Am I Not Human? When Security Trumps Compassion

In considering human rights abuse for the "Am I Not Human?" campaign, instead of focusing on one group, I will explore a number of examples of a pattern that appears in such abuse, and one America, as well as other powerful nations, must come to grips with: the conflict between security and compassion, between looking at others outside one's "group" as fellow human beings, or as threats.

One of the most obvious cases where this conflict is played out is in the War on Terror. It's easy to simplify the War on Terror as a conflict between Good - us, people who believe and claim they love democracy and freedom - vs. Evil - them, people we claim hate democracy and freedom, aka, the "terrorists".

But if one examines this issue more closely, it's obvious that there's more to it than that. In my last post for this blog campaign, I examined the inhumane treatment of Palestinians by the Israeli government, and also by those countries who ignore the plight of the Palestinians, especially in Gaza. But many argue that the Palestinians support and foster terrorism, attacks on civilians by suicide bombers in peacetime situations, such as markets or theaters or, famously, the Olympics. The Israelis' treatment of Palestinians, they argue, is directly a consequence of those terrorist acts, which Israel must defend itself and its people against. It's a security issue. The apartheid wall, the collective punishment of entire families in Gaza for the acts of a few, the constant checkpoints, the deprivation of jobs, income, or basic food and other supplies, are all explained as necessary security measures.

The War on Terror was begun after 9/11 as a security measure. Suddenly we were attacked, unexpectedly, by Islamic terrorists, in the most horrific way. To defend ourselves and our country, Bush initiated a war against terror - with a huge backing of popular and congressional support. The creation of the Department of Homeland Security, the surveillance of all communications coming in & out of the country (as much as that is possible, and with certain perimeters), allowing the torture of terror suspects, the establishment of military tribunals and a detention center at Guantanamo Bay, detaining terror suspects indeterminately without legal recourse, extraordinary rendition, prison ships, the invasion of Afghanistan and ultimately the invasion of Iraq, Somalia and other lesser-known places - all these measures, now widely criticized as violating people's basic human rights, were enacted in the name of security.

Air strikes on targets that may include civilians - not just mistakes, but knowingly - are also allowed in the various battlefields in the war on terror. This is a deliberate calculation to gain the greater "good" - victory in war and then they hope enactment of "higher goals" such as democracy or access to oil - at the expense of the value of human life.

These air strikes have many strategic reasons - such as minimizing the risk to U.S. soldiers. That is all well and good. But it doesn't necessarily remove the "sin" of taking innocent lives. We're talking about children, women, families. These people did not ask the U.S. to invade. They do not understand exactly what's going on. And their support for the U.S. "mission" is shaken every time civilians are killed. Of course, the Taliban and al-Qaeda are killing civilians, too. Their concern for humanity, is touted as the reason for their war. They say the U.S. and Israel kill Muslim women and children, and so these extremist groups justify their attacks as a "defense" of "their people" against the American "aggressors". It's a matter, to them, of "security".

Saudi Arabia is extremely security-conscious. They are run by a sort of "benevolent" Mafia, the Saudi royal family, including thousands of princes, who get the lion's share of the country's substantion income from oil revenues. They use religion to maintain the loyalty of their citizen-subjects, and try to "modernize" their country in order to keep people happy and obedient. But women in Saudi Arabia, as showcased by the case of the girl from Qatif who was sentenced to whipping for being gang-raped, supposedly because she was with a man who was not her husband or brother. Only public outcry caused the King to ultimately pardon her, but without such publicity she would have had to endure punishment for being the victim of a heinous crime.

This is because in Saudi Arabia, women are still largely considered the "property" of their husbands or male relatives, and have few rights, not even the right to drive a car (unlike some other Muslim gulf states, for example). They are not allowed to appear in public except when covered completely from head to foot in black robes. Although many justify this as "Islamic", many more Muslims would disagree. There's nothing in and of itself wrong with head-covering - as long as it's voluntary. But morality-police enforce these laws, and women are severely restricted in their movements, ability to work or do much of anything outside the home, since they must always have a male relative escort. Many women in Saudi Arabia are huge Oprah Winfrey fans, as she discusses issues that women face in a compassionate way, helping some of these women deal with their lives and feel they have a purpose. Sometimes, under these conditions, women wonder if men believe they are in fact human.

