This was a recent Facebook exchange I had with a US soldier in Iraq who attacked my friends and I through a Facebook group that disapproves of the War and Occupation of Iraq. Though our responses to each other were haphazardly constructed, I think the exchange serves as an interesting testament to the mentality of the soldiers serving in Iraq. What’s more, the soldier in this exchange is a self-identified Christian.

Hey [Soldier],[1] thanks for letting us pay 78 billion dollars a year so that you can play hero in someone else's country. Keep up the good work. I feel much safer now that you and your buddies destabilized Afghanistan, reaped havoc in Iraq, and incited wide spread hatred of the US in Western Asia...way to go! All at the cost of 440 billion dollars from the federal budget--you really are a hero.

[Soldier] C

11:07am July 9th

Report Message

hey [Dude][2] i was just responding to apoligize to you. i now see that our budget could be spent on much better things such as educating the less informed people of america. im glad that you took notice of afghanistan. we destablized the government who supported the terrorists who attacked us and terrorized many of their people. we then replaced it with a govt that has brought positve changes that were never even begun by the previous regime as well as significantly weakening al queda. as for iraq yes we did wreak havoc that resulted in the elimination of a despot who killed hundreds of thousands of his own people. now the new govt might not be very stable but it is growing stronger. the quality of life in iraq is on the rise and their currency has one of the fastest growing values in the world which has been estimated to rival western europe's and america's currency within a few decades. also id like to share with you this little fact. the former insurgents who were loyal to saddam have now joined forces with the americans in many parts of the country because they are sick of their respective people, both sunnis and shiites, being killed in the terrorist bombings. now they may still hate each other but they like americans becaues we kill al queda. as for western asia you obviously need to study your history. there are two main roots to the hate of americans. the first is that all radical muslims hate america, and any country that does not agree with them for that matter, because we do not live as they do and refuse to convert.that refusal equals our death and our military does not have that much affect on culture in this country so that one is on you and other civilians. the second is the occupation of the phillipines and several other islands during the turn of the 20th century. this occupation resulted in several revolts and thus the hatred of america. so there you go.

[Dude]

7:48am July 10th

I think you are right, education would be a worthy investment of the 400 billion dollars wasted on your misadventure, we could start by teaching US soldiers how to do basic research and discern from the outright propaganda they read in Stars and Stripes magazine. For example, your response is rife with errors and half-truths (an obvious sign of indoctrination). Take your first claim about Afghanistan, you profess that the Taliban supported terrorists and terrorized many of its people. Your later statement is true, but of little interest to US lawmakers, and to claim otherwise is dishonest or naïve (pending to how much you really believe this rational.) I don’t have to go through the litany of despotic regimes the US supports or has supported in the past (including Iraq under Hussein incidentally at the peak of his crimes) with atrocious human rights records. This consideration weighs little in US foreign policy making and to cite it as a justification for your actions is disingenuous at best. The first claim, that the Taliban supported terror, this is true to the degree that they let al-Queda operate in its territory. But on a broader sense, both al-Queda and the Taliban were supported and trained by the CIA during the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. With the [Soldier]e professed radical-Islam, the CIA had know qualms in supplying bin-Laden and the Taliban with arms. In fact the Taliban was just one of the many warlords the US supported in overthrowing the former Moscow friendly regime—despite the fact that the Moscow friendly regime stood for many of the greater freedoms from tyrannical religious devotion that you all now claim as a justification for US actions in both Afghanistan and Iraq. It would be like if Iran openly, financially and militaristically supported the Shiite-clique in Iraq against the Washington-friendly regime present in Iraq today---or wait maybe they do…but this is the [Soldier]e thing the US did in Afghanistan, with many of the [Soldier]e people currently serving in the Bush administration, why is it just in one circumstance and not in the other? That really is perplexing—maybe Stars and Stripes or Fox News can provide you with some more misleading firing points to justify this gross imbalance in the application of force and power. Anyway, these warlords are currently running the government in Afghanistan, and to pretend it’s a western-style democratic utopia is wrong, or to claim that such a regime is an improvement is to attempt to mitigate the US-caused suffering in the region. It was announced yesterday that more civilians were killed by US and NATO operations in Afghanistan than by Taliban insurgents…but this information doesn’t justify childish war-hero fantasies so you and your comrades disregard this type of information. Or take the non-disputed fact that US and NATO operations against Afghanistan after Sept. 11 directly killed 9,000 civilians, this is three-times as many who were killed during Sept. 11 for a population that is a fraction the size of the US, disproportionately more suffering for the Afghani people. What were the alternatives, first the US could have more vehemently pressed the Taliban government to turn-over bin Laden, in fact all Afghanistan asked was for proof of bin-Laden’s involvement in the attack, the normal reaction of any sovereign government when asked to turn-over someone residing in its territorial boundaries, but the US flippantly disregarded this request and resorted to military invasion.

In Iraq the country is in shambles and the quality of life is in continued decline—regardless of the prospect of the Iraqi currency in the next few decades (hahaha). The government is split between two warring factions, and the US presence there destabilizes the situation further. Also, al-Qaeda wasn’t operating in Iraq before you hotheads arrived, and there is still no justification for US actions in Iraq today, all official reasons for invading Iraq (e.g. weapons of mass destruction and links to al-Qaeda) have become evanescent. But this doesn’t fit the hero narrative you and your buddies create for yourselves so it’s evidently immaterial. Also, you history on so-called radical Islam is completely wrong. This stream of thought is rooted in the founding of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt in the second half of the 20th Century and has nothing to do with the Philippines. Your claim that these Islamic radicals are attacking the norms and values of the US (i.e. its culture) is ridiculous, I can’t believe you even make this part of your argument, most people dismissed this as poorly constructed Bush propaganda. Or maybe like you said, money needs to be invested into education.

[Soldier] C

8:51am July 12th

Report Message

ok so buddy ill attempt to be kind as much as i can. right now i am IN iraq so dont fucking try to tell me what it is like cuz you dont know shit. the quality of life HAS gotten better, it IS a common occurence for Iraqis to come up and shake our hands and say pro american statements, the govt is not split though the militias controlled by the imams are. and this is all in ramadi one of the former hotspots. so dont tell me things are better when i am here experiencing it. and as for the US destabilizing it youre once again completely wrong. yes we're often the scapegoat and attacked by both sides yet at the [Soldier]e time the imams are coming to us to try to get support for their respective sides and to have us mediate in between them. so apparently your "rebel alternative media" seems to have a little taint.

now as for afghanistan. yes the US has supported many tirannical regimes. no this is not right. however that policy is formed by the president at the time and therefore you cannot fault one for the mistakes of the other. also by providing this support the results may be terrible but often it is a nescecerrary evil that is the lesser of two bad situations. as for the support of the taliban and al-queda by your own admissions it was done with qualms. the cia was concerned yet the alternative, letting the ussr increase in influence, resources, and land, was obviously more imminent then the threat of a terrorist attack on US soil which had never happened once in the history of america. the benefits of the move far outweighed the after affects forseen at the time of the decision.

also by your own admission the taliban knew of and allowed al-queda to operate and supported them financially and logistically and now militarily as well. we told the world what would happen to any one that harbored the people that attacked us. they had warning. how can you argue against attacks in retaliation to aggression and a terrible loss of life on our known enemies?

now as for your question of why we should be angry at iran for supporting the people fighting us when we did it to the soviets. once again i can not comprehend what would happen to our country if your kind of thinking ever had an affect over the government. i never said that we should be able to use those tactics and noone else. however unless you havent noticed they are our de facto enemies. that is the difference. it is a modern tactic of international conflict used commonly and it is being used against us. it does not mater whether it is just or not its being used against us. if you want to argue that way then you'd have to fault us for using weapons as well.

yes we may have handled the initial invansion in afghanistan however iraq got fair warning. arguably because of peoples opinoins such as yours that there should have been warning.

next the reason why i brought in the phillipines was because i got confused and was thinking of that area for some reason when you said western asia. that was my mistake. however your facts are once again wrong and typically naive of liberals. the terrorists are not interested in winning a war in the traditional sense. for them to win means that every western ideal and person has been killed or converted to Islam. to believe anything else is naive and stupid. why would they be attacking us if not for the reaons they proclaim so often of themselves? if you listen to any of the several major terrorist groups you will find a common theme. complete disgust with america and its culture and the immorality they see here. also as to your claims of the hate for western culture being started in the 20th century once again your wrong. the tradition of war as part of the religion was started by Muhammed himself. though islam started as a peaceful religion as his ambition and power grew he abruptly changed his views on war and began using his religous position to gain support for his wars against the rival rulers. both the slaughetering of convoys as well as the capture of cities. now as for the struggle specifically against the west it began far before the 20th century during the invasion of europe and the byzintine empire during the middle ages. in reprisal europe invaded the muslim empire and thus the struggle began. now over the course of time europe gained strength and progressed quickly while the muslim empire crumbled and splitted and was no longer a threat until now again. for centuries there has been animosity between muslims and the western world, note i say western world not the US because the whole western world and culture is the enemy of the radical muslims not just the US as proved by their attacks even on countrys that refuse to criticize them, it did not simply start in the 20th century. finally i leave you wiht these quotes from the Quran itself. this is the exact verses from their religous texts. The disbelievers wish that you would disbelieve as they have disbelieved, so that you may become all alike. Make not, therefore, friends with any of them, until they emigrate in the way of Allah. If they turn away, seize them and kill them wherever you find them, and take no friend or helper from among them except such of them as are connected with a people between whom and you there is a pact…therefore, if they do not restrain their hands, seize them and kill them wherever you find them. Against these we have given you clear authority. (4:89-90)

Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued. (9:29)

and that is why it is so misguided to believe that they will ever stop until we are all dead.

[Dude]

10:56pm July 16th

[Soldier], let’s begin with the last part of your response first. I feel as though you hold negative and racist attitudes toward Arabs and Muslims, not a healthy temper to have if you are suppose to be their benevolent guardians and guide into the democratic process.

I don’t think a cherry-picked quotation out of the Qur'an serves as a good justification for aggressive US foreign policy against Muslim nations. We can find equally disgusting quotes from the Torah and the Bible. Let me lend you one example found in the Old Testament. From Michel Onfray’s book, “The Atheist Manifesto,” I will quote at length a passage that I think is telling:

“Nonviolence, peace, love, forgiveness, mildness, an entire program rejecting war, violence, armies, capital punishment, battles, the Crusades, the Inquisition, colonialism, the atom bomb, assassination—all things that believers in the Bible have been practicing shamelessly for centuries in the very name of their holy book. Why then the blatant logical contradiction? Blatant because only a few verses later [from “though shall not kill”] in Deuteronomy 7:1 the [Soldier]e Yahweh steps to justify the Jews in their extermination of certain peoples explicitly named in the Torah: the Hittites (settlers who came from Asia Minor), Amorites, Perizzites, Canaanites, Girgashites, Hivites, and Jebusittes, no fewer than several peoples, consisting most of the population of Palestine. Against these tribes, Yahweh authorizes anathema, racism—mixed marriages is forbidden—and a ban on contracts. Spurning compassion, he demands the demolition of their alters and monuments and legitimizes book burnings. His reason: the Jews are the chosen people (Deuteronomy 7:6) singled out by God and exalted above all others.” (Onfray, 163)

Now are you going to use this to tell my all Jews and Christians who endorse the Old Testament, as all denominations do, are racist and of a genocidal mentality—simply because of this disgusting passage, among many other misogynous and racist passages, can be found in their holy books? Now that is ridiculous logic, just as using one passage out of context from the Koran is a shoddy way to characterize an entire belief. Also, I feel obliged to remind you that Islam is the world’s second-largest religion with up to 1.4 billion believers, do you really feel that confidently in your judgment from that obscure reference you cherry pick? It’s of course absurd.

