Friday, December 3, 2010
Inspiring Story of a young Pakistani woman
Farah Deeba still recovering from dengue fever, the day we met her
my sister in purple smiling broadly as the students gather
Farah instructing students to line up for a group photo, the rest of us are enjoying the process.
Viola! Every one is ready FD is on the left in dark brown. The rest of us are in the background. These are only a handful of students who stayed behind. The school was closed long before we arrived after meandering through the area
Farah Deeba is a twenty three year old young woman who is doing gargantuan work that most of us only dream of. I met her through my sister, who after seeing her on a television program – Pakistan ke Asli Hero (Pakistan’s Real Heroes) - had gone to meet her in person in a suburb of Lahore. Deeba’s is an amazing story of courage, conviction and compassion.
At eighteen with 60,000 rupees secured from her father she was set to go to Saudi Arabia to perform umrah (minor hajj) in 2005. Wanderer that she is, after taking the final exams for graduationfrom college while waiting to go for umrah, decided to visit different neighborhoods in and around Lahore. She was struck by the abject poverty and hopelessness she saw in some areas. Chungi Amar Sadhu was the worst of the worst.
Men in this area gamble do drugs and are abusive to their wives and children. The hopelessness is so deep that they don’t even dare to dream for a better future. She went door-to-door gathering information for each household. At the end of the day she had 60 children ready to be fed, clothed and educated. A woman in desperate need with three daughters, a drunk of a husband on the spot signed a lease to the lower level of her house without any money in advance, purely on trust.
With LLB (law) degree that she acquired at 21 and coming from a well off and a well-educated family the expectations for a career were high. But, against the advice of family and friends, who wanted her to get a ‘real’ job and climb the corporate ladder, Farah Deeba persisted and did not budge from her decision to bring hope to this depraved and deprived community. She used 60,000 rupees for umrah as the seed money to start her free public school.
This was the genesis of Aalam Bibi Welfare Educational Welfare Organization named after Aalam Bibi her paternal grandmother. That was in September 2005. Five years later the day we met her, November 11, 2010, 319 children are being looked after - taking care of their needs of food, uniform, books, stationary, personality grooming, training, extra curricular etc. by ABEWO.
She never regretted that decision. Her devotion to her cause is so strong that she’ll forego any personal glory. When a friend who volunteered in her school arranged for a television interview in Karachi, Farah refused the offer, thinking the air fair to Karachi could feed so many children for so long. Needless to say, the friend who had gone to great length to arrange for the interview, was quite upset. Upon learning the reason for Farah’s refusal organized a fundraiser and bought the ticket for her to go to Karachi for interview that my sister and her family watched in Tarbela and followed up on the lead.
Family and friends who initially apposed Farah’s endeavors have come around and are very supportive of her work. Farah’s work though gigantic for ik nikki jaee kuri (a little petite girl) as Munnu Bhai of the daily Jang calls her in his article on her; it is the tip of the iceberg that Pakistan’s education system is. Farah believes not only in educating but civilizing these children as well. She believes there are many institutions that ‘educate’, but the ones that teach real manners are few.
That’s not all, Farah has educational and vocational program for mothers and the local women in the neighborhood of the school. She also helps out with urgent needs at home that may disrupt a child’s attendance/education, e.g. fixing or replacing leaky roof of a house.
In a culture where initially there was suspicion and mistrust, she is well respected and people believe in her mission that the street vendors unable to sponsor a child individually pool their money to do so. For a mere 500 rupees (about $6 at the current rate of 85 rupees to a dollar) a month any one can sponsor a child that guarantees his/her education, provides uniform, books and lunch as well. Farah Deeba is doing all this without any government support.
Farah has a vision to promote education with training in all the deprived areas of Pakistan, which will make Pakistan a civilized and developed country on the canvass of the world.
Summary of Farah Deeba’s educational achievements:
Graduated from college at 18
Got her law degree (LLB) at 21
Currently she is pursuing an M. Phil – a precursor to a Ph. D.
Sunday, October 10, 2010
ANARCHISTS COMING TO PEORIA THEATER
ISRAELI PEACE ACTIVISTS
COMING
TO
PEORIA THEATER
(Peoria Theater is located inside Landmark Cinemas)
6:30 PM
3225 Dries Lane
www.peoriatheater.com
WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 27, 2010
FOR MORE INFO
VISIT
http://www.peoriapeace.org/
or contact
Razia 309-868-0061-Mike 309-251-3130-Jack 309-636-9616
AATW is a direct action group that was established in 2003 to resist the construction of the wall Israel is building on Palestinian land in the Occupied West Bank. The group works in cooperation with Palestinians in a joint popular struggle against the occupation. Since its formation, the group has participated in thousands of demonstrations and direct actions against the wall specifically, and the occupation generally, all over the West Bank.
http://awalls.org
FREE AND OPEN TO PUBLIC
(donations accepted)
ISRAELI PEACE ACTIVISTS
COMING
TO
PEORIA THEATER
(Peoria Theater is located inside Landmark Cinemas)
6:30 PM
3225 Dries Lane
www.peoriatheater.com
WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 27, 2010
FOR MORE INFO
VISIT
http://www.peoriapeace.org/
or contact
Razia 309-868-0061-Mike 309-251-3130-Jack 309-636-9616
AATW is a direct action group that was established in 2003 to resist the construction of the wall Israel is building on Palestinian land in the Occupied West Bank. The group works in cooperation with Palestinians in a joint popular struggle against the occupation. Since its formation, the group has participated in thousands of demonstrations and direct actions against the wall specifically, and the occupation generally, all over the West Bank.
http://awalls.org
FREE AND OPEN TO PUBLIC
(donations accepted)
Saturday, July 31, 2010
JIMMY DENNIS an INNOCEN man on DEATH ROW
when i was listening to jimmy dennis sitting behind a glass barrier describe his incarceration, in my mind i started planning all the things i'd do to help him get his life back.
woe to me, ten days have gone by and i haven't even sent out an email telling my friends about jimmy and ask them to help him, if they can. any detectives out there?
JIMMY DENNIS.
Ever since i have known Tonya she has been talking about an innocent man on death row. I was sympathetic and signed the petition for a new trial. It wasn't until last Tuesday when Tonya, Monica and I came face to face with jimmy and for six hrs listened to him recount his incarceration for last 19 years that the gravity of the situation sunk in.
in 1992 jimmy was convicted of a murder he did not commit. tonya spent a year and half reading the transcript of the proceedings of jimmy's trial and created a website.
you can do your own research and find out for yourself. but please help jimmy get his life back.
*
sign the petition, tell your friends to do the same
*
get on the email list
*
visit him in in prison
*
do some detective work - interview people in philadelphia area that jimmy thinks will help his case
*
do a documentary.
*
create your own website
*
visit the existing websites.
video
petition
What Happened?
On October 22, 1991 at about 1:50 pm in the afternoon, high school students Chedell Williams and Zahra Howard were climbing the steps the enter the Fern Rock Subway Station in north Philadelphia. They were approached by two men who blocked their way up the stairs. One man demanded earrings at which point the girls ran away from them back down the stairs. One man chased Chedell into the street where he ripped the earrings from her ears and shot her in the neck, killing her. The two men then ran up the street and jumped in a car driven by a third man, and sped off.
There were dozens of eyewitnesses to the crime which happened on a “bright” afternoon, and many of them had a view of the perpetrators in the few seconds that it took for the crime to take place. In addition, a couple of eyewitnesses were able to partially describe the make, model, and color of the car and also provide a few digits in the license plate number. Unfortunately the car was never identified or found.
As the investigation continued, the police heard rumors in the projects that Jimmy Dennis was the one who killed Chedell Williams. Jimmy Dennis maintained his innocence from day one, and when he became aware of rumors he went to the police station to straighten out the matter. The Police told him he wasn't a suspect. However, they continued to gather evidence and later arrested and charged him with murder. Jimmy, unwilling to make any deals, was tried and convicted of murder and sentenced with the death penalty. There have been no charges filed for the crimes committed by the two other men involved the crime.
Why is Jimmy innocent?
* The only evidence tying Jimmy to the crime is the eyewitness stranger identification of three eyewitnesses, two of whom were unsure and another who only saw the perpetrator for a "second". More importantly, these eyewitnesses and others all gave physical descriptions of the perpetrator that are much taller and heavier than Jimmy. It's much more likely they identified the wrong person than it is their descriptions were off by as much as they were. Other witnesses said Jimmy was NOT the perpetrator or chose someone other than Jimmy in the line-ups.
* Several family members, friends, and acquantainces support Jimmy's alibi that he was riding a bus to a different part of town at the time of the crime.
* There is no physical evidence tying Jimmy to the murder.
* The stolen earrings were never found, and Jimmy was not involved in the robbery of the same earrings a few months prior.
* The gun was never found, and no gun has ever found been found in Jimmy's possession.
* The getaway car was never found or linked to Jimmy in any way. Jimmy has never owned a car and does not have a license.
* Jimmy had no motive as he and his singing group were about to sign a record contract.
Copyright 2005 Jeff Boghosian. All rights reserved.
justice for jimmy
http://www.jimmydennis.org/petition.html;
http://www.jimmydennis.org/contactus.html
http://www.troyanthonydavis.org/
woe to me, ten days have gone by and i haven't even sent out an email telling my friends about jimmy and ask them to help him, if they can. any detectives out there?
JIMMY DENNIS.
Ever since i have known Tonya she has been talking about an innocent man on death row. I was sympathetic and signed the petition for a new trial. It wasn't until last Tuesday when Tonya, Monica and I came face to face with jimmy and for six hrs listened to him recount his incarceration for last 19 years that the gravity of the situation sunk in.
in 1992 jimmy was convicted of a murder he did not commit. tonya spent a year and half reading the transcript of the proceedings of jimmy's trial and created a website.
you can do your own research and find out for yourself. but please help jimmy get his life back.
*
sign the petition, tell your friends to do the same
*
get on the email list
*
visit him in in prison
*
do some detective work - interview people in philadelphia area that jimmy thinks will help his case
*
do a documentary.
*
create your own website
*
visit the existing websites.
video
petition
What Happened?
On October 22, 1991 at about 1:50 pm in the afternoon, high school students Chedell Williams and Zahra Howard were climbing the steps the enter the Fern Rock Subway Station in north Philadelphia. They were approached by two men who blocked their way up the stairs. One man demanded earrings at which point the girls ran away from them back down the stairs. One man chased Chedell into the street where he ripped the earrings from her ears and shot her in the neck, killing her. The two men then ran up the street and jumped in a car driven by a third man, and sped off.
There were dozens of eyewitnesses to the crime which happened on a “bright” afternoon, and many of them had a view of the perpetrators in the few seconds that it took for the crime to take place. In addition, a couple of eyewitnesses were able to partially describe the make, model, and color of the car and also provide a few digits in the license plate number. Unfortunately the car was never identified or found.
As the investigation continued, the police heard rumors in the projects that Jimmy Dennis was the one who killed Chedell Williams. Jimmy Dennis maintained his innocence from day one, and when he became aware of rumors he went to the police station to straighten out the matter. The Police told him he wasn't a suspect. However, they continued to gather evidence and later arrested and charged him with murder. Jimmy, unwilling to make any deals, was tried and convicted of murder and sentenced with the death penalty. There have been no charges filed for the crimes committed by the two other men involved the crime.
Why is Jimmy innocent?
* The only evidence tying Jimmy to the crime is the eyewitness stranger identification of three eyewitnesses, two of whom were unsure and another who only saw the perpetrator for a "second". More importantly, these eyewitnesses and others all gave physical descriptions of the perpetrator that are much taller and heavier than Jimmy. It's much more likely they identified the wrong person than it is their descriptions were off by as much as they were. Other witnesses said Jimmy was NOT the perpetrator or chose someone other than Jimmy in the line-ups.
* Several family members, friends, and acquantainces support Jimmy's alibi that he was riding a bus to a different part of town at the time of the crime.
* There is no physical evidence tying Jimmy to the murder.
* The stolen earrings were never found, and Jimmy was not involved in the robbery of the same earrings a few months prior.
* The gun was never found, and no gun has ever found been found in Jimmy's possession.
* The getaway car was never found or linked to Jimmy in any way. Jimmy has never owned a car and does not have a license.
* Jimmy had no motive as he and his singing group were about to sign a record contract.
Copyright 2005 Jeff Boghosian. All rights reserved.
justice for jimmy
http://www.jimmydennis.org/petition.html;
http://www.jimmydennis.org/contactus.html
http://www.troyanthonydavis.org/
Monday, June 28, 2010
ussf 2010
late last night a young woman from california and i drove into new york from an intense and inspiring week in detroit attending the
USSF 2010 | Another World Is Possible | Another US Is Necessary
. it was very encouraging to see young people, not only attending in large numbers but also organizing the forum and presenting projects and workshops.
another detroit is happening - testimony to that can be seen in a number of projects including the Heidelberg project in which code pink participated by burying the hummer (pics), d-town farm, and many others. the local communities are stepping up and taking charge to save detroit,
i was most impressed with young desis involvement, particulary, young women working for civil liberties. monami, a young bengali american woman, founded drum 10 years ago, before 9/11 to help working immigrants some non-documented, mostly from south asia.
they are doing wonderful work in collaboration with similar organizations with some amazing results.
another very impressive workshop was presented by young philipino women
one of the guest presenter, hector, a torture survivor from nicaragua was awesome as were two young philipino women who traveled to villages. one published a book of stories written by people who could not get them published. the other brought back traditional musical instruments and wrote and sang a soulful song. this was an unusual interactive workshop.
on the whole it was quite overwhelming.
USSF 2010 | Another World Is Possible | Another US Is Necessary
. it was very encouraging to see young people, not only attending in large numbers but also organizing the forum and presenting projects and workshops.
another detroit is happening - testimony to that can be seen in a number of projects including the Heidelberg project in which code pink participated by burying the hummer (pics), d-town farm, and many others. the local communities are stepping up and taking charge to save detroit,
i was most impressed with young desis involvement, particulary, young women working for civil liberties. monami, a young bengali american woman, founded drum 10 years ago, before 9/11 to help working immigrants some non-documented, mostly from south asia.
they are doing wonderful work in collaboration with similar organizations with some amazing results.
another very impressive workshop was presented by young philipino women
one of the guest presenter, hector, a torture survivor from nicaragua was awesome as were two young philipino women who traveled to villages. one published a book of stories written by people who could not get them published. the other brought back traditional musical instruments and wrote and sang a soulful song. this was an unusual interactive workshop.
on the whole it was quite overwhelming.
Monday, May 31, 2010
Annual Nakba Commemoration Dinner Speech
alan hart
The following is the text of my address to the Annual Nakba Commemoration Dinner, Dearborn, on 15 May 2010. (Video will be posted as soon as possible.)
I’m delighted to be with you on this most significant anniversary, and I want to begin with a very simple statement: In my view Nakba Denial – the denial by all supporters of Israel right or wrong of Zionist ethnic cleansing – is as obscene and as evil, repeat EVIL, as denial of the Nazi holocaust.
But today is not just about remembering what started to happen in Palestine that became Israel 63 years ago. It’s also about saluting the incredible, almost superhuman steadfastness of the occupied and oppressed Palestinians. The Victory sign is only a gesture but I ask you to join me in making it and say after me, “Palestinians of the occupied West Bank and blockaded Gaza Strip, we are with you!”
If one reversed the “V” sign as Winston Churchill sometimes did, one could say it was an appropriate gesture to Prime Minister Netanyahu. He would not have cause for complaint because it’s a gesture he frequently makes to President Obama.
I also want you to know why the occupied and oppressed Palestinians have a special place in my heart as well as my mind. It’s not just that they are the party with right on their side in arguably the most epic might v right struggle in all of history…. If there is one people on earth that ought to have been de-humanized by what has been done to them, it’s the occupied and oppressed Palestinians. They have NOT been de-humanized, but their Zionist oppressors have been, de-humanized by their racist thinking, their insufferable self-righteousness, their contempt for Judaism’s moral values and ethical principles as well as international law, and their criminal actions. Today I go as far as describing Israel’s extreme right wingers as Nazi-like.
For some light relief, and also some rare insight, I’ll now tell you my own favourite stories about the two greatest opposites in all of history – Yasser Arafat, Father Palestine, and Golda Meir, Mother Israel. I think I am probably the only person on Planet Earth who enjoyed intimate access to, and on the human level friendship with, both of them.
One of my most treasured souvenirs from my television reporting days is a signed picture of Golda when she was prime minister. The inscription in her own hand is – “To a good friend, Alan Hart.” Because I am a goy, that meant a lot to me. The picture is on my web site and it’s the first one in my latest book. I have also used it as a protective shield. In the late 1980’s when I lectured and debated coast-to-coast across America and Canada, I had the picture with me. When I was accused of anti-Semitism, I would hold up the picture, read out Golda’s inscription, and say to my accuser – “Do you think that old lady was so stupid that she couldn’t have seen through me if I was anti-Jew!” That always won me the applause of the audience and its contempt for my accuser.
When Golda died I went to Israel as a private citizen to say my last goodbye to her. After the burial ceremony on Mount Herzl, I was watching Prime Minster Begin and his ministers leaving. There was a tap on my shoulder. It was Lou Kadar, a very bright and witty lady of French origin who was Golda’s lifelong best friend and confidant. Lou said: “Alan, please come back to my apartment for a drink. There’s something I MUST tell you.” Over a glass of chilled white wine, Lou asked me a question: “Do you remember that BBC Panorama interview you did with Golda in which said the Palestinians did not exist?” I said to Lou: “Not only do I remember, the whole world remembers because it was Golda speaking on film.” (The full quote was: “There is no such thing as a Palestinian. It’s not as though we came and took their land from them. They didn’t exist.”) Lou then said:
“Golda made me promise to tell you, but not until she was dead, that as soon as those words left her lips, she knew they were ‘the silliest damn thing she had ever said!‘”
When I started to write Zionism: The Real Enemy of the Jews, I thought that the significance of Golda’s message to me from the grave was almost impossible to exaggerate. On a personal level I took it to mean that Golda wanted me to know that she was not actually as deluded as I might have imagined her to be on account of her denial, while she lived, of the existence of the Palestinians as a people with rights and an irrefutable claim for justice.
Put another way, she was acknowledging the difference between, on the one hand, Israel’s propaganda – the myth Zionism created to fool the world and comfort itself and, on the other hand, what she knew to be true. In effect and posthumously Mother Israel was admitting that the creation of the Zionist state had required the doing of an injustice to the Palestinians, and that Israel was living a lie.
The problem for Golda’s generation with the truth – the actual existence of the Palestinians – was that it raised fundamental questions about the legality and morality of the Zionist enterprise (her life’s work) and the legitimacy of Israel’s existence. On reflection, and because of her last message to me, I am inclined to the view that Mother Israel went to her grave troubled by the injustice done to the Palestinians in the name of Zionism. She would not have been able to escape the logic of reality and the question it begged. If the Palestinians did not exist – no problem. But if really they did exist – “What have we done?”
The Golda Meir I knew would have asked herself that question when it was obvious – as it was before her death – that the regeneration of Palestinian nationalism was as much a fait accompli as the existence of her state.
As it happened the truth was too uncomfortable for Mother Israel to confront while she lived. That was to be a task for her children. One possible implication of her last message to me was that she wanted them to confront it, by asking themselves what they must do to right the wrong done in Zionism’s name to the Palestinians. Some of my anti-Zionist Jewish friends have said that I have been much too kind to Golda. She was, they insisted, “an unchangeable, Zionist zealot.” They could be right and I could be wrong; but I think I knew Golda better than they did, and I’ll stick with my own interpretation.