Men in Saudi Arabia justify this attitude with what amounts to another security issue. They want to protect their privileged position in society and their ego-pumping "superiority" without the bother of "uppity" women, who pose a huge security risk for such men. Apparently the men do not think compassion for women involves consideration for their personal needs and pride, or just the ability to support themselves in the event their male relatives should die.

From Hitler's unspeakable atrocities which were justified by a need for security and "superiority", to slavery in the U.S., also justified by the need for "security" and prosperity in the agricultural South, to racist behavior around the world, often justified by the need to "protect" the supposedly "superior" group from some imagined destruction, invasion or "adulteration" by the "other", "inferior" groups, to the latest fear of "terrorists" which title is frequently applied to anyone Muslim... all these represent choices in favor of security and self-protection over compassion and consideration of the rights of others.

Even on a lesser scale, whenever security trumps consideration for the human element, oppression begins, and oppression is the greatest obstacle to true democracy and free society.

First, a free society cannot be created, maintained, inspired or made by force. That means war is out as a means of achieving it. Therefore, the War on Terror is doomed to failure, if its goal is making the world safe for democracy. War cannot make the world safe for anything except war.

Second, excessive infringement on human liberty cannot promote security, if it only acts on rigid, written laws and doesn't have the flexibility to act on the ground in a human way between human beings.

Here's an example of this in Dahr Jamail's lates article as he describes the situation he saw at an airport:

TSA is one of several security gifts from the Bush administration, or rather, from the twisted conjunction of corporate business and state power that oversees and safeguards our "freedom" and "democracy" through an elaborate system of control mechanisms.

Immediately in front of me, an elderly gentleman in a wheelchair was trying to reason with the security guard who was asking him to take off his sandals. "What do you want me to do? I didn't wear socks so you could see my feet since I'm unable to bend over and take off my sandals."

"Sir, you must comply with policy," the guard said in a raised voice, as three other TSA agents moved in behind him, arms folded ominously across their chests, and surrounded the elderly man in the wheelchair who requested their assistance, doing what he could to "comply." None of the guards stepped forward to take off his sandals for him in order to check his feet.

In exasperation he shouted, "I'm asking for help, and you won't do it, so what do you want me to do? What the Hell am I supposed to do? What are you afraid of? I'm an old man in a wheelchair! Are you afraid of my sandals?"

The guards would not allow him through the x-ray until he eventually lowered his voice. We must never upset the status quo, because that is an important pillar of a system that holds change in dread. Do not rock the boat, and don't you dare speak up, lest it indicate that something is wrong.

It requires no crystal ball to see that we are embedded in a system that has no qualms about harassing old men in wheelchairs or making pregnant women walk through x-ray machines. It is the same system that is killing scores of Iraqi and Afghan civilians daily, and killing the planet systemically. It is a system that requires us to be sleepwalkers, rather than alert and sensitive humans.

Sometimes the security-frenzy can taint people on the ground who act as vigilantes, as in this attack by Israeli settlers against Palestinians:

Last night 40 Jewish settlers went on a rampage in the long-suffering Palestinian city of Hebron, throwing rocks, smashing windows and slashing tires. One Palestinian resident reports:

“The stone-throwing tonight was not rioting, it was with intent to kill … Settlers threw stones at us from the fifth floor. I picked one up and it weighed at least a kilo…

“We’re eight families, 60 people in all, and we are constantly threatened … Yesterday huge stones just barely missed two of my cousins. If they had been hit they would have been killed.”

Why not turn to the IDF for protection?

“He claims his family had asked Border Guard officers to form a separation between them and the settlers, but that the latter had continued throwing stones indiscriminately at both parties.

