Letter bombs cited in The Times (June 5-7 & 10, 1947); Parcel-post bombs cited also in The Sunday Times of London (September 24, 1972); As cited in materials provided by the Interfaith Coalition for Palestinian Rights (ICPR) in Austin, TX; www.icpr-austin.org.

[2] Simha Flapan, Zionism and the Palestinians (New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1977), ch. 2; As cited in Qumsiyeh, 101.

[3] Qumsiyeh, p. 101.

[4] Wilson, pp. 55, 87, & 132; see also Nicholas Bethel, The Palestine Triangle (London: Andre Deutsch, 1979), pp. 191 & 338; Blowing up government offices also described in Thurston Clarke, By Blood and Fire (London: Hutchinson, 1981); As cited in materials provided by ICPR, Austin, TX.

[5] One of the first Zionist assassination victims was Count Folke Bernadotte, appointed Special UN Mediator to the Middle East after he successfully challenged Nazi plans to deport 20,000 Swedish Jews to concentration camps during World War II. Bernadotte said that “it would be an offense against the principles of elemental justice if these innocent victims of the conflict [the Palestinian refugees] were denied the right to return to their homes, while Jewish immigrants flow into Palestine. Zionists assassinated Bernadotte 4 months after the State of Israel was declared; Qumsiyeh, pp. 44-45 & 101.

[6] Chomsky, Fateful, pp. 485-6; See Appendix V for quotations from early Zionist terrorists.***

[7] For details on Camp David II, which many believe produced the most “generous” peace proposal to the Palestinians, see Appendix IV. ***

COMMENTARY

Posted on by asitoughttobemagazine

79472av

A STANDING OVATION: MY LAI REDUX

by George Evans

On August 20, 2009, former U.S. Army Lt. William Calley, who ordered the March 16, 1968, My Lai massacre during the U.S. Viet Nam war, ended over 40 years of silence and apologized for his actions at a Kiwanis Club gathering in Columbus, Ga. For that he received a standing ovation.

Nothing about any war can be taken at face value, but the basic fact of the My Lai incident is that Calley and his troops murdered 500 unarmed Vietnamese civilians—men, women and children. He was the only one convicted for any of the murders (22, though charged with 109), and he has always claimed he was simply following orders, as if that would excuse him. It is possible he was scapegoated to shield higher ups from being forced to answer for a crime that was the result of a policy of genocide, but his actions were those of a willing psychopath.

Sentenced to life, his punishment was converted to house arrest by Pres. Richard Nixon, and he was free within three years. All other participants got off scot-free.

Calley claimed in his Kiwanis Club confession that, “There is not a day that goes by that I do not feel remorse for what happened that day in My Lai,” but that hasn’t been his line over the years.

Less than two years earlier, according to an October 2007 article in the Daily Mail (an admittedly sensationalist U.K. tabloid), when reporters tracked him down in Atlanta for an interview about My Lai, he told them: “Meet me in the lobby of the nearest bank at opening time tomorrow, and give me a certified cheque for $25,000, then I’ll talk to you for precisely one hour.” They met him, but offered only questions instead of money, and he “scuttled away from the line of fire . . . an option the man who led the My Lai Massacre never afforded his innocent victims.”

trial09

Army photograph at My Lai by Ronald Haeberle, March 16, 1968.

Well put, even for a tabloid, and more in keeping with the “Rusty” Calley of the My Lai crime we are (or should be) familiar with: the murdering lieutenant who rifle butted a monk praying over a sick old woman in the midst of the carnage, because he was not giving Calley the right answers, the shining lieutenant who then turned to a two year old crawling out of a ditch full of dead and dying villagers, picked it up by the leg, flung it back into the pit, shot it, turned back to the monk who was trying to explain there were no weapons or enemy troops in that village, killed him, and then, for good measure, killed the old woman, too. That was only a small part of what he did that day.

Calley has lived as a celebrity (however closeted and local) for four decades, and comfortably, surely enjoying more than a few drinks on the house, complete, no doubt, with back-slap, buddy-buddy banter about wasting gooks and the like. It goes without saying, he is not sorry—it would be silly to think he is—but, really, who cares? The question is: What’s he fishing for—book deal, movie deal, lecture tour? And what latest inanity are we going to see emerge in our tacky, Palinesque popular culture of screamer and birther idiots?

He’s an unrepentant mass murderer who (if I grasp Son of Sam laws correctly) is free to cash in on his crimes, and it would not be at all surprising to see him make the talk show rounds before joining a back to the Vietnam war reality show. Or maybe he’ll become the darling of the vulgar Vietnam war reenactor set that’s been making noise and headlines lately.

He’s an opportunist, and this moment, for whatever reason, strikes him as the most appropriate to step forth and apologize for something he has never regretted and was never punished for.

If the following expression of self-doubt, from the Associated Press story of his apology, is an actual quotation from his Kiwanis Club confession, Calley’s credibility is obvious: “‘If you are asking why I did not stand up to them when I was given the orders, I will have to say that I was a second lieutenant getting orders from my commander and I followed them—foolishly, I guess.”

Right. I guess.

—George Evans

This piece was first published in New America Media, August 30, 2009.

Further Reading:

Woodstock Nation, Viet Nam, 8/15/09

Desert Winds by George Evans, 7/27/09