Now to my own favourite Arafat story. It’s a good story in its own right but it has a point which I want to develop this evening.
In 1984, shortly after the publication of the first edition of my book Arafat, Terrorist or Peacemaker? I had a call from Tunis.
For those not aware of that book, it was the first ever to tell the true story of the Palestinian struggle from the leadership’s perspective. In addition to Arafat himself, my prime sources were Abu and Um Jihad, Abu Iyad and the Hassan brothers, Khalad and Hani. I spent more than a year virtually living with them and others in the leadership to talk the story out of them.
In that book I came to two main conclusions. The first was that by the end of 1979 (more than three decades ago), Arafat had performed a miracle of leadership by preparing the ground on his side for unthinkable compromise and peace, peace on terms which any rational government and people in Israel would have accepted with relief. The second was that what Arafat needed to emerge as the peacemaker he so much wanted to be was a good faith Israeli negotiating partner.
Back to the call from Tunis. It was from Khalad Hassan. He was Fatah’s intellectual giant on the right. When he thought it necessary, he was fiercely critical of Arafat to his face in private, but nobody did more than Khalad to assist the Chairman to sell the idea of unthinkable compromise with Israel to the PNC.
Khalad said: “Habibi, the Chairman is very, very angry with you.”
I asked why. Khalad replied: “You must come here and find out for yourself.”
So I went to Tunis. I was very aware that Arafat had a terrible tempter and I wasn’t looking forward to be on the receiving end of it. I wondered if our friendship was about to end.
For further background you should know that up to this moment I had enjoyed a very special relationship with the “Old Man”. It started early in 1980 when I became the linkman in a secret, exploratory dialogue between him and Shimon Peres, who was then the leader of Israel’s main opposition Labour Party. The hope everywhere at the time, especially in Jimmy Carter’s White House, was that Peres would win Israel’s next election and deny Menachem Begin, the world’s most successful terrorist leader, a second term as prime minister. President Carter was in despair because he had been prevented by Begin and the Zionist Lobby from bringing Arafat and the PLO into the peace process. Working to a Security Council background briefing, my mission was to try to build a bridge of understanding between Arafat and Peres so that in the event of Peres winning the election and becoming prime minister, he could get into public dialogue with Arafat. When Arafat agreed to participate in what I called a conspiracy for peace, he said this to me: “You must understand that I am putting my life into your hands. If word of this leaks before I have something concrete to show for it, I will be assassinated.”
Some years later I discovered who the assassin would have been. Over lunch in his home, I told Abu Iyad the story of my secret shuttle diplomacy between Arafat and Peres, and I ended by quoting what Arafat had said to me at the start of it – that he would be assassinated if word that he was engaged in dialogue with Peres through me leaked. Abu Iyad said: “He was telling you the truth. I would not have ordered anybody else to shoot him, I would have done it myself, with my own gun.”
The following day I told Arafat what Abu Iyad had said. He gave me a long, hard look. Then, in a very matter of fact voice, he said: “I knew that. Abu Iyad would have been the one to do it.” (For those in this audience who may not be familiar with Fatah and PLO politics in 1980 when I started my secret, shuttle diplomacy, Abu Iyad was then the one in Fatah’s top leadership who believed that Arafat’s decision to continue the struggle by politics and diplomacy alone was wrong).
The full, inside story of my shuttle diplomacy is in the forthcoming Volume 3 of the American edition of Zionism: The Real Enemy of the Jews. To wet your appetite for it, and before I get to the climax of my favourite Arafat story, I’ll tell you another because it illustrates how pragmatic, how flexible and how serious Arafat was in his effort to do business with Israel, in order to get an acceptable minimum of justice for his people.
At a point in my to’ing and fro-ing between Arafat in Beirut and Peres in Tel Aviv, I decided that we had made enough progress to suggest that they should have a secret, face-to-face meeting. I suggested it first to Arafat. (For background I should tell you that he was not consulting any of his leadership colleagues). When I put the idea to him, Arafat had only one question – What, really, were the prospects of Peres winning the next election and becoming prime minister? I said the expectation in Israel was that he would win. The polls were actually giving his Labour Party a more than 20% lead over Begin’s Likud. Arafat then said, “Yes, I’ll meet with him.” He had only one condition. The meeting could not take place “anywhere on Arab soil”. I said that was no problem. I lived in a rural even remote part of southern England and the meeting could take place in my home. Arafat said, “You have tell me only where and when and I’ll be there“.
I returned to Tel Aviv via Cyprus as usual. At the time, and still today, I was convinced that Peres wanted to meet secretly with Arafat, but it was a risk too far for him. Months previously when Peres had agreed to talk to Arafat through me, he had said that if word of what we were doing leaked, he would be destroyed and his party would be annihilated at the next election. But Peres wanted there to be a secret, face-to-face meeting with Arafat. He said he would nominate somebody to represent him. I asked who. Peres thought for a minute or so and then said “Aaron Yariv.” When Golda Meir was prime minister, General Yariv was Israel’s Director of Military Intelligence. I said to Peres: “I’m sure that Arafat knows as well as you do that a number of attempts to kill him were authorized by Yariv when he was DMI. Do you really expect Arafat to meet with him?” Peres replied: “It will be a good test of Arafat’s sincerity. If he agrees to meet with Yariv, I’ll know he is serious.”
Peres then commanded me to meet with Yariv and put the proposition to him. If he gave me a “Yes” in principle, Peres would talk with him and, subject to Arafat’s agreement, the secret meeting would be arranged. Yariv gave me a “Yes” in principle.
Back in Beirut, and somewhat to my astonishment, Arafat didn’t need even a few seconds to consider whether he should or should not meet secretly with the former Israeli DMI who had authorized a number of attempts to kill him. “I have only one condition,” Arafat said to me. “I must be assured that Yariv will be speaking FOR Peres“. What Arafat meant and went on to say was that if he made a deal with Yariv, it could only be on the basis of knowing that Peres would honour it. I said I understood that would be the case.
On my journey back to Tel Aviv I allowed myself to flirt for a few seconds with a fantasy. Was it possible, I wondered, that we were on our way to a Nobel Peace Prize?
As soon as I had checked into my room in the Dan Hotel on Tel Aviv’s beach front, I telephoned retired General Chaim Herzog. He was one of two men advising Peres. At the time Herzog was the Labour Party’s secretary general and running his own import/export business. As the founding father of Israel’s Directorate of Military Intelligence, Herzog was already an Israeli legend. He went on to become Israel’s ambassador to the UN and eventually the Zionist state’s president. We were good friends and the reason why I was well informed about what was happening in Israel in my television reporting days is that Herzog was my journalistic deep-throat. On the ‘phone I said to him: “My Arab friend WILL meet with Yariv.” Herzog was obviously excited. He said: “We’re cooking on gas. Go tell Yariv. I’ll brief Shimon.”
Yariv listened to my report of my last meeting with Arafat in complete silence. When I stopped talking, he said: “I’m sorry. I can’t meet with Arafat.” He was obviously very embarrassed.
At this point ladies and gentlemen, and because I want to tell you exactly what happened next, I must ask you, please, to forgive my language. I did an Arafat (and a Begin). I lost my temper. I shouted at Yariv: “We’re not playing fucking games! What the hell is going on?” And I demanded an explanation. His answer was pathetic to say the least. “I didn’t think you’d persuade Arafat to meet with me,” he said. What he meant but didn’t say is that while I was in Beirut getting Arafat’s “Yes”, he, Yariv, had changed his mind and was hoping that Arafat would say “No” so that I could blame Arafat and not him.
I asked Herzog to investigate why, really, Yariv had changed his mind. When he reported back to me, Herzog said I should have a little sympathy for Yariv. While I was away in Beirut, he had done some re-thinking and came to the conclusion that if he met with Arafat, and if word of the meeting leaked, Prime Minister Begin would make an example of him and, as Yariv had put it to Herzog, “He might even have me hanged as a traitor.”
That was not the end of the matter, but to find out how it ended you’ll have to read my book.
Back now to my favourite Arafat story.
When I arrived in Tunis to find out why he was “very, very angry” with me, he was having a meeting with his headquarters staff. When they left his office, a bodyguard who knew me well gestured for me to enter and closed the door behind me. As usual it was just the two of us. Arafat was sitting at his desk, head down, rapidly reading and signing papers. For five very long minutes he didn’t look up or in any way acknowledge my presence. He was ignoring me completely. That was most unusual because Arafat by nature was a most courteous man. (If you were his guest for a meal, he would insist that you sat next to him and would personally serve you from the dishes on the table).
I refused to be intimidated and sat myself down in a chair opposite him. I noticed that my book was open on his desk.
Eventually, Arafat looked up and jabbed an accusing finger at me. With real anger in his voice and flashing in his eyes, he said: “You have made very big troubles for me!” I asked him how. He picked up my open book and read aloud a sentence of what I had quoted him as saying to me: The sentence was:
“Being the Chairman of the PLO is like being the only male customer in a brothel of 22 whores“.
Arafat pronounced the word “hoarez”, but whichever way you pronounced it, there was no getting away from the implication. When he first spoke those words, Arafat was telling me that he and his people were being screwed by each and all of the leaders and governments of the 22 states of the Arab League.
I said: “But Abu Amar, you DID say that to me and it IS true!” If he was going to deny saying it, I was going to remind him of where and when he said it. Something, perhaps it was my response, caused his anger to vanish. He relaxed and then said: “Yes, yes, yes, I DID say it. And yes, yes, yes, it IS true.” Pause. “But you shouldn’t have quoted me. You should have said it was your understanding of my thinking. Then I could have denied it. Now I can’t.”
And that was that. We were still friends.
Still today I think there is no better way of pointing to a truth of history than with the words I quoted Arafat as saying and which he did not deny. That truth can be summarised as follows.
More by default than design, the divided and impotent regimes of a mainly corrupt and oppressive Arab Order betrayed the Palestinians. After the first Zionist fait accompli in 1948, the Arab regimes secretly shared the same hope as all the major powers and Zionism. It was that the Palestine file would remain closed forever. (It had been closed not only by Israel’s victory on the battlefield, but also Jordan’s annexation of the West Bank including East Jerusalem to prevent Zionism grabbing it, and Eygpt’s taking of the Gaza Strip). There was not supposed to be a re-generation of Palestinian nationalism. In the script written by Zionism, and endorsed by all the major powers and the Arab regimes, the Palestinians were supposed to accept their lot as the sacrificial lamb on the altar of political expediency.
In that context it can be said that Arafat’s real crime in the eyes of all who demonized him was causing the Palestine file to be re-opened. After that it was what I have already described as the incredible, almost superhuman steadfastness of the occupied and oppressed Palestinians that guaranteed it could never be closed again – unless Zionism’s in-Israel leaders resort to a final round of ethnic cleansing and are allowed to get away with it.
By now even those of you who are not familiar with my books and other writings will be aware that I am a fierce critic of Zionism, the governments of all the major powers and the regimes of an impotent Arab Order. But that is not a complete list of my crimes. I am also a critic of diaspora Palestinian and almost all other Arab (and non-Arab) activist groups everywhere. At the risk of offending some and perhaps many in this audience, and even further afield, I’m going to tell you why.
As I see it, almost all activist groups are doing their own little things in splendid isolation, and in doing them they demonstrate to me that they have little or no understanding of the strategic essence of what must be done if Zionism is to be successfully confronted and defeated. (If you asked what I would regard as defeat for Zionism, my answer would be the de-Zionisation of Palestine).
My main point is this. While it is true that the incredible, almost superhuman steadfastness of the occupied and oppressed Palestinians is the rock on which all of us who campaign for justice stand, the struggle is not going to be won or lost IN Palestine that became Israel. It’s going to be won or lost HERE IN AMERICA.
In my analysis (and leaving aside the impotence of the regimes of the existing Arab Order) there are three political realities to be faced.
The first is that is that Zionism’s in-Israel leaders are not interested in peace on terms virtually all Palestinians and most other Arabs and Muslims everywhere could accept.
The second is that only an American President has the leverage required to cause – or try to cause – enough Israelis to be serious about peace on the basis of an acceptable amount of justice for the Palestinians. (The leaders and governments of other major powers also have leverage, but they won’t think of using it unless America takes the lead).
The third is that no American President is going to use the leverage he has unless and until he is PUSHED to do so by informed public opinion, by expressions of real democracy in action. In other words, for peace to have a real and I believe last chance, a constituency of understanding has got to be created here in America to enable the President to break the Zionist lobby’s stranglehold on Congress. (As I put it in the Epilogue to the forthcoming Volume 3 of the American edition of this book, in order to use the leverage he has to require Israel to be serious about peace, the President needs enough members of Congress to be more frightened of offending their voters than they are of offending the Zionist lobby in all of its manifestations).
As I dared to suggest in my Dear America Introduction to Volume One of this book, the problem in America is that most Americans are too uninformed and mis-informed TO DO THE PUSHING and make their democracy work. Simply stated, most Americans, like most Westerners, have been conditioned to accept a version of history, Zionism’s version, which is not true. It is, quite simply, a pack of propaganda lies.
The biggest of all the lies is the assertion that poor little Israel has lived in constant danger of annihilation – the “driving into the sea” of its Jews. As I document in detail through the three volumes of this book, Israel’s existence has never, ever, been in danger from any combination of Arab force. Not in 1948. Not in 1967. And not even in 1973. Despite some stupid rhetoric that suggested otherwise and assisted Zionism to get away with the Mother and Father of its propaganda lies, the Arab regimes never, ever, had any intention of fighting Israel to liberate Palestine. Zionism’s assertion to the contrary was the cover that allowed Israel to get away where it mattered most – in America and Western Europe – with presenting its aggression as self-defense and itself as the victim when actually it was and is the oppressor.
I bring the Prologue to Volume 1 of the American edition of this book to a conclusion by quoting an Israeli I admire – Major General Shlomo Gazit. He was the best and the brightest of Israel’s Directors of Military Intelligence. He was also one of the two who were advising Peres when I was shuttling between him and Arafat. Over coffee one morning I said to Shlomo: “I’ve come to the conclusion that it’s all a myth. Israel’s existence has never, ever, been in danger.” Through a sad smile, he replied: “The trouble with us Israelis is that we’ve become the victims of our own propaganda.”
The biggest of the supporting Zionist propaganda lies was the assertion that Israel had no Arab partners for peace. As I’ve already said, and you know, Arafat had prepared the ground on his side for peace with Israel by the end of 1979. But there were a number of Arab overtures for peace long before that. I’ll mention just one. From almost the moment he came to power in Eygpt in 1951, Nasser wanted an accommodation with Israel. So much so that he had secret exchanges with Israel’s then foreign minister, Moshe Sharret. In my view Sharret was the only completely sane Israeli leader of his time. It was because he wanted to be serious about advancing a peace process with Nasser that he was destroyed by Ben-Gurion… The documented record is quite clear. It was Israel’s leaders NOT the Arabs who spurned opportunity after opportunity for peace.
Now to what I believe is the real significance of the truth of history as it relates to the making and sustaining of the conflict in and over Palestine that became Israel. It is THE KEY to creating the constituency of understanding needed here in America to create the space to enable a president to break the Zionist lobby’s stranglehold on Congress.. Put another way, it is only when enough Americans are informed about the truth of history that there will be – perhaps I should say could be – sufficient pressure on Congress for an end to US support for Israel right or wrong.
Question: Why is it that still today most Americans are ignorant of the truth of history?
A large part of the answer is that the mainstream media still prefers to peddle Zionist propaganda. But in my view the ignorance is also evidence of the FAILURE TO DATE OF ACTIVIST GROUPS OF ALL FAITHS AND NONE. Yes, it’s important to draw attention to what’s happening in Israel/Palestine today and to protest against Israel’s violations of human rights and international law. Yes, it’s important to assist the occupied and oppressed Palestinians to remain steadfast and go on surviving. And yes, it’s important to campaign for boycott, divestment and sanctions. But none of this campaigning is going to result in a fundamental change of U.S. policy so long as most Americans remain ignorant of the truth of history and how much they have been conned by Zionist propaganda.
The conclusion invited, or so I believe, is that IT’S TIME FOR ACTIVIST GROUPS TO GIVE PRIORITY TO DEVISING AND IMPLEMENTING A STRATEGY FOR INFORMING AND EDUCATING AMERICANS ABOUT THE TRUTH OF HISTORY, and therefore who must do what and why if this conflict is not to end in catastrophe for all; and by all I don’t just mean the Arabs and Jews of the region, I mean all of us everywhere. The essence of the campaign message would be something like – “Fellow Americans, almost everything you’ve been conditioned to believe about the making and sustaining of this conflict is not true.”
I devoted more than five years of my life to researching and writing the original version of this epic book. My purpose was to provide a powerful weapon to make winning the war for truth possible. The book is about much more than is suggested by its title, Zionism: The Real Enemy of the Jews. (A longer version of the title could be – It isn’t the Arabs who are the real enemy of the Jews, it’s Zionism’s brutal and increasingly Nazi-like colonial enterprise).
Updated to President Obama’s surrender to the Zionist lobby, it’s the first ever book tell the complete story of the making and sustaining of the conflict replacing Zionist mythology with the documented facts and truth of history. And the story as I tell it is not confined to events in the region. I’ve given those events global context, meaning that I take my readers behind closed doors in London, Paris, Washington and Moscow. With this book you can start out knowing nothing worth knowing about the conflict, which sadly is the position of most Americans, and end up seeing how all the pieces of the most complicated jig-saw puzzle fit together. Simply stated, this book enables all readers – almost all of them for the first time ever – to make sense of what is happening and why.
If I had written a pro-Zionist book, I would have had wealthy Jews throwing money at me for promotion of all kinds. My experience to date is that wealthy Arabs, including wealthy Palestinians, are frightened of offending Zionism to assist my efforts to make informed and honest debate possible.
I also think that like most activist groups they have no understanding of how you change lobby-driven government policies in the so-called democratic nations. There is only one way to do it – by informing and educating the citizens, the voters, empowering them to make democracy work and call and hold their leaders to account. When enough citizens want something done, governments have to do it.
So I’m asking you tonight to make good use of my book and become actively engaged in the process of educating your fellow Americans to make democracy work. I am, of course, aware that there is a reason why some and perhaps many Arab and other Muslim Americans think that’s too dangerous and that they should keep their heads down and their mouths shut, in order, as they see it, to protect themselves, their families, their careers and their businesses. The reason is that the monster of Islamophobia is on the prowl in America (as it is in Europe) and licking its lips.
But backing away from this monster is not the way for American and other Western Arabs and other Muslims to protect their own best interests. The best way, I say, is for them to play their ACE card.
What is that? I call it the Patriot Card. Regardless of ethnicity, the one thing above all others that Americans are required to demonstrate in order to be regarded by their fellow citizens as safe and sound is patriotism. Hold on to that thought while I make this short statement.
The best recruiting sergeant for violent Islamic fundamentalism in all of its manifestations everywhere is the double-standard of American-led, Western foreign policy, particularly as it relates to the conflict in and over Palestine that became Israel. General Petraeus, and apparently President Obama, now accept that support for the Zionist state of Israel right or wrong, is NOT in America’s best interests and is damaging them.
By helping your fellow Americans to understand this, you would not only be presenting yourselves as real patriots and therefore best protecting your own interests, you would be helping to expose supporters of Israel right or wrong for what they are – brainwashed, deluded and plain wrong at best, and a threat to real national interests at worst. Some would even call them “traitors”.