Al-Jabri went on to say that after a settler had threatened to slaughter his entire family he complained to IDF soldiers, but they didn’t respond. “He took out his gun, put it to his mouth, and said, ‘Deir Yasin, Deir Yasin’, referring to the massacre in the village of Deir Yasin in 1948,” he said.

“I was shocked to hear a soldier tell me, ‘There’s nothing I can do, and there’s no use complaining, the settlers and we are one,” al-Jabri added.”

And, indeed, none of the pogromists have been arrested so far, despite many of them undoubtedly being repeated offenders.

In this latter case, the police (enforcers, protectors) and vigilantes unite against the "other" group, who have been branded as a threat, and hence, in security terms, fair game.

It's telling that Israel refuses to attend the U.N conference on racism, where they reasonably expect they would be castigated for their human rights violations against the Palestinians. But others make a valid point that this is not the only case of racism or denying human rights and should not somehow be showcased to the detriment of help for other oppressed people, such as those in, for example, Myanmar, or even North Korea, both of which nations seek a high degree of security and power concentrated in the hands of a very few.

It seems that militarism often clashes with compassion, and it is that very conflict which played out in the 2008 election, where Barack Obama's election signified to many a mandate for compassion instead of hyper-securityism or militarism that the GOP ended up signifying after the Bush administrations many misadventures. Let's hope this really does become Obama's legacy: the triumph of compassion over fear, which is the only true road to lasting security.

Guernica II: Remote-Control Massacre

Dahr Jamail again comes through with this insightful, if devastating, report on what the U.S. bombing strategy really brought about in Iraq - and what kind of future our continued military effort there would bring. On January 10, U.S. bombers and F-16's attacked an area south of Baghdad.

The use of B1 bombers shows the terrible failure of the U.S. campaign in
Iraq," Iraqi Major General Muhammad al-Azzawy, a military researcher in Baghdad, told IPS. "U.S. military and political tactics failed in this area, and that is
why this massacre. This kind of bombing is usually used for much bigger targets
than small villages full of civilians. This was savagery."

The attack on Juboor and neighbouring villages just south of Baghdad
had begun a week earlier with heavy artillery and tank bombardment. The attack
followed strong resistance from members of the mainly Sunni Muslim al-Juboor
tribe against groups that residents described as sectarian death squads.

"On Jan. 10, huge aircraft started bombing the villages," Ahmad Alwan
from a village near Juboor told IPS. "We took our families and fled. We have
never seen such bombardment since the 2003 American invasion. They were bombing everything and everybody."

Residents said two B1 bombers and four F-16 fighter jets dropped at
least 40,000 pounds of explosives on the villages and plantations within a span
of 10 minutes.

"The al-Qaeda name is used once more to destroy another Sunni area,"
Akram Naji, a lawyer in Baghdad who has relatives in Juboor told IPS. "Americans
are still supporting Iranian influence in Iraq by cleansing Baghdad and
surroundings of Sunnis."

But do Americans who pay for this war hear any of this news? Not if they listen to mainstream news. Note that Sunnis feel Americans are "supporting Iranian influence" while mainstream U.S. news reports the diametrical opposite. Note that the U.S. frequently shows hostility in word and deed towards Iran's Shi'a President Ahmedinejad, while maintaining a friendly attitude towards Sunni Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states. Yet Sunnis in Iraq are interpreting this bombing as an attack on them personally, using al-Qaeda as a ruse.

Now note how the bombing is played out in the media. Tom Englehardt analyzes various American news sources, showing how they buried the true story in lion's skin of terror-fighting.

A January 21st Los Angeles Times Iraq piece by Ned Parker and Saif Rasheed led with an inter-tribal suicide bombing at a gathering in Fallujah in which members
of the pro-American Anbar Awakening Council were killed. ...Twenty-six
paragraphs later, the story ended this way:
"The U.S. military also said in a statement that it had dropped 19,000 pounds of explosives on the farmland of Arab Jabour south of Baghdad. The strikes targeted buried bombs and weapons caches.
"In the last 10 days, the military has dropped nearly 100,000 pounds
of explosives on the area, which has been a gateway for Sunni militants into
Baghdad."
And here's paragraph 22 of a 34-paragraph January 22nd story by Stephen Farrell of the New York Times:
"The threat from buried bombs was well known before the
[Arab Jabour] operation. To help clear the ground, the military had dropped
nearly 100,000 pounds of bombs to destroy weapons caches and I.E.D.'s."

