Friday, April 6, 2007
by Ghada Chehade; April 05, 2007
In the so-called war on “terror” the most powerful weapon being deployed is the word itself. In the post-9/11 geo-political climate, throwing in the word “terrorist” automatically mutes coherent and critical debate. Any valid and necessary criticisms of North American governments and their foreign policy are silenced and demonized with the use of that one word, while opposition to foreign invasion and imperialist plundering can be at once quelled and criminalized by deeming it terrorist. Canada’s anti-terrorist list is being used in this very way-as a vehicle for stifling, demonizing and criminalizing resistance to the North American imperialist project and Canada’s role in it. At the same time the word acts as subterfuge from the mass terror perpetrated by the US and its imperialist baby brother-Canada. What Canadian citizens need to ask is just who does this labeling protect? Does it protect the Canadian population who has never suffered at the hands of Hezbollah, or does is protect the Canadian government and business elite who are part of a North American project to ransack the world’s resources while discrediting and eliminating any parties that stand in the way? To understand the distinction we need to understand imperialism, as well as the one-sided and suspect way in which “terrorism” is currently defined.
The Word “Terrorist”: A Bullet and a Shield
In the Israeli attacks on Lebanon in 2006 the Canadian government unwaveringly supported Israel’s “right to defend itself” while denouncing and condemning Hezbollah’s actions as terrorist acts. This is not surprising, since it serves the neo-colonial interests of the west to side with the colonizer-Israel-in the Middle East. Canada’s sympathetic position on the Israeli bombardment of Lebanon 2006 highlights and reaffirms the systematic North American double standard toward Israel. When Palestinians or Lebanese kill Israelis, even soldiers, it is labeled terrorist. But when Israeli soldiers or settlers kill Arabs, including civilians and children it is explained away as self-defense against “terrorists.” Chomsky explains this double standard very well:
The guiding principle is clear and straightforward" their terror is terror, and the flimsiest evidence sufficed to denounce it and to exact retribution upon civilian bystanders who happen to be in the way; our (Israeli) terror, even if far more extreme, is merely statecraft, and therefore does not enter into the discussion of the plague of the modern age.
In this respect, the word “terrorist” serves as a shield that justifies even the most heinous injustices. These include the illegal occupation and the slow genocide of the Palestinian people, the occupation and on-going massacre of Iraqis by the US and the military occupation of Afghanistan by the US and Canada- the mission’s new over lord. Any form of resistance to imperialism and foreign occupation is loftily conflated with terrorism, in a type of Orwellian double speak that turns the colonizer and oppressor into the victim. Thus the word “terrorist” or “terrorism” is at once both a bullet and a shield; it allows imperialist interests to invade and kill while also shielding them from any criticism by demonizing those who resist.
A Word is as Powerful as Those Who DEFINE it:
Professor Mordechai Gordon, who served in the Israeli Defense Force in the 1980s, stresses that we must always be cognizant that the word "terrorism"/"terrorist" is itself defined in such a way as to serve the interests of those who hold power. The common use of the word terrorist refers to "a member of a clandestine or expatriate organization aiming to coerce an established government by acts of violence against it or its subjects." Under this one-sided definition of terrorism, governments and states cannot be considered terrorist because terrorism is used to signify the violent actions of groups/individuals against those in power. This is the description accepted and reproduced by the US and Canada. However, it negates and disregards a much more significant form of terrorism-STATE TERRORISM-which can be defined as "terrorizing the whole population through systematic actions carried out by force of the state." Such terrorism is an essential part of a government designed to protect the needs of the privileged and is aimed at eliminating any significant opposition among the subjugated people. Gordon aptly maintains that, based on the distinction between the conventional use of the word terrorism and state terrorism “one can make a pretty strong case that since 1948, and certainly since 1967, Israel’s acts of state terror against the Palestinians have been far more severe than all the acts of terror committed by Arabs against Israelis.” In this respect it is the State of Israel, and Canada and the US by virtue of their economic and military support of it, that are carrying out a much greater terrorism. In the summer of 2006 Harper claimed that Canada must defend Israel because its values are similar to Canada’s. We agree with Mr. Harper on the second part: Canada, Israel and the US’ shared imperialist values and agenda are readily apparent! Canada’s current “mission” in Afghanistan, which was entered into five years ago with no public debate and under the pretext of “development,” was undertaken to affirm Canada as the American empire's key ally. As such, America’s imperialist interests are also Canada’s imperialist interests, and have been for decades. Thus I refer to it collectively as North American Imperialism though the two do not possess the same military might or power.