I’ll close by reading the first sentence of Volume 1 of the American edition of my book and adding a comment.
“Dear Americans, If all of our children, wherever they live, are to have even the prospect of a future worth having, the world needs America’s best, not what it had under the neo-conned regime of President George “Dubya” Bush – its worst.”
My appeal to you this evening is this. If you really care about stopping the final ethnic cleansing of Palestine, keeping hope for justice and peace alive, and best protecting America’s own real interests, become engaged in the war for truth and justice and play your necessary part in helping to bring out the best of America.
Thank you.
If you liked this post, then...
* Share it with others using this button: Bookmark and Share
* Comment on it using the form below.
* Subscribe to my blog via email or RSS to get "new post" alerts.
* Follow me on Twitter (@alanauthor).
The following is the text of my address to the Annual Nakba Commemoration Dinner, Dearborn, on 15 May 2010. (Video will be posted as soon as possible.)
I’m delighted to be with you on this most significant anniversary, and I want to begin with a very simple statement: In my view Nakba Denial – the denial by all supporters of Israel right or wrong of Zionist ethnic cleansing – is as obscene and as evil, repeat EVIL, as denial of the Nazi holocaust.
But today is not just about remembering what started to happen in Palestine that became Israel 63 years ago. It’s also about saluting the incredible, almost superhuman steadfastness of the occupied and oppressed Palestinians. The Victory sign is only a gesture but I ask you to join me in making it and say after me, “Palestinians of the occupied West Bank and blockaded Gaza Strip, we are with you!”
If one reversed the “V” sign as Winston Churchill sometimes did, one could say it was an appropriate gesture to Prime Minister Netanyahu. He would not have cause for complaint because it’s a gesture he frequently makes to President Obama.
I also want you to know why the occupied and oppressed Palestinians have a special place in my heart as well as my mind. It’s not just that they are the party with right on their side in arguably the most epic might v right struggle in all of history…. If there is one people on earth that ought to have been de-humanized by what has been done to them, it’s the occupied and oppressed Palestinians. They have NOT been de-humanized, but their Zionist oppressors have been, de-humanized by their racist thinking, their insufferable self-righteousness, their contempt for Judaism’s moral values and ethical principles as well as international law, and their criminal actions. Today I go as far as describing Israel’s extreme right wingers as Nazi-like.
For some light relief, and also some rare insight, I’ll now tell you my own favourite stories about the two greatest opposites in all of history – Yasser Arafat, Father Palestine, and Golda Meir, Mother Israel. I think I am probably the only person on Planet Earth who enjoyed intimate access to, and on the human level friendship with, both of them.
One of my most treasured souvenirs from my television reporting days is a signed picture of Golda when she was prime minister. The inscription in her own hand is – “To a good friend, Alan Hart.” Because I am a goy, that meant a lot to me. The picture is on my web site and it’s the first one in my latest book. I have also used it as a protective shield. In the late 1980’s when I lectured and debated coast-to-coast across America and Canada, I had the picture with me. When I was accused of anti-Semitism, I would hold up the picture, read out Golda’s inscription, and say to my accuser – “Do you think that old lady was so stupid that she couldn’t have seen through me if I was anti-Jew!” That always won me the applause of the audience and its contempt for my accuser.
When Golda died I went to Israel as a private citizen to say my last goodbye to her. After the burial ceremony on Mount Herzl, I was watching Prime Minster Begin and his ministers leaving. There was a tap on my shoulder. It was Lou Kadar, a very bright and witty lady of French origin who was Golda’s lifelong best friend and confidant. Lou said: “Alan, please come back to my apartment for a drink. There’s something I MUST tell you.” Over a glass of chilled white wine, Lou asked me a question: “Do you remember that BBC Panorama interview you did with Golda in which said the Palestinians did not exist?” I said to Lou: “Not only do I remember, the whole world remembers because it was Golda speaking on film.” (The full quote was: “There is no such thing as a Palestinian. It’s not as though we came and took their land from them. They didn’t exist.”) Lou then said:
“Golda made me promise to tell you, but not until she was dead, that as soon as those words left her lips, she knew they were ‘the silliest damn thing she had ever said!‘”
When I started to write Zionism: The Real Enemy of the Jews, I thought that the significance of Golda’s message to me from the grave was almost impossible to exaggerate. On a personal level I took it to mean that Golda wanted me to know that she was not actually as deluded as I might have imagined her to be on account of her denial, while she lived, of the existence of the Palestinians as a people with rights and an irrefutable claim for justice.
Put another way, she was acknowledging the difference between, on the one hand, Israel’s propaganda – the myth Zionism created to fool the world and comfort itself and, on the other hand, what she knew to be true. In effect and posthumously Mother Israel was admitting that the creation of the Zionist state had required the doing of an injustice to the Palestinians, and that Israel was living a lie.
The problem for Golda’s generation with the truth – the actual existence of the Palestinians – was that it raised fundamental questions about the legality and morality of the Zionist enterprise (her life’s work) and the legitimacy of Israel’s existence. On reflection, and because of her last message to me, I am inclined to the view that Mother Israel went to her grave troubled by the injustice done to the Palestinians in the name of Zionism. She would not have been able to escape the logic of reality and the question it begged. If the Palestinians did not exist – no problem. But if really they did exist – “What have we done?”
The Golda Meir I knew would have asked herself that question when it was obvious – as it was before her death – that the regeneration of Palestinian nationalism was as much a fait accompli as the existence of her state.
As it happened the truth was too uncomfortable for Mother Israel to confront while she lived. That was to be a task for her children. One possible implication of her last message to me was that she wanted them to confront it, by asking themselves what they must do to right the wrong done in Zionism’s name to the Palestinians. Some of my anti-Zionist Jewish friends have said that I have been much too kind to Golda. She was, they insisted, “an unchangeable, Zionist zealot.” They could be right and I could be wrong; but I think I knew Golda better than they did, and I’ll stick with my own interpretation.
Now to my own favourite Arafat story. It’s a good story in its own right but it has a point which I want to develop this evening.
In 1984, shortly after the publication of the first edition of my book Arafat, Terrorist or Peacemaker? I had a call from Tunis.
For those not aware of that book, it was the first ever to tell the true story of the Palestinian struggle from the leadership’s perspective. In addition to Arafat himself, my prime sources were Abu and Um Jihad, Abu Iyad and the Hassan brothers, Khalad and Hani. I spent more than a year virtually living with them and others in the leadership to talk the story out of them.
In that book I came to two main conclusions. The first was that by the end of 1979 (more than three decades ago), Arafat had performed a miracle of leadership by preparing the ground on his side for unthinkable compromise and peace, peace on terms which any rational government and people in Israel would have accepted with relief. The second was that what Arafat needed to emerge as the peacemaker he so much wanted to be was a good faith Israeli negotiating partner.
Back to the call from Tunis. It was from Khalad Hassan. He was Fatah’s intellectual giant on the right. When he thought it necessary, he was fiercely critical of Arafat to his face in private, but nobody did more than Khalad to assist the Chairman to sell the idea of unthinkable compromise with Israel to the PNC.
Khalad said: “Habibi, the Chairman is very, very angry with you.”
I asked why. Khalad replied: “You must come here and find out for yourself.”
So I went to Tunis. I was very aware that Arafat had a terrible tempter and I wasn’t looking forward to be on the receiving end of it. I wondered if our friendship was about to end.
For further background you should know that up to this moment I had enjoyed a very special relationship with the “Old Man”. It started early in 1980 when I became the linkman in a secret, exploratory dialogue between him and Shimon Peres, who was then the leader of Israel’s main opposition Labour Party. The hope everywhere at the time, especially in Jimmy Carter’s White House, was that Peres would win Israel’s next election and deny Menachem Begin, the world’s most successful terrorist leader, a second term as prime minister. President Carter was in despair because he had been prevented by Begin and the Zionist Lobby from bringing Arafat and the PLO into the peace process. Working to a Security Council background briefing, my mission was to try to build a bridge of understanding between Arafat and Peres so that in the event of Peres winning the election and becoming prime minister, he could get into public dialogue with Arafat. When Arafat agreed to participate in what I called a conspiracy for peace, he said this to me: “You must understand that I am putting my life into your hands. If word of this leaks before I have something concrete to show for it, I will be assassinated.”
Some years later I discovered who the assassin would have been. Over lunch in his home, I told Abu Iyad the story of my secret shuttle diplomacy between Arafat and Peres, and I ended by quoting what Arafat had said to me at the start of it – that he would be assassinated if word that he was engaged in dialogue with Peres through me leaked. Abu Iyad said: “He was telling you the truth. I would not have ordered anybody else to shoot him, I would have done it myself, with my own gun.”
The following day I told Arafat what Abu Iyad had said. He gave me a long, hard look. Then, in a very matter of fact voice, he said: “I knew that. Abu Iyad would have been the one to do it.” (For those in this audience who may not be familiar with Fatah and PLO politics in 1980 when I started my secret, shuttle diplomacy, Abu Iyad was then the one in Fatah’s top leadership who believed that Arafat’s decision to continue the struggle by politics and diplomacy alone was wrong).
The full, inside story of my shuttle diplomacy is in the forthcoming Volume 3 of the American edition of Zionism: The Real Enemy of the Jews. To wet your appetite for it, and before I get to the climax of my favourite Arafat story, I’ll tell you another because it illustrates how pragmatic, how flexible and how serious Arafat was in his effort to do business with Israel, in order to get an acceptable minimum of justice for his people.
At a point in my to’ing and fro-ing between Arafat in Beirut and Peres in Tel Aviv, I decided that we had made enough progress to suggest that they should have a secret, face-to-face meeting. I suggested it first to Arafat. (For background I should tell you that he was not consulting any of his leadership colleagues). When I put the idea to him, Arafat had only one question – What, really, were the prospects of Peres winning the next election and becoming prime minister? I said the expectation in Israel was that he would win. The polls were actually giving his Labour Party a more than 20% lead over Begin’s Likud. Arafat then said, “Yes, I’ll meet with him.” He had only one condition. The meeting could not take place “anywhere on Arab soil”. I said that was no problem. I lived in a rural even remote part of southern England and the meeting could take place in my home. Arafat said, “You have tell me only where and when and I’ll be there“.
I returned to Tel Aviv via Cyprus as usual. At the time, and still today, I was convinced that Peres wanted to meet secretly with Arafat, but it was a risk too far for him. Months previously when Peres had agreed to talk to Arafat through me, he had said that if word of what we were doing leaked, he would be destroyed and his party would be annihilated at the next election. But Peres wanted there to be a secret, face-to-face meeting with Arafat. He said he would nominate somebody to represent him. I asked who. Peres thought for a minute or so and then said “Aaron Yariv.” When Golda Meir was prime minister, General Yariv was Israel’s Director of Military Intelligence. I said to Peres: “I’m sure that Arafat knows as well as you do that a number of attempts to kill him were authorized by Yariv when he was DMI. Do you really expect Arafat to meet with him?” Peres replied: “It will be a good test of Arafat’s sincerity. If he agrees to meet with Yariv, I’ll know he is serious.”
Peres then commanded me to meet with Yariv and put the proposition to him. If he gave me a “Yes” in principle, Peres would talk with him and, subject to Arafat’s agreement, the secret meeting would be arranged. Yariv gave me a “Yes” in principle.
Back in Beirut, and somewhat to my astonishment, Arafat didn’t need even a few seconds to consider whether he should or should not meet secretly with the former Israeli DMI who had authorized a number of attempts to kill him. “I have only one condition,” Arafat said to me. “I must be assured that Yariv will be speaking FOR Peres“. What Arafat meant and went on to say was that if he made a deal with Yariv, it could only be on the basis of knowing that Peres would honour it. I said I understood that would be the case.
On my journey back to Tel Aviv I allowed myself to flirt for a few seconds with a fantasy. Was it possible, I wondered, that we were on our way to a Nobel Peace Prize?
As soon as I had checked into my room in the Dan Hotel on Tel Aviv’s beach front, I telephoned retired General Chaim Herzog. He was one of two men advising Peres. At the time Herzog was the Labour Party’s secretary general and running his own import/export business. As the founding father of Israel’s Directorate of Military Intelligence, Herzog was already an Israeli legend. He went on to become Israel’s ambassador to the UN and eventually the Zionist state’s president. We were good friends and the reason why I was well informed about what was happening in Israel in my television reporting days is that Herzog was my journalistic deep-throat. On the ‘phone I said to him: “My Arab friend WILL meet with Yariv.” Herzog was obviously excited. He said: “We’re cooking on gas. Go tell Yariv. I’ll brief Shimon.”
Yariv listened to my report of my last meeting with Arafat in complete silence. When I stopped talking, he said: “I’m sorry. I can’t meet with Arafat.” He was obviously very embarrassed.
At this point ladies and gentlemen, and because I want to tell you exactly what happened next, I must ask you, please, to forgive my language. I did an Arafat (and a Begin). I lost my temper. I shouted at Yariv: “We’re not playing fucking games! What the hell is going on?” And I demanded an explanation. His answer was pathetic to say the least. “I didn’t think you’d persuade Arafat to meet with me,” he said. What he meant but didn’t say is that while I was in Beirut getting Arafat’s “Yes”, he, Yariv, had changed his mind and was hoping that Arafat would say “No” so that I could blame Arafat and not him.
I asked Herzog to investigate why, really, Yariv had changed his mind. When he reported back to me, Herzog said I should have a little sympathy for Yariv. While I was away in Beirut, he had done some re-thinking and came to the conclusion that if he met with Arafat, and if word of the meeting leaked, Prime Minister Begin would make an example of him and, as Yariv had put it to Herzog, “He might even have me hanged as a traitor.”
That was not the end of the matter, but to find out how it ended you’ll have to read my book.
Back now to my favourite Arafat story.
When I arrived in Tunis to find out why he was “very, very angry” with me, he was having a meeting with his headquarters staff. When they left his office, a bodyguard who knew me well gestured for me to enter and closed the door behind me. As usual it was just the two of us. Arafat was sitting at his desk, head down, rapidly reading and signing papers. For five very long minutes he didn’t look up or in any way acknowledge my presence. He was ignoring me completely. That was most unusual because Arafat by nature was a most courteous man. (If you were his guest for a meal, he would insist that you sat next to him and would personally serve you from the dishes on the table).
I refused to be intimidated and sat myself down in a chair opposite him. I noticed that my book was open on his desk.
Eventually, Arafat looked up and jabbed an accusing finger at me. With real anger in his voice and flashing in his eyes, he said: “You have made very big troubles for me!” I asked him how. He picked up my open book and read aloud a sentence of what I had quoted him as saying to me: The sentence was:
“Being the Chairman of the PLO is like being the only male customer in a brothel of 22 whores“.
Arafat pronounced the word “hoarez”, but whichever way you pronounced it, there was no getting away from the implication. When he first spoke those words, Arafat was telling me that he and his people were being screwed by each and all of the leaders and governments of the 22 states of the Arab League.
I said: “But Abu Amar, you DID say that to me and it IS true!” If he was going to deny saying it, I was going to remind him of where and when he said it. Something, perhaps it was my response, caused his anger to vanish. He relaxed and then said: “Yes, yes, yes, I DID say it. And yes, yes, yes, it IS true.” Pause. “But you shouldn’t have quoted me. You should have said it was your understanding of my thinking. Then I could have denied it. Now I can’t.”
And that was that. We were still friends.
Still today I think there is no better way of pointing to a truth of history than with the words I quoted Arafat as saying and which he did not deny. That truth can be summarised as follows.
More by default than design, the divided and impotent regimes of a mainly corrupt and oppressive Arab Order betrayed the Palestinians. After the first Zionist fait accompli in 1948, the Arab regimes secretly shared the same hope as all the major powers and Zionism. It was that the Palestine file would remain closed forever. (It had been closed not only by Israel’s victory on the battlefield, but also Jordan’s annexation of the West Bank including East Jerusalem to prevent Zionism grabbing it, and Eygpt’s taking of the Gaza Strip). There was not supposed to be a re-generation of Palestinian nationalism. In the script written by Zionism, and endorsed by all the major powers and the Arab regimes, the Palestinians were supposed to accept their lot as the sacrificial lamb on the altar of political expediency.
In that context it can be said that Arafat’s real crime in the eyes of all who demonized him was causing the Palestine file to be re-opened. After that it was what I have already described as the incredible, almost superhuman steadfastness of the occupied and oppressed Palestinians that guaranteed it could never be closed again – unless Zionism’s in-Israel leaders resort to a final round of ethnic cleansing and are allowed to get away with it.
By now even those of you who are not familiar with my books and other writings will be aware that I am a fierce critic of Zionism, the governments of all the major powers and the regimes of an impotent Arab Order. But that is not a complete list of my crimes. I am also a critic of diaspora Palestinian and almost all other Arab (and non-Arab) activist groups everywhere. At the risk of offending some and perhaps many in this audience, and even further afield, I’m going to tell you why.
As I see it, almost all activist groups are doing their own little things in splendid isolation, and in doing them they demonstrate to me that they have little or no understanding of the strategic essence of what must be done if Zionism is to be successfully confronted and defeated. (If you asked what I would regard as defeat for Zionism, my answer would be the de-Zionisation of Palestine).
My main point is this. While it is true that the incredible, almost superhuman steadfastness of the occupied and oppressed Palestinians is the rock on which all of us who campaign for justice stand, the struggle is not going to be won or lost IN Palestine that became Israel. It’s going to be won or lost HERE IN AMERICA.
In my analysis (and leaving aside the impotence of the regimes of the existing Arab Order) there are three political realities to be faced.
The first is that is that Zionism’s in-Israel leaders are not interested in peace on terms virtually all Palestinians and most other Arabs and Muslims everywhere could accept.
The second is that only an American President has the leverage required to cause – or try to cause – enough Israelis to be serious about peace on the basis of an acceptable amount of justice for the Palestinians. (The leaders and governments of other major powers also have leverage, but they won’t think of using it unless America takes the lead).
The third is that no American President is going to use the leverage he has unless and until he is PUSHED to do so by informed public opinion, by expressions of real democracy in action. In other words, for peace to have a real and I believe last chance, a constituency of understanding has got to be created here in America to enable the President to break the Zionist lobby’s stranglehold on Congress. (As I put it in the Epilogue to the forthcoming Volume 3 of the American edition of this book, in order to use the leverage he has to require Israel to be serious about peace, the President needs enough members of Congress to be more frightened of offending their voters than they are of offending the Zionist lobby in all of its manifestations).
As I dared to suggest in my Dear America Introduction to Volume One of this book, the problem in America is that most Americans are too uninformed and mis-informed TO DO THE PUSHING and make their democracy work. Simply stated, most Americans, like most Westerners, have been conditioned to accept a version of history, Zionism’s version, which is not true. It is, quite simply, a pack of propaganda lies.
The biggest of all the lies is the assertion that poor little Israel has lived in constant danger of annihilation – the “driving into the sea” of its Jews. As I document in detail through the three volumes of this book, Israel’s existence has never, ever, been in danger from any combination of Arab force. Not in 1948. Not in 1967. And not even in 1973. Despite some stupid rhetoric that suggested otherwise and assisted Zionism to get away with the Mother and Father of its propaganda lies, the Arab regimes never, ever, had any intention of fighting Israel to liberate Palestine. Zionism’s assertion to the contrary was the cover that allowed Israel to get away where it mattered most – in America and Western Europe – with presenting its aggression as self-defense and itself as the victim when actually it was and is the oppressor.