Farrell led his piece with news that an American soldier had died in Arab
Jabour from an IED that blew up "an MRAP, the new Mine-Resistant
Ambush-Protected armored vehicle that the American military is counting on to
reduce casualties from roadside bombs in Iraq."

Note that both pieces started with bombing news -- in one case a suicide bombing that killed several Iraqis; in another a roadside bombing that killed an American soldier and wounded others. But the major bombing story of these last days -- those 100,000 pounds of explosives that U.S. planes dropped in a small area south of Baghdad -- simply dangled unexplained off the far end of the Los Angeles Times piece; while, in the New York Times, it was buried inside a single sentence.

Neither paper has (as far as I know) returned to the subject, though this is undoubtedly the most extensive use of air power in Iraq since the Bush administration's invasion of 2003 and probably represents a genuine shifting of American military strategy in that country. Despite a few humdrum wire service pieces, no place else in the mainstream has bothered to cover the story adequately either.

How many civilian casualties were there? Who were the civilians? What strategic interests were the U.S. supposedly "protecting" by this attack? What intelligence, if any, led to this area as a strategic target? Who did they think they were killing vs. who did they actually kill? What was gained by this, if anything?

Since Americans pay for this war, as I said, they should know what the hell is going on. But that's not going to happen, apparently. Someone has an agenda, and it's either a very blood experiment in Chaos Theory, a horrific way to nab oil rights in an era when we're supposed to be going green, or just empire-lust run amok. But it's not, no not at all, to "defend freedom", "fight terrorism", or promote democracy. This can't by any stretch of any Republican fantasy, be for that purpose.

Mr. Englehardt then makes a correlation between the bombing of Guernica, Spain, of Picasso's famous painting fame, in which up to 10,000 civilians were killed by - and this is the connection - 100,000 lbs. of explosives. The same as the U.S. bombing on Abu Jaboor in Iraq - 100,000 lbs. of explosives. But back then in 1937,

The self-evident barbarism of the event -- the first massively publicized
bombing of a civilian population -- caused international horror. It was news
across the planet. From it came perhaps the most famous painting of the last
century, Picasso's Guernica, as well as innumerable novels, plays, poems, and other works of art.

Fast-forward to Iraq 2008, and 100,000 lbs. of explosives dropped by American bombs on small farming villages south of Baghdad is barely worth a couple of yawns. More war stats. Can't cut it against Britney Spears celebrinsania.

As far as we know, there were no reporters, Iraqi or Western, in Arab
Jabour when the bombs fell and, Iraq being Iraq, no American reporters rushed
there -- in person or by satellite phone -- to check out the damage. In Iraq and
Afghanistan, when it comes to the mainstream media, bombing is generally only
significant if it's of the roadside or suicide variety; if, that is, the "bombs"
can be produced at approximately "the cost of a pizza" (as IEDs sometimes are), or if the vehicles delivering them are cars or simply fiendishly well-rigged human bodies. From the air, even 100,000 pounds of bombs just doesn't have the ring of something that matters.

Some of this, of course, comes from the Pentagon's success in creating a
dismissive, sanitizing language in which to frame war from the air. "Collateral
damage" stands in for the civilian dead -- even though in much of modern war,
the collateral damage could be considered the dead soldiers, not the ever rising percentage of civilian casualties. And death is, of course, delivered "precisely" by "precision-guided" weaponry. All this makes air war seem sterile, even virginal. Army Col. Terry Ferrell, for instance, described the air assaults in Arab Jabour in this disembodied way at a Baghdad news conference:

"The purpose of these particular strikes was to shape the battlefield and take out known threats before our ground troops move in. Our aim was to neutralize any advantage the enemy could claim with the use of IEDs and other weapons."