North American Imperialism in the Middle East: A well-OILED machine
The majority of the world’s oil reserves are in the Middle East and Central Asia. Muslim countries including Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Iran, Kuwait, the United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Yemen, Libya, Nigeria, Algeria, Kazakhstan, Azerbaijan, Malaysia, Indonesia, Brunei, possess between 66.2 and 75.9 percent of total oil reserves. In contrast, the United States of America has barely 2 percent of total oil reserves. Western countries including its major oil producers (Canada, the US, Norway, the UK, Denmark and Australia) control approximately 4 percent of total oil reserves. (In the alternative estimate of the Oil and Gas Journal, which includes Canada's oil sands, this percentage would be of the order of 16.5%). Ultimately, Muslim countries possess at least 16 times more oil than the Western countries, and Western countries, especially the US and its Canadian side kick, want to get their hands on as much of it as possible. However, because countries like Canada and the US purport to be democratic and accountable to their citizens, they cannot simply tell the public that they are waging wars and invading sovereign states for oil (although increasingly in the US the administration is not shy about admitting this). Instead they demonize the governments and peoples of this oil-rich region as evil enemies to be eliminated, or “liberated” through the barrel of a gun US-style. Professor and economist Michel Chossudovsky of the University of Ottawa explains the bottom line:
Demonization serves geopolitical and economic objectives. Likewise, the campaign against "Islamic terrorism" (which is supported covertly by US intelligence) supports the conquest of oil wealth. The US led war in the broader Middle East-Central Asian region consists in gaining control over the world's reserves of oil and natural gas. The Anglo-American oil giants also seek to gain control over oil and gas pipeline routes out of the region…Thus, demonization is applied to an enemy, which possesses three quarters of the world's oil reserves. "Axis of evil", "rogue States", "failed nations", "Islamic terrorists": demonization and vilification are the ideological pillars of America's "war on terror". They serve as a casus belli for waging the battle for oil.
While all of the most oil-rich countries are Muslim not all of them are considered “terrorist.” Not surprising, states that have opened their borders to North America imperialism by allowing US military bases and multinationals on their land, opening their oil fields and markets, and crushing any internal resistance to foreign control are considered to be ally states. An excellent example is Saudi Arabia, which is by far the most extreme in its interpretation and implementation of Islam, yet is the biggest US ally in the region next to Israel. On the other hand, states that have tried to reclaim their oil revenues such as Iran in the 1950s or those that refused the US access to oil pipelines such as Afghanistan and Iraq in the1990s have been labeled “terrorist” and invaded accordingly. The government and media tell Canadians that their soldiers are in Afghanistan “liberating” women and “developing” the country (ironically, that they helped destroy). Are Canadians to believe that the “oppressed Muslim women” of Afghanistan were in need of “liberation” (which has yet to materialize) while the women of Saudi Arabia were not? Could the Canadian led occupation of Afghanistan have anything to do with the Afghan oil pipeline? Could it have everything do with the pipeline? It should seem suspicious to Canadians that the region with the most oil in the world also has been deemed by the west to have the most “terrorists.”
So what does this have to do with Hezbollah and Lebanon, a country that does not have oil?
Imperialism entails taking what you want no matter where it is. There are enough corrupt governments in the world for the imperial and colonial powers to find local partners willing to sell or give their peoples land and resources to foreign interests. These puppet governments are adequately trained by the imperialists on how to wipe out resistance with violence and state sponsored terror. But there is always internal resistance and when the resistance grows stronger and especially when it wins seats in government, it is considered especially dangerous to the imperial powers and their lap dogs. Such is the case with Hezbollah. While Lebanon has no oil, it does have something that comes between North America and access to Middle East oil, it has a growing resistance movement that is embedded in the people and refuses to be co-opted for western interests. As such, Hezbollah is a thorn in the glutinous belly of North American (and Israeli) imperialism.
