Sunday, December 27, 2009

In Memory of Gaza. . .

the victims of the massacare that began there one year ago today, those who continue to suffer under the siege, and the heroic people, Israelis, Palestinians, and internationals, who continue to risk their lives in the pursuit of justice. Viva Palestina!

Thursday, December 24, 2009

Legal Absurdities

It might not reach the level of absurdity seen earlier this year when the Israeli navy impounded a humanitarian vessel in international waters, forced its crew into Israel against their will, and then charged them with illegally entering the country, but the indictment of Abdallah Abu Rahma in a military court for weapons possession last Tuesday is up there. Rahma, a teacher by profession, is a leader in the West Bank town of Bil'in's Popular Committee, an organization that stages non-violent demonstrations with international and Israeli peace activists to protest the construction of the wall dividing the village from its land. The charges against Rahma stem from an exhibit he constructed showcasing used tear gas canisters the Israeli military had fired at unarmed demonstrators, such as American Tristan Anderson who remain in a coma after being hit by such a canister earlier this year. The military was forced to drop charges against an associate of Rahma after it was proven the man was travelling abroad when he was alleged to have attacked Israeli soldiers. This case illustrates, better than any other, that Israel's military operations in Palestine are aimed at expansion and not security. Why else would they detain non-violent activists?

Tuesday, December 22, 2009

al-Hurra and Propaganda

Most Americans have never heard of Al-Hurra, for good reason. The Arabic language station, based in northern Virginia and funded by the U.S with a $100 million yearly budget, is legally barred from broadcasting in the U.S by the Smith-Mundt Actwhich stipulates government funded propaganda cannot target domestic audiences. Of course not many people outside the U.S watch the station either. A poll by Zogby International indicated the station's audience share fell from 2% in 2008 to .5% in 2009. Spokespeople for the agency overseeing al-Hurra, the Broadcasting Board of Governors prefer to focus on how many people could watch the station, if they wanted to. "Alhurra now reaches 26.7 million people weekly across the Middle East, up almost one million in the last year," declared Letitia King, a spokeswoman for the group "these are solid numbers by any measure. Fran Mires, host of the al-Youma news show, boasts of filling a niche in the Arab market: showing from both Beirut and Jerusalem on the screen on the same time. “That’s what our competitors don’t do,” she says. Yasser Thabet, a former editor for the station offers a different image. "If some problem happened on the air," he said "people would just joke with each other, saying, 'Well, nobody watches us anyway."

Given the number of problems, that is perhaps a blessing for its producers. Along with interviews with U.S favorites and officials the station has featured favorable coverage of a Holocaust denial conference. In 2004, when other Arabic stations interrupted their programming to cover the assassination of the spiritual leader of Hamas al-Hurra broadcast a cooking show. The official tasked with managing the station can't even understand Arabic. The news director has no background in journalism. The station has taken to adding Arabic subtitles to English language shows and has purchased programming from BBC Arabic in attempt to boost ratings, which have now declined to less than the margin of error in viewership surveys.

Photo: Incompetence has so thoroughly characterized recent U.S government policy in the Middle East that it has failed even in the information war. Its al-Hurra propaganda network broadcast an uninterrupted hour long speech by Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah.

Past the incompetence of this operation, though, lies an important issue: why is the U.S government funding propaganda broadcasts to the Arab world. It isn't a novel policy. Radio Free Europe and Radio Free Asia have been in operation for decades. The Coalition Provisional Authority in Iraq spent $100 million to commander the infrastructure of Saddam's media network and establish the Iraqi Media Network, which unlike the bungled al-Hurra network is regularly viewed by about 40% of Iraqis. In the early days of his Presidency George W. Bush realized the U.S had an image problem in the Middle East. The policies that created this problem were non-negotiable, so the focus necessarily shifted towards spinning them in a positive direction.

American officials hoped what they dubbed Bush's answer to al-Jazeera, the most expensive propaganda project since the launch of Radio Free Europe in 1942, could sway Arab public opinion and mitigate the impact of coverage by al-Jazeera, whose Doha headquarters President Bush reputedly considered bombing during the siege of Fallujah. That seriously misinterprets the U.S's unpopularity in the Middle East. Americans are easy to propagandize. In the U.S, the media market is saturated, indeed dominated, by outlets subservient to U.S interests. That is not the case in the Arab world. Juxtaposed against the images of a more ruthless American power being exercised visible on mainstream networks, commentaries by American spokespeople only serve to add hypocrisy to their government's perception in the Middle East. More importantly, Arabs understand more about global power structure by living their lives than American do by viewing their mainstream media. How much anti-U.S propaganda does it take to radicalize someone whose relative has been killed by an American soldier in Iraq, who has been tortured by an American backed dictatorship, whose neighbor's home has been destroyed by an American supplied missile? No amount of spin will change that.

Monday, December 14, 2009

Arrest Warrant Against Livni a Positive Step


The decision of a British court over the weekend to issue an arrest warrant against former Israeli Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni in connection with her involvement in war crimes and crimes against humanity as a member of the War Council during Israel's operations in Gaza earlier this year represents a positive step even though the warrant was later canceled. The London court ordered Livni's arrest after it mistakenly believed the Israeli war criminal entered British territory, but was forced to annul it after it was revealed she had scrapped a planned appearance in the country. That means Livni avoided fugitive status only because of a legal technicality and not political pressure on the judiciary.

This is the third time this year an Israeli official involved in massacres in the Gaza Strip has encountered legal difficulties while attempting to travel to the United Kingdom, but it represents the first arrest warrant issued against an Israeli minister. Earlier this year a court blocked an attempt to arrest Defense Minister Ehud Barak, claiming he enjoyed diplomatic immunity. Strategic Affairs Minister Moshe Ya'alon declined an invitation to speak in Britain in October after being warned he could face arrest in connection with a 2002 missile attack in Gaza which killed a quadriplegic Hamas official and fourteen civilians.

Even if judicial proceedings in countries with favorable relations to Israel do not lead to arrests or conviction they provide a valuable deterrent to future crimes. They also offer a de facto travel ban, which serves to isolate those who engage in crimes. Israel already regard Britain and South Africa as particularly problematic countries and has assembled teams of lawyers in the event that a senior official ends up in the docks answering war crimes charges. It has already reportedly advised some individuals against traveling to certain countries. Even if the Israeli government has no qualms in slaughtering civilians it is beginning to realize that there is a price for actions incompatible with civilized opinion.

Thursday, December 10, 2009

10 PEOPLE WORTHY OF A NOBEL PEACE PRIZE

There are billions of people who, by doing nothing, have done more to advance global peace than the American President, in Oslo accepting a peace prize today. Of the thousands of individuals who have devoted and risked their lives to struggling for a more peaceful world, ten who would have made exceptional Nobel laureates in place of the latest war criminal to receive the award.

Aminatu Haidar- Western Sahara
Since she was twenty-three years old Aminatu Haidar has been a leader in the non-violent struggle on behalf of the human and political rights of the people of her Moroccan occupied homeland. Despite multiple arrests, torture, a four year forced disappearance in her twenties, public beatings, and lengthy imprisonments Haidar has remained steadfast in her devote to peaceful methods of change, causing her to be dubbed the Gandhi of the Sahara. Nominated by the American Friends Service Committee in 2008 for the Nobel Peace Prize and a recipient of the Robert F. Kennedy Human Rights Award, her work has earned international distinction. Last month as she attempted to return from the U.S where she was accepting the Civil Courage Award Moroccan authorities seized her travel documents and deported her against her will and without her passport to Spain, which has refused to allow her to leave the country without a passport. In response she announced her intent to fast to the death if the illegal actions of Rabat and Madrid are not reversed. Nearly four weeks into her hunger strike the situation remains unresolved. As Barack Obama accepts a Nobel Prize in Norway a genuine advocate of peace is nearing death at Lanzarote Airport in the Canary Islands.

Noam Chomsky- U.S
A summary of Noam Chomsky's work would be impossible. For decades he has been the global peace and justice movement's preeminent intellectual. The formidable intellect that revolutionized linguistics is equally formidable in defending human rights. In a world where propaganda is typically a more powerful weapon than blunt force there is no greater menace to the interests of power than the well reasoned and forceful attacks of Noam Chomsky on the abuses of the establishment. Though ignored entirely by the mainstream U.S media Chomsky's work has made him an icon of hope both in his home country and abroad. It is difficult to imagine a world without the forceful morality and powerful intellect of Professor Chomsky. He has done more to subvert oppressive power structures than perhaps anyone else in the second half of the twentieth century.