You've got non-military verbs strategically placed with battlefield nouns. It creates that all-important bloodless "look". It's almost like selling insurance: "policy", "claim", "planning", etc. The purpose is to keep you, the taxpayer, slightly bored, yet reassured that this war was doing something good, serving some purpose, like "keeping America free."

As that phrase "take out known threats before our ground troops move in" made clear, this was an attempt to minimize casualties among American (and allied Iraqi) troops by bringing massive amounts of firepower to bear in a situation in which local information was guaranteed to be sketchy at best. Given such a scenario, civilians will always suffer. And this, increasingly, is likely to be the American way of war in Iraq.

As Mr. Englehardt sums the math up succinctly:

Anyway, here's the simple calculus that goes with all this: Militarily,
overstretched American forces simply cannot sustain the ground part of the surge
for much longer. Most, if not all, of those 30,000 troops who surged into Iraq
in the first half of 2007 will soon be coming home. But air power won't be. Air
Force personnel are already on short, rotating tours of duty in the region. In
Vietnam back in the late 1960s and early 1970s, as ground troops were withdrawn,
air power ramped up. This seems once again to be the pattern. There is every
reason to believe that it represents the American future in Iraq.

And air war means civilian deaths far outnumber the death of actual soldiers - or "militants", as they are now called. For there's not even parity in terms anymore. Our military are "heroes" or "soldiers"; theirs are "insurgents", "militants" or "terrorists". In fact, the name al-Qaeda has come to be used loosely to refer to any Sunni fighters/insurgents. Hence their perception that the U.S. wants to eliminate Sunnis per se.

So if anyone can articulate what we are fighting for, whom we are fighting, and why, in any logical or meaningful way, please let me know. All the reasons presented so far are about as relevant as a random page out of tax law. So bloodless. So mundane. So ordinary. So easy to forget. Almost like a video game. At least, that's what taxpayers are supposed to think. And never, ever even mention or think, don't dare to say, that it's a filthy, bloody, messy, sickening, mind-numbing, sanity-busting, nearly-pointless, remote-control massacre.

Worried about the Economy? $11 Billion a Month of Your Tax Dollars Goes for War

Republicans always talk about "fiscal responsibility." They blame Dems for "government spending". Never mind that historically, in the last century or so, Republicans are always gutting the economy and wasting money on profligate wars. Now they've saddled us with a war that is essentially a farce and a lie - written in blood and bleeding dollars - I mean, hemorrhaging dollars - by the hour. Here's a little news to chew on:

The Iraq war may not dominate U.S. news reports as the carnage drops, but a new report underscores the financial burden of persistent combat that is helping run up the government's credit card.

"Funding for U.S. operations in Iraq and Afghanistan and other activities in the war on terrorism expanded significantly in 2007," the Congressional Budget Office said in a report released on Wednesday.

War funding, which averaged about $93 billion a year from 2003 through 2005, rose to $120 billion in 2006 and $171 billion in 2007 and President George W. Bush has asked for $193 billion in 2008, the nonpartisan office wrote.

"It keeps going up, up and away," Senate Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad said of the money spent in Iraq since U.S. troops invaded in 2003.

"We're seeing the war costs continue to spiral upward. It is the additional troops plus additional costs per troop plus the over-reliance on private contractors, which also explodes the costs," said Conrad, a North Dakota Democrat who opposed the war.

Since the September 11, 2001, attacks on the United States, Congress has written checks for $691 billion to pay for wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and such related activities as Iraq reconstruction, the CBO said.

There are around 158,000 U.S. troops in Iraq and 27,000 in Afghanistan.

$11 Billion a Month

Of the total, the CBO estimated that $440 billion had been spent on fighting in Iraq launched with the goal of ousting President Saddam Hussein from power and securing weapons of mass destruction that were never found.

All of the Iraq and Afghanistan war money - about $11 billion a month - is effectively being put on a government credit card at a time when U.S. government debt has skyrocketed to more than $9 trillion, up from around $5.6 trillion when Bush took office in January 2001.