Ultimately, the imperialist plan for the Middle East is similar to that of other regions: regime change, pillage the resources and forcibly open markets and remove any barriers, human or other, to foreign direct investment. In the language of neo-liberal “globalization” this is known as structural adjustment. Structural Adjustment Programs (SAPs) are indirectly implemented by the US under the guise of Bretton Woods institutions such as the IMF and WTO, both of which are controlled by the US. Purportedly, SAPs are intended to “liberate” “third world” markets making them competitive in the global market. To get western loans, poor countries of the south and east are forced to remove barriers to trade and foreign direct investment such as labour and environmental protection, remove subsidies for food, health and education for the poor and privatize all public sectors from education to farming. In many countries where the majority of the population are poor or subsistence farmers, this literally entails starving the population and expelling them from their land to make way for foreign corporations or subsidiaries. What’s more, the profits produced in the South are exported to the wealthy countries of the North with no compulsion to reinvest in the local economy. (The recent Paris III conference on “reforming” and “rebuilding” Lebanon was little more than a blue print for neo-liberal restructuring, and a foreign investment scheme that includes 52 states). SAPs are ultimately nothing more than an elaborate and systematic mechanism for directly funneling wealth and resources from the already poor regions of the south to the glutinous regions of the north, especially the US and Canada. War is part of this moneymaker insofar as the “reconstruction” required in countries that have been bombed by the US and its allies is then perversely contracted out to North American firms. Adding insult to massive injury, the US and Canada invade and destroy a nation only to go back and make money “rebuilding it.” It is a type of plundering and injustice unparalleled even by European colonialism.
The Plan for Lebanon and the Middle East:
Because the Middle East-Central Asia has the most oil in the world, the scheme there is far more intricate and deep. As with the redrawing of borders in 1920 by the French mandate (of the League of Nations) that resulted in the creation of Lebanon, the North American (with its British and Israeli partners) imperialist project also entails a redrawing of borders in the Middle East, or a “remodeling of the Greater Middle East,” to use the expression of George W. Bush. For Washington, the summer attack on Lebanon and the concomitant internal destabilization and provocation between Sunnis, Shi’as and Christians had nothing to do with returning soldiers captured by Hezbollah. Instead it is about carrying out the theory of “controlled chaos.” According to the followers of Leo Straus (know today as the neo-conservatives) real power can only be exerted by controlling all resistance. It is by plunging the masses into chaos that the elites can aspire to ensure the stability of their position. This theorizing is well documented in the BBC documentary series The Power of Nightmares. Journalist Thierry Meysssan has also chronicled it. He explains that
according to the adepts of Leo Strauss, it is only in this violence that the imperial interests of the United States merge with those of the Jewish State. The Israeli will to dismantle Lebanon, to create in its place a mini-Christian state and annex part of its territory, is not new. It was enunciated in 1957 by David Ben Gourion in a famous letter... Particularly, it was inserted into a vast colonization project of the Middle East written in 1996 under the title: A clean break: a new strategy to secure the Kingdom (of Israel). That document, written up in a neo conservative think tank, the IASPS, was prepared by a group of experts assembled by Richard Perle and given to Benjamin Netanyahu. It is representative of the thinking of the revisionist Zionism of Vladimir Jabotinsky. It called for:
• The canceling of the Oslo peace agreements
• The elimination of Yasser Arafat
• The annexation of the Palestinian territories
• The overthrow of Sadam Hussein, to destabilize Syria and Lebanon in a chain of events
• The dismantling of Iraq and the creation of a Palestinian state in its territory
• The utilization of Israel as a complimentary base for the US Star Wars program
A speech given in 1996 by Benjamin Netanyahu to the US Congress (http://www.netanyahu.org/joinsesofusc.html) was inspired by this document. In that speech all of the ingredients of the current situation are there: threats against Iran, Syria and Hezbollah, with the added demand for annexation of East Jerusalem.