Ghassan Andoni/ISM- Palestine
Faced with daily occupation and oppression by a racist, colonial army, many Palestinians have embraced violent resistance. Ghassan Andoni sees that strategy as counterproductive. It gives the enemy a propaganda tool, provides a pretext for further aggression, and marginalizes the nascent Israeli peace movement. The two conditions that must be reached for the occupation to end, Andoni argues, is for its price to exceed its benefits and for an anti-colonial movement to emerge from within the colonial power. In 1987 Andoni put those principles into action with the foundation of the International Solidarity Movement, a nonviolent Palestinian resistance organization composed of Israeli, Palestinian, and international volunteers. That work has come at price, several of the ISM's 4,000 members have been killed or seriously injured by the Israeli military, but it has also worked to undermine the occupation, both on the ground, and in the eyes of the world.

Abdul Sattar Edhi- Pakistan
In 1951 Abdul Ehdi received basic medical training from a doctor and spent his savings on a tiny dispensary to provide free care and a building to house literacy classed. Devoting himself absolutely to the poor Dr. Edhi spent his nights sleeping on a concrete bench outside the dispensary to be able to assist all he needed help whenever they needed it. As Edhi's work gained recognition his tiny charitable operations began expanding, eventually becoming the Edhi Foundation but his spirit of compassion never changed. Over fifty years later he remains an indefatigable servant of humanity, on call 24/7, counseling victims of abuse, presiding over one of the world's largest charities, speaking out against injustice, and even begging for the poor on the streets.

Malalai Joya/RAWA- Afghanistan
A Woman Among Warlords is how Malalai Joya entitled her biography. For good reason. Afghanistan's youngest MP until she was suspended from parliament for condemning warlordism, Joya is perhaps Afghanistan's most popular politician. She and the Revolutionary Association of the Women of Afghanistan have devoted themselves to fighting both the Taliban and the foreign occupation. Joya is confident she will not die in her bed. She travels around Kabul secretly, changing safehouses often under the protection of an armed guard. The warlords who she so passionately denounced threatened to rape her in the parliament building, she has received numerous death threats, but she has not been intimidated into abandoning her struggle for secular democracy and womens' rights. Few other people have so courageously and selflessly defended human rights.

Baltasar Garzón- Spain
No one has done more to intimidate and deter war criminal than Spanish judge Baltasar Garzón. Because Spanish law embraces universal jurisdiction, the idea that some crimes are so serious any nation may prosecute them, Garzón has had a free hand to investigate and indict the perpetrators of crimes against humanity. His work led to the indictment of former Chilean dictator Gen. Augosto Pinochet. American, Argentine, and Spanish tortures, murderers, and Genocidaires have all been targeted by this courageous judge. Though politically embarrassing to his government Garzón has made enormous contribution in deterring future atrocities.

Denis Mukwege- Congo
Denis Mukwege's father was a priest. As a boy he resolved to become a doctor so that he could heal the sick his father prayed for. Today he works eighteen hour shifts treating victims of gang rape in the world's most deadly conflict. Despite numerous threats on his life Dr. Mukwege continues to tirelessly and selflessly devote himself to treating the neglected victims of the Congo's civil war, providing treatment to the victims of war and hope to all of humanity.

Hu Jia- China
There are few Chinese issues Hu Jia has not been involved in. Environmental activism, AIDS awareness, human rights, and political liberalization have all been championed by Hu. Instead of recognition that work has earned him the attention of the security services. Today he is serving a three and a half year sentence for "inciting subversion of state power and the socialist system". His crime: interviews with foreign media and articles posted online critical of his government.

Ragıp Zarakolu- Turkey
Ragip Zarakolu's childhood interactions with members of Turkey's Greek and Armenian minorities left a deep impression on the young Turk. In his twenties he became a vocal human rights activist, and in 1971, a prisoner of conscience for his unauthorized dealings with Amnesty International. His journalism, exposing and condemning human rights abuses, brought him to prison three more times before the conclusion of the decade. After forty years, some in prison, Zarakolu's crusade continues. Despite endless legal proceedings and threats from right-wing organizations he continues to champion human and minority rights and reconciliation among Turkey's ethnic groups. His publishing house is a pillar of dissident circles.

Piedad Córdoba- Columbia
In war torn Columbia opposition Sen. Piedad Córdoba consistently offers a voice of peace, as well as an advocate of gender, racial, and sexual equality. As a advocate of an end to the long running conflict between the government and FARC rebels she has endured treason charges and a kidnapping, but has preserved in her pursuit of a peaceful end to the fighting that has devastated her home country.

Sunday, December 6, 2009

EQUATORIAL GUINEA AND THE AXIS OF OIL


Despite extensive PR spending and business deals with western nations one of Africa's worst dictators remains largely ignored, and for a good reason, his human rights record is so blatantly horrific the most gifted PR specialist could not defend it, affording human rights activists a unique opportunity to disrupt the tacit support of their government for a brutal thug.


Following the press release posted on Equatorial Guinea's website where Ambassador Purificación Angue Ondo proclaims "[h]is Excellency President Teodoro Obiang Nguema Mbasogo has been re-elected. . .with 95.37 percent of the vote," is a notice that the statement was "distributed by Qorvis Communications, LLC and Cassidy & Associate." While President Obiang is not as popular in Washington as the official results of the former Spanish colony's November 29 poll suggest he is at home, so popular in fact that he won 103% of the votes at some precincts in the 2002 election, the west's supine reaction to the election contrasts sharply to the reaction to Zimbabwe's 2008 Presidential contest.

Obiang's journey to power began as the Spanish sought a leader they could control after they left their African possession. They settled on Obiang's uncle, a man handpicked for his stupidity. Obiang assumed a senior military position within the new government. As governor of the notorious Black Beach Prison he celebrated his new status with night long 'torture parties', today opponents accuse him of cannibalism. When one of his uncle's killing sprees targeted close relatives the ruling family moved against him. Obiang led the coup, executed his uncle, and assumed power. Obiang still rules thirty years later, guarded by foreign mercenaries, whom are thought to be more loyal than the military.

During the reign of Obiang's uncle the country was so poor dissidents had to be garroted to conserve bullets. A third of the population either fled or were killed. The paltry sums the government earned from declining agricultural revenues barely put it on the map. In 1994 the American ambassador John Bennett, an ardent critic of Obiang, departed after receiving death threats. The U.S embassy shut down two years later, weeks later a huge oil field was discovered. The man locally dubbed Africa's worst dictator, and there was much competition for that title, was out of the political wilderness. In 2003 the Bush administration reestablished an embassy in the capital of Malibo, on land rented from a senior regime official.

Equatorial Guinea was open for business. The form director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, General Henry Soyster, now in the private world, defended business dealing with Obiang's police state. "They do have a poor human rights record," said the General "but so did the Nazi government, and we did pretty well with Germany after World War II." Reporters without borders might rank Equatorial Guinea's press freedom bellow those thriving democracies of Sudan and Libya, but the nation's output of 450,000 barrels of oil equivalent a day mean Equatorial Guinea should now be viewed as, in the word's of its President, a "democracy in development." A view that could be certainly seconded by its PR firm in Washington.

The dictator's government, previously unconcerned by its international image, began spending millions of dollars each year on U.S PR firms. That was small change for a ruler whose multi-billion dollar oil fortune makes him one of the world's wealthiest men. In theory Equatorial Guinea's people should have an income on par with, or above, that of the U.S or western Europe. The small nation of 600,000 takes in billions of dollars each year in oil money. In practice only a select few benefit while most of the population does not have running water or access to basic health care. That small investment, coupled with the vast oil reserves, bought Obiang new prestige. The man described as a god and a cannibal in state media was described as a "friend" by the American Secretary of State.

"For a long time our relationship with Equatorial Guinea revolved around human rights," one oil company official said, ". . .now that the energy picture is changing, that introduces something to balance out the dialogue." Former American Ambassador Frank Ruddy put it more bluntly, the U.S "for reasons of realpolitik treated a dictator.. with the greatest respect." Under the current arrangement Obiang give the U.S oil companies free access, they give him a quarter of the proceeds, and the American political establishment ignores the African nation that makes Zimbabwe look like a functioning democracy.