They say they'll "cut taxes". Does this mean "borrow the money from China instead"?And does anyone give a damn what those taxes are being spent on? On "security" and "anti-terror" done by creating killing fields overseas that will blowback some time soon ... maybe December 21, 2012 or so...

The Other Holy Land

Bridgethought of the Day: Excerpts from Bridgebuilding 101 - 1) First, there must be agreement that a bridge even be built; 2) Second, there must be consideration for equal traffic access for both sides, which means there must also be somewhere to go once the other side is reached; and 3) The point is to bring the two sides together, not to showcase the superiority of one side over another. Then we have an excerpt from Warmaking 101 - you need bridges to transport materials and resources to your side. So even in war, it might not be a good idea to tear bridges down. Tell that to the war engineers...

Meanwhile, things will only get worse as long as only one side gets heard and the other side gets the shaft. Take, for example, the Israel-Palestine conflict. The U.S. has taken a side. The entire U.S. political system has not only taken that side, but fully integrated it into the power-brokerage of both parties. Hence, a trip to Israel is seen as a political "rite of passage" for any political candidate. In Florida, the popular Governor Charlie Crist is ready for his Israel trip, and the waiting list for people to go along is predictably long and impressive. A Miami columnist dutifully notes the political implications - it can only be good for clout, Mr. Crist. And this is nothing new. An unnamed former member of the House from an unnamed Western state told me years ago that nobody, but nobody, can stay in office without being For Israel, and back off any appearance of sympathy of any kind for that Pariah, the Palestinians.

This has nothing to do with 9-11. It is a decision and a policy put in place since Israel was formed as a nation, and it is not subject to question, inquiry or change. America's support for Israel is institutional, and the converse is true: America's rejection of the Palestinian people is challenged only by careful rhetoric whose intention is to mask what it is doing. But the reality is extremely clear: Israel's enemies are our enemies. Even if it means starving them to death. We've become very accustomed to starving children and oppressed populations. All you do is change the channel. You don't listen to the other side.

Look at what happened in Lebanon. Condi Rice was cool with the slaughter of innocent Lebanese citizens. It wasn't even an "Islamist" or "War on Terror" issue. It was just because Israel decided that Hezbollah were their enemies, and this was the time to eliminate them, and the only way to do that is to eliminate everyone in the same country. Condi need only ask, "Who authorized this slaughter?" The answer: "Israel." "Oh, then, it's cool with me." Any other answer would be political suicide. And political suicide is against America's religion.

Now Israel is busy bulldozing and mowing down families again. But this time they have company. The Palestinians have begun to factionalize, then kill each other. Why?

Taghreed El-Khodary 36, journalist, said:

... a woman called Hoda, 60-years old, who was very afraid to mention
her last name, afraid she will be killed by either Fatah or Hamas, said to me:
"When Israel attacks, we can deal with it. Israel is our enemy. Therefore, we
have the will and it's a challenge. But when Palestinians are clashing, its very
frustrating and depressing, psychologically speaking." Someone else, a Fatah
member whose brother was injured in the clashes, said: "What's happening
between Palestinians is due to the embargo imposed by the international community. Once you starve people they become vulnerable and easily manipulated by both parties to serve their personal interests."

We are talking about people under siege, starved, having had their elected officials kidnapped, killed, imprisoned, and their own families deprived from a means of making a living. But we are institutionally prohibited from even thinking about their plight. They are given a very bad P.R. job, presumably someone's idea of hell. Not strange, really, that an advertising-driven society should feel that "give 'em hell" means "give 'em bad P.R." And it almost worked. After all, did anybody ask, or even think about, what kind of logic could be behind an embargo against the weaker of two warring parties? It's OK to talk about other kinds of human suffering, but not the kind that runs smack into U.S. foreign policy. Not the kind we are responsible about.