I bring the Prologue to Volume 1 of the American edition of this book to a conclusion by quoting an Israeli I admire – Major General Shlomo Gazit. He was the best and the brightest of Israel’s Directors of Military Intelligence. He was also one of the two who were advising Peres when I was shuttling between him and Arafat. Over coffee one morning I said to Shlomo: “I’ve come to the conclusion that it’s all a myth. Israel’s existence has never, ever, been in danger.” Through a sad smile, he replied: “The trouble with us Israelis is that we’ve become the victims of our own propaganda.”
The biggest of the supporting Zionist propaganda lies was the assertion that Israel had no Arab partners for peace. As I’ve already said, and you know, Arafat had prepared the ground on his side for peace with Israel by the end of 1979. But there were a number of Arab overtures for peace long before that. I’ll mention just one. From almost the moment he came to power in Eygpt in 1951, Nasser wanted an accommodation with Israel. So much so that he had secret exchanges with Israel’s then foreign minister, Moshe Sharret. In my view Sharret was the only completely sane Israeli leader of his time. It was because he wanted to be serious about advancing a peace process with Nasser that he was destroyed by Ben-Gurion… The documented record is quite clear. It was Israel’s leaders NOT the Arabs who spurned opportunity after opportunity for peace.
Now to what I believe is the real significance of the truth of history as it relates to the making and sustaining of the conflict in and over Palestine that became Israel. It is THE KEY to creating the constituency of understanding needed here in America to create the space to enable a president to break the Zionist lobby’s stranglehold on Congress.. Put another way, it is only when enough Americans are informed about the truth of history that there will be – perhaps I should say could be – sufficient pressure on Congress for an end to US support for Israel right or wrong.
Question: Why is it that still today most Americans are ignorant of the truth of history?
A large part of the answer is that the mainstream media still prefers to peddle Zionist propaganda. But in my view the ignorance is also evidence of the FAILURE TO DATE OF ACTIVIST GROUPS OF ALL FAITHS AND NONE. Yes, it’s important to draw attention to what’s happening in Israel/Palestine today and to protest against Israel’s violations of human rights and international law. Yes, it’s important to assist the occupied and oppressed Palestinians to remain steadfast and go on surviving. And yes, it’s important to campaign for boycott, divestment and sanctions. But none of this campaigning is going to result in a fundamental change of U.S. policy so long as most Americans remain ignorant of the truth of history and how much they have been conned by Zionist propaganda.
The conclusion invited, or so I believe, is that IT’S TIME FOR ACTIVIST GROUPS TO GIVE PRIORITY TO DEVISING AND IMPLEMENTING A STRATEGY FOR INFORMING AND EDUCATING AMERICANS ABOUT THE TRUTH OF HISTORY, and therefore who must do what and why if this conflict is not to end in catastrophe for all; and by all I don’t just mean the Arabs and Jews of the region, I mean all of us everywhere. The essence of the campaign message would be something like – “Fellow Americans, almost everything you’ve been conditioned to believe about the making and sustaining of this conflict is not true.”
I devoted more than five years of my life to researching and writing the original version of this epic book. My purpose was to provide a powerful weapon to make winning the war for truth possible. The book is about much more than is suggested by its title, Zionism: The Real Enemy of the Jews. (A longer version of the title could be – It isn’t the Arabs who are the real enemy of the Jews, it’s Zionism’s brutal and increasingly Nazi-like colonial enterprise).
Updated to President Obama’s surrender to the Zionist lobby, it’s the first ever book tell the complete story of the making and sustaining of the conflict replacing Zionist mythology with the documented facts and truth of history. And the story as I tell it is not confined to events in the region. I’ve given those events global context, meaning that I take my readers behind closed doors in London, Paris, Washington and Moscow. With this book you can start out knowing nothing worth knowing about the conflict, which sadly is the position of most Americans, and end up seeing how all the pieces of the most complicated jig-saw puzzle fit together. Simply stated, this book enables all readers – almost all of them for the first time ever – to make sense of what is happening and why.
If I had written a pro-Zionist book, I would have had wealthy Jews throwing money at me for promotion of all kinds. My experience to date is that wealthy Arabs, including wealthy Palestinians, are frightened of offending Zionism to assist my efforts to make informed and honest debate possible.
I also think that like most activist groups they have no understanding of how you change lobby-driven government policies in the so-called democratic nations. There is only one way to do it – by informing and educating the citizens, the voters, empowering them to make democracy work and call and hold their leaders to account. When enough citizens want something done, governments have to do it.
So I’m asking you tonight to make good use of my book and become actively engaged in the process of educating your fellow Americans to make democracy work. I am, of course, aware that there is a reason why some and perhaps many Arab and other Muslim Americans think that’s too dangerous and that they should keep their heads down and their mouths shut, in order, as they see it, to protect themselves, their families, their careers and their businesses. The reason is that the monster of Islamophobia is on the prowl in America (as it is in Europe) and licking its lips.
But backing away from this monster is not the way for American and other Western Arabs and other Muslims to protect their own best interests. The best way, I say, is for them to play their ACE card.
What is that? I call it the Patriot Card. Regardless of ethnicity, the one thing above all others that Americans are required to demonstrate in order to be regarded by their fellow citizens as safe and sound is patriotism. Hold on to that thought while I make this short statement.
The best recruiting sergeant for violent Islamic fundamentalism in all of its manifestations everywhere is the double-standard of American-led, Western foreign policy, particularly as it relates to the conflict in and over Palestine that became Israel. General Petraeus, and apparently President Obama, now accept that support for the Zionist state of Israel right or wrong, is NOT in America’s best interests and is damaging them.
By helping your fellow Americans to understand this, you would not only be presenting yourselves as real patriots and therefore best protecting your own interests, you would be helping to expose supporters of Israel right or wrong for what they are – brainwashed, deluded and plain wrong at best, and a threat to real national interests at worst. Some would even call them “traitors”.
I’ll close by reading the first sentence of Volume 1 of the American edition of my book and adding a comment.
“Dear Americans, If all of our children, wherever they live, are to have even the prospect of a future worth having, the world needs America’s best, not what it had under the neo-conned regime of President George “Dubya” Bush – its worst.”
My appeal to you this evening is this. If you really care about stopping the final ethnic cleansing of Palestine, keeping hope for justice and peace alive, and best protecting America’s own real interests, become engaged in the war for truth and justice and play your necessary part in helping to bring out the best of America.
Thank you.
If you liked this post, then...
* Share it with others using this button: Bookmark and Share
* Comment on it using the form below.
* Subscribe to my blog via email or RSS to get "new post" alerts.
* Follow me on Twitter (@alanauthor).
Saturday, May 1, 2010
The tragi-comedy of the Arab-Israeli
By Zainab Cheema
Going by contemporary cultural practices, the extinction of a species merits some kind of memorial. Let me specify that by species, I mean in this case a social identity that has been banished to the past tense. After Israel’s April 2010 military order, which is poised to expel thousands of Palestinians from the West Bank and Jerusalem, that species is the Arab-Israeli.
more
Going by contemporary cultural practices, the extinction of a species merits some kind of memorial. Let me specify that by species, I mean in this case a social identity that has been banished to the past tense. After Israel’s April 2010 military order, which is poised to expel thousands of Palestinians from the West Bank and Jerusalem, that species is the Arab-Israeli.
more
Zionist Israel: a colonial settler-squatter entity
Zionist Israel: a colonial settler-squatter entity
By Zafar Bangash
In its long tortuous history, Europe has spawned many demonic ideologies — colonialism, imperialism, nationalism, Fascism, Nazism and Zionism, to name just a few — but while most others have been repudiated, at least theoretically, Zionism is still proclaimed as if it were a badge of honor. It would be difficult to find anyone calling himself a colonialist or imperialist these days, although there are plenty of countries peddling such ideologies under different labels; nor would one find anyone openly proclaiming to be a Fascist or a Nazi. Yet there are plenty of people that proudly claim to be Zionists. They come in all stripes: Jewish, Christian, atheist and (yes) Muslim.
more
By Zafar Bangash
In its long tortuous history, Europe has spawned many demonic ideologies — colonialism, imperialism, nationalism, Fascism, Nazism and Zionism, to name just a few — but while most others have been repudiated, at least theoretically, Zionism is still proclaimed as if it were a badge of honor. It would be difficult to find anyone calling himself a colonialist or imperialist these days, although there are plenty of countries peddling such ideologies under different labels; nor would one find anyone openly proclaiming to be a Fascist or a Nazi. Yet there are plenty of people that proudly claim to be Zionists. They come in all stripes: Jewish, Christian, atheist and (yes) Muslim.
more
Saturday, March 20, 2010
Report from Palestine
An Nabi Salih Friday Demonstration - 19th March 2010
Marie and Gwen arrived at ANS by our regular taxi at 11am and sat with Bushra and Naji Tamimi and family in their garden drinking coffee and reviewing the situation since we were last there 2 weeks ago. We were told that the soldiers had been present in the village for about 2 hours already and before the midday call to prayer 2 sound bombs exploded very close to the house. Soldiers were in the garden of the neighbour’s house belonging to Basem and Nariman Tamimi. It is unusual that aggressive activity began before the demonstration.
As usual we joined the gathering in the village square near the mosque as the men left it after Friday prayers. Young boys led the way carrying a large Palestinian flag between them, and most people were chanting, responding to slogans over a loud hailer. Villagers were joined by an international presence of about 4 Israelis, 3 from ISM and ourselves. This is a relatively low number of internationals. A reporter and cameraman from Ha’aretz were also present. The demonstration got a short distance down the road and some way down the hillside, all the time chanting and clapping, before the teargas started and sound bombs and rubber coated bullets were used. These eventually pushed the bulk of the demonstrators back into the village and others sheltered in the various houses that line the top of the hillside. For the next 4 hours there was a running battle between the shebab and the military.
Injuries and other Violations
We ourselves were witness to 2 woundings: an elderly man was shot in the hand and blood was streaming from it; a young man was knocked unconscious on the road by a rubber bullet which hit him in the neck. However, by the end of the afternoon we received reports of the following incidents:
1. Ellen from ISM was hit early on after being deliberately targeted from less than 4 metres. She was shot in the hand by a rubber-coated bullet and was taken to hospital in Ramallah with a fellow ISM person. She was allowed home after treatment the same day. She has a multiple fracture of the wrist.
2. 2 young men from the village, ( Omar Saleh Tamimi and Amjad Alkhafeez Tamimi) were arrested.
Huwaida Arraf, a Palestinian American and a co-founder of ISM, (female) was also arrested.
3. The house of a 90 year old woman with a heart condition was tear-gassed and she had to be taken to hospital.
4. A young man, Raaft Ahmad was shot in the head with a rubber-coated bullet and taken to hospital in Salfit. His condition was said to be satisfactory.
5. A man of 65 (an American citizen) was shot with a rubber-coated bullet in the stomach and admitted to hospital. Last night some of his olive trees were uprooted.
6. Dudi, an Israeli activist, received 3 rubber-coated bullets in his leg and was taken to hospital in Israel.
7. 10 houses had their windows broken by shooting.
8. Yesterday 2 men from Deir Nidham, Hassan and Jamil, were arrested while out walking.
9. It should be noted that Marie narrowly escaped injury today when she stood in front of a house with hands in the air to protect women and children inside. She was deliberately shot at at short range and within eye contact.
Comments:
Ma’an News Agency has described this week as “the most violent week in the West Bank for many years”. ANS should be seen in the context of major disturbances in Jerusalem and at several major checkpoints. Also today the first demonstrations in Bil’in and Nil’in where internationals were under threat of immediate arrest and deportation if found on site have taken place. These orders were defied but it is too early to assess the new situation.
In addition, it is clear that the violence against the village of ANS is intensifying both in the length of time they are under attack and the intensity of attack.
Written by Gwen
Edited by Marie
19th March 2010
Marie and Gwen arrived at ANS by our regular taxi at 11am and sat with Bushra and Naji Tamimi and family in their garden drinking coffee and reviewing the situation since we were last there 2 weeks ago. We were told that the soldiers had been present in the village for about 2 hours already and before the midday call to prayer 2 sound bombs exploded very close to the house. Soldiers were in the garden of the neighbour’s house belonging to Basem and Nariman Tamimi. It is unusual that aggressive activity began before the demonstration.
As usual we joined the gathering in the village square near the mosque as the men left it after Friday prayers. Young boys led the way carrying a large Palestinian flag between them, and most people were chanting, responding to slogans over a loud hailer. Villagers were joined by an international presence of about 4 Israelis, 3 from ISM and ourselves. This is a relatively low number of internationals. A reporter and cameraman from Ha’aretz were also present. The demonstration got a short distance down the road and some way down the hillside, all the time chanting and clapping, before the teargas started and sound bombs and rubber coated bullets were used. These eventually pushed the bulk of the demonstrators back into the village and others sheltered in the various houses that line the top of the hillside. For the next 4 hours there was a running battle between the shebab and the military.
Injuries and other Violations
We ourselves were witness to 2 woundings: an elderly man was shot in the hand and blood was streaming from it; a young man was knocked unconscious on the road by a rubber bullet which hit him in the neck. However, by the end of the afternoon we received reports of the following incidents:
1. Ellen from ISM was hit early on after being deliberately targeted from less than 4 metres. She was shot in the hand by a rubber-coated bullet and was taken to hospital in Ramallah with a fellow ISM person. She was allowed home after treatment the same day. She has a multiple fracture of the wrist.
2. 2 young men from the village, ( Omar Saleh Tamimi and Amjad Alkhafeez Tamimi) were arrested.
Huwaida Arraf, a Palestinian American and a co-founder of ISM, (female) was also arrested.
3. The house of a 90 year old woman with a heart condition was tear-gassed and she had to be taken to hospital.
4. A young man, Raaft Ahmad was shot in the head with a rubber-coated bullet and taken to hospital in Salfit. His condition was said to be satisfactory.
5. A man of 65 (an American citizen) was shot with a rubber-coated bullet in the stomach and admitted to hospital. Last night some of his olive trees were uprooted.
6. Dudi, an Israeli activist, received 3 rubber-coated bullets in his leg and was taken to hospital in Israel.
7. 10 houses had their windows broken by shooting.
8. Yesterday 2 men from Deir Nidham, Hassan and Jamil, were arrested while out walking.
9. It should be noted that Marie narrowly escaped injury today when she stood in front of a house with hands in the air to protect women and children inside. She was deliberately shot at at short range and within eye contact.
Comments:
Ma’an News Agency has described this week as “the most violent week in the West Bank for many years”. ANS should be seen in the context of major disturbances in Jerusalem and at several major checkpoints. Also today the first demonstrations in Bil’in and Nil’in where internationals were under threat of immediate arrest and deportation if found on site have taken place. These orders were defied but it is too early to assess the new situation.
In addition, it is clear that the violence against the village of ANS is intensifying both in the length of time they are under attack and the intensity of attack.
Written by Gwen
Edited by Marie
19th March 2010
Wednesday, February 3, 2010
“Something very bad happened to Aafia Siddiqui.”
THE PEACE AND JUSTICE FOUNDATION
11006 Veirs Mill Rd, STE L-15, PMB 298
Silver Spring, MD. 20902
SAFAR 1431 A.H.
(February 2, 2010)
Assalaamu Alaikum (Greetings of Peace): Please feel free to forward.
“Something very bad happened to Aafia Siddiqui.”
– defense counsel Linda Moreno, in Monday's closing arguments
The whole thrust of the government’s closing argument against Dr. Aafia Siddiqui, yesterday, was simple: Dr. Siddiqui picked up a M4 rifle and attempted to kill a number of U.S. personnel (FBI and military), in Ghazni, Afghanistan in July 2008.
The heart of the defense’s closing argument was simple as well: There were no bullet holes in the room that matched the caliber of the M4 rifle; no M4 shell casings were found anywhere in the room where the alleged crime took place; no gunshot residue was found on the curtain that Aafia allegedly fired the gun from behind; Aafia’s fingerprints were not found on the weapon; and only Aafia ended up being shot and seriously wounded on that fateful day.
In short, there was no physical evidence whatsoever to support the government’s claims, while there was a mountain of inconsistency in testimony presented by the government’s own witnesses! As I noted in a couple of interviews after exiting the courthouse yesterday, this case against Dr. Aafia Siddiqui will test the power of [malicious] propaganda, and the politics of fear. Why? Because the FACTS (which are in Aafia’s favor) speak for themselves.
Government witnesses in this case reminded me of the many cases that I’ve weighed into in the past involving police brutality (especially where the brutality resulted in the wrongful death of a citizen). I was reminded of the unofficial doctrine of the “thin blue line” (the us against them mentality) within police ranks - which insures the protection of that criminal element that I believe is present within every large, and many small, police departments throughout the U.S.
I sincerely believe that the same corrosive mindset is at work in this particular case. Persons who committed a deadly offense against an innocent woman entered into a conspiracy to cover their asses; and they have the full weight of one of the most power countries in modern history to back them up.
“Something very bad” did indeed happen to Aafia Siddiqui. This young mother, daughter, sister, and committed Muslim became a victim of American Terrorism!
The case is now before the jury. Please keep Aafia Siddiqui in your prayers.
El-Hajj Mauri’ Saalakhan
Some closing thoughts: After exiting the courthouse yesterday (before doing the interviews), I was met with a very pleasant surprise. Br. Shahid Comrade, of Pakistan – USA Freedom Forum, called me over and said he wanted me to speak to someone over the phone. That someone was Dr. Fauzia Siddiqui (Aafia’s sister). We had about 10 minutes of warm conversation. She thanked me for the work, and particularly the writing, that we’ve been doing around her sister’s case; and I asked her how she and other members of her family in Pakistan were holding up.
Although I never met her, I have a special affection for this sister for having the courage and determination to challenge fear and be that strong voice on the home front for her beleaguered sister (and family). I know it hasn’t been easy. There were overt threats hanging over the head of this family in Pakistan for many years; and I feel certain that an atmosphere of intimidation still exists in parts of Pakistan.
Fauzia informed me that Ahmed asks about his mother often; he misses her and hungers to be re-united. It is also my understanding that he is still not in school, primarily due to the psychic and social instability that still surrounds and emanates from this troubling case. Please keep this family in your prayers as well; and make a special du’a for Aafia’s mother, who’s been struggling with health related challenges.
May ALLAH (SWT) fortify them all! Ameen.
11006 Veirs Mill Rd, STE L-15, PMB 298
Silver Spring, MD. 20902
SAFAR 1431 A.H.
(February 2, 2010)
Assalaamu Alaikum (Greetings of Peace): Please feel free to forward.
“Something very bad happened to Aafia Siddiqui.”
– defense counsel Linda Moreno, in Monday's closing arguments
The whole thrust of the government’s closing argument against Dr. Aafia Siddiqui, yesterday, was simple: Dr. Siddiqui picked up a M4 rifle and attempted to kill a number of U.S. personnel (FBI and military), in Ghazni, Afghanistan in July 2008.
The heart of the defense’s closing argument was simple as well: There were no bullet holes in the room that matched the caliber of the M4 rifle; no M4 shell casings were found anywhere in the room where the alleged crime took place; no gunshot residue was found on the curtain that Aafia allegedly fired the gun from behind; Aafia’s fingerprints were not found on the weapon; and only Aafia ended up being shot and seriously wounded on that fateful day.