Neither side is satisfied with the arrangement. It is one of pragmatism, not love. The American oil companies are fed up with the detrimental corruption. Obiang, while politely ignored by the U.S media, does not have a positive image. Unlike other dictators supported by the U.S there is no ideological commitment to his regime. Those feelings are certainly mutual. Obiang appreciated the patronage of the world's only superpower, but he would gladly find a new benefactor if it suited his interests. The Chinese are already developing their interests in the nation and would be glad to supplant the role of the U.S if afforded the opportunity. That makes the Obiang government particularly vulnerable to pressure from western activists.

Wednesday, December 2, 2009

SWITZERLAND BANS MINARETS


Switzerland's vote to ban the construction of new minarets was billed by its far-right supporters as a largely symbolic referendum on extremist ideology. It was, just not the brand they envisioned. The move by Swiss voters exemplifies the disturbing trend of racial hatred and xenophobia that has been in the upsurge in Europe recently, particularly in the East, but increasingly in western Europe as well. The vote had nothing to do with the oppression of religious minorities in Islamic nations as was often suggested. It is curious that voters in a western country such as Switzerland seem to think Saudi Arabia's policies towards minorities merit imitation, as many of those who supported the ban claimed.

The only connection between the vote and extremism is that it was an extremist proposition. Muslims are increasingly playing the role that Jews took for much of Europe's history and that the Roma people continue to play as the scapegoat of choice. Whenever there is economic difficulty it is easiest to kick some minority in the face instead of addressing the problem. But, I will not devote any more time to condemning the resurgence of extremist ultra-nationalism in Europe. If anything good has come out of this vote it has been the near unanimous condemnation of it by outside observers, a respond that is more than sufficient.

Rather, it is important to ask why 57% of Swiss voters approved this measure, and what can be done to stem the tide of xenophobia and neo-fascism in the western world. The much proffered notion that this is due to Islamic extremism is patently absurd. If anything it will increase the alienation and thereby contribute to the radicalization of Muslims. This vote has little to do with Muslims, it has to due with insecurity in western nations, economic insecurity, but also insecurity in national identity, an insecurity that breeds fear, hatred, xenophobia and extremism. What is to be done?

To an extent education about different cultures is helpful, though this is a palliative and not a cure. Minorities do not owe majorities constant explanations of their actions nor should they be expected to takes some loyalty tests. A minority cannot afford to be quite as cocky as Jabotinsky suggested and the attitude of "instead of turning our backs to the accusers, as there is nothing to apologize for, and nobody to apologize to, we swear again and again that it is not our fault." But it must recognize the limits of education and dialouge, it must recognize that it has no need or obligation to explain itself to every petty bigot. The most effective way of undermining far-right extremism fall somewhere in the middle.

The most important thing is too isolate the extremists. Education is an important part of this, it is useful in pealing away innocent and ignorant supporters of intolerant views. When dealing with extremists it is important to remember that most are simply ignorant, not malicious. They sincerely believe the nonsense they are sprouting. For these people, many of whom have gone on to become prominent advocates of tolerance, it is important to offer education and patience. However, for the irreconcilable radicals and their opportunistic leaders there can be no hope of conversion. This core group must be isolated, stigmatized, and marginalized. This must be accomplished through a coalition of minorities and underrepresented groups as well as civil society organizations. Hatred cannot be eliminated, but its effect can be mitigated. Above all, it is important not to destroy these efforts by meeting intolerance with intolerance.

Thursday, November 26, 2009

CAN YOU TELL THE DIFFERENCE?


Terrorism



Collateral Damage

HONDURAS: THE SLIDE TOWARDS TYRANNY


In 1983 American Jesuit priest James Carney was brutally tortured and thrown to his death from a helicopter on the orders of Honduran Gen. Gustavo Alvarez Martinez, founding commander of the elite Battalion 3-16 death squad. The same year Ronald Reagan presented the General, whose portrait adorns the School of the Americas, the Legion of Merit for "encouraging the success of democratic processes in Honduras," raising suspicion that the killing was sanctioned by then U.S ambassador John Negroponte.

Even if that was not the case, which seems unlikely, Negroponte presided over the largest CIA station in the world and one of the darkest periods in the tortured U.S-Honduran relationship. "[I]ntelligence collection and reporting requirements on human rights abuses," euphemistically reported a subsequent CIA review "were subordinated to higher priorities," namely the interests of American corporations. Summarizing declassified documents the National Security Archive comments that "reporting on human rights atrocities" committed by Battalion 3-16 is "conspicuously absent from the cable traffic" and that "Negroponte's cables reflect no protest, or even discussion of these issues during his many meetings with General Alvarez, his deputies and Honduran President Robert Suazo. Nor do the released cables contain any reporting to Washington on the human rights abuses that were taking place." In his stint as ambassador Negroponte, dubbed "the proconsul", worked to undermine regional peace initiatives, provide logistical support to the Nicaraguan Contras, who were based in Honduras, and worked closely with the leading Generals who were torturing their country on behalf of powerful American and local business interests.

That history makes the current situation in Honduras and Washington extremely concerning. The response to the June coup deposing democratically elected President Manuel Zelaya was initially positive. State Department officials described the situation as a military coup, the U.S funded Freedom House called for the restoration of the elected government, as did the Obama administration. However, the U.S offered unwavering, if tacit, support of the de facto government, without which it would not be able to retain power.

As the coup government has grown more secure in its position it has become increasingly repressive. The post-coup period has been followed by forced closures of media outlets, extrajudicial killings, assassinations and kidnapping of opposition leaders by members of the security forces, torture, bans on political expression, forced disappearances, and a nationwide curfew. Though an unelected government that rules through terror is hostile to civilized opinion, it is highly laudable from the perspective of the wealthy local elites and foreign corporations that control the economy.

The U.S has broken from the rest of the world in refusing to recall its ambassador and pledging to recognize the results of Sunday's ballot, which is being boycotted by the opposition. President Obama has even suggested it was hypocritical to suggest the U.S should exert its leverage to restore democratic rule while opposing U.S subversion in foreign nations.

As the business community is obliged to offer cash discounts to individuals with stained fingers on election day in hopes of raising voter turnout to levels sufficient to give the election a veneer of legitimacy the U.S has pledged to recognize the results of the contest, which features no opposition candidates. The position of the American government, reminiscent of the policies of death squads and dictators that characterized the last five decades of interaction between the region and the global hegemon, is a dangerous step backwards in U.S-Latin American relations.


Wednesday, November 25, 2009

BAN ANTI-PERSONAL MINES


The Obama administration drew the ire of human rights groups following an announcement Tuesday by State Department spokesman Ian Kelly concerning the U.S policy of not signing the Ottowa Convention banning the use, stockpiling, production, and transfer of antipersonnel mines. Kelly indicated President Obama intends to maintain the Bush administration's stance of refusing to sign the agreement. 5,200 deaths are attributed to uncleared mines in eighty-four countries last year by The International Campaign to Ban Landmines. The 1997 agreement resulted in the destruction of seventy-seven national stockpiles and 80 million weapons. Kelly cited a previously undisclosed government review which indicated signing the treaty would harm U.S interests. The U.S's participation in the Cartagena, Colombia conference reviewing the treaty next week will be limited to an observer role, according to Kelly's initial comments. The State Department, however, quickly backtracked. A subsequent statement by Kelly, who fumbled reporters' questions on the treaty, claimed the review was only partially complete.

Whatever the administration's actual feelings on the topic are, it is important for the U.S, which holds 10 million mines, to move ahead with signing and implementing the treaty. Last year 5,200 people died, according to the International Campaign to Ban Land Mines, from uncleared weapons. More than 200,000 kilometers in over eight nations contain mines. Though the U.S has not used anti-personal mines since the First Gulf War it has historically insisted on sharing the position rouge states such as Libya, North Korea, Iran, Somalia, and Burma in refusing to joining the 156 nations already party to the agreement.

Momentum for the ban began in 1992 with the formation of the International Campaign to Ban Landmines. in 1997 the group and its spokeswoman jointly received the Nobel Peace Prize. That same year 122 nations became signatories to the Ottawa Convention, pledging never to use, acquire, stockpile, or transfer anti-personal mines, to destroy their national stockpiles within six years, to clear all mines in their territory in ten, and to provide care and education to populations living in affected areas.

Wednesday, October 28, 2009

Know Their Names


Left:The courtroom at the International Criminal Court.

Prosecuting war criminals is a frustrating affair. Appropriate laws are in place, but without mechanisms to enforce them they are meaningless. Domestic law is enforced by the state, but in questions of foreign policy states are driven by interests, not principles. They will assemble international tribunals, but only to judge weak and defeated enemies.