Not let me remind of recent history, in regards to the US and its relation to the Middle East. Prior to the 1980s, there were only four instances of so-called “militant Islam.” According to Colombia University Anthropology professor, Mahmoud Mamdani:

“…the practice of…jihad as central to a ‘just struggle’ has been occasional and isolated, marking point of crisis in Islamic history. After the first centuries of the creation of the Islamic states, there were only four widespread uses of jihad as a mobilizing slogan—until the Afghan jihad of the 1980s.” (Mamdani, “Good Muslim, Bad Muslim,” 53)

These previous instances were 1) the Kurdish warrior Saladin in response to the First Crusade in the 11th Century, 2) in the West African region of the Senegambia in response to the Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade in the 17th Century, 3) the First War of the Marabout in 1677 in the [Soldier]e area and 4) in the Sudan in the late-19th Century against “Turko-Egyptian/British” colonialism. Mamdani writes, “Whereas an armed jihad was not known in the nine decades proceeding the Afghan jihad of the 1980s, the call for one in radical Islamist thought can be traced to two key thinkers at the beginning of the Cold War: the Pakistani journalist and politician Abdul A’la Mawdudi….and Sayyid Qutb.” (Mamdani, 53)

The US supported Islamic-radicalism as a force to fight the supposed influence of the Soviet Union. This radical brand of Islam was forged out of a conflict with Westernization, but it had few subscribers and wasn’t a dominate force in the region during the era of Pan-Arabism and cuddling, especially by Nassar in Egypt, to the Soviet Union. It is equivalent to fundamentalist Christianity today in the US that essentially calls for a theocratic state, an end to the division of church and state, and hostility toward science and evolution. The [Soldier]e blood of thought that flows through the veins of the radical Islamist can be found in the fundamentalist Christian (who incidentally condone terrorism against Planned Parenthood and homosexuals.) A good case in point is Ronald Reagan, the ideological source of this current administration with many of the [Soldier]e personal (including some who were convicted for perjury in the Iran/Contra scandal) in this administration, so it is utterly disingenuous for you to claim that this administration is separate from the crimes of Reagan and Bush I. Take Richard Pearle for example, Reagan’s assistant secretary of defense who helped finance al-Queda and then part of Bush’s team in 2000. (I am not a Clinton apologist, he had just as atrocious crimes, but with a different staff.)

Ronald Reagan welcomed the mujahideen in 1985 on the White House lawn and proclaimed, “These gentlemen are the moral equivalents of America’s founding fathers.” As Mamdani writes, “[t]his is the moment when America tried to harness extreme versions of political Islam in the struggle against the Soviet Union.” (pg. 119)

Another one of your claims is outright wrong, that the proxy-wars against the USSR was to prevent them from increasing in influence. In fact the strategy was aggressive, not defensive as is evident in its name “roll back.” The idea was to dislodge the Soviet Union from existing sphere of influence, not prevent them from increasing. And even if this were the official justification, it is not permitted under international law and is not pertinent to the security of the US. In fact it did the opposite. It involved the US in Islamic response to colonialism and set it up for a target of “terror”—though what the US has done to Central America, South America and the Middle East is much more terrible than all the accrued radical Islamic campaigns in history. You cannot justify rollback against ideological foes with the real objective of waxing US influence (and control over resource-rich areas) at the expense of thousands of civilians. Would you sacrifice a member of your family for increased corporate hegemony? Probably not, so why should an Afghan suffer so Unocal can access to Central Asian gas?

As for your claim that Iraq had plenty of warning? Warning for what? To prove that it didn’t have weapons of mass destruction? In fact, if you didn’t suffer from absolute amnesia, you would recall that Hussein supplied all the documents (17,000 pages worth) of documents required by the UN and Security Council days before the invasion and those who had been weapons inspectors before Clinton pulled them out opposed the invasion. In addition, the US invasion was a flagrant violation of international law. And as you know there were no weapons of mass destruction, and even if there were, the US is not legally allowed to invade unless the threat is imminent, not suspect. And don’t tell me about your stupid examples of Iraqis showering you with praise. Sappy anecdotal stories are no justification for the scale of violence you participate in? How do you justify this to yourself, when you are obviously giving misleading information and are really, really stretching in your justification of war? You and your comrades are the moral equivalent of Nazis, coming-up with the most extreme racist and obviously fabricated reasoning for continued aggression against an already suffering population. But if it boosts your shallow ego to walk around someone else’s homeland with a gun than I hope you get the most from it.


End Notes:


[1] The name of the soldier was withheld to protect his identity.

[2] My name was withheld for the same reason

West Responsible for Recent Chaos in Gaza

Hamas’ overthrow of Fatah and its resumption of violence this June in the Gaza Strip is the direct result of irresponsible reactions from the US, Israel and the so-called International Quartet to this reformed militia’s attempt at political legitimacy over the period of its elected rule, from January 2006 until June 2007. International opposition to Hamas eventually led to a disastrous boycott of the Palestinian Authority that unnecessarily put an already penurious population into even greater destitution. Unlike the failed democratic process in Iraq, Hamas enjoyed legitimacy from its base population. Yet in a region flush with despotic and monarchial rule, the international community didn’t support the election of Hamas to a position of democratic political governance. Conversely, the Quartet and Israel thwarted every attempt for Hamas to govern in the Occupied Territories. The Quartet and Israel’s overt and heavy support for Fatah (and alleged attempts to violently remove Hamas from power) led to the clashes between Fatah and Hamas’ militias in Gaza and eventually to Hamas’ power seizure of this territory last month. This violence has spun the Palestinian Authority and, more broadly, Palestinian democratic institutions out-of-control. At present, Fatah has dissolved parliament and declared martial law. Hamas claims control over the Gaza Strip and Israel has made continued, violent and bloody incursions into the area further exasperating despair there.

Leading-up to elections

Investigating the chronology of Hamas’ political rule and the opposition it received, it’s not hard to see how these events came to pass. First, in March 2005, Fatah brokered a ceasefire with Israel and 12 other militia groups including Hamas in exchange for the release of political prisoners illegally detained by Israel in its abusive prison facilities. This was after a five-year Intifada that killed hundreds of Palestinians and dozens of Israelis.[1] Israel welcomed the ceasefire, but not Hamas’ overtures for reform. Eventually Israel “resumed targeted assassinations,” continued to construct a “separation barrier” through the West Bank and conduct “arrest operations” in the Occupied Territories. Although Islamic Jihad resumed violence against Israel, Hamas concentrated on “staying its hand” so as to “maximize its electoral base.”[2] In fact the greatest threat to this ceasefire were the Israeli military’s regular violent operations in these territories, which included arbitrary arrests and killings. One of the more dramatic episodes during this “period of calm” was the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) killing in Raffah of three Palestinian youth. Witnesses said these boys were shot while playing soccer in a refugee camp, but the IDF claimed these youth had smuggled weapons from Egypt. The Palestinian Liberation Organization’s (PLO’s) president Mahmoud Abbas characterized these attacks as a deliberate violation of the truce he and then Prime Minister Ariel Sharon signed that February. The killings resulted in Hamas and Islamic Jihad renewing their shelling of Israeli settlements in Gaza.[3] Aside from these outside threats posed by the Israeli military, Abbas also undermined Hamas’ nascent attempts at democratic participation when he suddenly postponed parliamentary elections scheduled for July 2005. This delay was officially justified due to recent reforms in election laws (moving from straight regional to regional/proportional representation) passed by a Fatah-led Palestinian Authority (PA), but Hamas accused Fatah’s unilateral delay as a crude political maneuver motivated to buy the unpopular organization more time and to improve their image. In fact, according to Chris McGreal in a May 24, 2005 report in the London-based Gaurdian newspaper, “senior officials in the ruling Fatah movement have already urged Mr. Abbas to delay the vote for several months in the hope that Israel's withdrawal from the Gaza Strip [would] reverse the party's decline in support.” [4]

Hamas is elected

After a shaky “truce” that lasted for nearly a year, parliamentary elections were finally held in January of 2006 and Hamas unexpectedly won a majority of seats in parliament, outing Fatah from control of the Palestinian Authority after nearly a decade of rule. Much of Hamas’ victory was attributed to discontent with the Fatah movement and internal infighting between younger and older Fatah candidates.[5] Nevertheless, Hamas’ electoral victory didn’t bode well with the West, as it immediately and unequivocally refused to work with a Hamas-led PA. US President Bush, with no sense of irony, said in an interview with the Wall Street Journal the day after the election, “A political party, in order to be viable, is one that professes peace, in my judgment, in order that it will keep the peace.”[6]

A precondition for legitimacy unfound in any other democratic system was placed on the Palestinian Authority. Any elected party would have to suddenly fulfill three criteria to establish dealings with the Quartet, the US and Israel: 1) renounce violence, 2) recognize Israel and 3) respect previous agreements “including the Roadmap.” This absolute criteria was echoed by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice who said, “you cannot have one foot in politics and another in terror” leaving no room for compromise or future negotiations with a Hamas-led PA. Despite this, Hamas spokesperson and eventual PA prime minister Ismail Haniyeh said, “Don’t be afraid, Hamas is a Palestinian movement, it is an aware and mature movement, one which is politically open in the Palestinian arena, and to its Arab and Islamic hinterland, and similarly open to the international arena.” Before it had even assumed the helm of the Palestinian Authority’s governing apparatus however, Hamas’ political aspirations were set for failure.[7]

Shortly after Hamas refused to “renounce violence” and “recognize Israel” as a precondition to govern, the Quartet, the US and Israel implemented an economic boycott designed to undermine popular support for Hamas. Even before forming a government, the Palestinian Authority faced a mounting deficit of $69 million accrued by Fatah’s mismanagement of international aid and supposed corruption, which ironically spurred much of the popular support for Hamas in the first place. With Hamas’ election, the West threatened to suspend funds to the Palestinian Authority. This ultimately affected the salaries of 135,000 paid civil servants, 30 percent of whom were heads-of-households, and 58,000 paid security forces.[8] What’s more, Israel immediately suspended payment of $45 million it owed the Palestinian Authority in tax rebates, disingenuously citing fears that the “moneys transferred will come back to haunt us in the form of suicide bombings,” even though Hamas offered to allow international monitoring on its spending, a large compromise in sovereignty already, and although it had effectively upheld a moratorium on suicide-bombings since it declared a ceasefire with Israel in March of 2005. Even in exchange for tangible security, an offered continuation of the ceasefire Hamas had respected for nearly a year, the Quartet, the US and Israel remained uncompromising on their rhetorical criteria—thus endangering Israeli citizens.[9]