In short, there was no physical evidence whatsoever to support the government’s claims, while there was a mountain of inconsistency in testimony presented by the government’s own witnesses! As I noted in a couple of interviews after exiting the courthouse yesterday, this case against Dr. Aafia Siddiqui will test the power of [malicious] propaganda, and the politics of fear. Why? Because the FACTS (which are in Aafia’s favor) speak for themselves.
Government witnesses in this case reminded me of the many cases that I’ve weighed into in the past involving police brutality (especially where the brutality resulted in the wrongful death of a citizen). I was reminded of the unofficial doctrine of the “thin blue line” (the us against them mentality) within police ranks - which insures the protection of that criminal element that I believe is present within every large, and many small, police departments throughout the U.S.
I sincerely believe that the same corrosive mindset is at work in this particular case. Persons who committed a deadly offense against an innocent woman entered into a conspiracy to cover their asses; and they have the full weight of one of the most power countries in modern history to back them up.
“Something very bad” did indeed happen to Aafia Siddiqui. This young mother, daughter, sister, and committed Muslim became a victim of American Terrorism!
The case is now before the jury. Please keep Aafia Siddiqui in your prayers.
El-Hajj Mauri’ Saalakhan
Some closing thoughts: After exiting the courthouse yesterday (before doing the interviews), I was met with a very pleasant surprise. Br. Shahid Comrade, of Pakistan – USA Freedom Forum, called me over and said he wanted me to speak to someone over the phone. That someone was Dr. Fauzia Siddiqui (Aafia’s sister). We had about 10 minutes of warm conversation. She thanked me for the work, and particularly the writing, that we’ve been doing around her sister’s case; and I asked her how she and other members of her family in Pakistan were holding up.
Although I never met her, I have a special affection for this sister for having the courage and determination to challenge fear and be that strong voice on the home front for her beleaguered sister (and family). I know it hasn’t been easy. There were overt threats hanging over the head of this family in Pakistan for many years; and I feel certain that an atmosphere of intimidation still exists in parts of Pakistan.
Fauzia informed me that Ahmed asks about his mother often; he misses her and hungers to be re-united. It is also my understanding that he is still not in school, primarily due to the psychic and social instability that still surrounds and emanates from this troubling case. Please keep this family in your prayers as well; and make a special du’a for Aafia’s mother, who’s been struggling with health related challenges.
May ALLAH (SWT) fortify them all! Ameen.
Sunday, January 31, 2010
The powerful testimony of Dr. Aafia Siddiqui
THE PEACE AND JUSTICE FOUNDATION
11006 Veirs Mill Rd, STE L-15, PMB 298
Silver Spring, MD. 20902
SAFAR 1431 A.H.
(January 31, 2010)
THE POWERFUL TESTIMONY OF
Dr. Aafia Siddiqui
Aafia Siddiqui – a daughter, a sister, a mother of three, committed Muslim, social scientist, hafiz of Qur’an – needed to be heard. For years she had suffered in virtual silence…aching to be heard, to be understood, to have certain malicious untruths corrected and exposed for the lies they were. That day finally came on Thursday, January 28, 2010!
The high drama of that day’s proceedings revolved around the question of whether or not U.S. District Judge Richard Berman would grant Aafia’s repeated demand to take the stand in her own defense.
Aafia’s lawyers appeared to be animate in their opposition to her taking the stand, while the prosecution appeared (on the surface) to be in favor of Aafia being entitled to her Fifth Amendment right. Her brother (Muhammad) was apprehensive about her taking the stand, leaning more in favor of her following the advice of her lawyers. Even Pakistani Ambassador Hussain Haqqani became involved. During a short visit he was allowed with the defendant, he reportedly advised Aafia to follow the advice of her lawyers.
Aafia’s response to this collective concern was that she would make istiqara (a supplication to ALLAH Almighty for guidance on the matter); and in the end Aafia Siddiqui would be heard.
While I understood the reservations of those who were concerned about Aafia taking the stand (given all that she had already been through), I fully supported our sister’s right to be heard, and was guardedly optimistic about the potential outcome. More than anything, however, I knew that Aafia – like two young Muslim men in an Atlanta courtroom, and several young Muslim men in a New Jersey courtroom (who were eager, but manipulated into not taking the stand in their own defense not long ago) - needed to be heard! Aafia needed to have her day in court!
The process began with a preliminary (test) examination, with Aafia taking the witness stand in the absence of the jury – a kind of hearing within a hearing – to see how she would respond to that type of intensive and focused examination. After the judge determined that she was capable enough to enjoy her constitutional “right” to take the stand in her own defense, the jury was brought back into the courtroom, and it was on. (And what truly spectacular courtroom drama it turned out to be!)
The following summary is based on my notes from January 28th
Open court proceedings began late in the morning, due to a number of procedural issues that needed to be addressed behind closed doors. Once proceedings began, it did so with the judge explaining Aafia’s right, and the possible risks, of her taking the stand. There was extensive discussion about the course and extent of cross examination should Aafia decide to testify.
The government’s support of Aafia taking the stand was full of irony, given the fact that the government had repeatedly argued (during pre-trial and trial proceedings) that Aafia should not even be allowed to remain in the courtroom, because of her periodic outbursts and “uncontrollable” nature (in their view).
The First Witness
It was noted by the government that over a 12 day period, while Aafia was at the Craig Field Hospital at Bagram for critical care medical treatment, following her near fatal re-arrest in July 2008, two FBI agents had continuous access to the injured prisoner (a male and female who did not identify themselves to Aafia as FBI personnel).
FBI Special Agent Angela Sercer was the first to testify. She spoke about how she interrogated Aafia on a daily basis for the purpose of gathering “intelligence.” She described how she sat with Aafia for an average of eight hours each day, and of how they discussed the shooting incident and other related matters (discussions she said Aafia would always initiate). Agent Sercer prepared written reports, and disclosed during testimony that Aafia was never Mirandized (i.e. informed of her rights to remain silent and consult with an attorney before questioning), nor did she have access to a Pakistani consular official.
According to Sercer, Aafia mostly enjoyed her discussions with this special agent. Sercer maintained that she treated Aafia with respect and did her best to respond to Aafia’s needs – i.e. when she requested food, water, bathroom access, or when she requested a Qur’an and a scarf, or when she would complain that the “soft restraints” were too tight and needed to be loosened, etc.
Between 7/19/-8/4/08, FBI agents were posted inside and outside Aafia’s room 24 hours a day, ostensibly to insure that Aafia could not escape and to provide security for hospital personnel – despite the “soft restraints” which secured her hands and legs to the bed (in what Aafia later described as very uncomfortable positions) during her stay at this field hospital in Bagram.
The second witness
The second agent to testify was FBI Special Agent Bruce Kamerman, who had reportedly been assigned on 7/21/08. He claimed that Aafia made numerous statements, that she seemed lucid and to not be in much pain. He also insisted that there was never any coercion. He testified that Aafia had no visitors, and that no Afghan staff attended to her. He also claimed that there were occasions when Aafia would declare that her children were dead, and other times when she stated they might be living with her sister.
Following the testimony of the second agent, a hearing within the trial was held so that Aafia could give testimony (in the absence of the jury).
Aafia testified that when she first realized she was in a hospital she had tubes everywhere. She was in a narcotic state resulting from the administration of powerful drugs (one or two she could remember by name, others she couldn’t). She recalled how her hands and feet were secured uncomfortably apart. She said the agents never identified themselves as FBI, except for “Mr. Hurley.”
Aafia accused Agent Bruce Kamerman of subjecting her to “psychological torture.” She accused him of being immodest whenever he was present and medical personnel needed to examine her, and complained of how he would stand right outside the bathroom door whenever she needed to use it. She testified that Kamerman would sometimes come in the middle of the night (when he wasn’t supposed to be there), and encourage the person assigned to take a break. Aafia said she remained in a sleep deprived state as a result of his frequent presence.
During this period she never had any contact with family, nor with any Pakistani authorities. She thought that [FBI Agent] “Angela was just a nice person.”
During the cross examination Aafia spoke about being “tortured in the secret prison,” and of how she kept asking about her children. She insisted that she never opined that they might be with her sister.
(I should note here that Aafia’s testimony was consistent with information contained on an audio CD that we’ve produced on the case. On the CD, former Bagram and Guantanamo prisoner Moazam Beg recounts how the un-identified female prisoner at Bagram, known only as Prisoner 650, was identified as a Pakistani national who appeared to be in her 30s, and as someone who had been torn away from her children and who didn’t know where they were.)
Aafia also testified that she had multiple gunshot wounds; and that in addition to the gunshot wounds she had a debilitating back condition (resulting from being thrown on the floor after she was shot), persistent headaches, and an intubation tube. She also emphasized that she was in and out of consciousness; and, at times, mentally incoherent.
The video testimony of an Afghan security chief (by the name of Qadeer) was received by the court. While I had to briefly leave the court, and missed this testimony, it is my understanding that what Qadeer had to say about events at the Afghan National Police station in Ghazni – leading up to the shooting of Aafia - contradicted the testimony of a number of the government’s main witnesses.
Later in the afternoon, when Aafia testified in front of the jury, the overflow courtroom (where I was seated) was full of observers. The majority appeared to be non-Muslims in professional attire - a probable mix of court and Justice Department personnel (including interns), law students, and a few journalists. I would estimate that roughly a quarter of the observers in this overflow courtroom were made up of solid Aafia supporters – and yet the reaction to the testimony at times was both interesting and edifying.
When I returned to the courtroom (about 10 minutes into Aafia’s testimony), she was describing her academic work leading up to the achievement of her PhD at Brandeis University. She testified that after completing her doctorate studies she taught in a school, and that her interest was in cultivating the capabilities of dyslexic and other special needs children.
During this line of questioning, the monstrous image that the government had carefully crafted (with considerable support from mainstream media) of this petite young woman, had begun to be deconstructed. The real Dr. Aafia Siddiqui - the committed muslimah, the humanity-loving nurturer and educator, the gentle yet resolute mujahid for truth and justice - began to emerge with full force.
Testimony then proceeded to the events of July 17-18, 2008. Aafia testified that she remembered being concerned about the whereabouts of her missing children. She also remembered a press conference in an Afghan compound.
She testified about being tied down to a bed until she vigorously protested, and was later untied and left behind a curtain. She later heard American and Afghan voices on the other side of the curtain, and concluded that they [Americans] wanted to return her to a “secret prison” again. She testified about how she had pleaded with the Afghans not to let the Americans take her away.
She testified about peaking through the curtain into the part of the room where Afghans and Americans were talking, and how when a startled American soldier noticed her, he jumped up and yelled that the prisoner had gotten loose, and shot her in the stomach. She described how she was also shot in the side by a second person. She also described how after falling back onto the bed in the room, she was violently thrown to the floor and lost consciousness.
She testified that she was in and out of consciousness, and vaguely recalled being placed on a stretcher, a helicopter, and receiving a blood transfusion – which she protested, drawing laughter in the courtroom when she recounted how she had “threatened to sue” her medical attendants if they gave her a blood transfusion. During this testimony, Aafia animatedly rejected the allegation that she picked up a [M-4] rifle and fired it (or that she even attempted to do so).
The Cross Examination
This is the time when every eye and every ear was riveted on the proceedings. It was the moment that Aafia’s defense attorneys, her brother, and a host of Muslim and non-Muslim supporters (seated within both courtrooms) dreaded. It was also the point in the proceedings that had the prosecution salivating for what opportunities would come there way – or so they thought!
Cross examination began with Aafia revisiting the degrees that she received at MIT and Brandeis universities. She acknowledged that she took a required course in molecular biology; but emphasized that her work was in cognitive neuroscience. When questioned on whether she had ever done any work with chemicals, her response was, “only when required.”
(This opening line of questioning was significant for its prejudice producing potential in the minds of jurors. While Aafia is not being charged with any terrorism conspiracy counts, the threat of terrorism has been the pink elephant in the room throughout this troubling case!)
The prosecutor attempted to draw a sinister correlation between Aafia and her [then] husband being questioned by the FBI in 2002, and leaving the U.S. a week later. Aafia noted that there wasn’t anything sinister about the timing; they had already planned to make that trip home before the FBI visit. To underscore this point, she noted how she later returned to the U.S. to attempt to find work in her field.
One of the most heart-wrenching moments in the cross-examination was when Aafia described how she was briefly re-united with a young boy in Ghazni (July 2008) who could have been her oldest son. She spoke of how she was mentally in a daze at that time, and had not seen any of her children in five years. As a result she could not definitively (than or now) determine if that was indeed her son, Ahmed.
When asked whether she had incriminating documents in her possession on the day she was arrested, Aafia testified that the bag in her possession on the day that she was re-detained was given to her. She didn’t know what was in the bag, nor could she definitively determine if the handwriting on some of the documents was hers or not. She also mentioned on a number of occasions (to the chagrin of the prosecutor) how she was repeatedly tortured by her captors at Bagram.
She was also questioned on whether she had taken a pistol course at a firing range while a student in Boston. Her initial reaction was that she did not have any recollection of taking such a course, and when pressed further, answered “No.” When the prosecutor continued to press the issue (infusing sinister motivations in the process), Aafia admonished the prosecutor in the strong, clear voice that was heard throughout her testimony: “You can’t build a case on hate; you should build it on fact!”
Aafia testified that all she was thinking about at the time of her re-arrest in Ghazni, was “getting out of that room and not being sent back to the secret prison.” While discussions were going on between the Afghans and Americans, Aafia was searching for a way out. She repeated her assertion that she startled one of the soldiers who hollered, “She’s free! - before shooting her.
Aafia also elicited an approving reaction in the courtroom when she opined, in reaction to the government’s narration of events, she could not believe a soldier would be so irresponsible as to leave his M4 rifle on the floor unsecured.
In response to government questioning she again took the opportunity to strongly rebuke Agent Kamerman, while rejecting most of his testimony revisited by the prosecutor.
Aafia spoke highly of a number of nurses (and a doctor) who took care of her at Bagram. There was one nurse in particular that Aafia promised to mention favorably if she ever wrote a book. She then produced laughter in the courtroom again when she stated, “Since I don’t think I’m going to write a book, I’m mentioning her now.”
One of the most powerful and revealing moments in the testimony was when she spoke about the people who systematically abused her in the “secret prison” – denouncing them as “fake Americans, not real Americans.” (Because of the way their actions both violated and damaged America’s image!)
She spoke again, under cross examination, about the strong pain medication she was on, and some of the effects this medication had on her.
Aafia also mentioned how she was instructed to translate and copy something from a book while she was secretly imprisoned. During the course of this testimony which repeatedly drew the ire of an increasingly frustrated prosecutor, Aafia noted how she can now understand how people can be framed (for crimes they are not guilty of).
At this point in the proceedings, the judge ordered a brief recess. Clearly the government had thought that they would be able to control and manipulate Aafia in manner that would work in their favor; this ended up being a MAJOR MISCALCULATION. The purpose of this break in the proceedings, in my humble opinion, was to allow the prosecutor to regain her composure, and consult with fellow prosecutors for a more effective line of attack.
When testimony resumed, Aafia spoke of how she was often forced-fed information from one group of persons at the secret prison, and then made to regurgitate the same information before a different group of inquisitors. While it was presented to her as a type of “game,” she spoke of how she would be “punished” if she got something wrong.
On defense cross, Aafia was shown pictures and asked to identify herself in them. She reluctantly did so, but with a little levity, citing how unattractive and immodest the photos were.
I could not see the photos from the overflow courtroom where I was sitting, but I assume that these were the photos of an un-covered, emaciated and emotionally disfigured Aafia Siddiqui - after her horrific ordeal at the hands of American terrorists.
A final note: I sincerely believe that Aafia Siddiqui’s time spent on the witness stand on January 28th was a cathartic experience for her – but one that the prosecution, in retrospect, now deeply regrets. For any truly objective and fair-minded person who witnessed that day’s proceedings, the U.S Government’s case against Aafia Siddiqui was exposed for what it always was…a horrific and profoundly tragic miscarriage of justice!
The struggle continues…
El-Hajj Mauri’ Saalakhan
© copyright 2010, All Rights Reserved
(Permission is granted to forward or publish this information as is, and with the appropriate attribution.)
-------------------------
PROCEEDINGS RESUME AT 9 AM TOMORROW
MONDAY MORNING
500 Pearl Street in lower Manhattan
Court of Judge Berman
11006 Veirs Mill Rd, STE L-15, PMB 298
Silver Spring, MD. 20902
SAFAR 1431 A.H.
(January 31, 2010)
THE POWERFUL TESTIMONY OF
Dr. Aafia Siddiqui
Aafia Siddiqui – a daughter, a sister, a mother of three, committed Muslim, social scientist, hafiz of Qur’an – needed to be heard. For years she had suffered in virtual silence…aching to be heard, to be understood, to have certain malicious untruths corrected and exposed for the lies they were. That day finally came on Thursday, January 28, 2010!
The high drama of that day’s proceedings revolved around the question of whether or not U.S. District Judge Richard Berman would grant Aafia’s repeated demand to take the stand in her own defense.
Aafia’s lawyers appeared to be animate in their opposition to her taking the stand, while the prosecution appeared (on the surface) to be in favor of Aafia being entitled to her Fifth Amendment right. Her brother (Muhammad) was apprehensive about her taking the stand, leaning more in favor of her following the advice of her lawyers. Even Pakistani Ambassador Hussain Haqqani became involved. During a short visit he was allowed with the defendant, he reportedly advised Aafia to follow the advice of her lawyers.
Aafia’s response to this collective concern was that she would make istiqara (a supplication to ALLAH Almighty for guidance on the matter); and in the end Aafia Siddiqui would be heard.
While I understood the reservations of those who were concerned about Aafia taking the stand (given all that she had already been through), I fully supported our sister’s right to be heard, and was guardedly optimistic about the potential outcome. More than anything, however, I knew that Aafia – like two young Muslim men in an Atlanta courtroom, and several young Muslim men in a New Jersey courtroom (who were eager, but manipulated into not taking the stand in their own defense not long ago) - needed to be heard! Aafia needed to have her day in court!
The process began with a preliminary (test) examination, with Aafia taking the witness stand in the absence of the jury – a kind of hearing within a hearing – to see how she would respond to that type of intensive and focused examination. After the judge determined that she was capable enough to enjoy her constitutional “right” to take the stand in her own defense, the jury was brought back into the courtroom, and it was on. (And what truly spectacular courtroom drama it turned out to be!)
The following summary is based on my notes from January 28th
Open court proceedings began late in the morning, due to a number of procedural issues that needed to be addressed behind closed doors. Once proceedings began, it did so with the judge explaining Aafia’s right, and the possible risks, of her taking the stand. There was extensive discussion about the course and extent of cross examination should Aafia decide to testify.
The government’s support of Aafia taking the stand was full of irony, given the fact that the government had repeatedly argued (during pre-trial and trial proceedings) that Aafia should not even be allowed to remain in the courtroom, because of her periodic outbursts and “uncontrollable” nature (in their view).
The First Witness
It was noted by the government that over a 12 day period, while Aafia was at the Craig Field Hospital at Bagram for critical care medical treatment, following her near fatal re-arrest in July 2008, two FBI agents had continuous access to the injured prisoner (a male and female who did not identify themselves to Aafia as FBI personnel).
FBI Special Agent Angela Sercer was the first to testify. She spoke about how she interrogated Aafia on a daily basis for the purpose of gathering “intelligence.” She described how she sat with Aafia for an average of eight hours each day, and of how they discussed the shooting incident and other related matters (discussions she said Aafia would always initiate). Agent Sercer prepared written reports, and disclosed during testimony that Aafia was never Mirandized (i.e. informed of her rights to remain silent and consult with an attorney before questioning), nor did she have access to a Pakistani consular official.