So, while the docks at the International Criminal Court are filled with petty African thugs, most war criminals are never held to account, in spite of a strong legal case. Taking that position to an extreme, the U.S has even pledged to intervene militarily to protect any American war criminal facing a prosecutor in the Hague. The value of these selective prosecutions to the human rights movement is minimal, but the fear they create among third world military leaders, who know political conditions and their aurora of immunity could easily change, is real.

That fear has been gnawing at the minds of many high officials, particularly after the London arrest of Gen. Augosto Pinochet, an American ally once considered untouchable

Even if the possibility of prosecution is remote the fear is real. Political realities will change, and with them so will legal ones, those who are untouchable today could end up on trial tomorrow. When justice cannot be implemented the fear of justice must fill the void.

Every arrest of a western war criminal in a western nation helps lift the veil of impunity. Every indictment is a victory, every arrest is a greater one. Western is an important qualification. Prosecutions of official enemies will produce more convictions, as well as an orgy of hypocritical self-congratulation, but they will be colored by their political context, doing nothing to advance human rights. Prosecutions of criminals from friendly nations will discourage future violations. A young officer in a combat zone will hesitate before ordering atrocities if he knows he will face the possibility of arrest for the rest of his life.

Towards this end western human rights activists need to begin compiling sealed lists of suspected criminals accompanies by legal evidence to support their prosecution. The travel of individuals on the list can then be monitored and information can be released as opportunities for arrest occur. This will do much to temper the actions of battlefield commanders. Those involved in war crimes and crimes against humanity will be troubled, uncertain if they are being targeted for future prosecution, they will face the choice of accepting a de facto travel ban, a small penalty in itself, or risk arrest and prosecution abroad.

Wednesday, October 14, 2009

PREMATURE ANTI-FASCIST?

Premature Anti-Fascist
A Lecture By
Bernard Knox

I first heard the remarkable phrase that serves as my title in 1946 when, fresh out of the US Army, I went up to New Haven, Connecticut for an interview with the chairman of the Yale Classics Department, to which, taking advantage of the generous provisions of what was popularly known as the GI Bill, I had applied for admission to the graduate program for the Ph.D. in Classics. I had submitted a copy of my certificate of the BA I had received from St. Johns College, Cambridge in 1936. I did not make any mention of the fact that I had made rather a mediocre showing in the final part of the Tripos, ending up with a second class (at least, I comforted myself, I did better than Auden, who got a third, and Housman, who failed completely). To jazz my application up a bit, I had included my record in the US Army, private to captain 1942-45. The Professor, who had himself served in the US Army in 1917-18, was very interested, and remarked on the fact that, in addition to the usual battle-stars for service in the European Theatre, I had been awarded a Croix de Guerre a l'Ordre de l'Armée, the highest category for that decoration. Asked how I got it, I explained that, in July 1944, I had parachuted, in uniform, behind the Allied lines in Brittany to arm and organize French Resistance forces and hold them ready for action at the moment most useful for the Allied advance. "Why were you selected for that operation?" he asked, and I told him that I was one of the few people in the US Army who could speak fluent, idiomatic, and (if necessary) pungently coarse French. When he asked me where I had learned it, I told him that I had fought in 1936 on the northwest sector of the Madrid front in the French Battalion of the XIth International Brigade. "Oh," he said, "You were a premature anti-Fascist."

I was taken aback by the expression. How, I wondered, could anyone be a premature anti- Fascist? Could there be anything such as a premature antidote to a poison? A premature antiseptic? A premature antitoxin? A premature anti-racist? If you were not premature, what sort of anti-Fascist were you supposed to be? A punctual anti-Fascist? A timely one? In fact, in the '30s, as the European situation moved inexorably toward war, the British and French governments (the French often under pressure from the British) passed up one timely opportunity after another to become anti-Fascist. They did nothing when Adolf Hitler took Germany out of the League of Nations and began a massive rearmament program (except that the British government negotiated an Anglo-German Naval Treaty that gave Hitler the right to build the U- boats that, in the early '40s, came close to starving Britain into surrender). No action was taken when Hitler reoccupied the Rhineland, demolishing the buffer against an invasion of France created by the Versailles Treaty. They allowed Hitler and Mussolini to supply Franco with planes, tanks, guns and troops, while enforcing a so-called Non-Intervention Agreement that cut off supplies to the Government. They remained silent while Mussolini conquered Abyssinia and Hitler annexed Austria. And in 1938, they sold down the river for a ludicrous illusion of Peace in Our Time the only strong, democratic state in Eastern Europe that might have been a deterrent to Hitler's plans for expansion, the Czechoslovak Republic. You couldn't call Chamberlain, Daladier and Laval 'timely anti-Fascists'. They declared war on Hitler in 1939 as he invaded Poland, a declaration that gave no help to the Poles, who were crushed between the armies of Hitler from one side and Stalin from the other. So what kind of anti-Fascists were they? My French maquisards had a phrase for the Frenchmen who, in 1944, as the Allied armies broke out of the Normandy pocket and raced across France in pursuit of the retreating Wehrmacht, finally tried to join the Resistance. Resistants de la dernière heure was their contemptuous name for them - 'last- minute anti-Fascists'. It is a perfect description of Neville Chamberlain and Lord Halifax.

But in 1939, last-minute was too late. Too late to save the millions who died in the death camps; too late to save the soldiers and sailors who died in the campaigns in Russia, the Middle East, North Africa, Italy, France and Germany, at Pearl Harbor, Midway, Guadalcanal, Peleliu, Okinawa and many other places Americans had never heard of; too late to save the civilians who, like the inhabitants of Guernica, died under the bombs in Rotterdam, London, Hamburg, Berlin, Dresden and Hiroshima. It would have been better to be premature.

I did not, of course, say any of this to the professor. I kept quiet and was admitted, and resumed the study of those ancient authors whom I had left untouched for ten years, ever since, a few months after graduating from Cambridge in 1936, I left for Spain. What I did not realize (something the professor knew perfectly well) was that 'Premature Anti-Fascist' was an FBI code-word for 'Communist'. It was the label affixed to the dossiers of those Americans who had fought in the Brigades when, after Pearl Harbor (and some of them before) they enlisted in the US Army. It was the signal to assign them to non-combat units or inactive fronts and to deny them the promotion they deserved. Not only did they deserve it; the Army needed them in responsible positions, for they were the only soldiers in it who had any experience of modern war, who had been bombed and strafed by modern German and Italian aircraft, who had faced German and Italian tanks, who had come under the fire of modern artillery, especially the Luftwaffe's 88mm antiaircraft gun, which the German crews had found murderously effective against ground troops because of its high muzzle velocity. It was later the nightmare of the GIs in North Africa, Italy, and France.

What made me, and many others like me in England, France, Belgium, Holland, Canada and the United States, into premature anti-Fascists? I can speak only of my own case but it is, I think, typical of that of many of my contemporaries. I grew up, like most of my generation, haunted by the specter of what was known in England as the Great War, the war of 1914-18. My two earliest memories, in fact, are vivid pictures from that time. Some time in 1917, when I was barely three years old, I was carried, in the arms of a Canadian nurse who was boarding at our house in South London, across a street illuminated only by moonlight and the moving beams of the searchlights looking for German zeppelins overhead. Behind me came my mother, carrying my brother and sister, newly-born twins. We were hurrying to the bomb shelter, an underground taxi garage just across the street. My father was in the Army; he was engaged in the nightmare battle of Passchendaele in Flanders, a winter offensive in appalling weather conditions that won a few useless miles of muddy terrain at the cost of 300,000 casualties. The second picture is that of a Lee-Enfield rifle leaning against the wall of the sitting room of our house, and beside it a khaki kitbag with a helmet on top of it. It was my father's equipment; he was home on 24-hour leave before sailing for Italy, where his regiment was sent to stiffen the Italian army after its disastrous defeat at Caporetto.