These prescriptions concur with the US’ own viewpoints. For the American empire and its closest imperial allies such as Canada, control of the regions rich in hydrocarbons (oil) demands a redefinition of borders, States and political regimes: a “remodeling of the Greater Middle East,” to use the expression of George W. Bush once again. Any resistance to this North American-Israeli agenda, military or political, must be eliminated. Indeed while it is claimed that Hezbollah is a terrorist threat, it’s main threat to this agenda is a political one. In order to implement neo-liberal policies and annex parts of Lebanon to Israel, the imperial powers need sympathetic governments or an internal political situation conducive to regime change. With Hezbollah a part of the coalition government in Lebanon, this agenda is made much more difficult. Eliminating and discrediting Hezbollah has thus taken on paramount importance in the last couple of years. One way to do this is to add the organization to the terrorist list of powerful western states.
Hezbollah fights imperialism rather than assisting it. This is part of the reason it is demonized and officially labeled terrorist. It is interesting to note that the only three countries that have officially listed both it’s military and political wing as terrorist, Canada, Israel and the USA, also have the most to gain in the Western oil-grab and destabilization of the region. If Hezbollah assisted the imperialist project like so many paramilitary groups in Latin America and elsewhere, trained by the (former) School of the Americas in the US, then they would be the allies of North America not its enemy. Let us not forget than in the Middle East and elsewhere today’s villains and terrorists were once the allies and lackeys of the US and the west. These include Manuel Noriega of Panama, Chile’s Augusto Pinochet, Saddam Hussein, and the ultimate bogeyman--Osama Bin Laden. All were at one time strategic allies of the US and on the CIA payroll. When they served their purpose or turned on their master, they were all hunted, tried or killed as villains and terrorists. The Israeli government originally funded even Hamas in a backfire attempt to split the Palestinians. And the opposite is also true: yesterday’s “terrorists” are today’s beacons of justice and resistance. At one time Canada considered Nelson Mandela and the ANC terrorists for their armed resistance against Apartheid in South Africa. But in 2001 Mandela became the first person ever to be awarded honorary Canadian citizenship. Canadians must not succumb to historical amnesia and forget the contradictions of the past!
This is not to suggest that Hezbollah is not engaged in violence, it is. But if the terrorist list were actually about the cessation of violence, then Israel and its state terrorism of the last 60 years would clearly be at the top, so would the US for that matter. In truth, imperialist states like Canada are not opposed to violence. Indeed no state or government is, or else they would not enter or fund wars. What they are opposed to, is any form of violence that threatens their interests rather than supporting them. In the end “terrorism” as employed today is but a lofty word applied to discredit your enemy. Indeed to Hezbollah, the Arab/Muslim world, and many critics in the west, Israel and the US (and increasingly Canada)--the oppressors and occupiers-- are considered to be terrorists. But the former has little power so their perspective is meaningless in a world run on realpolitik. Until we are ready to apply the word to all those who perpetrate violence, and until we are willing to differentiate honestly and justly between those who oppress and those who resist, then the word “terrorist” or “terrorism” is a meaningless and self-serving trap and diversion.
Shaping and manipulating public opinion is an essential part of the western imperialist project, and by demonizing their enemies western governments eliminate any need for critical debate. Canada’s terrorist list is currently being used in this very way: to demonize those who resist imperialism abroad and stifle any debate on the matter internally. In the case of geo-politics, governments are careful to package their imperialist resource grabs as “humanitarian interventions.” We need only think back to the 2003 US invasion of Iraq, of which Canada was a part from the outset. It is now well documented that the US lied about their reasons for the invasion. There are no weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) in Iraq, but there is tons of oil. And in the on-going “Save Darfur!” movement many on all sides of the political spectrum have been quick to adopt the call, circulated endlessly by North American governments and mainstream media, to prevent the genocide of black Africans by brutal Arabs and Muslims. Few stop to ask whether the North American interest in Sudan, like Iraq, has more to with oil and uranium than genocide. Canadian scholars at globalresearch.ca have documented claims that the Darfur conflict revolves around oil and minerals, including uranium discovered in Hofrat and Nihas, which is coveted by Israel for its nuclear program. Tadamon! is not defending or denouncing such claims but rather raising awareness about the need for Canadians to ask critical questions about the world around them, especially the “war on terror.” Is Hezbollah a terrorist organization just because the Canadian government, under huge pressure from Zionist lobbies, says they are? Should the actions of the Canadian military in Afghanistan, Iraq and elsewhere also be considered terrorist? De-listing Hezbollah would provide a space for public debate and discussion on such issues. This was a point raised by two Canadian MP’s, Liberal MP Borys Wrzesnewskyj and New Democrat Peggy Nash, this summer. Clearly these members of parliament are not condoning terrorism. What they are saying is that Hezbollah has a well-established political wing and Canada would be promoting peace to come to terms with that and dialogue with it. Officially listing them as a terrorist organization is counter-productive and prevents public debate as well as any negotiations with the Lebanese resistance. To date, listing Hezbollah a “terrorist organization” does a lot more to protect Canadian imperialism and Israeli crimes than the Canadian public. Canadians must demand that the government de-list the organization in order to create a space for critical and public discussion, and to shed a necessary light on Canada’s role in the North American imperialist project.