According to Sercer, Aafia mostly enjoyed her discussions with this special agent. Sercer maintained that she treated Aafia with respect and did her best to respond to Aafia’s needs – i.e. when she requested food, water, bathroom access, or when she requested a Qur’an and a scarf, or when she would complain that the “soft restraints” were too tight and needed to be loosened, etc.
Between 7/19/-8/4/08, FBI agents were posted inside and outside Aafia’s room 24 hours a day, ostensibly to insure that Aafia could not escape and to provide security for hospital personnel – despite the “soft restraints” which secured her hands and legs to the bed (in what Aafia later described as very uncomfortable positions) during her stay at this field hospital in Bagram.
The second witness
The second agent to testify was FBI Special Agent Bruce Kamerman, who had reportedly been assigned on 7/21/08. He claimed that Aafia made numerous statements, that she seemed lucid and to not be in much pain. He also insisted that there was never any coercion. He testified that Aafia had no visitors, and that no Afghan staff attended to her. He also claimed that there were occasions when Aafia would declare that her children were dead, and other times when she stated they might be living with her sister.
Following the testimony of the second agent, a hearing within the trial was held so that Aafia could give testimony (in the absence of the jury).
Aafia testified that when she first realized she was in a hospital she had tubes everywhere. She was in a narcotic state resulting from the administration of powerful drugs (one or two she could remember by name, others she couldn’t). She recalled how her hands and feet were secured uncomfortably apart. She said the agents never identified themselves as FBI, except for “Mr. Hurley.”
Aafia accused Agent Bruce Kamerman of subjecting her to “psychological torture.” She accused him of being immodest whenever he was present and medical personnel needed to examine her, and complained of how he would stand right outside the bathroom door whenever she needed to use it. She testified that Kamerman would sometimes come in the middle of the night (when he wasn’t supposed to be there), and encourage the person assigned to take a break. Aafia said she remained in a sleep deprived state as a result of his frequent presence.
During this period she never had any contact with family, nor with any Pakistani authorities. She thought that [FBI Agent] “Angela was just a nice person.”
During the cross examination Aafia spoke about being “tortured in the secret prison,” and of how she kept asking about her children. She insisted that she never opined that they might be with her sister.
(I should note here that Aafia’s testimony was consistent with information contained on an audio CD that we’ve produced on the case. On the CD, former Bagram and Guantanamo prisoner Moazam Beg recounts how the un-identified female prisoner at Bagram, known only as Prisoner 650, was identified as a Pakistani national who appeared to be in her 30s, and as someone who had been torn away from her children and who didn’t know where they were.)
Aafia also testified that she had multiple gunshot wounds; and that in addition to the gunshot wounds she had a debilitating back condition (resulting from being thrown on the floor after she was shot), persistent headaches, and an intubation tube. She also emphasized that she was in and out of consciousness; and, at times, mentally incoherent.
The video testimony of an Afghan security chief (by the name of Qadeer) was received by the court. While I had to briefly leave the court, and missed this testimony, it is my understanding that what Qadeer had to say about events at the Afghan National Police station in Ghazni – leading up to the shooting of Aafia - contradicted the testimony of a number of the government’s main witnesses.
Later in the afternoon, when Aafia testified in front of the jury, the overflow courtroom (where I was seated) was full of observers. The majority appeared to be non-Muslims in professional attire - a probable mix of court and Justice Department personnel (including interns), law students, and a few journalists. I would estimate that roughly a quarter of the observers in this overflow courtroom were made up of solid Aafia supporters – and yet the reaction to the testimony at times was both interesting and edifying.
When I returned to the courtroom (about 10 minutes into Aafia’s testimony), she was describing her academic work leading up to the achievement of her PhD at Brandeis University. She testified that after completing her doctorate studies she taught in a school, and that her interest was in cultivating the capabilities of dyslexic and other special needs children.
During this line of questioning, the monstrous image that the government had carefully crafted (with considerable support from mainstream media) of this petite young woman, had begun to be deconstructed. The real Dr. Aafia Siddiqui - the committed muslimah, the humanity-loving nurturer and educator, the gentle yet resolute mujahid for truth and justice - began to emerge with full force.
Testimony then proceeded to the events of July 17-18, 2008. Aafia testified that she remembered being concerned about the whereabouts of her missing children. She also remembered a press conference in an Afghan compound.
She testified about being tied down to a bed until she vigorously protested, and was later untied and left behind a curtain. She later heard American and Afghan voices on the other side of the curtain, and concluded that they [Americans] wanted to return her to a “secret prison” again. She testified about how she had pleaded with the Afghans not to let the Americans take her away.
She testified about peaking through the curtain into the part of the room where Afghans and Americans were talking, and how when a startled American soldier noticed her, he jumped up and yelled that the prisoner had gotten loose, and shot her in the stomach. She described how she was also shot in the side by a second person. She also described how after falling back onto the bed in the room, she was violently thrown to the floor and lost consciousness.
She testified that she was in and out of consciousness, and vaguely recalled being placed on a stretcher, a helicopter, and receiving a blood transfusion – which she protested, drawing laughter in the courtroom when she recounted how she had “threatened to sue” her medical attendants if they gave her a blood transfusion. During this testimony, Aafia animatedly rejected the allegation that she picked up a [M-4] rifle and fired it (or that she even attempted to do so).
The Cross Examination
This is the time when every eye and every ear was riveted on the proceedings. It was the moment that Aafia’s defense attorneys, her brother, and a host of Muslim and non-Muslim supporters (seated within both courtrooms) dreaded. It was also the point in the proceedings that had the prosecution salivating for what opportunities would come there way – or so they thought!
Cross examination began with Aafia revisiting the degrees that she received at MIT and Brandeis universities. She acknowledged that she took a required course in molecular biology; but emphasized that her work was in cognitive neuroscience. When questioned on whether she had ever done any work with chemicals, her response was, “only when required.”
(This opening line of questioning was significant for its prejudice producing potential in the minds of jurors. While Aafia is not being charged with any terrorism conspiracy counts, the threat of terrorism has been the pink elephant in the room throughout this troubling case!)
The prosecutor attempted to draw a sinister correlation between Aafia and her [then] husband being questioned by the FBI in 2002, and leaving the U.S. a week later. Aafia noted that there wasn’t anything sinister about the timing; they had already planned to make that trip home before the FBI visit. To underscore this point, she noted how she later returned to the U.S. to attempt to find work in her field.
One of the most heart-wrenching moments in the cross-examination was when Aafia described how she was briefly re-united with a young boy in Ghazni (July 2008) who could have been her oldest son. She spoke of how she was mentally in a daze at that time, and had not seen any of her children in five years. As a result she could not definitively (than or now) determine if that was indeed her son, Ahmed.
When asked whether she had incriminating documents in her possession on the day she was arrested, Aafia testified that the bag in her possession on the day that she was re-detained was given to her. She didn’t know what was in the bag, nor could she definitively determine if the handwriting on some of the documents was hers or not. She also mentioned on a number of occasions (to the chagrin of the prosecutor) how she was repeatedly tortured by her captors at Bagram.
She was also questioned on whether she had taken a pistol course at a firing range while a student in Boston. Her initial reaction was that she did not have any recollection of taking such a course, and when pressed further, answered “No.” When the prosecutor continued to press the issue (infusing sinister motivations in the process), Aafia admonished the prosecutor in the strong, clear voice that was heard throughout her testimony: “You can’t build a case on hate; you should build it on fact!”
Aafia testified that all she was thinking about at the time of her re-arrest in Ghazni, was “getting out of that room and not being sent back to the secret prison.” While discussions were going on between the Afghans and Americans, Aafia was searching for a way out. She repeated her assertion that she startled one of the soldiers who hollered, “She’s free! - before shooting her.
Aafia also elicited an approving reaction in the courtroom when she opined, in reaction to the government’s narration of events, she could not believe a soldier would be so irresponsible as to leave his M4 rifle on the floor unsecured.
In response to government questioning she again took the opportunity to strongly rebuke Agent Kamerman, while rejecting most of his testimony revisited by the prosecutor.
Aafia spoke highly of a number of nurses (and a doctor) who took care of her at Bagram. There was one nurse in particular that Aafia promised to mention favorably if she ever wrote a book. She then produced laughter in the courtroom again when she stated, “Since I don’t think I’m going to write a book, I’m mentioning her now.”
One of the most powerful and revealing moments in the testimony was when she spoke about the people who systematically abused her in the “secret prison” – denouncing them as “fake Americans, not real Americans.” (Because of the way their actions both violated and damaged America’s image!)
She spoke again, under cross examination, about the strong pain medication she was on, and some of the effects this medication had on her.
Aafia also mentioned how she was instructed to translate and copy something from a book while she was secretly imprisoned. During the course of this testimony which repeatedly drew the ire of an increasingly frustrated prosecutor, Aafia noted how she can now understand how people can be framed (for crimes they are not guilty of).
At this point in the proceedings, the judge ordered a brief recess. Clearly the government had thought that they would be able to control and manipulate Aafia in manner that would work in their favor; this ended up being a MAJOR MISCALCULATION. The purpose of this break in the proceedings, in my humble opinion, was to allow the prosecutor to regain her composure, and consult with fellow prosecutors for a more effective line of attack.
When testimony resumed, Aafia spoke of how she was often forced-fed information from one group of persons at the secret prison, and then made to regurgitate the same information before a different group of inquisitors. While it was presented to her as a type of “game,” she spoke of how she would be “punished” if she got something wrong.
On defense cross, Aafia was shown pictures and asked to identify herself in them. She reluctantly did so, but with a little levity, citing how unattractive and immodest the photos were.
I could not see the photos from the overflow courtroom where I was sitting, but I assume that these were the photos of an un-covered, emaciated and emotionally disfigured Aafia Siddiqui - after her horrific ordeal at the hands of American terrorists.
A final note: I sincerely believe that Aafia Siddiqui’s time spent on the witness stand on January 28th was a cathartic experience for her – but one that the prosecution, in retrospect, now deeply regrets. For any truly objective and fair-minded person who witnessed that day’s proceedings, the U.S Government’s case against Aafia Siddiqui was exposed for what it always was…a horrific and profoundly tragic miscarriage of justice!
The struggle continues…
El-Hajj Mauri’ Saalakhan
© copyright 2010, All Rights Reserved
(Permission is granted to forward or publish this information as is, and with the appropriate attribution.)
-------------------------
PROCEEDINGS RESUME AT 9 AM TOMORROW
MONDAY MORNING
500 Pearl Street in lower Manhattan
Court of Judge Berman
Friday, January 15, 2010
Is al-Qaeda winning?
Is al-Qaeda winning?
By Marwan Bishara in
on January 14th, 2010
What does it say about Washington's ''war on terror'' that dozen and a half people with paper cutters forced hundreds of thousands of Western troops into the battlefields of the "greater Middle East" region;
That 100,000 foreign soldiers are bogged down in occupied Afghanistan wondering how many dozens of al-Qaeda operatives have remained, if any;
That the most liberal democracy enacted new controversial illiberal laws and unpatriotic practices under its "Patriot Act";
That one shoe-bomber has forced millions of people to take off their shoes every time they take a flight;
That one underpants-bomber will expose every other traveler in most humiliating of ways;
That after US loss of deterrence and prestige as well as trillions of dollars of military and other expenditures, al-Qaeda's top leadership remains at large; its bases/cells proliferate globally; that volunteers continue to flock into its ranks and young supporters to its websites… !!! And above all that it continues to terrorize America and Americans.
So much that one gets the impression that America is fighting a world superpower despite the incredible disparities in capacity, numbers and support.
Is al-Qaeda winning? Has the United States lost?
Hitting the Jackpot
A dozen years ago, a demoralized group with nowhere to go but the hills of Afghanistan, al-Qaeda began targeting America instead of the region's authoritarian regimes hoping to destabilize the region, bloody America's nose and gain popularity.
Its strategy was simple: Draw the US into direct confrontation against and within the Muslim world. Like sheep to the slaughter house, America walked right into its trap.
Al-Qaeda was lucky. With a 'cowboy' and so-called "chicken-hawks" (militarists who ever served in the military) dominating the White House and the Pentagon… military escalation was only a question of time and intensity.
The Bush administration decided to "take the war to the enemy so as not to fight it at home". This is exactly what al-Qaeda hoped for considering it wasn't applying for Green cards for its members.
It all went as smooth as a scripted movie. After the 9/11 attacks at the pillars of its world status, the Pentagon and Wall Street, the wounded superpower went on a rampage. Like a bull in a china shop, it responded with little or no thinking of the consequences of its military actions.
Warmongers took advantage of the threat to US national security to advance their military agenda in foreign policy and the radical American Right exploited what they termed as the threat to "our way of life" to transform America's way of life towards the Right.
Washington called for a "crusade", then changed it into a "war" on terror and under its guise, went on to occupy Afghanistan and Iraq and support Israel's bloody wars in Lebanon andPalestine. It also intervened in Somalia, Yemen and Pakistan and put direct pressure on its allies to confront their Islamist movements.
In no time, the US was preoccupied by its draining occupation and costly military operations. And as expected, the terrible human cost only added petrol to the flames of hatred.
Paradoxically, anti-Americanism has been more rampant under "friendly regimes" like in Jordan, Saudi Arabia and Turkey etc. than others.
America's unfortunate and disproportionate use of military force to defeat a segmented, mobile and polycentric movement of several hundred core groups of fighters didn't make it any more secure or dissuasive.
As the Obama administration asks for $33 bn extra budget above the already approved $660 bn for 2010, I remember what Richard Meyers, the former head of the US joint chiefs of staff, told me several weeks ago how a decade later, the US still doesn’t have a strategy to deal with "the global insurgency" facing America.
Beyond military
Popular opposition and world denunciations of US military campaign has fallen on deaf ears in Washington. Instead of seriously reversing its military expansion, the Obama administration has accelerated it in the Afghan-Pakistan area and it seems adamant to repeat more of the same in Yemen.
Needless to say, no serious strategic analyst would advise abandoning military power all together. However, Washington's dependency on, even addiction to, firepower has neutralized or nullified all other efforts towards defusing support for al-Qaeda and truly winning hearts.
Good-will gestures provided by President Obama and his attempts to reconnect to the Arab and Islamic world on the basis of "mutual interest and mutual respect" can hardly be heard considering the echoes of drone fired missiles, speeding F-15 jets and rolling tanks.
The more Washington used its military force, the less it won the minds of those it needs most to defeat al-Qaeda: Americans, Arabs and Muslims.
Likewise, US military actions are harming its intelligence and law enforcement work that over the last decade have dealt the greatest blow to al-Qaeda's leadership and organisation.
Zero Sum strategy
As military adventures kill, maim and destroy lives, they create, nurture and build animosities and "alliances" among most unlikely allies, such as a young rich Nigerian that studies in London, a Jordanian doctor that studies in Turkey and an Arab-American soldier trained by the Pentagon, all whom were ready to die to hurt America.
And likewise, counter terror tactics and intelligence work has made it ever more difficult for public diplomacy to "win hearts and minds". Instead of listening to people of the region, it has been spying on them and instead of reading them their rights, it has tortured them in far-away prisons.
And instead of hearing out their concerns and fears, Washington has underlined its own above all others.
In that limited and limiting spirit, for example, mostly impoverished Yemenis that suffer from war in the north, intensive conflict in the south and three decade autocratic regime, must now worry about US fears, and cater to US interests above their own.
Which brings us back to our initial question: al- Qaeda is winning only as far as Washington is running a self-defeating war.
However, one needs to remember that in the self-defeating war on terror, winner and loser is one and the same.
As long as America puts its security preoccupations and political interests about those under its military and strategic domination, the Pentagon and al-Qaeda will feed into one another and the Americans, Arabs and Muslims will continue to be the ultimate losers.
http://blogs.aljazeera.net/imperium/2010/01/14/al-qaeda-winning
By Marwan Bishara in
on January 14th, 2010
What does it say about Washington's ''war on terror'' that dozen and a half people with paper cutters forced hundreds of thousands of Western troops into the battlefields of the "greater Middle East" region;
That 100,000 foreign soldiers are bogged down in occupied Afghanistan wondering how many dozens of al-Qaeda operatives have remained, if any;
That the most liberal democracy enacted new controversial illiberal laws and unpatriotic practices under its "Patriot Act";
That one shoe-bomber has forced millions of people to take off their shoes every time they take a flight;
That one underpants-bomber will expose every other traveler in most humiliating of ways;
That after US loss of deterrence and prestige as well as trillions of dollars of military and other expenditures, al-Qaeda's top leadership remains at large; its bases/cells proliferate globally; that volunteers continue to flock into its ranks and young supporters to its websites… !!! And above all that it continues to terrorize America and Americans.
So much that one gets the impression that America is fighting a world superpower despite the incredible disparities in capacity, numbers and support.
Is al-Qaeda winning? Has the United States lost?
Hitting the Jackpot
A dozen years ago, a demoralized group with nowhere to go but the hills of Afghanistan, al-Qaeda began targeting America instead of the region's authoritarian regimes hoping to destabilize the region, bloody America's nose and gain popularity.
Its strategy was simple: Draw the US into direct confrontation against and within the Muslim world. Like sheep to the slaughter house, America walked right into its trap.
Al-Qaeda was lucky. With a 'cowboy' and so-called "chicken-hawks" (militarists who ever served in the military) dominating the White House and the Pentagon… military escalation was only a question of time and intensity.
The Bush administration decided to "take the war to the enemy so as not to fight it at home". This is exactly what al-Qaeda hoped for considering it wasn't applying for Green cards for its members.
It all went as smooth as a scripted movie. After the 9/11 attacks at the pillars of its world status, the Pentagon and Wall Street, the wounded superpower went on a rampage. Like a bull in a china shop, it responded with little or no thinking of the consequences of its military actions.
Warmongers took advantage of the threat to US national security to advance their military agenda in foreign policy and the radical American Right exploited what they termed as the threat to "our way of life" to transform America's way of life towards the Right.
Washington called for a "crusade", then changed it into a "war" on terror and under its guise, went on to occupy Afghanistan and Iraq and support Israel's bloody wars in Lebanon andPalestine. It also intervened in Somalia, Yemen and Pakistan and put direct pressure on its allies to confront their Islamist movements.
In no time, the US was preoccupied by its draining occupation and costly military operations. And as expected, the terrible human cost only added petrol to the flames of hatred.
Paradoxically, anti-Americanism has been more rampant under "friendly regimes" like in Jordan, Saudi Arabia and Turkey etc. than others.
America's unfortunate and disproportionate use of military force to defeat a segmented, mobile and polycentric movement of several hundred core groups of fighters didn't make it any more secure or dissuasive.
As the Obama administration asks for $33 bn extra budget above the already approved $660 bn for 2010, I remember what Richard Meyers, the former head of the US joint chiefs of staff, told me several weeks ago how a decade later, the US still doesn’t have a strategy to deal with "the global insurgency" facing America.
Beyond military
Popular opposition and world denunciations of US military campaign has fallen on deaf ears in Washington. Instead of seriously reversing its military expansion, the Obama administration has accelerated it in the Afghan-Pakistan area and it seems adamant to repeat more of the same in Yemen.
Needless to say, no serious strategic analyst would advise abandoning military power all together. However, Washington's dependency on, even addiction to, firepower has neutralized or nullified all other efforts towards defusing support for al-Qaeda and truly winning hearts.