David Mepham from the Institute of Public Policy Research wrote, “on the question of violence Hamas has largely maintained a unilateral truce (tahdi’a) for the past year. Extending this truce, and working for a comprehensive Israeli-Palestinian ceasefire, should [have] be[en] the immediate focus of international diplomacy towards Hamas...” Mepham went on to warn that a boycott on the Palestinian Authority would “lunge tens of thousands of Palestinians into acute poverty, triggering social implosion and anarchy.”[10] But these warnings fell on deaf ears and in March the Quartet moved to boycott the Palestinian Authority. In addition to external bullying, the US attempted to undermine Hamas’ government by encouraging “moderates” to refuse to join a Hamas-led government. At the same time Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert decried that he would unilaterally determine final boundaries since “no partner for peace” existed in the Occupied Territories. The US and Israel were making every attempt to undermine Palestinian democracy by refusing to recognize the political faction of Hamas as the elected representation of the Palestinian people while at the same time punishing the Palestinian people with an economic embargo. How did the “terrorist” Hamas respond to outright irreverence and threats from the US and Israel? Hamas reciprocally threatened a Palestinian boycott against Israeli goods, a rather tame response for an organization allegedly committed to the violent destruction of Israel.[11]

International Boycott

By spring of 2006 Hamas had significantly changed since its’ founding in 1988 during the First Intifada as a military, Islamic alternative to the Fatah movement.[12] Since March 2005 Hamas had more-or-less maintained a ceasefire with Israel, participated in local and parliamentary elections and responded to US and Israeli economic threats with reciprocal economic threats. In fact Hamas had offered to extend a ceasefire with Israel for another year in exchange that Israel, the Quartet and the US not boycott the Palestinian Authority and not withhold tax revenues owed to the Palestinian people. Instead the Quartet and Israel decided to maintain a hard ideological line, requiring mere proclamations from Hamas rather than establish tangible security. As Khaled Hroub, author of Hamas: A Begginer’s Guide, wrote in an opinion editorial for openDemocracy.net, “Hamas’ Path to Reinvention:”

“For the policies of external players - Israel, the United States, other western states and Arab governments - are not helping to consolidate Hamas’s turn. Rather, their short-sighted policies - especially the imposition of a crippling embargo on its government - threaten to crush the chance for a more politicised and pragmatic organisation to emerge” [13]

But for the Palestinian people, a pragmatic partner didn’t exist in the international community. Instead crippling actions rooted in ideological jargon and found in the lexicon of “the War on Terror” was the basis on which the Quartet, the US and Israel constructed their policies toward the Occupied Territories. Even when Hamas made gestures of “de facto” recognition of Israel though its willingness to participate in a Palestinian “task force,” and faced with mounting evidence that a boycott on the Palestinian Authority was leading to an acute “humanitarian crisis,” the Quartet and Israel still refused to negotiate with a Hamas-led Palestinian Authority.

By May both Sweden and Norway increased their funding to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in response to the increasing humanitarian crisis in the Occupied Territories.[14] By April 2007, humanitarian relief organization Oxfam International called on the EU, the US and Canada to lift their boycott on the Palestinian Authority and resume aid payments. Oxfam reported a 30 percent increase in poverty in the Occupied Territories from April 2006 (roughly at the point when the boycott began) to April 2007. In this press release, Oxfam International claimed to have “witnessed a rapid rise in suffering and insecurity as a result of the boycott of the PA. Many programs operated by Oxfam and its partners in the water, health and agriculture sectors have been placed in jeopardy.” In fact Oxfam reported trash piling in the streets, thousands without pay, teachers on strike, and an otherwise agitated Palestinian population. Additionally, crossing points between the West Bank and Jordan, or the Gaza Strip and Egypt were closed by Israel, causing a shortage on basic essentials such as bread and milk.[15]

Conflicts with Fatah

An obvious consequence of the economic embargo against the Hamas-led Palestinian Authority was increased tension between Hamas and Fatah. Much of the violence that resulted in the collapse of the Gaza Strip last month can be attributed directly to these two organizations’ jockey for power over the PA’s police forces, long seen as a tool of US and Israeli policies that are designed to crack-down on militant groups like Hamas and Islamic Jihad. Indirectly, the increased strain between the militias associated with Fatah or Hamas, and their inabilities to come to a power-sharing compromise can be attributed to the economic embargo placed on the PA after Hamas’ electoral victory that denied them fiscal oversight over their government. Additionally, the Quartet, Israel and the US’ overt support for Fatah in its struggle against Hamas led Hamas to take more drastic action (hence the seizure of Gaza) rather than reach-out for compromise.

A continued overview of the violent conflicts between militias affiliated with either Fatah or Hamas over the course of Hamas’ parliamentary rule demonstrates this claim.

Hamas won much of its popularity in the Occupied Territories from general discontent with Fatah and not necessarily due to its Islamo-militancy. In the Occupied Territories, Hamas served as a legitimate opposition party thought by Palestinians to be uncorrupt like Fatah. The parliamentary elections of 2006 were extremely popular, with a near 80 percent turnout, and were deemed fair and democratic by international observers.[16] However, when Hamas surprisingly won not just a large proportion but the majority of seats in the Legislative Council of the Palestinian Authority, the Quartet, the US and Israel buckled. Official justification for undermining and shunning Hamas was their terrorist legacy and their refusal to “renounce violence” and “recognize Israel.”

But living for years in squalor, and perceiving a hostile and violent neighbor, much of the Palestinian population had grown weary of Fatah’s compromising approach toward Israel.[17] When Hamas won a majority of parliamentary seats Israel called on an international boycott of the Palestinian Authority—so long as it was a Hamas-run parliament. On January 30, US President Bush said,

“The Hamas party has made it clear that they do not support the right of Israel to exist. And I have made it clear so long as that’s their policy, that we will not support a Palestinian government made up of Hamas. We want to work with a government that is a partner in peace, not a government that is—whose declared intentions might be the destruction of Israel.”[18]

Even before elections had been held, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert held “urgent talks” with his cabinet to discuss possible reactions to a Hamas victory.[19] And the Washington Post reported that the US sent $2 million in aid to the then Fatah-led Palestinian Authority in hopes of bolstering last minute support for Fatah. This foreign intrusion into the Occupied Territories’ elections was noted by then senior Hamas leader Ismail Haniyah. He said, “What has been reported [in the Washington Post] constitutes flagrant interference in Palestinian internal affairs and reflects the type of democracy advocated by countries that boast of democracy and freedom like the United States.” During the campaigning, Israel requested that the Palestinian Authority, under Fatah’s management, dismantle Hamas and Islamic Jihad’s militias and decried against any future negotiations with a Hamas-led PA.[20]

Despite this, Hamas made early overtures to form parliamentary coalition with Fatah and even went as far as to declare Fatah its first choice in a governing partnership. But only a day after the election, fighting between gunmen loyal to Fatah and gunmen loyal to Hamas broke-out, killing nine.[21] On February 12, 2006, about three weeks after the election, Fatah declined offers to join a Hamas-led government, deciding to work as an opposition party instead. And before Hamas officially took control of parliament, the Fatah-led Palestinian Legislative Council established a “constitutional court” composed of nine judges whom were directly appointed by Abbas. This new act of legislation also gave Abbas the power to dissolve parliament as he pleased, thus giving him more leverage over a Hamas-led PA. Hamas decried these laws as a “coup d’etat.”

The first act of legislation from the Hamas-led PA was to rescind these new powers given to Abbas. The laws allowed Abbas to cancel any legislative act passed by the Hamas-led PA and keep Fatah officials in “key positions” within Hamas’ government. In a flippant display of arrogance, Fatah legislatures walked out of the PA after Hamas revoked this act, and gunman loyal to Fatah threatened Fatah lawmakers if they continued to participate in the Hamas-led Palestinian Authority.[22] Additionally, the New York Times reported that top Israeli and US officials were considering overthrowing Hamas internally by starving its population into submission—to the point at which they would rally around Mahmoud Abbas to end their suffering.[23]

Particularly in Gaza, Fatah and Hamas were increasingly at odds. Part of Hamas’ motivation to seek legislative authority was Fatah’s disunity in the Gaza Strip, the poorer of the two territories and with no direct route to the West Bank. Sporadic reports of violence between the two factions emerged. On April 7 2006, Tim Butcher of the London-based Daily Telegraph reported “The situation in Gaza has been highly volatile since Hamas unexpectedly won parliamentary elections in January.”[24] Tensions about the governing authority, tensions that would eventually lead to the out-and-out violence in Gaza last month, began only a week after the Hamas legislature was sworn into office.

On April 7, 2006, Mahmoud Abbas made preparations to take control over the Raffah crossing point between the Gaza Strip and Egypt. Hamas sternly objected to this move, deeming the action an overreach of authority on part of the president. The checkpoints are normally under the auspices of the PA Minster of Interior, who in this circumstance, was appointed by Hamas. Israel didn’t trust the PA and had closed all crossings. Abbas’ assumption of authority over the crossing point was done in order to reopen this vital commercial route and relieve Gazans who were suffering from the international economic boycott. Also, Abbas named Fatah strongmen to head the Palestinian security forces, despite vehement opposition from Hamas.[25]

In Gaza, Fatah or Hamas’ militias vied for power and land in abandoned Israeli outposts. Gunmen from al-Aqsa Martys Brigade, a militia associated with Fatah, stormed government offices in Ramallah in the West Bank in a gesture of protest against Hamas. Despite this ongoing violence, Hamas continued to offer collaboration with Fatah and continued its calls for a unity government between the two factions.[26]

Abbas then vetoed Hamas’ attempt to create an additional security force of 4,000 militants led by Jamal Abu Samhadana (eventually assassinated by Israel.) After Abbas’ veto, 500 “anti-Hamas” demonstrators protested in Ramallah. Hamas’ senior and exiled, Jordan-based commander, Khaled Meshaal claimed that Abbas and Fatah were in a conspiracy to oust Hamas from power. Violence erupted between pro-Fatah and pro-Hamas factions in both the West Bank and Gaza Strip in which 30 people were injured.[27]

Throughout the following month 11 Palestinians were killed in clashes between militias in the Gaza Strip. In an attempt to appease Israel and the West, Abbas called for a referendum that would endorse a two-state solution and recognize Israel as a sovereign. Hamas’ Interior Minster Said Siyam rejected Abbas’ referendum on the status of Israel, claiming that Palestinians had exercised their democratic will in the January elections.[28] As a result of external pressure, and Mahmoud Abbas’ placation toward US and Israeli interests, ideological polarization between these two factions intensified. Despite Abbas’ objection Hamas created its own security force that patrolled the streets of Gaza alongside Palestinian police and National Security Forces who were under the control of Abbas. Hamas’ security patrol, though, were subject to attacks from Fatah gunmen and Preventive Security Forces—the same armed outfits Hamas would overthrow a year later.[29]