Therefore, former Secretary of State Madeline Albright was cool with the death of Iraqi children, because they were "collateral damage", a necessary evil, apparently, in her greater scheme of things. In those days the only one brave enough to speak out against Iraq War I, or against the sanctions, was the late Sen. Paul Wellstone of Minnesota, who gave a moving speech at the time that no one was up to listening to. Truth is OK as a source for jokes, but not for serious debate, let alone policy-making. Nobody took to the streets rioting about the lies that led to Iraq War II either. Some voices are heard, yes, but no out-n-out pressure. All the pressure has been from talk radio, from folks who think The Mexicans are coming to take our culture away. Yes, their voices have been heard. Criminalize immigration, they say. What we need is a Great Wall!

In all fairness, shouldn't we let Don Imus work the fields in Texas for a few weeks? Or better yet, let my personal favorite, Ann "The Witch" Coulter work only one month picking grapes in California - in migrant worker conditions. James Michener, where are you now that we need you? Or if that's too tough, let her work as a maid in a hotel - even better, in one of those "new" detention centers they've built for illegals. Then, and only then, would she deserve the right to wear a blindfold and pose as Justice for reporters. Till then, she's just another corrupt lawyer.

If you like to be different, break from the mold, in a way other than dancing idiotically to an iPod or mouthing Steve Jobs slogans, try reading the blog Raising Yousuf, written by a Palestinian mother describing her day-to-day life in Palestine. Try to see what the news cannot ever show.

Of course, there are many voices, one of a shopkeeper in the Al-Jazeera report referenced above:

What brought this all to fruition was the global and Israeli sieges on Gaza, and the resulting unemployment and lack of wages. That, in addition to the US's military and financial support of Fatah militias - this has an enormous role. We want them to lift the siege. We want them to begin speaking with our government, Hamas included.

He was referring to the Hamas-Fatah fighting, of course, but did not lose sight of those who are pulling the puppet strings.

Or the voice of Hadeel Abo Dayya, 17 , high school student,

We know that the president's office can stop this, but he prefers not to. We
were asking for just 30 minutes ceasefire to allow us and the other trapped
bystanders to evacuate, but they wouldn't even give us that. Now, after this
happened, after I thought I was going to die, after I saw that even ambulances
weren't allowed to reach us, I thought: what is this nation, these people, that
I am working so hard to build? I am crushed. But then I thought; how will the
outside world help me? I have to stay strong and persevere. What I learned is
that the world is like a pencil. Your memory, your life, everything you know or think you know, can be erased in an instant. My passport, our ID cars,
everything is gone now in that fire.

Another take on the "infighting" being really a new tactic of enemies, leading me to wonder about Iraq's much-touted Sunni-Shia conflict. I know many could buy this line, but who fed it to Iraq in the first place? Al-Qaeda? Or the Bush Administration? Or Both, working, as it were, in a strange macabre concert...

And finally, but not least, the voice of Mohammad Salim, 45, unemployed/part-time custodial worker,

The first reason behind this all is the siege and the lack of work and lack
of money. If there is money and work, people won't have time for this nonsense,
and likewise parents can prevent their kids from going out and fighting.
Sometimes I feel the young boys, they are bored and looking for something to do,
so they go out and fight.

Why won't Israel just let us work, just let us live?
There won't be any problems in Gaza then. Not a single person would allow his
children to work in the Palestinian Authority security forces or tanzim then.
For a measly 1,200 shekels they destroy everything.

If they lift the siege, people can begin to feel more of a sense of safety and security. On top of that, 450 of the presidential guards were trained in Egypt with US and Israeli funding - this is good for no one. In days past, they forced women with niqab [face covering] and men with beards to the ground. They executed three men. This has never happened before.

Four or five men in my neighbourhood who have beards shaved them off for fear of being targeted. I stopped going to the mosque in recent days. Who will take care of my kids if some crazy gunman shoots me? We are human beings and we just want to live like the rest of the world. My son, he sometimes watches television stations like Abu Dhabi or Dubai; he sees playgrounds and parks with green grass. And I feel so sad and helpless for him.
This occupation has turned us into beggars. Every last one of us - from Abu
Mazen down to street cleaners like me, on top of all this infighting. I'm
embarrassed to be sweeping the streets, I really am. But what can I do? I have
13 mouths to feed. And debts are piling up. And even then, it's a temporary work
relief programme. In two weeks, I'll be out of a job again.