Good-will gestures provided by President Obama and his attempts to reconnect to the Arab and Islamic world on the basis of "mutual interest and mutual respect" can hardly be heard considering the echoes of drone fired missiles, speeding F-15 jets and rolling tanks.
The more Washington used its military force, the less it won the minds of those it needs most to defeat al-Qaeda: Americans, Arabs and Muslims.
Likewise, US military actions are harming its intelligence and law enforcement work that over the last decade have dealt the greatest blow to al-Qaeda's leadership and organisation.
Zero Sum strategy
As military adventures kill, maim and destroy lives, they create, nurture and build animosities and "alliances" among most unlikely allies, such as a young rich Nigerian that studies in London, a Jordanian doctor that studies in Turkey and an Arab-American soldier trained by the Pentagon, all whom were ready to die to hurt America.
And likewise, counter terror tactics and intelligence work has made it ever more difficult for public diplomacy to "win hearts and minds". Instead of listening to people of the region, it has been spying on them and instead of reading them their rights, it has tortured them in far-away prisons.
And instead of hearing out their concerns and fears, Washington has underlined its own above all others.
In that limited and limiting spirit, for example, mostly impoverished Yemenis that suffer from war in the north, intensive conflict in the south and three decade autocratic regime, must now worry about US fears, and cater to US interests above their own.
Which brings us back to our initial question: al- Qaeda is winning only as far as Washington is running a self-defeating war.
However, one needs to remember that in the self-defeating war on terror, winner and loser is one and the same.
As long as America puts its security preoccupations and political interests about those under its military and strategic domination, the Pentagon and al-Qaeda will feed into one another and the Americans, Arabs and Muslims will continue to be the ultimate losers.
http://blogs.aljazeera.net/imperium/2010/01/14/al-qaeda-winning
Wednesday, January 13, 2010
Witness Against Torture
Jack writes...
Razia and I joined the Fast Against Torture on Monday - we met Kathy Kelly
in Chicago Sunday and took Amtrak, arriving Monday afternoon with the fast
already rolling. Me missed a press conference which, everyone was
surprised, was very well covered, especially by foreign press. There are
over 100 fasters, about 35 living at St. Steven's Episcopalian Church, on
the floor in sleeping bags. Needless to say,, some fascinating people are
here, and some good activist friends from the DC area. A lot of Catholic
Workers, from here and New York, also, and this is hopefull, a lot of
young people.
The fast will only go 2 weeks, but a lot more activities are being planned
for an on-going protest against torture in general and the Guantanamo
prison in particular. Yesterday we started (everywhere we go means a
subway trip (METRO) and walking the rest of the way) at teh Friends
Committee on National Legislation, with some tips on lobbying, then went
to different senator's offices - friendly to the issue only -- like
Bernie Sanders, Dellums, and some others, The senate is not in session so
the intent was to talk to the aids. I'm going with Razia, Kathy Kelly and
some others to Dick Durbin's office today. Kathy & Razia dropped in on
Roland Burris' office and had a favorable meeting with one of his aids. I
walked up and down on the 4th floor at the Hart Senate Office Bldg. for 2
hours wearing an orange jump suite with a Guantanamo prisoner's name and
"CLEARED FOR RELEASE" on my back. It was powerful, there were about 15
doing it, each with a "watch person." A guard stopped me, asked what I
was doing, then took my name. There were then guards all over but none of
us were stopped. The building has a central atrium and every time I
reached a spot that looked out over it I could always spot 1, 2 or even 4
at one time, walking on the different floors. Then about 40 of us at
least, probably 20 in jump suites stood in front of the White House
(actually it's a pale yellow) for an hour.
The fast is going fine, and It's not the strict kind I was on a few year
ago, I think everybody - including me!, is drinking juice. It was bitter
cold yesterday but today it seems be a bit warmer, I just stuck my head
outside. Today it's more lobbying and probably some more "Ghost
Walking," that's what we called what we did at the Hart Bldg. yesterday.
I'll sign off now and will keep you posted. Jack
Razia and I joined the Fast Against Torture on Monday - we met Kathy Kelly
in Chicago Sunday and took Amtrak, arriving Monday afternoon with the fast
already rolling. Me missed a press conference which, everyone was
surprised, was very well covered, especially by foreign press. There are
over 100 fasters, about 35 living at St. Steven's Episcopalian Church, on
the floor in sleeping bags. Needless to say,, some fascinating people are
here, and some good activist friends from the DC area. A lot of Catholic
Workers, from here and New York, also, and this is hopefull, a lot of
young people.
The fast will only go 2 weeks, but a lot more activities are being planned
for an on-going protest against torture in general and the Guantanamo
prison in particular. Yesterday we started (everywhere we go means a
subway trip (METRO) and walking the rest of the way) at teh Friends
Committee on National Legislation, with some tips on lobbying, then went
to different senator's offices - friendly to the issue only -- like
Bernie Sanders, Dellums, and some others, The senate is not in session so
the intent was to talk to the aids. I'm going with Razia, Kathy Kelly and
some others to Dick Durbin's office today. Kathy & Razia dropped in on
Roland Burris' office and had a favorable meeting with one of his aids. I
walked up and down on the 4th floor at the Hart Senate Office Bldg. for 2
hours wearing an orange jump suite with a Guantanamo prisoner's name and
"CLEARED FOR RELEASE" on my back. It was powerful, there were about 15
doing it, each with a "watch person." A guard stopped me, asked what I
was doing, then took my name. There were then guards all over but none of
us were stopped. The building has a central atrium and every time I
reached a spot that looked out over it I could always spot 1, 2 or even 4
at one time, walking on the different floors. Then about 40 of us at
least, probably 20 in jump suites stood in front of the White House
(actually it's a pale yellow) for an hour.
The fast is going fine, and It's not the strict kind I was on a few year
ago, I think everybody - including me!, is drinking juice. It was bitter
cold yesterday but today it seems be a bit warmer, I just stuck my head
outside. Today it's more lobbying and probably some more "Ghost
Walking," that's what we called what we did at the Hart Bldg. yesterday.
I'll sign off now and will keep you posted. Jack
Wednesday, January 6, 2010
US pushing Pakistan into the abyss of oblivion
US pushing Pakistan into the abyss of oblivion
By Zafar Bangash
We are supposed to hate suicide bombers, those grotesque creatures hell-bent on killing innocent people because of their "demented ideology". There is no shortage of experts delivering sermons from every pulpit pontificating on the evils of terrorism. Government officials and their media sycophants join in this chorus but few bother to ask whence these hateful creatures came? There were no suicide bombers in Pakistan or Afghanistan a mere five years ago. What happened during this period to give birth to the phenomenon of suicide bombings is a question that must be addressed in earnest.
No problem can be tackled or solved properly without understanding its genesis, the circumstances surrounding its emergence and factors that feed its growth. Equally important is the fact that if a particular approach fails to solve the problem, alternatives must be explored.
Pakistan is rapidly hurtling into the abyss of oblivion. Hardly a day passes by without a bomb explosion or suicide bombing in some part of the country. What possible excuse could there be for the murderous attack on a masjid as happened on December 4 that killed more than 40 people in Rawalpindi, we are asked. The coordinated attack by suicide bombers followed by armed men shooting worshippers during Friday prayers when the masjid was full was particularly gruesome. Among those killed were a major general, a brigadier, a colonel, two lieutenant colonels and two majors. Seventeen children were also killed.
Four days later (December 8), the Moon Market in Iqbal Town, Lahore was bombed when it was full of shoppers; 43 people died in that carnage. On December 9 the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) offices in Multan were attacked. Unable to enter the building, the attackers detonated their lethal wares in the nearby building where families of ISI officials live. The car bombing left 12 dead and scores injured. Many more such attacks will occur in the days to come if past experience is anything to go by. The brief hiatus during Eid al-Adha celebrations has been shattered with far greater bloodletting.
Theories abound about the identity of the perpetrators: Taliban, Indian agents, American agents, Afghan agents, Blackwater mercenaries and Mossad. The list is endless. All of them may be involved but how has this situation evolved? Why were there no suicide bombers a mere five years ago; what circumstances led to their emergence and who else is fishing in the troubled waters of Pakistan? Is the US a friend or foe? The people of Pakistan know the answer but Pakistani elites continue to harbor illusions about America's friendship and believe it wants to help Pakistan — presumably over a cliff.
Immediately after the Moon Market bombing in Lahore, Pakistani Interior Minister Rehman Malik said the government had evidence that weapons were being smuggled from Afghanistan. Perhaps. Lahore Police chief, Pervez Rathore said India was involved. This may also be true. The Lahore daily, The Nation, reported on December 9 that two vehicles were stopped attempting to enter the restricted area of Lahore Cantonment late at night. The occupants were Americans who refused to show their identity papers or allow the police to search their vehicles. Officials from the US Consulate finally arrived at the scene to get the vehicles and their occupants freed. There is widespread belief that these were Blackwater mercenaries.
Thousands of Blackwater operatives (the organization has now renamed itself Xe Service to hide the criminal past associated with its former name) have descended on Pakistan. They carry prohibited weapons and on numerous occasions have been arrested by the police in suspicious circumstances only to be released on orders of Pakistani government officials. The US embassy in Islamabad has also hired a large number of retired army officers that act like warlords, trying to browbeat the police into submission. Poorly paid and lacking motivation, the police are easily intimidated by ex-army officers who throw their weight about driving in expensive, American-provided vehicles.
Last November, a plane load of Blackwater mercenaries arrived in Pakistan and were immediately whisked through Islamabad International Airport without going through immigration and customs formalities, according to officials at the airport quoted by The Nation newspaper (November 4, 2009). "We had instructions to allow the foreigners entry without custom procedure," officials on duty at Islamabad airport said. Blackwater mercenaries have operated in Pakistan for many years. On several occasions Pakistani police have arrested them at odd hours near Pakistan's nuclear sites or other sensitive installations. Every time ex-army officers working for the US embassy have intervened to secure their release. These former military officers and a long list of bureaucrats, journalists and politicians are on the US embassy payroll and are working directly against the interests of Pakistan.
Former Chief of Army Staff Mirza Aslam Baig has gone so far as to accuse the former military dictator Pervez Musharraf of being complicit in Blackwater crimes. General Baig has said it was Musharraf who gave these mercenaries the green light to carry out terrorist operations in Islamabad, Rawalpindi, Peshawar and Quetta. The current civilian rulers, led by Asif Ali Zardari, a venal character and a notorious crook, are in no position to say no to the Americans. Mark Mazzetti of the New York Times reported on August 29, 2009 that the CIA hired these mercenaries for targeted assassinations in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan as early as 2004. Following a particularly gruesome episode in Baghdad in 2007 in which 17 Iraqis were murdered in cold blood, the Iraqi regime refused to grant the company an "operating license." In a joint piece in the New York Times on December 11, Mazzetti and James Risen shed light on the tight relationship between the CIA and Blackwater. Hired for security duties, Blackwater operatives have indulged in wanton killings in Iraq. In Pakistan, the US hired them for illegal drone attacks as well as targeted killings.
Blackwater mercenaries are only one, even if the major problem facing Pakistan. There are other factors as well behind the escalating mayhem that is rapidly spinning out of control. The root of the problem is the US invasion and occupation of Afghanistan that has now spilled over into Pakistan. As a consequence of the US-NATO war and brutality in Afghanistan and the incessant drone attacks, there is great resentment in Pakistan toward the US. With fighting concentrated primarily in the south and southeast of Afghanistan where the Pashtuns reside, mass killings there have aroused much anger among the Pashtuns on the Pakistan side of the border as well.
It was bad enough when the US-NATO forces launched their aerial assault with B-1 bombers in October 2001 killing thousands of people in Afghanistan; the bombing of wedding parties and defenseless villagers in their mud huts in subsequent years has intensified hatred of the US. This has been heightened by the Pakistan military launching operations against its own people in the tribal areas of North and South Waziristan, Swat, Bajaur and now in Orakzai Agency. This ongoing painful chapter has contributed greatly to escalating tensions in Pakistan where none existed before, leading to the phenomenon of suicide bombings.
We need to consider the timeline of several events.
Military attacks in North and South Waziristan
Under pressure from the US, the former Pakistani dictator, General Pervez Musharraf ordered military operations against the people of South Waziristan in early 2004. The excuse advanced was that Pakistan had to "flush out" foreign fighters, mainly Uzbeks and Arabs. After several weeks of fighting that left hundreds of villagers dead and thousands as refugees, an agreement was reached with Naik Muhammad, the young charismatic tribal leader in the region. As a gesture of goodwill during a ceremony on April 24, 2004, the tribesmen surrendered their pistols and handed a copy of the Qur'an to the Pakistani general.
The agreement horrified Washington; it did not want peace in the area. On May 21, 2004, Musharraf presided over a high-powered meeting in Islamabad and ordered resumption of attacks. While the Corps Commander Peshawar, in charge of military operations in Waziristan, opposed such attacks and warned against breaking the agreement because it would have serious repercussions for the future, Musharraf was adamant. He insisted on attacking the tribesmen because Washington demanded it. The military relaunched its operations in early June. The US also joined with drone attacks and killed Naik Muhammad with whom the Pakistani military had, only a few weeks earlier, signed a widely publicized peace deal. The people of Waziristan were incensed by such betrayal. In order to protect the US, Musharraf claimed the Pakistan army had carried out the attack that killed Naik Muhammad. More than 15,000 people attended his funeral prayer in defiance of threats that the funeral procession would be bombed.
Between 2004 and 2006, Waziristan — both North and South — became a war zone. The US continued drone attacks killing civilians, mostly women and children. Several ceasefires were agreed upon only to be violated as a result of US pressure or drone attacks. As the attacks continued, there emerged a group calling itself Tehrik-e Taliban Pakistan (TTP). Suicide bombings increased in Pakistani cities mainly in the North West Frontier Province (NWFP). The Pakistan army continued attacking its own people while the Americans intensified their demands that Islamabad must "do more".
Lal Masjid attack: July 2007
As if the war in Waziristan that had already spread to other areas of the NWFP and the adjoining tribal areas was not bad enough, Musharraf perpetrated another outrage by attacking the Lal Masjid-madrassa compound in Islamabad in July 2007. Run by two imams, with long ties to the government and several ministers, they became embroiled in a dispute over growing immorality in the capital, especially prostitution. Girl students from the madrassa took it upon themselves to clean up the filth because the government had refused to do so. The girls' action was taken as a great affront by the regime as well as the secular elite. How could government-paid imams demand an end to prostitution when the ruling elites regularly patronize their dens? Several weeks of negotiations between the clerics and government emissaries fell apart because Musharraf did not want a peaceful resolution. He insisted on a military showdown to establish the "government' s writ" and to prove he was in charge. The Americans also demanded crushing the militants.
On July 11, 2007, Musharraf ordered his commandos to attack the Lal Masjid. In the weeklong attack, more than 1,400 students, most of them girls, were brutally murdered. Phosphorous bombs were used to burn people to death. The overwhelming majority of girls belonged to Swat; they were from poor families and had found the madrassa-masjid complex a useful place to educate their daughters and to provide them a roof, being too poor even to feed them (madrassas in Pakistan do not charged fees; Muslim philanthropists often contribute toward such expenses as part of their Islamic duty).
The Lal Masjid attack sent a shockwave throughout the country, particularly in Swat. While the secular elites, including Benazir Bhutto, then still "languishing" in her luxury apartment in London or commuting to her palaces in Dubai, applauded the commando raid and the killing of hundreds of innocent girls, ordinary Pakistanis were horrified. The Americans, too, applauded the killings. The result was catastrophic for Pakistan.
Bombings and suicide attacks immediately escalated. If one can establish a turning point in Pakistan's tortuous history, the Lal Masjid saga must stand out as the one that pushed the country over the brink. Battle lines became so clearly drawn that only the blind could fail to see. The ruling elites have never cared for ordinary people or their children but hitherto it was reflected in lack of services. Now the elites had embarked on a killing spree. The reaction was swift and strong. There has been no turning back since. Soon Musharraf was engulfed in a political crisis that forced him out of office following a British-American brokered deal that facilitated Bhutto's return to Pakistan. Corruption cases against Bhutto, her even more corrupt husband Asif Zardari, and thousands of other thieves and criminals, totaling 8041 people, were withdrawn under what came to be called the National Reconciliation Ordinance (NRO). Critics dubbed it the National Robbers' Ordinance.
Before the January 8, 2008 national elections were held, Benazir Bhutto was shot dead in Rawalpindi on December 27, 2007. Her death has been engulfed in controversy; few believe the official version that she hit her head on a door handle in the vehicle when she fell down after being hit. There is widespread belief in Pakistan that her husband had a hand in her killing. The street urchin, not fit to be even a doorman, ended up as president of the country and its unfortunate people after Musharraf was forced to resign on August 18, 2008. Musharraf's departure, however, did little to contain the mayhem that was rapidly engulfing the country. More than 100,000 troops were deployed in the tribal area fighting its own people, merely to appease the US.
Attack on Swat
On April 26, 2009, the military attacked Swat. It immediately resulted in more than three million people becoming refugees. In the sweltering heat, people were forced to live in dusty camps in Peshawar, Mardan and Sawabi. There was little or no government help extended to them. Pakistani bureaucrats that had gained notoriety for past corruption were appointed to look after the new refugees referred to as Internally Displaced Persons (IDP), stole donations earmarked for refugees. The Swat operation lasted several months. Massive damage was inflicted on major towns in Swat and the surrounding areas; hundreds of young people were executed in cold blood but leaders of the Taliban, against whom the operation was ostensibly launched, were neither captured nor killed. Some have been apprehended but it is widely believed that they are being sheltered by the regime.
On October 17, 2009, the military launched a fresh attack on South Waziristan, again under the rubric of extending "government writ". This strange animal is invoked each time the Americans exert pressure on Pakistan to "do more". While the military has continued to bomb villages in South Waziristan turning it into wasteland driving 500,000 people from their homes, car and suicide bombings have escalated in cities like Kohat, Peshawar, Rawalpindi, Islamabad, Lahore and Multan. October was a particularly bad month with attacks on a number of military targets including the General Headquarters in Rawalpindi. A number of brigadiers were also killed in Islamabad.
On December 12, 2009, the Pakistan government announced that it was halting military operations in South Waziristan but attacks against Orakzai Agency had already commenced. Long-range artillery batteries placed in Hangu, the district headquarter bordering Orakzai Agency, are being used to fire at villages like Bagh and other places in the tribal area. An estimated 250,000 people, the overwhelming majority women and children, from Orakzai Agency have been forced to flee and are now living in appalling conditions in refugee camps in Hangu. With the onset of winter that is extremely harsh in that region coupled with lack of proper shelter and heating facilities as well as lack of food, people's suffering will escalate, as will their resentment to seek revenge for the military's barbarous attacks. Pakistani Prime Minister Yusuf Raza Gailani said this would be a 10-12 year war. He is beginning to sound like American officials.
As US President Barack Obama announced his surge for Afghanistan, he also called upon Pakistan to launch military operations in Baluchistan. Obama, winner of the Nobel Peace Prize, wants to turn the whole of Pakistan into a war zone. He has threatened to extend drone attacks into Baluchistan as well. The Los Angeles Times reported on December 12 that the US intends to launch drone attacks o the Afghan Taliban Shura's alleged home base in Quetta. Now that would be a real gesture of peace!