But as one can see the conflict between Hamas and Fatah was more than ideological—it was about power. Hamas, having won the majority of seats in parliament felt entitled to control parts of the Palestinian governing apparatus long dominated by Fatah, specifically Hamas wanted control over the Palestinian police forces. Hamas felt under constant threat from Fatah, who long controlled these well-stocked military units and who had overt support from the West. One can reasonably assume that Hamas’ ambition to control its own security unit was a defensive measure, designed to prevent a Fatah-led coup d’etat as they saw it. This inflamed violence between the two groups. In mid-June of 2006 Fatah security forces stormed the parliament building in Ramallah eventually setting it to fire. 1,000 Hamas supporters gathered the next day and demonstrated in front of the parliament building in Gaza calling an end to the abuse levied against Hamas. This occurred at about the same time Hamas “absolutely reject[ed]” the referendum pushed by Abbas to recognize Israel and work toward a two-state settlement. The outside pressure from the Quartet, the US and Israel on “recognition” and their implementation of the boycott designed to “starve” Palestinians into submission directly led to this clash. [30]

On June 25, 2006 Hamas militants took part in a joint attack against an Israeli Army outpost at the edge of Gaza, killing two Israeli soldiers and taking one, Gilad Shalit, captive. Shalit was abducted in response to a recent spate of Israeli killings against Gazans. In June alone, 42 Palestinians and 3 Israelis were killed in violence between militias and Israeli Defense Forces.[31] But Shalit’s abduction resulted in a massive and indiscriminate military response from Israel against Gazans. Suddenly Israel’s entire focus was drawn-on this captured soldier, although at the time Hamas endorsed what would come to be known as the “prisoner document,” or “National Conciliation Document of the Prisoners”—a dramatic shift in Hamas’ ideology that implicitly recognized Israel. Israel dismissed Hamas’ moves as merely “an internal affair.”[32]

Israel by mid-July was engaged in a bitter war against Hezbollah in Lebanon. Though Israel’s war against Lebanon gained worldwide attention, its actions against Gaza weren’t any less destructive. Between July 5 (the start of Israel’s offensive against the Gaza Strip) and July 26, 2006,130 Palestinians and one Israeli soldier were killed in the violence. Abbas, unable to influence either Hamas or Israel’s retaliations against each other, in vain, called for ceasefires between the two warring parties.[33] As the conflict increased, Abbas visited Arab neighbors in order to bolster support for a ceasefire. Abbas and Hamas took opposite approaches in how to defuse the situation. Hamas and Hezbollah, the Lebanon-based Shitte militia that captured two more Israeli soldiers shortly after Hamas did, called on Israel to release nearly 10,000 Palestinian and Lebanese prisoners in exchange for the soldiers.[34] Eventually a ceasefire between Hamas and Israel was reached, but only after five-months of fighting and after hundreds of Palestinian civilians had been killed.[35]

From July 2006, when Hamas adopted the “prisoner document,” Abbas and Fatah dramatically shifted their approach toward Hamas, from an “opposition party” toward working as a potential partner in a “unity government” that would see both parties controlling various sections of the Palestinian Authority. In August, Fatah’s Revolutionary Council officially sanctioned negotiations between Hamas and other political factions. But much of Fatah’s youth were disappointed with this decision, as they have been long pushing for internal reforms. This more radical element of Fatah, having long struggled against Arafat and Abbas, now threatened an internal “intifada” if the Fatah leadership failed to address the severe parliamentary loss and the slow eroding of support for Fatah in the Occupied Territories. This internal conflict between “old” and “new” guard increased frustration within the more radical element of Fatah that would continue to be directed against Hamas. Nevertheless, Fatah’s old-guard leadership and Hamas entered into negotiations that eventually came into fruition in February of 2007.[36]

Unity Government and Shift in Fatah’s opposition

As the effects of the international community’s boycott on the Occupied Territories became more disastrous, Fatah moved to negotiate with Hamas to form a “unity government.” Abbas traveled to Gaza and met with Hamas Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh to persuade him to end Hamas’ barrage of rocket-fire on Israel.[37] Hamas wasn’t the only organization with a militia regularly attacking Israel from the Gaza Strip. Rather a broad coalition of militant groups including Fatah’s al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade and Islamic Jihad frequently fired Kassam rockets into Israel proper. In fact, when Abbas called for a ceasefire only Hamas’ militia halted their attacks. And when Abbas attempted to deploy his Preventive Security Forces to forcibly halt more assaults, all groups including those linked to Fatah’s cried-out against this. A statement from the Fatah aligned al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade read:

“How can we stop the rocket attacks while Israel is continuing to attack our people from the air land and sea? Why should we give Israel free gifts at a time when its army is perpetrating ugly crimes against our people in the Gaza Strip?”[38]

Such a statement demonstrates that there was disunity in Fatah and that Abbas had little control over Fatah’s affiliated militias in Gaza. When the Fatah movement convened in Amman, Jordan at the end of August, several of its younger members threatened an internal “intifada” if Fatah’s “old-guard” didn’t relinquish some control over the organization. Abbas ignored this uprising within his party’s rank and used the summit instead to initiate negotiations with Hamas and other political factions about forming a coalition government and ending the governmental “deadlock.” Abbas called for a Palestinian Authority made-up of “technocrats,” that was to be headed by “Third-Way” or independent members-of-parliament, such as Salaam Fayad who once worked for the World Bank and who Abbas would eventually name as Prime Minister after Hamas violently took control over Gaza in June, 2007.[39]

It’s evident now that at the time the Occupied Territories were collapsing into chaos. Israel continued its two-month military offensive against Gaza, increasing the number of Palestinians killed to 250 since its initial invasion in July. Teachers in the West Bank who hadn’t received full pay since before Hamas assumed control of the PA were threatening to strike. Hamas condemned their activities while Abbas supported them, accusing Hamas and other militants of “bringing death and destruction” on the Palestinian people. “Our people don’t deserve these tragedies,” he said.[40] After talks in early September, Fatah and Hamas again came to a breaking point after several Fatah-led teachers unions went on strike and Fatah officials publicly accused Hamas for the financial disorder. In the midst of the conflict, Hamas’ Minister of Communications and Technology resigned at disgust over the polarization and political impasse caused by fighting between Fatah and Hamas. Even the UK Prime Minster Tony Blair endorsed the idea of a unity government between the two parties, stating that the world should resume dialog with the PA if such a government were to form.[41] In mid-September prospects for forming a unity government looked good. Tony Blair met with both Abbas and Olmert, spoke with members of the EU and ensured Abbas that the international community would look favorably on a joint coalition, but only if that coalition would meet the same preconditions Hamas had refused earlier and would evidently refused again. Gaza meanwhile had grown more and more desperate. Since implementation of the international embargo government employees had only been paid a month and a half worth of labor, causing extreme duress in the general population and leading to cases of malnutrition and lawlessness.[42] International pressure on Abbas, especially from the US, resulted in increased strain between Fatah and Hamas during government negotiations. Even when Hamas suggested a ten-year ceasefire in exchange for dialog with the international community, Israel, and the Quartet continued to insist that Hamas: recognize Israel, renounce violence and respect previous PLO/Israeli agreements. Israeli government spokesperson Avi Pazner said about the proposed ten-year ceasefire, “This does not interest us. What we demand from any Palestinian government to be able to resume dialogue is that it submit to the conditions set by the international community.”[43]

The next few months saw this oscillation back-and-forth between Hamas and Fatah until the Saudi government convinced these two factions to come to an agreement, or “declaration,” in Mecca, thus creating the foundation for what would later become the fleeting unity government that lasted until Hamas’ violent surge in Gaza last month. Prior to this deal, Hamas and Fatah experienced a spate of fighting that killed roughly 100 people between December and February 8, the day the accord was signed. Once the unity government was agreed on, Abbas met with Russia’s President Vladmir Puttin and other world leaders in attempt to gain recognition from the international community of the Palestinian Authority. Abbas said Israel must now recognize this government. He said that the new PA would reciprocally recognize all previous agreements between the PLO and Israel and that he would be the sole negotiator between the PA and Israel in future peace talks.[44]

Despite this unprecedented coalition designed specifically to assuage the severe suffering of the Palestinian people, the US explicitly moved to “shun” the new Palestinian Authority if it didn’t still fulfill its previously stated criteria,” especially to recognize” Israel in a broad and vociferous proclamation—something that would have derailed the entire compromise.

The agreement was meant to end violence between the two factions and the suffering endured from the Palestinian people from the continued economic boycott.[45] Over the following series of weeks, both Hamas and Fatah built their coalition government, designating cabinet positions for Hamas, Fatah, and independent candidates. Still this didn’t satisfy the international community. Rather, Israel, the Quartet and the US continued to insist on mere proclamations, leaving Hamas and the unity coalition at a stoppage. As destitution increased, a correlation of infighting, particularly in Gaza, also increased. Minor clashes between militias affiliated with either Fatah of Hamas became a regular occurrence.

Muhammad Dahlan

The Hamas/Fatah unity government soon came crashing down over the issue of Muhammad Dahlan, a senior member within the Fatah Revolutionary Council with close ties to its younger, more radical offshoots. Dahlan was a well-known figure from the First Intifada and had been head of the PA’s Preventive Security Forces in Gaza until 2003. He had overseen much of the PA’s crackdown on Hamas before its recent surge in popularity in the Occupied Territories and Hamas considered him a traitor. Hamas accused Dahlan of collaborating with Israel and the US in a subversive attempt to overthrow in Gaza. These allegations aren’t too absurd, Dahlan was a leading figure in Israeli/PLO negotiations post-Oslo and had accepted assistance from the CIA to train the Preventive Security Forces in the past. He was responsible for the PA’s crackdown on militant factions such as Hamas who were also opposed to the Oslo accords. Hamas specifically held Dahlan responsible for the continued fighting between Fatah and Hamas in Gaza during the tenuous unity government negotiations. [46]

Abbas, in an obviously provocative move, appointed Dahlan National Security Affairs advisor, giving a “sworn enemy” of Hamas more influence in the very particular part of the PA Hamas had been trying to gain leverage over, the security forces of the Palestinian Authority. Within weeks of his appointment, Hamas’ militia were fighting again with Fatah. In one instance, Hamas attacked the headquarters of Gen. Rashid Abu Shabak, and associate of Dahlan, killing six of his bodyguards and forcing him out of the territories. Hamas then attacked Abbas’ Gaza-based Presidential guards after it was learned that they had received training from the US, and in mid-June, with Dahlan out of the country for surgery, Hamas systematically attacked Fatah’s positions within Gaza removing them from any sort of power in the territory. Abbas immediately declared martial law, sacked (in theory) the government of Hamas and took unitary control over the PA.