By Mike Smith
Israeli Arabs are the minority that dare not speak their name.
For decades, the world's attention has dwelt on their Arab brothers and sisters who call themselves Palestinian and who live in the occupied territories or the refugee diaspora around the Middle East. But there is still a large number of Arabs who live as citizens of the Jewish state - approximately 1.4 million or 20 per cent of the overall seven million population - and it is possible to detect rumblings of their discontent.
In theory, they have exactly the same rights as Jewish Israelis. The Israeli government can point at a declaration of independence and a basic law that officially enshrines equality for all Israeli citizens, no matter their religion. But theory and reality rarely tally and you have only to pass through the terminal at Ben Gurion airport to notice how Israel's Arab population are subtly airbrushed out of the way. When the gleaming new building was opened, nobody thought to include signs in Israel's second language, Arabic.
And when you read the results of Israeli public opinion polls, it is possible to wonder how the Jewish state has any Arab citizens whatsoever. In a recent survey, more than half of those questioned said they believed a Jewish woman marrying an Arab man to be a "betrayal of the country and the Jewish people''. And 50.9 per cent agreed the state should encourage Arab Israelis to leave the country.
No wonder that fans supporting the country's league-leading soccer team, Beitar Jerusalem - the Manchester United of Israel - shout, "We hope you get cancer'' when an Israeli Arab player on the opposition team touches the ball. Beitar fans even threatened a season ticket boycott when the club considered hiring its first Israeli Arab player. While Israeli Arabs are meant to enjoy equal status, it took until this year - 59 years after the state was founded - for the first Israeli Arab Muslim to occupy a seat in cabinet.
The appointment of Ghaleb Majadla as science minister might have been a moment for celebration among the country's Arab minority, but it also reopened old wounds. You might have expected Right-wing Jewish extremists to be unhappy, but some of the most powerful dissent came from senior Jewish parliamentarians such as Esterina Tartman, who heads the parliamentary bloc of Yisrael Beitenu. This is not a fringe movement: it is a partner in Israel's coalition government. In her view, the appointment of an Israeli Arab minister was a "gigantic axe blow to the tree trunk of Zionism and a Jewish state''.
Another Right-wing MP demanded that the new minister be subjected to extra security vetting because, unlike a Jewish Israeli, he cannot be assumed to be a trusted guardian of the country's scientific knowledge. Amid such hostility, it was not surprising to hear of Israeli Arab unhappiness at their lot. What was surprising was to hear that this unhappiness might crystallise into the biggest danger to the Jewish state.
For nearly 60 years, external threats have shaped the history of Israel as they have few other countries. Wars with Egypt, Jordan and Syria, as well as the running sore of relations with the Palestinian Authority, have been the yardstick against which Israelis measure their security. But, according to one MP, the real danger now lies within its borders - and is of its own making.
"Arab citizens are growing as a proportion of our population, but are increasingly alienated," said Nadia Hilo, Israel's first female Arab MP, who was elected to the Knesset last year. "The discrimination is coming from the civil service and public sector in particular, where Arab Israelis find it much harder to find jobs than Jewish applicants."