When the Pakistan army and American drones kill innocent civilians, it is unrealistic to expect that people will not react. Each killing escalates resentment and stokes the urge to exact revenge, a long-established tradition in that part of the world. Victims have long memories; they do not easily forget their dead no matter how many rhetorical phrases are hurled at them. If for 3,000 American deaths on 9/11, the US can attack two countries and murder more than 1.5 million people, why is it so difficult to understand that other people will feel equally hurt and seek revenge?
The ruling elites in Pakistan should understand that they have aligned themselves with the enemy — the US government — against their own people for a fistful of dollars. They are now enemy agents and therefore, legitimate targets for those who have lost loved ones in the ongoing escalating attacks on their villages where they witnessed their children, mothers or wives blown to pieces. It is not and never was Pakistan's war; it is America's war imposed on Pakistan. And it does not help to prattle about an "extremist ideology" driving people to do crazy things; this is the reaction of very normal, ordinary people. It would be highly abnormal if they did not react this way.
Hamid Mir, the Pakistani journalist recounts the story of a young boy lying in a run-down hospital in Waziristan. The boy who had lost his limbs in a US Drone attack, told Mir that his mother too had died in a similar strike. In her dying moments, she had instructed him to avenge in Islamabad — where the decisions to maim and kill are made — what was done to her in Bajaur. Years later, his older brother was caught in Islamabad attempting to blow himself up in a high-security area.
The Pakistani elites have embarked on a suicidal policy. Their actions can only invite suicide bombers. They have only themselves to blame. History will render a very harsh verdict because they are actively engaged in destroying Pakistan.
By Zafar Bangash
We are supposed to hate suicide bombers, those grotesque creatures hell-bent on killing innocent people because of their "demented ideology". There is no shortage of experts delivering sermons from every pulpit pontificating on the evils of terrorism. Government officials and their media sycophants join in this chorus but few bother to ask whence these hateful creatures came? There were no suicide bombers in Pakistan or Afghanistan a mere five years ago. What happened during this period to give birth to the phenomenon of suicide bombings is a question that must be addressed in earnest.
No problem can be tackled or solved properly without understanding its genesis, the circumstances surrounding its emergence and factors that feed its growth. Equally important is the fact that if a particular approach fails to solve the problem, alternatives must be explored.
Pakistan is rapidly hurtling into the abyss of oblivion. Hardly a day passes by without a bomb explosion or suicide bombing in some part of the country. What possible excuse could there be for the murderous attack on a masjid as happened on December 4 that killed more than 40 people in Rawalpindi, we are asked. The coordinated attack by suicide bombers followed by armed men shooting worshippers during Friday prayers when the masjid was full was particularly gruesome. Among those killed were a major general, a brigadier, a colonel, two lieutenant colonels and two majors. Seventeen children were also killed.
Four days later (December 8), the Moon Market in Iqbal Town, Lahore was bombed when it was full of shoppers; 43 people died in that carnage. On December 9 the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) offices in Multan were attacked. Unable to enter the building, the attackers detonated their lethal wares in the nearby building where families of ISI officials live. The car bombing left 12 dead and scores injured. Many more such attacks will occur in the days to come if past experience is anything to go by. The brief hiatus during Eid al-Adha celebrations has been shattered with far greater bloodletting.
Theories abound about the identity of the perpetrators: Taliban, Indian agents, American agents, Afghan agents, Blackwater mercenaries and Mossad. The list is endless. All of them may be involved but how has this situation evolved? Why were there no suicide bombers a mere five years ago; what circumstances led to their emergence and who else is fishing in the troubled waters of Pakistan? Is the US a friend or foe? The people of Pakistan know the answer but Pakistani elites continue to harbor illusions about America's friendship and believe it wants to help Pakistan — presumably over a cliff.
Immediately after the Moon Market bombing in Lahore, Pakistani Interior Minister Rehman Malik said the government had evidence that weapons were being smuggled from Afghanistan. Perhaps. Lahore Police chief, Pervez Rathore said India was involved. This may also be true. The Lahore daily, The Nation, reported on December 9 that two vehicles were stopped attempting to enter the restricted area of Lahore Cantonment late at night. The occupants were Americans who refused to show their identity papers or allow the police to search their vehicles. Officials from the US Consulate finally arrived at the scene to get the vehicles and their occupants freed. There is widespread belief that these were Blackwater mercenaries.
Thousands of Blackwater operatives (the organization has now renamed itself Xe Service to hide the criminal past associated with its former name) have descended on Pakistan. They carry prohibited weapons and on numerous occasions have been arrested by the police in suspicious circumstances only to be released on orders of Pakistani government officials. The US embassy in Islamabad has also hired a large number of retired army officers that act like warlords, trying to browbeat the police into submission. Poorly paid and lacking motivation, the police are easily intimidated by ex-army officers who throw their weight about driving in expensive, American-provided vehicles.
Last November, a plane load of Blackwater mercenaries arrived in Pakistan and were immediately whisked through Islamabad International Airport without going through immigration and customs formalities, according to officials at the airport quoted by The Nation newspaper (November 4, 2009). "We had instructions to allow the foreigners entry without custom procedure," officials on duty at Islamabad airport said. Blackwater mercenaries have operated in Pakistan for many years. On several occasions Pakistani police have arrested them at odd hours near Pakistan's nuclear sites or other sensitive installations. Every time ex-army officers working for the US embassy have intervened to secure their release. These former military officers and a long list of bureaucrats, journalists and politicians are on the US embassy payroll and are working directly against the interests of Pakistan.
Former Chief of Army Staff Mirza Aslam Baig has gone so far as to accuse the former military dictator Pervez Musharraf of being complicit in Blackwater crimes. General Baig has said it was Musharraf who gave these mercenaries the green light to carry out terrorist operations in Islamabad, Rawalpindi, Peshawar and Quetta. The current civilian rulers, led by Asif Ali Zardari, a venal character and a notorious crook, are in no position to say no to the Americans. Mark Mazzetti of the New York Times reported on August 29, 2009 that the CIA hired these mercenaries for targeted assassinations in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan as early as 2004. Following a particularly gruesome episode in Baghdad in 2007 in which 17 Iraqis were murdered in cold blood, the Iraqi regime refused to grant the company an "operating license." In a joint piece in the New York Times on December 11, Mazzetti and James Risen shed light on the tight relationship between the CIA and Blackwater. Hired for security duties, Blackwater operatives have indulged in wanton killings in Iraq. In Pakistan, the US hired them for illegal drone attacks as well as targeted killings.
Blackwater mercenaries are only one, even if the major problem facing Pakistan. There are other factors as well behind the escalating mayhem that is rapidly spinning out of control. The root of the problem is the US invasion and occupation of Afghanistan that has now spilled over into Pakistan. As a consequence of the US-NATO war and brutality in Afghanistan and the incessant drone attacks, there is great resentment in Pakistan toward the US. With fighting concentrated primarily in the south and southeast of Afghanistan where the Pashtuns reside, mass killings there have aroused much anger among the Pashtuns on the Pakistan side of the border as well.
It was bad enough when the US-NATO forces launched their aerial assault with B-1 bombers in October 2001 killing thousands of people in Afghanistan; the bombing of wedding parties and defenseless villagers in their mud huts in subsequent years has intensified hatred of the US. This has been heightened by the Pakistan military launching operations against its own people in the tribal areas of North and South Waziristan, Swat, Bajaur and now in Orakzai Agency. This ongoing painful chapter has contributed greatly to escalating tensions in Pakistan where none existed before, leading to the phenomenon of suicide bombings.
We need to consider the timeline of several events.
Military attacks in North and South Waziristan
Under pressure from the US, the former Pakistani dictator, General Pervez Musharraf ordered military operations against the people of South Waziristan in early 2004. The excuse advanced was that Pakistan had to "flush out" foreign fighters, mainly Uzbeks and Arabs. After several weeks of fighting that left hundreds of villagers dead and thousands as refugees, an agreement was reached with Naik Muhammad, the young charismatic tribal leader in the region. As a gesture of goodwill during a ceremony on April 24, 2004, the tribesmen surrendered their pistols and handed a copy of the Qur'an to the Pakistani general.
The agreement horrified Washington; it did not want peace in the area. On May 21, 2004, Musharraf presided over a high-powered meeting in Islamabad and ordered resumption of attacks. While the Corps Commander Peshawar, in charge of military operations in Waziristan, opposed such attacks and warned against breaking the agreement because it would have serious repercussions for the future, Musharraf was adamant. He insisted on attacking the tribesmen because Washington demanded it. The military relaunched its operations in early June. The US also joined with drone attacks and killed Naik Muhammad with whom the Pakistani military had, only a few weeks earlier, signed a widely publicized peace deal. The people of Waziristan were incensed by such betrayal. In order to protect the US, Musharraf claimed the Pakistan army had carried out the attack that killed Naik Muhammad. More than 15,000 people attended his funeral prayer in defiance of threats that the funeral procession would be bombed.
Between 2004 and 2006, Waziristan — both North and South — became a war zone. The US continued drone attacks killing civilians, mostly women and children. Several ceasefires were agreed upon only to be violated as a result of US pressure or drone attacks. As the attacks continued, there emerged a group calling itself Tehrik-e Taliban Pakistan (TTP). Suicide bombings increased in Pakistani cities mainly in the North West Frontier Province (NWFP). The Pakistan army continued attacking its own people while the Americans intensified their demands that Islamabad must "do more".
Lal Masjid attack: July 2007
As if the war in Waziristan that had already spread to other areas of the NWFP and the adjoining tribal areas was not bad enough, Musharraf perpetrated another outrage by attacking the Lal Masjid-madrassa compound in Islamabad in July 2007. Run by two imams, with long ties to the government and several ministers, they became embroiled in a dispute over growing immorality in the capital, especially prostitution. Girl students from the madrassa took it upon themselves to clean up the filth because the government had refused to do so. The girls' action was taken as a great affront by the regime as well as the secular elite. How could government-paid imams demand an end to prostitution when the ruling elites regularly patronize their dens? Several weeks of negotiations between the clerics and government emissaries fell apart because Musharraf did not want a peaceful resolution. He insisted on a military showdown to establish the "government' s writ" and to prove he was in charge. The Americans also demanded crushing the militants.
On July 11, 2007, Musharraf ordered his commandos to attack the Lal Masjid. In the weeklong attack, more than 1,400 students, most of them girls, were brutally murdered. Phosphorous bombs were used to burn people to death. The overwhelming majority of girls belonged to Swat; they were from poor families and had found the madrassa-masjid complex a useful place to educate their daughters and to provide them a roof, being too poor even to feed them (madrassas in Pakistan do not charged fees; Muslim philanthropists often contribute toward such expenses as part of their Islamic duty).
The Lal Masjid attack sent a shockwave throughout the country, particularly in Swat. While the secular elites, including Benazir Bhutto, then still "languishing" in her luxury apartment in London or commuting to her palaces in Dubai, applauded the commando raid and the killing of hundreds of innocent girls, ordinary Pakistanis were horrified. The Americans, too, applauded the killings. The result was catastrophic for Pakistan.
Bombings and suicide attacks immediately escalated. If one can establish a turning point in Pakistan's tortuous history, the Lal Masjid saga must stand out as the one that pushed the country over the brink. Battle lines became so clearly drawn that only the blind could fail to see. The ruling elites have never cared for ordinary people or their children but hitherto it was reflected in lack of services. Now the elites had embarked on a killing spree. The reaction was swift and strong. There has been no turning back since. Soon Musharraf was engulfed in a political crisis that forced him out of office following a British-American brokered deal that facilitated Bhutto's return to Pakistan. Corruption cases against Bhutto, her even more corrupt husband Asif Zardari, and thousands of other thieves and criminals, totaling 8041 people, were withdrawn under what came to be called the National Reconciliation Ordinance (NRO). Critics dubbed it the National Robbers' Ordinance.
Before the January 8, 2008 national elections were held, Benazir Bhutto was shot dead in Rawalpindi on December 27, 2007. Her death has been engulfed in controversy; few believe the official version that she hit her head on a door handle in the vehicle when she fell down after being hit. There is widespread belief in Pakistan that her husband had a hand in her killing. The street urchin, not fit to be even a doorman, ended up as president of the country and its unfortunate people after Musharraf was forced to resign on August 18, 2008. Musharraf's departure, however, did little to contain the mayhem that was rapidly engulfing the country. More than 100,000 troops were deployed in the tribal area fighting its own people, merely to appease the US.
Attack on Swat
On April 26, 2009, the military attacked Swat. It immediately resulted in more than three million people becoming refugees. In the sweltering heat, people were forced to live in dusty camps in Peshawar, Mardan and Sawabi. There was little or no government help extended to them. Pakistani bureaucrats that had gained notoriety for past corruption were appointed to look after the new refugees referred to as Internally Displaced Persons (IDP), stole donations earmarked for refugees. The Swat operation lasted several months. Massive damage was inflicted on major towns in Swat and the surrounding areas; hundreds of young people were executed in cold blood but leaders of the Taliban, against whom the operation was ostensibly launched, were neither captured nor killed. Some have been apprehended but it is widely believed that they are being sheltered by the regime.
On October 17, 2009, the military launched a fresh attack on South Waziristan, again under the rubric of extending "government writ". This strange animal is invoked each time the Americans exert pressure on Pakistan to "do more". While the military has continued to bomb villages in South Waziristan turning it into wasteland driving 500,000 people from their homes, car and suicide bombings have escalated in cities like Kohat, Peshawar, Rawalpindi, Islamabad, Lahore and Multan. October was a particularly bad month with attacks on a number of military targets including the General Headquarters in Rawalpindi. A number of brigadiers were also killed in Islamabad.
On December 12, 2009, the Pakistan government announced that it was halting military operations in South Waziristan but attacks against Orakzai Agency had already commenced. Long-range artillery batteries placed in Hangu, the district headquarter bordering Orakzai Agency, are being used to fire at villages like Bagh and other places in the tribal area. An estimated 250,000 people, the overwhelming majority women and children, from Orakzai Agency have been forced to flee and are now living in appalling conditions in refugee camps in Hangu. With the onset of winter that is extremely harsh in that region coupled with lack of proper shelter and heating facilities as well as lack of food, people's suffering will escalate, as will their resentment to seek revenge for the military's barbarous attacks. Pakistani Prime Minister Yusuf Raza Gailani said this would be a 10-12 year war. He is beginning to sound like American officials.
As US President Barack Obama announced his surge for Afghanistan, he also called upon Pakistan to launch military operations in Baluchistan. Obama, winner of the Nobel Peace Prize, wants to turn the whole of Pakistan into a war zone. He has threatened to extend drone attacks into Baluchistan as well. The Los Angeles Times reported on December 12 that the US intends to launch drone attacks o the Afghan Taliban Shura's alleged home base in Quetta. Now that would be a real gesture of peace!
When the Pakistan army and American drones kill innocent civilians, it is unrealistic to expect that people will not react. Each killing escalates resentment and stokes the urge to exact revenge, a long-established tradition in that part of the world. Victims have long memories; they do not easily forget their dead no matter how many rhetorical phrases are hurled at them. If for 3,000 American deaths on 9/11, the US can attack two countries and murder more than 1.5 million people, why is it so difficult to understand that other people will feel equally hurt and seek revenge?
The ruling elites in Pakistan should understand that they have aligned themselves with the enemy — the US government — against their own people for a fistful of dollars. They are now enemy agents and therefore, legitimate targets for those who have lost loved ones in the ongoing escalating attacks on their villages where they witnessed their children, mothers or wives blown to pieces. It is not and never was Pakistan's war; it is America's war imposed on Pakistan. And it does not help to prattle about an "extremist ideology" driving people to do crazy things; this is the reaction of very normal, ordinary people. It would be highly abnormal if they did not react this way.
Hamid Mir, the Pakistani journalist recounts the story of a young boy lying in a run-down hospital in Waziristan. The boy who had lost his limbs in a US Drone attack, told Mir that his mother too had died in a similar strike. In her dying moments, she had instructed him to avenge in Islamabad — where the decisions to maim and kill are made — what was done to her in Bajaur. Years later, his older brother was caught in Islamabad attempting to blow himself up in a high-security area.
The Pakistani elites have embarked on a suicidal policy. Their actions can only invite suicide bombers. They have only themselves to blame. History will render a very harsh verdict because they are actively engaged in destroying Pakistan.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Important Links
Blog Archive
-
►
2017
(5)
- ► 12/17 - 12/24 (1)
- ► 12/10 - 12/17 (1)
- ► 12/03 - 12/10 (1)
- ► 11/26 - 12/03 (2)
-
►
2011
(2)
- ► 02/06 - 02/13 (1)
- ► 01/09 - 01/16 (1)
-
▼
2010
(14)
- ► 10/10 - 10/17 (2)
- ► 06/27 - 07/04 (1)
- ► 04/25 - 05/02 (2)
- ► 01/31 - 02/07 (2)
-
►
2009
(22)
- ► 12/27 - 01/03 (2)
- ► 12/13 - 12/20 (2)
- ► 12/06 - 12/13 (1)
- ► 11/22 - 11/29 (2)
- ► 11/15 - 11/22 (2)
- ► 09/27 - 10/04 (2)
- ► 09/13 - 09/20 (1)
- ► 09/06 - 09/13 (2)
- ► 08/16 - 08/23 (1)
- ► 08/02 - 08/09 (1)
- ► 06/28 - 07/05 (1)
- ► 05/10 - 05/17 (1)
- ► 04/05 - 04/12 (1)
- ► 03/08 - 03/15 (1)
- ► 01/25 - 02/01 (2)
-
►
2008
(13)
- ► 10/05 - 10/12 (1)
- ► 07/13 - 07/20 (1)
- ► 07/06 - 07/13 (1)
- ► 06/29 - 07/06 (1)
- ► 06/22 - 06/29 (1)
- ► 05/11 - 05/18 (1)
- ► 04/27 - 05/04 (1)
- ► 03/23 - 03/30 (1)
- ► 02/03 - 02/10 (1)
- ► 01/27 - 02/03 (2)
- ► 01/20 - 01/27 (1)
- ► 01/13 - 01/20 (1)
-
►
2007
(94)
- ► 12/16 - 12/23 (2)
- ► 12/09 - 12/16 (1)
- ► 12/02 - 12/09 (3)
- ► 11/18 - 11/25 (2)
- ► 11/11 - 11/18 (1)
- ► 11/04 - 11/11 (3)
- ► 10/28 - 11/04 (1)
- ► 10/21 - 10/28 (2)
- ► 10/14 - 10/21 (3)
- ► 09/30 - 10/07 (4)
- ► 09/23 - 09/30 (2)
- ► 09/16 - 09/23 (1)
- ► 09/09 - 09/16 (4)
- ► 09/02 - 09/09 (3)
- ► 08/26 - 09/02 (2)
- ► 08/19 - 08/26 (2)
- ► 08/12 - 08/19 (1)
- ► 08/05 - 08/12 (2)
- ► 07/29 - 08/05 (1)
- ► 07/22 - 07/29 (1)
- ► 07/15 - 07/22 (5)
- ► 07/01 - 07/08 (2)
- ► 06/24 - 07/01 (1)
- ► 06/17 - 06/24 (3)
- ► 06/10 - 06/17 (4)
- ► 06/03 - 06/10 (2)
- ► 05/27 - 06/03 (3)
- ► 05/13 - 05/20 (3)
- ► 05/06 - 05/13 (4)
- ► 04/29 - 05/06 (3)
- ► 04/22 - 04/29 (7)
- ► 04/15 - 04/22 (3)
- ► 04/08 - 04/15 (3)
- ► 04/01 - 04/08 (3)
- ► 03/25 - 04/01 (4)
- ► 03/18 - 03/25 (3)