Palestine’s attempt at democracy thus came to a violent conclusion. Soon after Israel resumed regular attacks on Gaza, killing dozens of civilians. Abbas and Fatah consolidated control in the West Bank and Hamas remains in authority in Gaza. Almost immediately after Abbas unilaterally dismissed the Hamas-led parliament and no longer felt obliged to play democrat anymore, the West’s aid to the West Bank resumed, clearly demonstrating where its priorities had been al l along. [47]

Today Gazans and Palestinians are faced with a mounting crisis. No longer will elections carry the same credibility they once showed in 2006. It’s argued that effective governments first require legitimacy, and so long as Palestinians rightfully believe that their future governments are farcical regimes propped-up by the US and Israel who have long ago stopped pretending to have the best-interest of the Palestinians at heart, then each successive government following the collapse of Hamas will likely fail as Iraq is failing today. A valuable opportunity to come to a long-term solution to the perennial Palestinian/Israeli conflict has passed. Israel, the US and the International Quartet have discouraged Islamic-militias from moderating their actions, if not their ideologies, and participate in the democratic process. Rather, the international community—with sadistic alacrity, continues to punish one of the world’s most impoverished and suffering people; people who, willingly or not, serve as a sea through which desperate, violent and uncontrollable oppositional militant groups will now continue to swim.


End Notes:


[1]Saud Abu Ramadan, “Analysis: “Hamas challenges Fatah’s might,” UPI, March 30, 2005; Saud Abu Ramadan, “Analysis: Palestinians enter new stage,” UPI. March 21, 2005; “Israel welcomes ceasefire offer by Palestinians,” Daily Post, March 19, 2005. For Hamas’ transition from militancy to democratic aspirations see Greg Myre, “Ceasefire extended in Mid-East; Palestinian factions bolster informal truce,” International Herald Tribune, March 18, 2005 and Khaled Hroub, “Hamas’ path to reinvention,” openDemocracy.net, October 10, 2006, http://www.opendemocracy.net/conflict-middle_east_politics/hamas_3982.jsp, Last accessed July 12, 2007.

[2] Donald MacIntyre, “The Year in Review 2005: World: The Middle East: The breakthrough that never arrived,” The Independent, December 30, 2005.

[3] Nidal Al-Mughrabi, “Deaths of Gaza teens strain mideast truce,” The Toronto Star, April 10, 2005; Nidal Al-Mughrabi, “New violence shakes Mideast truce,” The Toronto Star, May 19, 2005; “Hamas, Israeli Army renew Clash,” Xinhua General News Service, May 18, 2005. For documentation of Fatah’s al-Aqsa Martyrs’ Brigade’s participation in violent opposition to Israeli encroachment see Amy Teibel. “Israeli troops kill Palestinian after militants attack Gaza settlement with missiles,” Associated Press, May 20, 2005; Ibrahim Barzak, “Hamas militant group agrees to end mortar, rocket attacks on Jewish settlements in attempt to save shaky truce,” Associated Press, May 21, 2005.

[4] Mohammed Daraghmeh, “Palestinian leader delays parliamentary elections, raising tensions with Hamas,” Associated Press, June 4, 2005; Mohammed Daraghmeh, “Palestinian leader seeks to delay parliamentary elections until November,” Associated Press, May 26, 2005; Chris McGreal, “Pressure grows on Palestinian leader to delay parliamentary elections,” Gaurdian, May 24, 2005.

[5] Mohammed Daraghmeh, “Disgruntled Fatah politicians running as independents pose electoral threat to party,” Associated Press, January 20, 2006.

[6] Anne Gearan, “Bush says US is not ready to deal with radical Palestinian group Hamas,” Associated Press, January 25, 2006; Anne Gearan, “Rice rules out U.S. aid to Hamas government, says humanitarian aid to Palestinians likely,” Associated Press, January 29, 2006; Anne Gearan, “U.S. gains support from Europeans to cut off aid to Hamas unless it renounces violence,” Associated Press, January 31, 2006; Mohammed Daraghmeh, “Hamas leader says group searching for new donors in face of Western threats,” Associated Press, January 31, 2006; “Quartet Statement on the Situation in the Middle East,” US Dept. of State, January 30, 2006. http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2006/60068.htm

Last accessed June 28, 2007.

[7] Sarah El Deeb, “Hamas wins landslide victory with 76 seats in Palestinian parliament,” Associated Press, January 26, 2006; Steven Erlanger, Greg Myre and Steven R. Weisman, “Hamas is facing a money crisis: aid may be cut;” New York Times, January 28, 2006; Mohammed Daraghmeh, “Hamas leader says group searching for new donors in face of Western threats,” Associated Press, January 31, 2006.

[8] Steven Erlanger, “Hamas is facing a money crisis; aid may be cut,” New York Times, January, 28, 2006; Jean-Luc Renaudie, “Economic crisis awaits Hamas government,” Agence France Presse, January 29, 2006..

[9] Steven Gutkin, “Israel freezes tax, customs payments to Palestinians; Gulf states reportedly pledge aid,” Associated Press, February1, 2006; Ibrahim Barzak, “Palestinians appeal for continued aid as key donors say Hamas must recognize Israel,” January 31, 2006;

[10] David Mepham, “Hamas and political reform in the Middle East,” openDemocracy.net, February 01, 2006. http://www.opendemocracy.net/conflict-debate_97/hamas_reform_3229.jsp. Last accessed 18 June. 2007.

[11] Ramit Plushnick-Masti, “Olmert planning further unilateral West Bank pullout, political ally says,” Associated Press, Agence France Presse, “US pressures Palestinian Moderates to boycott cabinet: report,” Agence France Presse, March 11, 2006; Duetsche Presse-Agentur, “Hamas floats boycott as possible response to Israeli sanctions,” 29 March, 2006. For an account of the initial effects of the international embargo on Palestinians see Ibrahm Barzak, “Closing of Karni crossing is cutting into food supplies for Gaza,” Associated Press, March 7, 2006; Rami Almeghari, “Empty pockets, growling stomachs in Gaza,” the Electronic Intifada, April 21, 2006. http://electronicintifada.net/cgi-bin/artman/exec/view.cgi/12/4657 Last accessed June 28, 2007.

[12] Shaul Mishal and Avraham Sela, The Palestinian Hamas: Vision, Violence, and Coexistence (New York: Colombia University Press), 34-35.

[13] Khaled Hroub, “Hamas’ path to reinvention,” openDemocracy.net, October 10, 2006, http://www.opendemocracy.net/conflict-middle_east_politics/hamas_3982.jsp, Last accessed July 12, 2007.

[14] Irish Independent, “Funding a hairy problem for Hamas,” May 30, 2006; John Daniszewski, “Hamas open to idea of joining task force supporting talks with Israel,” Associated Press, May 24, 2006; “Sweden increases Aid to UN Palestinian Refugee Agency,” Agence France PresseMay 15, 2006.

[15] Oxfam International, “Middle East Quartet should end Palestinian Authority aid boycott and press Israel to release confiscated taxes,” February 21, 2007. http://www.oxfam.org/en/news/2007/pr070221_palestine Last accessed July 02, 2007; Oxfam International, “Oxfam calls on world leaders to lift Palestinian aid freeze at Stockholm Conference,” September 1, 2006. http://www.oxfam.org/en/news/pressreleases2006/pr060831_stockholm_conference Last accessed June 18, 2007.

[16] Jihad Saqalaoui, “Palestinian refugees hope Hamas will lead them home,” Agence France Presse, January 27, 2006; Beit Hanun, “No need to fear Hamas, say Gazans fed up with graft,” Agence France Presse, January 27, 2006; Ibrahim Barzak, “Fatah activists protest in Gaza, Abbas says he will ask Hamas to form government,” Associated Press, January 28, 2006; Jumana Al Tamimi, “Rise of Hamas and fall of Fatah,” Gulf News, January 27, 2006. On election monitoring see “International observers say Palestinian vote fair,” Agence France Presse, January 26, 2006; Steve Weizman, “Carter says he hopes Hamas will act responsibly,” Associated Press, January 22, 2006.

[17] Hassan A. Fatah, “Joyful Arabs voice concern at how Hamas will swim in the mainstream,” The New York Times, January 27, 2006; Hisham Abdullah, “Voters punish Fatah for corruption, stalled peace process,” Agence France Presse, January 27, 2006; Khaled Hroub, “Hamas’ path to reinvention,” openDemocracy.org. October 10, 2006. Last accessed July 4, 2007.

[18] President Bush Meets with the Cabinet, http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/01/20060130.html# Last accessed July 4, 2007.

[20] Peter Beaumont, “Isreal on alert as Hamas leads polls,” The Observer, January 22, 2006; Agence France Presse, “Fatah says it cannot dismantle Hamas, Islamic Jihad militia,” Agence France Presse, January23, 2006; Agence France Presse, “Talks with Israel ‘not illicit’: Hamas chief,” Agence France Press, January 23, 2006; BBC World Wide Monitoring, “Top Hamas candidate responds to reports of US campaign funding,” January 23, 2006; Agence France Presse, “No talks with Hamas unless changes charter: Peretz,” Agence France Presse, Janurary 23, 2006.

[21] Ibrahim Barzak, “On last day of campaigning, Hamas and Fatah signal readiness for alliance,” Associated Press, January 24, 2006; Agence France Presse, “Clashes involving Fatah and Hamas leave nine hurt in Gaza,” Agence France Presse, January 28, 2006.

[22] Ibrahim Barzak, “Hamas, Fatah face off in Palestinian parliament; Abbas stripped of new powers,” March 6, 2006; Sarah El Deeb, “Hamas, Fatah face off in stormy parliament session stripping Abbas of new powers,” March 7, 2006; Greg Myre, “Palestinian Parliament opens in discord; Hamas-led legislature curbs Abbas's powers,” March 8, 2006.

[23] BBC Monitoring International Reports, “Fatah will not participate in next Palestinian government,” BBC, February 12, 2006; Orly Halpern, “Hamas outraged by Abbas ‘coup’ in the PLC,” Jerusalem Post, February 14, 2006; Amy Tiebel, “Hamas assails US for reportedly considering Palestinian regime change,” Associated Press, February 14, 2006.

[24]Tim Butcher, “Israelis arrest Hamas minister,” Daily Telegraph, April 7, 2006.

[25] Donald MacIntyre, “Abbas takes control of crossing in Gaza as tensions with Hamas rise,” the Independent, April 7, 2006; Agence France Presse, “Abbas appoints Fatah veteran as security supreme,” Agence France Presse, April 6, 2007; “A look at Palestinian security agencies,” Associated Press, April 6, 2006; Khaled Abu Toameh, “Abbas undercuts Hamas with Fatah security appointment. 'Presidential decree' issued a day after first Hamas cabinet meeting,” April 7, 2006.

[26] Joshua Mitnick, “Rival armed factions seizing pieces of Gaza,” Christian Science Monitor, April 14, 2006; Ibrahim Barzak, “Hamas calls for unity government in face of financial crisis, internal unrest,” April 16, 2006.