While Israeli Arabs are about one in five of the population, they are projected to become an even bigger minority in the future, as their birth rate outstrips that of Jewish Israelis. Nevertheless, they continue to encounter discrimination in the workplace, despite boasting an impressive number of university graduates.
"There's a definite problem of racism; there's more and more division," said Miss Hilo. "The real danger to Israel comes from inside if it does not give its Arab citizens equality and integration. This generation won't bow the head and be deferential like our parents were. They are well educated and will not tolerate discrimination."
Miss Hilo believes positive discrimination is the only way to stop resentment among fellow Arabs spilling over into unrest. She is calling for annual targets to be established, guaranteeing Arabs with the same qualifications as Jews a quota of public sector jobs. Miss Hilo, herself an example of the success Arab Israelis can achieve, emphasises that her campaign is not motivated simply by wanting to right a social wrong.
"The government doesn't use us to advance Israel, when we could do so much to alter perceptions of our country around the world," she said. The Labour Party MP is candid about her ruling party's priorities, however. "Ministers only think one to two years ahead," she said. "I'm not sure if it will ever happen."
One's puzzlement over the Arab scene intensifies each time an Arab summit is held. Last week, everyone started talking about the Arab peace initiative. The five-year-old initiative was dusted off and presented as a miracle solution. Suddenly, we are being asked to believe that full normalisation will bring about a complete Israeli withdrawal from occupied Arab land. And our leaders are solemnly calling on the Israelis to seize the opportunity. Yet there is only one thing Israel liked about the initiative: normalisation. But the Israelis played along. Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, faking concern over tensions in the region, said he was willing to consider anything US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice brings to the table.
For her part, Rice got her moderate Arab friends to present the initiative in a vague manner. For example, they spoke of a just solution to the Palestinian refugee problem rather than the right of return of refugees. And even as Arab leaders assured us that there has been no change in the initiative, the Israelis were having second thoughts. Rice met twice with Olmert and twice with Abbas and still failed to bring Olmert to discuss the question of a final settlement. The only thing the US diplomat achieved was to get Abbas and Olmert to meet every two weeks. Palestinian officials were quick to point out that nothing was likely to come out of such meetings. Olmert is not even honouring earlier promises on political and security matters.
Rice wasn't straightforward with moderate Arabs. In Aswan, she asked Arab leaders to show some flexibility. She also proposed a meeting between the International Quartet, the Arab Quartet, Israel and Palestine. But Rice has not secured Israel's commitment to start final status negotiations. Rice hasn't even succeeded in getting Israel to implement confidence- building measures approved earlier, such as the release of Palestinian monetary assets and detainees in return for the release of one captured Israeli soldier.
Olmert is refusing to discuss final status issues because, he says, Hamas is refusing to recognise Israel. Despite that, the Arabs left the door open to compromise. They will form working groups to hold international consultations with the UN Security Council, the UN and the International Quartet about the Arab initiative. The Riyadh summit was optimistic that such action would jump- start peace talks.
In short, Rice is trying to get the Arabs to recognise Israel, through normalisation, without a quid pro quo. Rice wants the Arab Quartet to meet the Quartet, then with Israel and Palestine (Syria is not invited), which amounts to an implicit recognition of Israel. But the US diplomat is not asking Israel for anything in return. Israel can build more settlements. It can engage in brutal acts against the Palestinians. And it can voice its opposition to the Arab initiative.
Oddly enough, some Arab countries were optimistic about Rice's tour. Some believed that the US diplomat was trying to fulfil Bush's promise to implement a two-state solution. But all signs indicate that the sudden interest of the US and Israel in the Arab initiative is nothing but a gimmick.
The Arabs may believe that the Arab initiative is still good and alive. But it would be a grave mistake to depend on the International Quartet. The Arab initiative is not going to get us anywhere unless Arab countries provide support to the Palestinian national unity government and make sure that Palestinian factions are not going to turn one against another in the future. The International Quartet is fully under US control. It is nothing more than a warehouse in which the US stores peace initiatives and
Bruce Ramsey / Times editorial columnist
My first reaction to the death of Rachel Corrie was to sigh at the damfoolishness of a 23-year-old from Olympia who would place her body in the way of the Israeli army. On March 16, 2003, in Rafah, Palestine, an Israeli soldier drove his bulldozer over her and crushed her.