My father, like many veterans of that war, would never talk about it. But like most of my generation, I read all the books about it I could get my hands on Robert Graves' classic Goodbye to All That, Henri Barbusse's unforgettable Le Feu, the unacknowledged model for Remarque's later All Quiet on the Western Front - and the poets Wilfred Owen, Siegfried Sassoon, Isaac Rosenberg. All that we read induced in us a horror at what seemed a senseless waste of human lives and a fear that, in spite of the League of Nations, war might recur. The secondary school I went to in 1926, the year my father died, confirmed my fears. Like most such schools it had a Cadet Corps, a military training program designed to produce potential junior officers for the next war. Every Friday I went to school in uniform khaki puttees, breeches, a tunic with highly polished buttons, and a peaked cap; after morning lessons we went out onto the school playground and were put through the rigors of close-order drill, carrying rifles that dated back to the Boer War at the beginning of the century. But Friday afternoon was only the beginning. We also had firing practice at the HQ of the local Territorial Regiment with rifles and also the Lewis gun, the light machine gun of the British Army in the Great War, and every summer we went off to a camp on the Isle of Wight, where we lived through two weeks of military training under canvas, our lives regulated by bugle-calls and enlivened by simulated combat maneuvers against the cadet corps of other schools located in the vicinity.

When in the autumn of 1933 I went up to St. John's college in Cambridge, Hitler was already dictator of Germany and had begun his program of militarization of the country; the prospect of a renewed European war was now a grim reality. I soon joined something called the Anti-War Movement, which on November 11 organized a march to lay a wreath on the War Memorial. The inscription on the wreath read: 'To the victims of imperialist war from those who are determined to prevent another.' Naturally, we ran into opposition. November 11 in those days was not only a day of remembrance, it was also a sort of patriotic ceremony at which artificial poppies, reminiscent of those of Flanders, were sold by volunteers to raise money for wounded and hospitalized veterans. Our march through the central college area to the memorial was bitterly contested; not only were we pelted with fruit and eggs bought from nearby stores, we were also repeatedly charged by rugger toughs trying to break up our column. Though battered, we reached the memorial and deposited our wreath.

This demonstration, however, was only a symptom of a deeper malaise which affected us; we were worried not only about the possibility of war but also about the economic and political situation that produced it. And even if war was averted, we faced a bleak future. What would happen to us after three years of study and security at the university? England, like the rest of the world, was in the depths of the Great Depression, which seemed to have become a permanent condition. Even the professional optimists among the economic pundits could offer little hope of recovery. The Depression was a more dispiriting phenomenon in England than in the United States; the Roosevelt New Deal was no panacea but it was at least evidence of official concern, whereas the so-called National Government's policy of retrenchment was a defiant manifesto of indifference to widespread distress. In 1933 unemployment figures in the British Isles reached a record high of three million (23 percent of all insured workers); the unemployment benefits on which their families had to live were just enough to keep them from starvation on a diet of bread and margarine, potatoes and tea. Looking back at it in 1966, Harold Macmillan, who had been Prime Minister but was a junior conservative MP in the 1930s, remembered his conviction that "the structure of capitalist society in its old form had broken down... Perhaps it could not survive at all without radical change... Something like a revolutionary situation had developed."

But it was not only the working class that faced unemployment. University graduates, even the elite of Oxford and Cambridge, especially those whose studies were of the impractical type literature, philosophy and above (or perhaps I should say below) all the study of the Greek and Roman classics had only one road to go: teaching. And for someone like me, with a second-class degree, that meant teaching in some struggling boys' boarding school in cramped quarters and on unappetizing food for a miserable salary. There was an agency that found you such jobs; it went under the Dickensian name of Gabbitas and Thring (Auden parodied it in one of his poems as Rabbitsarse and String). It found a job for Evelyn Waugh when he left Oxford - a school that reduced him to such despair that he decided to commit suicide. He went down to the seashore and started to swim out to sea, determined to go on until his strength failed and he drowned. But he ran into a school of stinging jelly-fish and he turned back, to the delight of his later readers who were treated to hilarious visions of that school in his novels. Auden, also down from Oxford, ended up in a school in Scotland, where he had just as much difficulty understanding the Lallans dialect of his charges as they did understanding the bleat of his Oxford High-Church accent.

A 'revolutionary situation', MacMillan says. And he was right. And like many of my generation faced with what seemed to be the collapse of capitalism, I turned to the texts that seemed to offer an explanation of our dilemma - above all, that remarkable document The Communist Manifesto of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, which celebrates its 150th anniversary this year. I was soon an active member of the Socialist Club; my investment of time in their activities and in Marxist studies are the reason why I ended up with a second-class degree. I was soon thinking of myself as a Communist. Not that the label meant very much in Cambridge, which was in those days still a purely university town; there were no factories, no unions, no working class except for the college porters, maids, and kitchen help. Our activity consisted mainly of Marxist study groups, with an occasional street demonstration. We also went to meetings of the British Union of Fascists to heckle and get thrown out by the Blackshirt thugs. There was, of course, as we were to discover much later, a serious side of Communism in Cambridge: Philby, Burgess, Maclean, and Blunt were all Cambridge men. But the first two had left Cambridge before my time and of the other two, the only one I ever saw, though I never talked to him, was Maclean. My sister still resists my requests for her to return a photograph I once lent her; it shows a demonstration in Cambridge with students carrying signs that say, 'Scholarships, Not Battleships'. By the side of the formation are two marshals shouting slogans for the marchers to repeat. One of them is Donald Maclean and the other me. On the back of the photograph, my sister has written: 'Bernard studying the Classics at Cambridge.'

Meanwhile, with money saved up from my scholarship funds, I had been spending all my vacations in Paris, living in cheap hotels on the Left Bank, deepening the knowledge of the French language I had acquired from a brilliant teacher at my London school, making friends among French students and even taking part in demonstrations against the government's policies. For in France, as in England, La Crise, as they called it, still crippled the economy and, as in England, a Fascist movement, Les Croix de Feu, the Fiery Crosses, had made its debut. One of its demonstrations provoked riots that resulted in 15 dead and over 1,000 injured. The threat of a Fascist coup united the French Communist and Socialist parties together with the liberals in a Front Populaire, which won an overwhelming victory in the elections of 1936. For the first time since the long-lasting Depression had begun, a government set out to redress some of the injustices of the system; long-overdue reforms were introduced: the forty-hour week, paid vacations. And Fascist organizations were banned. For the first time, a Western government had broken out of the pattern of retrenchment and repression.

It was a moment of jubilation and hope, but it did not last long. French capital reacted by pulling out of the country, and meanwhile, the newly-elected Spanish government of the Frente Popular was challenged by a military revolt. Popular demand in France huge demonstrations shouting 'Des canons pour l'Espagne', 'Des avions pour l'Espagne' and national interest both spoke strongly for the Spanish government's request to purchase arms, but the French premier, Léon Blum, under pressure from London, agreed to join the Non-Intervention Agreement, though Germany and Italy were openly supplying the rebels.

In September I received a letter from my friend John Cornford, the leader of the Communist movement in Cambridge, who had just returned from Spain, where he had fought for a few weeks on the Aragon front, in a column organized by the Partido Obrero de Unificación Marxista, the POUM, a party that was later to be suppressed as too revolutionary. He had returned to England to recruit a small British unit that would set an example of training and discipline (and shaving) to the anarchistic militias operating out of Barcelona. He asked me to join and I did so without a second thought.

I knew no more about Spanish politics and history than most of my fellow-countrymen, that is to say, not much. I had read (in translation) much (but not all) of Don Quixote, and seen reproductions of the great paintings of Velázquez and Goya. I knew that Philip II had married an English reigning Queen -- Mary -- and on her death claimed the throne of England, but had been defeated when in 1588 he sent the great Armada to invade England and enforce his claim. I knew that the Duke of Wellington had fought a long, hard campaign against Napoleonic armies in Portugal and Spain and that guerrilla (which was to become my military specialty in World War II) was a Spanish word. But I had no real understanding of the complicated situation that had produced the military revolt of July 1936. What I did know was that Franco had the full support of Hitler and Mussolini. In fact, that support had been decisive at the beginning of the war. The military coup had failed in Madrid and Barcelona, Spain's principal cities. Franco's best troops, the Foreign Legion and the Regulares, the Moorish mercenaries recruited to fight against their own people, were cooped up in Morocco, since the Spanish Navy had declared for the Republic. Planes and pilots from the Luftwaffe and the Italian Air Force, in the first military airlift in history, had flown some 8,000 troops across to Sevilla, Franco's base for the advance on Madrid.