[27] Ibrahim Barzak, “Abbas bars Hamas plan for militants’ security force,” Associated Press, April 21, 2006; “Anti-Hamas demonstration in Ramallah,” Agence France Presse, April 21, 2006; “Hamas, Fatah leaders seek to quell tensions,” Agence France Presse, April 22, 2006; “Al Azhar and Islamic universities in Gaza,” Bahrain News Agency, April 22, 2006.

[28] Agence France Presse, “One Palestinian killed in Hamas-Fatah clashes, ” June 1, 2006; BBC World Wide Monitoring, “Palestinian Interior Minister condemns Abbas's referendum call,” May 29, 2006.

[29] Deutsche Presse-Agentur, “ROUNDUP: Deal reached on withdrawing Hamas force from Gaza streets,” June 14, 2006; Ibrahim Barzak, “Hamas lawmakers delay efforts to block referendum implicitly recognizing Israel,” June 12, 2006.

[30] Mohammed Daraghmeh, “Palestinian security men go on anti-Hamas rampage in West Bank,” Associated Press, June 13, 2006; Agence France Presse, “Hamas to tell Abbas it 'abolutely rejects' referendum,” June 12, 2006.

[31] B’Tselem, “2 July 2006: 42 Palestinians and 3 Israelis killed in June,” July 2, 2006.

[32] Ian Fisher, “In Gaza, Defiantly Awaiting Israeli Retaliation,” New York Times, 27 June, 2006; Ilene R. Prushe, “Israeli hostage dilemma: negotiate with Hamas?” Christian Science Monitor, June 27, 2006; Khaled Hbroub, “Hamas’ path to reinvention,” openDemocracy.net, 10 October, 2006; “Hamas-Fatah in deal implicitly recognising Israel,” Agence France Presse, June 27, 2007.

[33] Sakher Abu El Oun, “12 Palestinians killed as Israel pounds Gaza,” Agence France Presse, July 26, 2006;Abdel Zaanoun, “Israeli strikes on Gaza kill 24,” Agence France Presse, July 26, 2006.

[34] “Abbas to discuss crisis with Saudi king Saturday,” Agence France Presse, July 27, 2006; “Abbas, Mubarak discuss crisis with Israel,” Dutsche Presse Agentur, July 29, 2006.

[35] Nadia Abou-El Magd. “Hamas political chief gives peace negotiations 6 months, but warns of new uprising” Associated Press, November 25, 2006; “Gaza cease-fire announced,” UPI, November 26, 2006; Ibrahim Barzak, “New Israeli-Palestinian truce raises cautious hope for peace opening,” November 26, 2006; Steven Erlanger, “Peace of the Weak? Olmert and Abbas Balk,” November 30, 2006.

[36] Ibrahim Barzak, “Hamas says it won't abandon rejection of Israel, but future coalition can,” Associated Press, November 14, 2006; Khaled Hroub, “Hamas’ path to reinvention,” openDemocracy.net, October 10, 2006, http://www.opendemocracy.net/conflict-middle_east_politics/hamas_3982.jsp, Last accessed July 12, 2007. For “internal intifada” see Khaled Abu Toameh, “Fatah activists threaten Abbas with 'intifada',” The Jerusalem Post, August 29, 2006.

[37]“Palestinian President to discuss Coalition Government with Premier,” BBC Monitoring International Reports, August 13, 2006; Mohhamed Daraghmeh, “Abbas heads to Gaza to try to end infighting between Palestinian factions,” Associated Press, August 15, 2006; Khaled Abu Toameh, “Shalit’s freedom in return for release of thousands Hamas official says. Abbas Haniyeh discuss possibility of unity government,” August 16, 2006; Diaa Hadid, “Abbas says Palestinian militants agree to halt violence in hopes of ending crackdown on Gaza,” Associated Press, August 18, 2006.

[38] Khaled Abu Toameh, “Abbas forced to drop plan to stop Kassam fire: Armed groups threaten to attack PA security forces,” The Jerusalem Post, August 22, 2006.

[39] Khaled Abu Toameh, “Abbas seeks new government of independents academics. Salam Fayad touted as candidate for prime minister,” The Jerusalem Post, August 23, 2006; Abdul Jalil Mustafa, “ANALYSIS: Experts see slim chance of Palestinian unity cabinet,” Deutsche Presse-Agentur, August 26, 2006; Khaled Abu Toameh, “Fatah central committee authorizes unity gov't,” The Jerusalem Post, August 27, 2006; Khaled Abu Toameh, “Fatah activists threaten Abbas with 'intifada',” The Jerusalem Post, August 29, 2006.

[40] Khaled Abu Toameh, “Abbas accuses militias of ‘causing death and destruction’,” The Jerusalem Post, August 31, 2006; Mohammed Daraghmeh, “Abbas sides with angry civil servants threatening strike; 8 killed in Gaza,” Associated Press, August 31, 2006.

[41] Khaled Abu Toameh, “Hamas cabinet member resigns cites need for unity government. 12 boy shot by gunmen enforcing school strike,” the Jerusalem Post, September 4, 2006; Phil Hazlewood, “World should back Palestinian unity government: Blair,” Agence France Presse, September 10, 2006.

[42] Khaled Abu Toameh, “Abbas makes ‘final attempt’ to reach accord with Hamas. Blair visits Ramallah encourages PA national unity government,” the Jerusalem Post, September 11, 2006; Ibrahim Barzak, “Hamas says it's serious about sharing power with Fatah,” Associated Press, September 24, 2006; Steven Erlanger, “Cut off Gaza sinks into despair; Months of sanctions cripple the economy,” September 15, 2006.

[43] Sarah El Deeb, “Palestinian president halts coalition talks with Hamas in snarl over concessions,” Associated Press, September 19, 2006; “Abbas freezes unity government talks,” Indian Express, September 18, 2006; “US places conditions to recognize Palestinian unity government,” BBC Monitoring Middle East, September 19, 2006; “Israel rejects Hamas ‘10-year truce’, demands recognition, ” Agence France Presse, September 22, 2006.

[44] Suleiman Nimr and Nasser Abu Bakr, “Palestinians sign unity government deal,” Agence France Presse, February 9, 2007; Sakher Abu El Oun, “Gazans hope unity deal brings peace,” Agence France Presse, February 10, 2007; “Israel must accept new government: Abbas,” Agence France Presse, February 12, 2007.

[45] Mohammed Daraghmeh, “U.S. officials tell Abbas they'll shun future Hamas-Fatah coalition, aides say,” Associated Press, February 15, 2007; Ran Dagoni, “White House backs Congress hold on PA aid—source; US aid has been frozen to express US displeasure that the Palestinian unity government has not recognized Israel,” Glones, February 15, 2007; “US will not deal with Palestinian unity govt: Palestinian,” Agence France Presse, February 15, 2007.

[46] Khaled Abu Toameh, “Hamas accuses Dahlan of being behind latest violence,” The Jerusalem Post, January 29, 2007; BBC Monitoring, “Pro-Hamas website reports calls within Fatah for dismissal of Muhammad Dahlan,” January 3, 2007; Ali Abunimah, “The American proxy war in Gaza,” the Electronic Intifada, February 3, 2007, http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article6494.shtml Last accessed July 11, 2007; Ali Abunimah, “In search of justice in the Middle East,” The Chicago Tribune, June 21, 2007. On Dahlan biography see Raffi Berg “Profile: Mohammed Dahlan,” BBC News Online, April 23, 2003, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2068270.stm Last accessed July 11, 2007; Arjan El Fassed, “Who is Mohammad Dahlan?,” The Electronic Intifada, December 20, 2006, http://electronicintifada.net/cgi-bin/artman/exec/view.cgi/19/6275 Last accessed July 11, 2007.

[47] Steven Erlanger, “Unity rule in doubt as Hamas and Fatah clash; Government never quite started to work,” International Herald Tribune, May 16, 2007; Khaled Abu Toameh, “What has happened to Fatah's strongman?,” The Jerusalem Post, June 14, 2007; “Palestinian Fatah figure says movement’s leaders ‘traitors,” BBC Monitoring International, June 14, 2007; Ibrahim Barzak, “Israeli troops arrest senior Hamas activist in West Bank, leaders prepare for summit,” Associated Press, June 23, 2007; Karin Luab and Ibrahim Barzak, “AP Interview: Former Gaza Fatah strongman refuses to accept sole blame for fall of Gaza,” Associated Press, June 24, 2007; Sabel Kershner and Steven Erlanger, “Western powers seeking ways to support Palestinian president,” The International Herald Tribune, June 16, 2007.

S.O.U.L.S Troop Drive Dulls Gravity of War (written for the Suffolk Journal)

Yet more allegations of U.S. military abuse against the poor people of the world have surfaced, this time via the hard, dedicatory work of Afghan-based human-rights organizations. According to the Washington Post, an Afghan human rights commission claimed last Saturday (4/14/07) that a platoon of U.S. Marines “open[ed] fire on pedestrians and civilian vehicles along a 10-mile stretch of road and kill[ed] 12 people--including a 4-year-old girl, a 1-year-old boy and three elderly villagers.” Imagine if any of these victims were your brother, sister, mother or father; would you continue to allow such flagrant abuses of a civilian population go unanswered (or send their killers trinkets?)

But in the U.S. we are cultured to mythologize the military, deify “the commander-in-chief,” and in what can best be described as Durkhiemian delusional hysteria, support the base enforcer of U.S. imperial aggression, the grunt U.S. soldier--regardless of any pain and suffering innocent populations must consequentially endure. Unlike those in the U.S. military, the Afghani and Iraqi civilian killed, maimed and/or otherwise abused by the forceful and violent actions of U.S. soldiers had no choice in their circumstance. They didn’t enlist for their suffering. They don’t receive lucrative pay, college loans and discounted tuition, or find a place in which they can “be all that [they] can be” in these testosterone-driven epics. Their rewards are dead relatives--killed violently, or (at best) unending stress and hardships. Let us be very clear on one simple fact: the U.S. missions in Iraq and Afghanistan are violent ones, the scale to which is lost on the apologists of these exploits.

Therefore the question for you and I is very simple, do we support those who knowingly engage in conduct that is wrong, despite what sad, soppy narratives these offenders might use to attenuate their offenses? Should we support (in even the most seemingly trivial methods) those who are used as instruments of terror on a distant and historically abused people? The best way to illustrate this question while avoiding the reactionary, knee-jerk biased defense such a question arouses is to use a like example (which might have its own set of countervailing cultural biases.) Would it have been acceptable, for example, for a hypothetical Berliner to demonstrate sympathy for the basic grunt soldier serving in the Nazi Wehrmacht that was used to siege Leningrad for 29 months during WWII, a siege that resulted in the death of 800,000 civilians? I’m sure times were tough for the poor German farm boy suddenly caught-up in the zeitgeist of the then frenzied, fascist state—and a number of sympathetic excuses could be imagined for his defense, but the fact that he contributed to the unnecessary and quite excruciating deaths of innocent civilians who bore no malfeasance against him was a morally inexcusable act. What’s more, those who sympathetically (and hypothetically) sent him well wishes (such as tobacco-based products) rather than disapproval and protest are also culpable to his crimes. Accordingly, using elementary ethical guidelines, we may ask if S.O.U.L.S’ “troop drive” is morally defendable regardless of whatever loose, lofty rhetoric its acronym echoes?