I think of the Chinese man who blocked the column of tanks in Beijing on June 4, 1989. That man created an image and vanished, never leaving his face. Rachel left her face.
In "My Name Is Rachel Corrie," now playing at the Seattle Repertory Theatre, actress Marya Sea Kaminski brings Rachel to life in a 90-minute monologue extracted solely from Rachel's diary and e-mails. Here is The Evergreen State College idealist, who declares, "I am building the world myself and putting new hats on everybody."
The 9/11 attacks have provided a focus to her fervor. She is drawn to the Palestinians. She imbibes Arabic. Feeling that she must join in, she goes to Gaza to witness the Israeli occupation.
Making use of her "international white person privilege" — an asset she feels she shouldn't possess but does — she joins a campaign to block the bulldozing of Palestinian homes, which is how the Israelis searched for smuggling tunnels.
Still, Rachel says, "I worry we are not really effective. I still don't feel particularly at risk." The protesters take more risks — and the soldiers grow more steely. Toward the end, she says, "I am really scared and questioning my belief in the fundamental goodness of human nature."
Her father, an actuary — Rachel denounces his "neoliberal job" — says in an e-mail he is proud of her but wishes her home. He knows the military. He served in Vietnam with the First Air Cavalry. He senses that this is not going to come out well.
She has dreams of dying. "I can't die. I can't die," she insists. But she does.
I spoke to her father, Craig Corrie. He said where Rachel was killed there had been two bulldozers (49-metric-ton Caterpillar D9s) and two soldiers in each one, plus an armored personnel carrier. There were six or seven protesters — and unlike the man in Beijing, the protesters in Gaza intended to stop the army permanently.
For a while, the bulldozer drivers would stop at the protesters and yell at them. Then they were called away. After they came back, they didn't stop, and within five minutes Rachel was run down.
Apologists say it was an accident. Perhaps the driver's intention was to force Rachel to jump aside, and it was an accident that her legs got caught in the advancing pile of dirt.
The not stopping was no accident. Certainly, the Corries do not speak of accidents. Not once when I heard them did they say their daughter had "left us" or "passed away" or "died." Always they say she was killed.
It was her death, and her expressive writing, that made Rachel Corrie an international figure. A British paper, the Guardian, asked to see Rachel's writing and published it. A Guardian editor, along with actor Alan Rickman (the terrorist in "Die Hard") made a play of it. It has been performed in London and New York only, and to much controversy. The play is doing so well at the Rep that it has been held over until May 6.
Of course the play does not tell both sides. Neither did the 1960 movie "Exodus," which I saw as a kid. It told the Israeli side only, and in Paul Newman, put an American face on that side. For years, it was the only side Americans could see.
The Palestinian side never had an American face. Now it does. It is a female face, an unthreatening face. Rachel's face.
One wonders whether Rachel would think it was all worth it. Her mother, Cindy Corrie, says Rachel's story may open Americans to hearing the Palestinians' side, which would be a good thing. Still, she says, "Sometimes you want to reclaim your child for yourself."
Bruce Ramsey's column appears regularly on editorial pages of The Times. His e-mail address is email@example.com
Copyright © 2007 The Seattle Times Company
on GCN Every Saturday, 11AM Central Time! LISTEN LIVE AT www.gcnlive.com/listenlive.htm April 7th show: (Two hours) The attack on the USS Liberty - Part 2. Special on-air guests will be Jim Ennes , John Hrankowski and Joe Meadors.
April 14th show: The Challenger Disaster, with guest Richard Cook. Second Hour: Vote Fraud, with guest Bev Harris.
CALL IN PHONE NUMBER IS 1-800-259-9231. For callers outside the US & Canada 651-289-4333, punch in ext 125 at the prompt.
Program directors email firstname.lastname@example.org
Ad inquiries email@example.com
The secondary blog.