Are we really proud of this legacy resulting from our great leaders and foreign policy? When will we stop depriving an entire population of freedom, means of survival, and infrastructure, and then blame them for it? Do we hold them responsible for the actions of neighbors or family members over whom they have no control?

We blame them when some guys go nuts and try to blow people up in public places, mostly without much success. But no one points the finger at Israel when they mow down whole families or their homes, when they kidnap or kill elected officials, or when they deprive an entire population of adequate means of living? All that is supposedly justified. But it's not justified to be angry when your whole means of living, your home, your people, your family are brutalized to make way for the "Chosen People".

What a callous form of insidious anti-Semitism it is indeed to say that to speak out for Palestinian human rights is anti-Jewish. What kind of Jew would want to be associated with oppression, racism and brutality? Please, IPAC, give us all a break!

When will one honest man actually take a trip to the "Other Holy Land" and try to present the side of the oppressed, instead of the side of the rich, powerful, and apparently...heartless...???

Plan II: Let's Play Religious Cowboys

"I'm not a divider, I'm a uniter."

Would you buy a used insurance policy from this man?

"I don't sell insurance, I sell wars."

Is that like death insurance instead of life insurance?

"Exactly. At some point, people will stop dying enough to balance out the birth rate. I'm doin' a public service. War is good for the human race and good for the planet. And who's got the guts to do it, I ask you? Democrats? Since when did a Democrat give you a half-decent war?"

But I thought war was not healthy for children and other living things...

"Where are you from - the Vegetarian Times? PBS? Amy Goodman?"

I'll put it this way - I'm not from Haliburton.

"Let me put it this way - we've got to change the world, and make it safe for democracy, and there's only one way to do it, and that's make war."

Can't we talk? Negotiate? Whatever happened to diplomacy? And by the way, why are you dressed that way?

"First off, I never negotiate with terrorists. Second off, diplomacy is what's wrong with the world. And third, I'm under a lot of pressure, bein' Leader of the Planet. This is how I relax. I can just blend in and nobody will notice me."

Are you crazy? Everyone will stare at you, dressed like that.

Not in Karachi, or Yemen. Where do you think I relax? Camp David? I need to be around guys who are on the same page about war. Sick of these goddamned liberals talkin' about peace and they don't know what they're doing. We're uniting the world. On to Armageddon!

Excuse me, I need some air. I can't breathe.

"But there's plenty of air in here, yuk, yuk. It's just comin' out the wrong end..."

(Your "plans" must be coming out of there, too...)

Let's Play Hangman! And Wrestle with the Issues

It Isn't Force-Fed, Either.

Where were the bumper stickers when Pol Pot was around?

"Give me liberty, or give me death."

"I may not agree with what you say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it."

Tell me, who does THAT any more??

Bodyguards of America, donate some time to this lady, PLEASE!

OK, so freedom really ISN'T free...

But, "Invade for Democracy"??

An Oxymoron

The strategy isn't working.

Send in Monty Hall.

You stop fighting us, and we milk your cash cow!

An offer you can't refuse!

We need a better sales pitch, Dick.

Where's that guy, Ron Popeil, when we really need him?

Set it, and Forget it!

"Dear Ron, please invent for us a new Middle East Policy for couch potatoes. Maybe we can work it out in the comfort of Air Force One."

Global Cannibalism

Some call it empire. Others call it international adventurism. Others call it a conspiracy. I call it global cannibalism. This is not the first time - who doesn't know that? Like a supernova, it usually happens when a national power is somehow in its death throes. This article cogently describes one aspect of global cannibalism, or I should say one example of it.

When one power needs more power and sees the world as its power base and source for resources - without regard to the fellow humans occupying and using various places and resources on the planet, and their rights thereto. Why call it cannibalism? Because since we are all human, this ultimately is self-defeating - "dog eat dog", you could say.