If the U.S. military occupies Iraq and Afghanistan and causes needless destruction to life there, are we to, as Mr. Eng suggests, ignore this fact and send cheap gifts to these criminals anyway? Would we feel as comfortable to a canned food drive for al-Qaida, whose members also must spend months apart from their families? Would we unquestionably assume an apolitical stance for an “officer-drive” to benefit the Los Angeles Police Department after the Rodney King beatings? There is a greater moral question to the organizations we unassumingly choose to support (even in nonessential ways) or whose very existence we are indifferent to.

A canned-food drive therefore can be interpreted as a demonstration of support for the mission of the troops. All one has to do is fill-in the natural syntax of the ideological underpinning for their actions, i.e., “support our troops”…(kill Iraqis? maim civilians? occupy a foreign country under false pretexts?) What are we asked to support? There continued endangerment of innocent civilians? What did the urbane Berliner support when he or she sent their sons to slaughter Eastern Europe? What did the citizens of Tokyo, Japan support in 1937 when they sent their sons to butcher Chinese in Nanjing? What did the Bostonian of 1864 support when the U.S. military annihilated Cheyenne and Arapaho women and children encamped along the Sand Creek in Southern Colorado? Even indifference bears a collective guilt--at least that’s what the U.S. military told the residence of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in late-1945 and the people of Dresden earlier that year.

We assume guilt by the actions or our governments, especially when those governments are democratic regimes, regardless of who we did or didn’t vote for. It is our civic duty, therefore, to question and protest the use of the U.S. military—not to endorse its actions through canned-food drives. “War is hell,” as William Tecumseh Sherman clearly put it while burning down Georgia on his “march to the sea;” it is a violent, collective act of barbarism committed by disillusioned, aggressive youth trained to kill and destroy other human beings. We need to demonstrate more responsibility and forethought with the way in which we relate with organizations (e.g., the U.S. military) and their composing elements (e.g., the U.S. soldier) that reap so much destruction and unnecessary suffering on those least deserving of it, and we can begin by not supporting these criminals on our campus through canned-food drives.

Is S.O.U.L.S a mercenary support front?

(Published in the Suffolk Journal)

S.O.U.L.S’ recent “troop drive” is an attestation to the quasi-fascism perpetuated in the culture of the U.S. mainstream, and is a disgusting legitimization on our campus of the U.S. occupation of Iraq. It sustains the narrative of U.S. soldiers as the primary sufferers of illegal U.S. aggression and is, ultimately, a waste of time and resources for both Suffolk students and organizers. If action is to be taken for the benefit of a needy people, surely S.O.U.L.S could find a more unfortunate population than the tools of U.S. imperialism (like the Iraqi people) toward which to dedicate their efforts.

The notion of soldiers in the U.S. military as victims in this framework is particularly noxious, as it’s through their efforts, collectively and individually, that the worst atrocities of U.S. violence are realized. The U.S. armed forces have a genocidal legacy and are the only military organization in history to use a nuclear device in any context (and against defenseless civilians nonetheless.) But in today’s politically bifurcated culture, the men and women enlisted in the U.S. armed forces are either lauded as “defenders of freedom” or mourned as martyrs for empire. Even for those who have acknowledged that the invasion and occupation of Iraq was/is done under false pretenses and with dubious justifications, the base component of the U.S. military, the romanticized grunt soldier, remains beyond criticism. What about his or her actions? Is joining the U.S. military justified (or even excusable) given the hideous history of this organization and the extralegal way in which it parades itself today?

Defenses for the conduct of the U.S. military are myriad and amorphous as a result of the disparate contexts for which they attempt to redress. For example, when U.S. Marines slaughtered 24 Iraqi civilians in Hadetha, including “children and the women who were trying to shield them,” pundits from the right argued that such actions were perfectly acceptable given the U.S.’s hyped “threat of terror” and current “state of war.” (Bill O’Reilly, went as far as to defend their actions by comparing—maybe appropriately—military actions in Hadetha to the execution of surrendered U.S. forces by Nazis in France during WWII.) It is claimed that the stress soldiers endure somehow justify their transgressions against innocent civilians. Those who make this claim however don’t apply similar standards to the equally perturbed populations who commit malfeasance against the U.S. For example, no measurements are made of the possible mental stress the 9/11 hijackers may had suffered prior to flying planes into buildings. Exploring the reasoning for some of the hatred against the U.S. (and Western Culture in general) felt by people in the Global South seems unfathomable in mainstream culture. Maybe such a reflection would reveal too much about the U.S.’s perennial involvement in systems of oppression there.

From the left, defense for U.S. soldiers is premised on the hackneyed narrative of these fighting men and women as poor working-class people with limited opportunities aside from military service. Their socio-economic circumstances are used as a form of apology for their actions. It is argued, therefore, that because the majority of the military (an all volunteer force) are from poor, underserved communities with little chance of personal fruition in their humble quests for personal betterment, their actions should be overlooked or mitigated and prosecution should be made only against those in positions of power who had casually sent them into conflict in the first place. But this logic excuses the responsibility we all as human beings have for our actions. The basic U.S. soldier, when he or she enlists into the military is making an ethical/moral decision. They are sacrificing their personal judgment to be an enforcer of aggression in a third-world context. The history of the U.S. armed forces is not absent from them—there exists every opportunity to investigate the record/historical utility of the U.S. military. They either: a) choose not to investigate, b) allow themselves to be deluded through cheap, fairy tale-like advertisements (e.g., “be all that you can be”) or c) justify their service by flaunting their lack of opportunities. Regardless of their reasoning two facts remain unchanged: 1) soldiers in the U.S. military are not forced to join this organization (there is no draft today) and 2) their actions put into direct mortal danger even more abused, underserved communities around the world. Each time a U.S. soldier patrols through Iraqi neighborhoods with loaded, automatic weaponry, the lives of Iraqi men, women and children are endangered. The U.S. soldier deserves as much sympathy for their perilous condition as a police officer who patrols and subsequently abuses residents of urban, racially segregated ghettos.

Therefore, an organization like S.O.U.L.S should not attempt to lift the spirits of criminals through an aggregation of cheap, disposable commodities (and some questionable items like tobacco-based products.) With all the misery in the world (a lot of which is a direct consequence of Western-imperialism) tenacious, young volunteers should dedicate their actions to causes of better caliber than a “troop drive.” They should not serve the function as cheerleaders for mercenaries.

Why are Navajos so Fascist? (written for the Navajo Times)

A perplexing question has confronted me for sometime now, “Why are so many Navajos so nationalistic and militaristic?” In fact the idea of Navajos demonstrating “patriotism” (which in the U.S. is akin to fascism) is an absurd contradiction that I can still not understand. For what reasons do Navajos need to be celebratory of the “idea” of the United States, an idea which not only directly cost the lives of their ancestors, (nearly half the existing 1868 Navajo population by some estimates-think on that next time you wave “Old Glory,”) but also cost the lives of many like people with whom they shared the continent, many nations that were completely obliterated in genocidal warfare in the manifestation of this supposed “great nation” that has brought in its most tangible results only a few, rich white people, but utter poverty and destitution for Navajos among other ethnic minorities.

And for what reasons do Navajos need to be militaristic? First off, the U.S. armed forces have always been a terrorist organization, usually employed against people who have something (e.g., land, mineral resources, wealth, etc.,) that the same rich white men who have thus far benefited in the creation of this country also covet in their perpetual and insatiable desire for increased prosperity and power. Navajos need but look no further than the experience of their ancestors for an example of this assertion, rounded-up like cattle and force-marched hundreds of miles into the U.S’s version of a concentration camp. What excuse can Navajos today conjure for serving in the same U.S. armed forces, that are carrying out the same type of atrocities in now different parts of the world for the same coveted mineral wealth?

Aside from being completely contrary to the purpose of survival for their much persecuted ancestors, (I’m sure the surviving elements of the Navajo population, when released from Bosque Redondo near Fort Sumner, New Mexico didn’t aspire for their descendants to join the same military forces in like military campaigns against almost as equally defenseless populations, but that’s my assumption of course) joining the military for Navajos is a complete waste of resources. The Navajo Nation doesn’t need dead “G.I.’s” in Iraq, or Afghanistan, or wherever the U.S. military wonders to next, but the Navajo Nation needs both physical and social development, (i.e., Navajo youth should go to school and learn skills to bring back to the Navajo Nation-since they have the opportunity to do so-rather than going off to war for some rich, white men’s oil.)

And so I return to the question of patriotism. How do Navajos come to believe in absurdities like their people have benefited from being cloaked and chocked by U.S. territorial ambitions? (I doubt they ever came to their praise of the U.S. by thinking, “Well, at least we are no longer part of Mexico.”) In real terms, Navajos have, basically been forced into a monetary and market economy in which they are at a severe-disadvantage, hence the poverty, social dissolution (e.g., gangs, drugs, petty-theft, domestic violence, alcoholism) and subsequent decline in health and well being, (e.g., depression, obesity, diabetes, low standards of living as well as a low-life expectancy.)

Problems for which the U.S. has assisted by providing a health care system that ranks worse than those found in its sprawling and bustling prison “industrial complex,” or by recruiting Navajo youth with seemingly no “real” opportunities into the ranks of its “few” and its “proud” as they annihilate villages in Indo-China or slaughter families whole in Iraq and Afghanistan. Possibly, then, it’s the reneging on treaty agreements that inspires patriotism in Navajos, as their water sources are compromised or their land is used first as space for rail, then highway with little to no say or oversight from the Navajo people, and which comes at an increased risk to Navajos living near these places. Or maybe it’s the puppet government that the Bureau of Indian Affairs created, which must still bow for approval from the U.S. Department of Interior on legislative matters it approves. Is this the “democracy” Navajos think they are defending when they are recruited to kill similarly brown-skinned people thousands of miles away? A genocidal legacy, limited sovereignty and instilled perpetual poverty, are these the facets of “American” democracy that inspires such fervor and, ultimately, fascist behavior in Navajos.

And if you didn’t understand some of the bigger words I used in this op-ed, then you shouldn’t vote Republican as this, the righter of the business-class parties, are uncaring about the comprehension of language and would see the U.S., as Arizona has attempted, become an “English-Only” nation. (The paradox being that most self-identified Republicans, though the biggest promoters of “English-only” governments, are the least skilled in the use of this language, just “play me a country song” for myriad examples of this fact.)

Viva El Frente Sandinisata de Liberacion Nacional!

Daniel Ortega, presidential candidate for the El Frente Sandinista de Liberacion Nacional [FSLN], or who are commonly referred to as the Sandanistas has won the presidency of Nicaragua after about 16 years “out of power,” as mainstream news sources like to characterize his absence. When he left the presidency of Nicaragua in 1990, the US and its Hondurian-based surrogates, “the Contras,” were engaged in a terrorist war against the Nicaraguan people, pressing death and misery as a threat from Washington against this already all too miserable population who had the audacity to rid themselves from the yoke of the US-backed dictatorship of Anastasio Somoza, threatening in effect absolute US supremacy over Central and South America.