And this was all I needed to make up my mind. I left a few days later for Paris, with a group of a dozen or so volunteers that John had assembled. There were three Cambridge graduates and one from Oxford (a statistic I have always been proud of), as well as one from London University. There was a German refugee artist who had been living in London, two veterans of the British Army and one of the Navy, an actor, a proletarian novelist and two unemployed workmen. Before we left, I had gone with John to visit his father in Cambridge; he was the distinguished Greek scholar Francis MacDonald Cornford, author of brilliant books on Attic comedy, Thucydides and Greek philosophy, and Plato. He had served as an officer in the Great War and still had the pistol he had had to buy when he equipped himself for France. He gave it to John, and I had to smuggle it through French Customs at Dieppe, for John's passport showed entry and exit stamps from Port-Bou and his bags were likely to be given a thorough going-over.

Once in Paris, we went to the Comité d'Entraide au Peuple Espagnol and that was where John's scheme for a small British unit on the Aragon front was abandoned. We were sent to a hotel in Belleville, a working-class section of Paris, where we found ourselves a tiny English drop in a sea of large national groups French, Polish, Belgian, German, Italian - all of them bound for Spain. We left next morning by train for Marseilles where, at night, we boarded a Spanish vessel that left at midnight and, once clear of the harbor, turned off all its lights there were reports of Italian submarines on the prowl. But we reached our destination, Alicante, safely and sailed into the port late one afternoon only to find it full of foreign naval vessels, all there, presumably, to enforce the Non- Intervention Agreement (which did not, however, apply to human imports). As we moved in, a British destroyer crossed our bows, its signal lamp flashing a message in Morse code. "They're telling us to show our colors," said one of our Navy men, and sure enough, a few minutes later, two members of the crew, black-bearded and wearing brightly-colored scarves, came on deck with a flag they proceeded to run up. It consisted of two triangles, one black, one red. The captain of the destroyer must have searched his flag book in vain; they were the colors of the Confederación Nacional de Trabajo and the Federación Anarquista Ibérica.

From Alicante we went by rail crowds at all the stations shaking clenched fists at us and shouting UHP to Albacete, where we were housed in what had been the barracks of the Guardia Civil. Our British section was assigned (mainly, I suppose, because I could serve as interpreter) to the French Battalion, where we ended up in the compagnie mitrailleuse, the machine-gun company. But for the rest of September and all through October we had no machine guns, not even rifles; the only weapon around was John's pistol, which he kept well under wraps. Since we couldn't train with weapons, our days were spent practicing close-order drill (French, English, or sometimes Spanish) and going on route marches along the dusty roads of the province of Murcia. No one knew when or where we would be sent to fight when (if ever) the weapons arrived, though the scuttlebutt rumors had us held in reserve for a flanking movement via Ciudad Real that would take Franco, now moving steadily toward Madrid, in the rear.

As the calendar moved through October and into November, events suddenly developed so fast that we could hardly grasp what was happening. One late evening, we were suddenly alerted and marched to the railroad yards, where huge wooden crates were being unloaded. We were given tools to open them up; our weapons had arrived at last.

There were stamps and bills of lading and brand marks on the cases that showed they had made the rounds of the international arms markets; some were in Arabic and one case was branded with the letters IRA. They contained rifles American '03 Springfields, the rifle carried by the Doughboys in the Great War and, at last, our machine guns. They were a sad disappointment antique models that sported a bicycle seat for the gunner high up in the air, real suicide traps; no one, not even the French, knew what they were (though the cases had French stamps on them) until our oldest French volunteer, a patriarch known as grand-père, identified them as St. Etiennes, a gun that was declared obsolete in the first weeks of the 1914 war. They must have been relics from the war of 1870.

But it was with these museum pieces that we set out in open trucks on the 6th of November, not for Ciudad Real, but for Madrid, where the war was about to be won or lost. Franco's troops had pushed through the Madrid defenses in the Western and Northwestern sectors; the government had left for Valencia and international opinion was unanimous that Madrid would fall. (One Paris newspaper actually published a fake picture of the Generalisimo riding on a horse down the Puerta del Sol.) The fall of Madrid would certainly be followed by British and, though reluctant, French recognition of Franco as the legitimate ruler of Spain.

We arrived on the eastern outskirts of Madrid on November 7, the anniversary of the Bolshevik Revolution. The point was made in a speech by the Brigade's Political Commissar, Nicoletti, who urged us in Italian-accented French and with emphatic gestures to fight to the last man in the defense of Madrid and gave us the password for the night: "Madrid será la tumba del Fascismo." I was much struck by his gestures and especially his habit of sticking his chin far out when he made an especially defiant statement; in that pose, he bore a startling resemblance to Benito Mussolini. I learned later that Nicoletti (whose real name was DiVittorio) had been a close associate of Mussolini when they were both Socialists, before Italy entered the Great War. That night we were put on a train which went round Madrid to the Estación del Norte, and from there we set out, in the morning, on our famous march through Madrid to the front at Ciudad Universitaria, carrying our useless machine guns. We were three brigades -French, German, and Polish - that made up the first, which was officially denoted the XIth (International) Brigade. We arrived at a building called Filosofía y Letras where, while waiting for orders on the open ground, we had our baptism of fire - strafing by an Italian plane and artillery fire from German gunners - before moving into the building and taking up positions facing the enemy-held buildings, dominated by the Hospital Clinico on its hill, from which the Moorish snipers looked down our throats. It was there, as we frantically tried to get the hang of our antique guns (they seemed to work by an intricate mechanism of springs), that we were called to attention; a general had arrived. His name, he told us in English, which he spoke well with a transatlantic (perhaps Canadian) accent, was Kleber. His name was actually Stern and he was a Hungarian, but Kleber was an appropriate nom de guerre. Jean Baptiste Kleber was one of the French revolutionary generals who beat back the Austrian invasion of France in the 1790s. He asked us if we liked our guns and we told him in no uncertain terms what we thought of them. He asked if Lewis guns would serve our turn and two Lewis guns is what we got next day. They were guns we knew and we kept them firing during the next week or so as the Fascists made repeated attacks.

Early in those days, we had our first casualties. One gunteam was sent ahead to an advanced position but was overrun during the night by the Moorish troops, as we learned from the one man who returned. One of the dead was Maclaurin, a Cambridge man like John and myself. Meanwhile, life in Filosofía y Letras was no rest-cure. We had smashed the huge wide windows in the American-style building (flying glass can do just as much damage as the bullets or shell-fragments that produce it) and the Madrid winter cold (which came as a surprise to Northerners like us who had been fed on tourist propaganda about sunny Spain) seeped into our bodies no matter how many blankets we wrapped around our waists. The snipers, meanwhile, made us crawl along the floor when we had to move, until one night we built, on the wide window-sills, a barricade high enough to enable us to walk upright without giving them a target. The barricades were made of books from the building's library; we took the thickest and tallest books we could find - one of them, I remember, was an encyclopedia of Hindu mythology and religion. We later discovered, after hearing bullets smack into the books, that the average penetration was to about page 350; since that discovery I am inclined to believe, as I did not before, those stories of soldiers whose lives had been saved by a Bible carried in their left-hand jacket pocket.

We were later moved out of the building and marched by night to the vicinity of a village called Aravaca, where we caught our first glimpse of our battalion commander, Colonel Dumont, wearing a smart officer's uniform and a French kepi. (He was later to be shot by the Germans for his activity in the French resistance.) At Aravaca, we were in support of an attack by the Polish battalion; we sat in trenches under shell fire and helped the wounded survivors of the failed attack to the dressing station. Soon we were on the road back to University City, where some of the buildings, stormed during our absence, had to be recaptured. We later spent some time in the Casa de Campo, unable to sleep at night for fear of the Moorish patrols that moved swiftly and silently about their deadly work. And then back again to our old home, Filosofía y Letras, where John got a head wound from a shell that burst inside our room; for the next week or so, he wore a white bandage round the top of his head that made him look, from a distance, like a Moorish trooper.

At this point, some time in December (we had lost count of the days), we were given leave in Madrid. We sat in cafes and drank endless cafés con leche (food was scarce but coffee seemed to be plentiful) and went to the movies, where we saw a Russian film, Chapayev, in which Russian partisans in the Russian Civil War were armed with heavy machine guns. They were water-cooled Maxims, mounted on a heavy steel carriage, with a metal shield to cover the gunner. They were exactly the guns we were now using (we had exchanged our Lewis guns for them some time in November), but in the film the partisans had them pulled by teams of horses, while we had dragged them over the bumps and pits in the Casa de Campo and up and down the staircases of Filosofía y Letras with our bare and half-frozen hands.