On Tuesday, meeting with the press in the White House Rose Garden, the President responded to a question about House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's visit to Syria this way: "[P]hoto opportunities and/or meetings with President Assad lead the Assad government to believe they're part of the mainstream of the international community, when, in fact, they're a state sponsor of terror." There should, he added to the assembled reporters, be no meetings with state sponsors of terror.
That night, Brian Ross of ABC News reported that, since 2005, the U.S. has "encouraged and advised" Jundullah, a Pakistani tribal "militant group," led by a former Taliban fighter and "drug smuggler," which has been launching guerrilla raids into Baluchi areas of Iran. These incursions involve kidnappings and terror bombings, as well as the murder (recorded on video) of Iranian prisoners. According to Ross, "U.S. officials say the U.S. relationship with Jundullah is arranged so that the U.S. provides no funding to the group, which would require an official presidential order or ‘finding' as well as congressional oversight." Given past history, it would be surprising if the group doing the encouraging and advising weren't the Central Intelligence Agency, which has a long, sordid record in the region. (New Yorker investigative journalist Seymour Hersh has been reporting since 2005 on a Bush administration campaign to destabilize the Iranian regime, heighten separatist sentiments in that country, and prepare for a possible full-scale air attack on Iranian nuclear and other facilities.)
The President also spoke of the Iranian capture of British sailors in disputed waters two weeks ago. He claimed that their "seizure… is indefensible by the Iranians." Oddly enough, perhaps as part of secret negotiations over the British sailors, who were dramatically freed by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on Wednesday, an Iranian diplomat in Iraq was also mysteriously freed. Eight weeks ago, he had been kidnapped off the streets of Baghdad by uniformed men of unknown provenance. Reporting on his sudden release, Alissa J. Rubin of the New York Times offered this little explanation of the kidnapping: "Although [Iraqi foreign minister, Hoshyar] Zebari was uncertain who kidnapped the man, others familiar with the case said they believe those responsible work for the Iraqi Intelligence Service, which is affiliated with the Central Intelligence Agency." The CIA, of course, has a sordid history in Baghdad as well, including running car-bombing operations in the Iraqi capital back in Saddam Hussein's day.
And don't forget the botched Bush administration attempt to capture two high Iranian security officials and the actual kidnapping of five Iranian diplomats-cum-Revolutionary-Guards in Irbil in Iraqi Kurdistan over two months ago--they disappeared into the black hole of an American prison system in Iraq that now holds perhaps 17,000 Iraqis (as well as those Iranians) and is still growing. As Juan Cole has pointed out, most such acts, and the rhetoric that goes with them, represent so many favors to "an unpopular and isolated Iranian government attempting to rally support and strengthen itself."
In addition, just this week, the aircraft carrier USS Nimitz and other ships in its battle group left San Diego for the Persian Gulf. Two carrier battle groups are already there, promising an almost unprecedented show of strength. As the ship left port, US military officials explained the mission of the carriers in the Gulf this way: They are intended to demonstrate US "resolve to build regional security and bring long-term stability to the region."
And stability in the region, it seems, means promoting instability in Iran by any means possible. So, the President's Global War on Terror also turns out to be the Global War of Terror. Noam Chomsky recently put the matter this way, when thinking of U.S. attitudes toward Iranian influence in Iraq.
"It is useful to ask how we would act if Iran had invaded and occupied Canada and Mexico and was arresting U.S. government representatives there on the grounds that they were resisting the Iranian occupation (called "liberation," of course). Imagine as well that Iran was deploying massive naval forces in the Caribbean and issuing credible threats to launch a wave of attacks against a vast range of sites -- nuclear and otherwise -- in the United States, if the U.S. government did not immediately terminate all its nuclear energy programs (and, naturally, dismantle all its nuclear weapons). Suppose that all of this happened after Iran had overthrown the government of the U.S. and installed a vicious tyrant (as the US did to Iran in 1953), then later supported a Russian invasion of the U.S. that killed millions of people (just as the U.S. supported Saddam Hussein's invasion of Iran in 1980, killing hundreds of thousands of Iranians, a figure comparable to millions of Americans). Would we watch quietly?"
The rule is simple enough on this one-way planet of ours: If they do it, it's "terror," if we do it, it's foreign policy, its America's "strategic interest."