Now Ortega faces a more matured threat, as the imperialist’s former violent thrust for obedience from this tiny Central American nation has blossomed into overt exploitation and has solidified into distorted trade agreements that stand to pillage the country and its people. What’s more, the US has, illegally, made explicit threats against Nicaraguans, claiming US-aid to the nation will be reconsidered in the event of an Ortega presidential victory-a form of blackmail that is, in essence, meddling in the domestic electoral affairs of another nation in a manner illegal under existing international law.

Much discontent in the country has accrued over the past decade as Nicaragua’s current centrist-right government has pursued an economic policy of “free trade,” culminating in its recent passage of the Central American Free Trade Agreement, or what is know as CAFTA last summer. This agreement guarantees, for example, that Nicaraguans must respect lucrative patent rights for drugs owned by US pharmaceutical firms, doubling or tripling for the second-poorest nation in the hemisphere (only the much US-abused half-island nation of Haiti ranks more destitute) the costs of medicines, specifically anti-virals, designed to combat new threats to the population like HIV/AIDS. Additionally importation of cheaper, but illegally US-subsidized crops such as maize and rice, inherent in these agreements, will threaten the livelihoods of local producers who otherwise depend on cultivation of these products for a livelihood.

(These provisions were ruled again illegal by the WTO after Brazil brought suit against the US last year specifically for cotton-related subsidies USDA annually gives to large, industrious cotton producers in the western and southeastern parts of the US that cover about 40 percent the cost of production for this crop, thereby artificially cheapening the price of US cotton against what is otherwise more efficiently produced cotton in places like Burkina Faso, a land-locked West African nation that has seen its economy wrecked in recent years as a consequence.)

In addition, coffee producers in Nicaragua have seen their yearly earnings drop and their nation’s primary source of livelihood and largest exported commodity cheapened as the international price for coffee, a capricious market anyway, suddenly and dramatically dropped in 2001, unleashing what has been termed “the Coffee Crisis” by non-governmental organizations like Oxfam and others.

I traveled there in the summer of 2004 with the United Students for Fair Trade, or USFT, to Nicaragua where I saw hung high above crumbling homes flags of black and red bars, the colors of the Sandinistas. The party’s acronym, FSLN, was painted on the sides of shops, bars, and homesteads similarly in black-and-red colorations. There I learned from Nicaraguans the oppression they faced at the hands of a well-financed US-trained and equipped terrorist militia. Visible still on the landscape were remnants of war, and after over a decade of an end to fighting, people still there carried emotional scars from that truculent time.

I learned that in 1979, after years of repression from the US-backed Samoza dictatorship, revolutionary forces exploded in Nicaragua. After Samoza’s corruption reached new heights in the wake of a1972 earthquake that leveled Nicaragua’s capital city of Managua, business elite joined in sympathy with guerrilla FSLN fighters in opposition of Somoza.

Landless workers in the countryside and students in the cities supported the movement. And by mid-1979, the Sandinistas were able to dispose of Somaza, who abdicated his power and fled to Miami (where many of the US’s Latin American reactionary clients call home.)

But a Sandinista victory didn’t resonate well with a rightist US, and soon the newly elected Reagan administration began sponsoring counter-revolutionary Contra forces. Violence began in 1982 when “Contras,” as they were popularly called, who had trained in Argentina and neighboring Honduras, destroyed bridges built through Sandinista work programs-in essence attacked the infrastructure of the nation to intimidate the population.

The US’s current threat to deprive aid to the country is, at face, outrageous and contemptible given the level of liability the US has for the shoddy condition in which the country now exists. For example, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) ruled in 1986 against the US’s terrorist campaign, via “freedom fight[ing]” Contras, as the even then senile Regan characterized them, as outright illegal under international law and subject to retributive payments for costs in lives and property incurred;(though the US reactively claimed to be exempt from the ICJ’s jurisdiction and used its UN Security Council (SC) veto to void subsequent UN SC resolutions with wording designed to enforce the ICJ’s ruling.)

The entire Contra war, as it is now called, costs the lives of about 80,000 Nicaraguans, a country with a population of roughly 3 million at the time of the violence, not to mention the entire destruction to the economy and rural infrastructure.

I also heard from Nicaraguans how Contras used methods of terror, kidnapping and killing teachers who worked in Sandinista-established schools, attacking Sandinista-organized farming cooperatives with guns and ammunition and ultimately destabilizing the country to prevent any Sandinista reforms. Yet the Sandinista government was able to grant huge tracts of land to landless farmers who had been squatting and farming in rural mountainsides since Samoza’s disposal.

After the Sandanista’s lost power, the government again encouraged the production of cash crops, putting these farmers directly at risk to price fluctuations on the international coffee market. What’s more, sensing the collapse of the Soviet Union, the US no longer needed to appease Southern nations from turning to the USSR for support, and so unilaterally withdrew from the International Coffee Agreement in 1989, thereby destabilizing the international price of coffee.

Consequently, all this has resulted in the reemergence of the Sandanistas and, specifically, Daniel Ortega into the position of the presidency. It appears that Nicaraguans are discontent with neo-liberalist subterfuge designed to reap from them profits at the destruction of their livelihoods, and which has taken ever-greater tolls against their population in recent years with sequential “free trade” concessions. What’s more, Nicaragua’s recent presidential election is yet another indication of Latin America’s shift to the left in general, after enduring failed IMF and World Bank policies (e.g., Argentina, Chile, Haiti), rightist US-backed dictators (e.g., Guatemala in 1954, Cuba pre-1959, Brazil in 1964, Chile in 1973, Haiti pre-1989, etc.,) and US-terrorist campaigns that have left rural populations destitute and elites more empowered and enriched (e.g., Colombia and El Salvador-not to mention the outrageous invasion of the tiny Caribbean island-nation of Grenada in 1983 and Panama in 1989 causing thousands of deaths to both of these populations). With the recent elections of Eva Moralles in Bolivia and Hugo Chavez in Venezuela, Latin America is succeeding from its neo-colonizers, those only standing to benefit being the majority of the population.

Congress Further Erodes Basic Human Rights

The supposed “international war on terror” has many disturbing facets, the aggregate sum of which appears to be an uncontrollable beast bent on profit (for those who control it) and destruction (for those whom (a) oppose it or (b) happen to be in regions from where these benefits are expected.) Yet besides this nation’s outrageous use of war against societies whose only crime (one that cannot be excused apparently) was to be physically present on land that is flush with world-coveted natural resources, such as oil for example; and resources from which outrageous profits are made; is our nation’s treatment of indigenous resistance to military, economic and cultural domination, now dehumanized as “terrorists” though one can find in history many synonymous categorizations.

But probably an equally worse crime, and one that is arguably more morally compromising for those who condone it (our society) either by (a) inactive opposition against it or (b) overt support for it, is are military/government’s overall treatment of detainees, alleged as “enemy combatants,” treatment that is counter to the spirit of the Third Geneva Conventions, the international treaty that binds nations to decent and respectful treatment of enemy soldiers. As if this weren’t bad enough, Congress has passed recently (Sept. 28 & 29, the House and Senate respectively) legislation that will further erode detainees basic human rights as are outlined in these agreements, and legislation that will restrict detainees judicial appeals of their crass condition to only what are best described as “kangaroo courts,” adhoc military tribunals, rather than allowing them due process under previous provisions in the law (as was upheld by the Supreme Court in June, and to which the Bush administration has been consistently trying to thwart), and legislation that is counter the spirit of habeas corpus, one of the most lauded advancements in our collective human social conscience to result from Western Liberalism (not liberalism in Ann Coulter terms, but liberalism that includes ideas like “the rights of man” and from which our democratic system is descended.)

But first let us consider present conditions on Guantanamo. Detainees in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba have been subjected to some of the harshest and most cruel imprisonment conditions publicly disclosed by the US military. Reports of “sleep deprivation,” “waterboarding” (mock drownings) “hyperthermia,” as well as numerous reports of US military personal desecrating the Koran have all led other governments, non-governmental organizations and human-rights activists to censure, or in the very least openly question the US’s activities toward detainees at Guantanamo Bay. Interrogation techniques that would otherwise qualify as torture, illegal under the same Geneva Conventions, are euphemized rather as “aggressive interrogation techniques.” In response to detainees’ hunger-strikes, doctors at Guantanama Bay, despite ethical questions raised, have force-fed detainees by inserting tubes down their throats. Allegations then quickly surfaced of detainees being force-fed as a form of punishment, in which case they were fed to the point at which they either vomited or defecated in their seats. Such conditions have led some prisoners to suicide, and the International Red Cross has publicly raised concerns about the mental health of detainees as a result of their treatment in Guantanamo and their prolonged detainment there.

As a result of the recent legislation passed by Congress, detainees at Guantanamo will loose their right to habeas corpus, a right that would merely allow innocent detainees, reported to be as young as 14 and as old as 71 the right to challenge their imprisonment. Additionally, this legislation will, according to Kate Zernick of the New York Times, “…broaden the definition of enemy combatants beyond the traditional definition used in wartime, to include noncitizens living legally in the United States as well as those in foreign countries and anyone determined to be an enemy combatant under criteria defined by the president or secretary of defense.” And according to the Center for Constitutional Rights, the current legislation will “grant the President the privilege of kings, allowing him to imprison any critics as alleged 'enemy combatants,' never to see the inside of a court room or to have the chance to challenge their detention or their treatment.” The Center openly questions “What would we say if another country passed a law making it legal to snatch US citizens and detain them indefinitely?”

We don’t have to speculate much to answer the above question, and we can assume the majority of us would be opposed to similar treatment. But if this is true the passing of this recent legislation by Congress reveals us to be hypocrites and is yet another indication of the dismantling by the government of basic human rights in this so called prolonged “war on terror,” a euphemism for the use of force and perpetual detainment against recalcitrant populations in regions of “strategic importance,” or rather regions rich in resources valuable for the ruling-class in the United States. This again raises serious moral questions for members of a society that permits such cruel and inhuman treatment against fellow human beings. Of course once we lose our domination on history, such actions, or inactions on our part, will prompt scorn and official rebuke in future generations. But such considerations are also of little consequence, as at present moment innocent people are subject to physical torture and endless misery. The blame for this hideous stain on the much soiled history of the US is bi-partisan, and therefore our opposition to it should excuse the responsible parties and be a non-partisan, non-electoral ploy, but a true morally-based movement.

The dismantlement and closing down of Guantanamo Bay remains one of the great, unresolved challenges facing our society today, but until we start taking action against it, and begin in the very least to pressure lawmakers, more and more concessions on our collective basic liberties will be made by both Republicans and Democrats, excused under what is now the almost comical guise of “fighting the war on terror,” but something that is less humorous when one considers its consequences.