Our leave ended suddenly with an alert; we were packed into the open Russian trucks again and driven round to the north-west of Madrid to a small village called Boadilla del Monte, where for the first time we met the English section, about the same size as ours, in The German Battalion of the XIIth brigade, which had arrived at Madrid a few days after us. But we had little time to celebrate. The enemy, stalemated in the western sector, had launched an offensive to outflank the Republican army, cut off the main road to the NW and perhaps attack the city from the North. We set up our two guns in front of the village and waited for daylight.

With it came the boom of artillery and the ripping sound of machine gunfire in the near distance and soon we saw the milicianos in front of us in full retreat; as they came towards Boadilla and the main road our orders were to cover their retreat and hold our position until further orders. The order to withdraw soon came; we did so by sections, one covering the other with fire as it came back. As our section was moving back, dragging the gun, I felt a shocking blow and a burning pain through my neck and right shoulder and fell to the ground on my back with blood spurting up like a fountain. John came back, with David, our Oxford man who had been a medical student. I heard him say; "I can't do anything about that" and John bent down and said, "God bless you, Bernard" and left. They had to go; they had to set up the gun and cover the withdrawal of our other crew. And they were sure that I was dying. So was I. As the blood continued to spout I could feel my consciousness slipping fast away.

I have since then read many accounts by people who, like me, were sure they were dying but survived. Many of them speak of a feeling of heavenly peace, others of visions of angels welcoming them to Heaven. I had no such feelings or visions; I was consumed with rage--furious, violent rage. Why me? I was just 21 and had barely begun living my life. Why should I have to die? It was unjust. And, as I felt my whole being sliding into nothingness, I cursed. I cursed God and the world and everyone in it as the darkness fell.

Many years later, when I returned to the study of the ancient classics, I found that my reaction was not abnormal. In Homer's Iliad, still the greatest of all war books, this is how young men die. Hector, for example, "went winging down to the House of Death/ wailing his fate, leaving his manhood far behind, his young and supple strength." And Virgil's Turnus goes the same road: vitaque cum gomitu fugit indignata sub umbras: 'his life with a groan fled angry to the shades below." "Indignata. Quia iuvenis erat," the great Virgilian commentator Servius explained. "Angry. Because he was young."

Some time later -I shall never know how long I came to. The blood was no longer spouting, just oozing. In a daze, I stood up and walked back through the abandoned houses of Boadilla del Monte out on to the road to Majadahonda, where I met my machine gun section in position at the edge of a small wood. My friends were astonished to see me but they could be of no help; there were no ambulances available and I had to walk the long miles to Las Rozas where there was a dressing station. (It was bombed, in spite of the Red Cross painted on the roof, by Italian planes shortly after I left it that evening.) I left it with three other walking wounded, in a car driven by a man who got lost time after time (he had never been to Madrid before); every time he slammed down on the brakes after making a wrong turn, every one of us screamed in agony. We finally arrived at the Brigade hospital. It was the majestic Hotel Palace, where I have stayed as a paying guest several times since then, always relishing the memory of what it looked like in those days -guns parked where people now leave their hats and coats and armed sentries at all the entrances (it housed the Russian military missions as well as the Brigade's wounded).

I was there for several weeks. The doctors were afraid that I would have a hemorrhage; in fact they were astonished that I had not had one on the long trek to Las Rozas. I was confined strictly to bed for the first two weeks. When the doctor came on his rounds, if he happened to have some student interns with him, he would point to the entry and exit wounds and say to them: "Tell me all the things the bullet missed that would have killed this man." There were apparently lots of them. I was later told by an English expert that the bullet must have been near the end of its trajectory and so took the path of least resistance. But he said: "You were lucky to have such good blood. Punctured carotid arteries don't usually heal up so fast and so well."

I had one professional nurse (they were rare, for nurses had usually been members of a religious order and they were mostly on the other side) but also a younger attendant who was clearly a novice, but was willing, unlike the nurse, who was frantically busy, to try to understand my fractured Spanish. After cleaning me up and passing the time of day with me she always took a long careful look at me, put her hand over my forehead and then went behind the bed where she made some notation, as I gathered because she came back with a pencil in her hand. I could not turn my neck round anything like far enough to see what she was up to -the wound was very painful if pressured - but finally I was able to do so, and saw, to my astonishment, a temperature chart. I had never seen one like it; it had the most amazing up and down zigzags, suggesting that the patient had died from hypothermia or boiling blood several times in the past few weeks. When she came again I asked her where she had trained as an enfermera. "I'm not an enfermera" she said proudly, "I'm a Voluntaria de la Libertad." I asked her where she had learned to take patients' temperatures and she replied, with a sweet smile "De las películas americanas" -from American films.

Early on in my stay in the hospital John came to see me. With what was left of our original group, he was on his way to Albacete to join the British Battalion that was now being organized. Our German refugee artist had also been badly wounded at Boadilla, a crippling wound high in the thigh, and John was killed a week or so later at Lopera in the South. Freddie Jones had been killed at Aravaca, and Paddy Burke, the actor, was killed a few weeks later.

Meanwhile, the doctors at the hospital told me that for treatment of the muscular or nerve injury that inhibited the full use of my right arm I would have to go elsewhere; in fact, they advised me to go home. And the news of John's death, which I received back at the base in Albacete, decided the issue for me. I returned to England, where I did in fact get expert treatment. But on the way from Madrid to Albacete I had seen an encouraging sight. We stopped at one point to let an oncoming train go by. As It rattled past, I saw men waving and giving us the salute with the clenched fist; evidently, these were reinforcements for Madrid. As the coach passed, I saw that it displayed a long white banner that read THE YANKS ARE COMING. It was a contingent of the Lincoln Brigade on its way to the front.

Back home, I watched in utter despondency as the British government persisted in its policy of appeasement and the prospect of victory in Spain receded fast as Hitler and Mussolini gave Franco a steadily increasing preponderance in weapons and troops. The sellout in Munich in 1938 plunged me into despair; it seemed to me that Chamberlain and his sinister Foreign Secretary Halifax were intent on making England a junior partner of Hitler's Drittes Reich. A meeting with a young American woman whom I had met at Cambridge some years before but with whom I now fell in love changed my life, not least because when after Munich she yielded to her parents' anxious insistence that she come home, she persuaded me to apply for an immigration visa, come to America and marry her. Which I did early in 1939.

In the interim I had ceased to think of myself as a Communist. The Nazi-Soviet Pact of 1939 was understandable; the Western betrayal of Czechoslovakia was a clear signal to Stalin that if Hitler turned against Russia (as he repeatedly announced that he would in his book Mein Kampf), the West would not raise a finger to help. But the brutal annexation of the Baltic states and still more the aggressive war against Finland were harder to accept. I was appalled, too, by the show-trials of the Old Bolsheviks, Bukharin and the rest; I read the verbatim accounts of their so-called confessions, published by Moscow in English and available at left-wing bookshops in London. I was appalled. These tales of recruitment by the British Secret Service in the first days of the Revolution and a lifetime of espionage and sabotage were beyond belief; they could only be the product of fear and perhaps the experience of torture. And I was sickened too by reports, later confirmed, that our General Kleber, whose coolness under fire at University City had taught us all how to face danger, had been recalled to Russia and executed. Loyalty to the ideals for which my friends had died in Spain was undermined by the grim realities which I could no longer ignore. When I came to the United States I joined no party, and though remaining a resolute defender of the cause of freedom in Spain, refrained from political activity.

When the war finally broke out in 1939 it was aptly named the "phony war" -nothing happened in the West as Poland went under. When something did happen, and Hitler drove the British Army out of France, I was tempted to return but realized that I owed more to my wife, who had worked like a Trojan to get me admitted to the United States, than I did to the government which had made this defeat inevitable. I also had a feeling that America would sooner or later become involved and I would be able to fight in the uniform of the country that I was beginning to love.

When that I happened I somehow escaped the discrimination that hampered the military careers of so many of the American veterans of the Brigades. The only occasion on which the possibility emerged was one of the many medical examinations I went through as an enlisted man. The doctor noticed the scar on my throat. "It looks like a bullet wound," he said. I told him it was and he asked how I got it. "And don't tell me," he added, "that it was a hunting accident -or that you were cleaning the gun and it suddenly went off." So I told him I had fought in Spain. "What side were you on?" he asked, and I replied, indignantly, "The government side, of course. His face became a scowling mask. "You mean the Goddam Reds," he said. I made no reply, as he turned me round to find the exit scar. Then he said, "All right, go on to the next booth," and as I started he said, "They damn near got you, didn't they?" But I had no repercussions from this incident and was later selected for OCS and commissioned. And eventually I fought in Europe in a special force organized by the American OSS, the British SOE and the Free French to coordinate the action of the French Resistance forces with the advance of the Allied armies. It was the OSS too that later sent me to North Italy to work with large partisan formations that were operating on our side of the lines but in mountainous areas where heavy American equipment could not be used. The OSS also gave many Americans who had fought in the Brigades a chance to use their skills. General Donovan didn't care what your politics were or might have been as long as you were willing to fight, and there were many ex- Brigadiers who did dangerous and effective work between and behind the lines in Italy.

It was in Italy, too, that I had a sudden reminder of Spain. I was discussing operations with the staff of the Divisione Modena, a large partisan formation, and sometimes getting my newly acquired Italian mixed up with my half-forgotten Spanish, saying fuego instead of fuoco, for example, and frente instead of fronte. Suddenly, after another such fumble, the division commander stood up, smiling, walked over to me and patted me on the shoulder. "Spagna, no?" he said. He had been in the Battaglione Garibaldi that had fought next to us in the Casa del Campo. From that point on, relations with the partisans were no problem.

But of course I had never forgotten Spain. Not only, after the Second World War, did I often go back there (my American passport did not show, as my British one had, an exit from Spain in February 1937 and no entry). I went not only to see the Spain I had not been able to visit during the war -Seville, Granada, Burgos, Cordoba- but also to see again the places where I had fought. Boadilla looked just the same, but the Ciudad Universitaria had been rebuilt in a way that made it difficult for me to retrace my steps. On one occasion, when Franco was still in full control, I made myself rather too conspicuous in my search for the past. I was in the Museo del Ejército, a magnificent museum neglected by most tourists -it is their loss, for it contains many treasures, for example the silk tent used by Charles V when he was on campaign in Morocco and a coverage of the Spanish-American War that does not feature the Maine and Roosevelt's Rough Riders. It had at that time (I wonder if it is still there) a scale model of the Ciudad Universitaria as it looked in November, 1936. There was Filosofía y Letras, with the Hospital Clinico up on the hill, every detail exact. I spent so much time prowling around it that two of the guards came into the room and stared at me and I suddenly realized that I had been there for over an hour. I looked at my watch, muttered a greeting, and left in a hurry.

I also acquired and read what is now a rather large library about the war, including two books -La marcha sobre Madrid and La lucha en torno a Madrid by Colonel José Manuel Martinez Bande that with their photographs and maps explained to me, at last, where exactly I had been and what I was doing. Not that I really needed to be reminded. I am one of those who, in Herbert Matthew's phrase, "went to Spain and left their hearts there." And the poet of the Lincoln Brigade, Edwin Rolfe, spoke for all of us when he wrote, as he trained in Texas for the later war, his haunting poem, First Love:

I am eager to enter it, eager to end it.
But my heart is forever captive
of that other war
that taught me first the meaning
of peace and of comradeship.


And all of us have memories that can at times bring tears to the eyes in a rush of sadness and exaltation. Like Rolfe's-

and always I think of my friend who
amid the apparition of bombs
saw on the lyric lake
the single perfect swan.

Friday, October 9, 2009

MAREK EDELMAN'S LEGACY: ISRAEL'S MOST POPULAR ANTI-ZIONIST MILITANT


Marek Edelman is an odd choice of hero for any state. As an intelligent man with a drive to fight injustice he was in perennial conflict with powerful interests. He led the Jewish forces in the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising, he was a leading voice of dissent against Poland's Communist government, and a fierce critic of Palestinian terrorism. He was also an avowed anti-Zionist, a socialist, and a supporter of the Palestinian resistance, which is why it is initially surprising to see Edelman's passing mourned by many of the same people whose work he devoted his life to resist, particularly high American and Israeli officials.

However, Dr. Edelman is more than the most popular anti-Zionist terrorist, err freedom fighter, in Israel, he is a symbol of tremendous moral authority, a symbol many would like to put to their own use. Many Zionists see their work as a continuation of resistance to NAZI atrocities, by praising him they associate themselves with that symbol.

Its not the first time repressive governments have tried to hijack the memory of his actions. The Polish government tried to get him to participate in festivities celebrating the fortieth anniversary of the Uprising, he rebuffed them saying to do so “would be an act of cynicism and contempt” in a nation “where social life is dominated throughout by humiliation and coercion.” During the 2002 trial of Marwan Barghuti Edelman infuriated many in Israel with a letter addressed "To all the leaders of Palestinian military, paramilitary and guerrilla organizations. To all the soldiers of Palestinian militant groups," in which he condemned suicide bombings, but also affirmed his support for the Palestinian resistance, to whom he bequeathed both his moral authority and the legacy of his struggle, which in his view they were the heirs of. Israeli academic Israel Gutman typified the indignant reactions when he protested that "Edelman has been filled with hate for Israel for years," and "At the time, he claimed that Begin and Shamir has massacred Arabs."

But now Edelman is gone, he can no longer rebuff the attempts at hijacking the legacy of his actions to legitimize repression. Edelman is no hero to the Israeli government. He was a ruthlessly pragmatic opponent of oppression, irrespective of who was oppressed. While Edelman was comparing his struggle to that of the Palestinians Israeli generals where analyzing the Stroop Report, the findings of the NAZI general who repressed the revolt, for ideas of how to deal with the Intifada. When Benjamin Netanyahu eulogizes Edelman and the American embassy mourns his passing it is not because they admire him, Marek Edelman's spirit lives on in their worst enemies, but because he is finally no longer able to rebuke efforts at using his heroism as a basis to legitimize repressive governments. Marek Edelman is dead, but his spirit, embodied in his actions and words, is immortal, something no propagandist can suppress.

Marek Edelman's open letter on the occasion of the trial of Palestinian leader Marwan Barghuti:
To all the leaders of Palestinian military, paramilitary and guerilla
organizations
To all the soldiers of Palestinian militant groups:

My name is Marek Edelman, I am a former Deputy Commander of the Jewish Military organization in Poland, one of the leaders of the Warsaw Ghetto Insurrection, In the memorable year of the insurrection - 1943 - we were fighting for the survival of the Jewish community in Warsaw. We were fighting for mere life, not for territory, nor for a national identity. We
were fighting with a hopeless determination, but our weapons were never directed against the defenseless civilian populations, we never killed women and children, In a world devoid of principles and values, despite a constant danger of death, we did remain faithful to these values and moral principles.

We were isolated in our fight, and yet the powerful opposing army was not able to destroy these barely armed boys and girls.

Our fight in Warsaw lasted several weeks, later we fought in the Underground and in the Warsaw insurrection of 1944.

Yet nowhere in the world can a guerilla force bring conclusive victory, nowhere can it be defeated by weapon-full armies, Neither can your war attain any resolution. Blood will be spilled in vain and lives will be lost on both sides.

We have never been careless with life. We have never sent our soldiers to certain death. Life is one for eternity. Nobody has the right to mindlessly take it away. It is high time for everybody to understand just that.

Just look around you, Look at Ireland. After 50 years of bloody war, peace has arrived. Formerly deadly enemies have set down at a common table. Look at Poland at Wales and Kuron, Without a shot being fired, the criminal communist system has been defeated. Both You and the State of Israel have to radically change your attitude. You have to want peace in order to save the lives of hundreds and perhaps thousands of people, and to create a better future for your loved ones, for your children. I know from my own experience that the current unfolding of events depends on you, the Military Leaders. The Influence of political and civilian actors is much smaller. Some of you studied at the university in my town- some of you know me. You are wise and intelligent enough to understand that without peace there is no future for Palestine, and that peace can be attained only at the cost of both sides agreeing to some concessions.
-Marek Edelman, Zurich, 10. August 2002

NOBEL COMMITTEE TO BARAK OBAMA: WAR IS PEACE

The last American President launched a war on the basis of anticipatory self-defense, and this morning the current American President received the Nobel Peace Prize on the basis of anticipatory accomplishments. Prizes are not generally awarded in expectation of future actions for a good reason, Alfred Nobel's will established five prizes to be awarded "to those who, during the preceding year, shall have conferred the greatest benefit on mankind." Don't expect any scientific or literary prodigies to receive awards in view of what they could, potentially accomplish later in life.

What was most astonishing and disappointing in the award being given to U.S President Barak Obama, though, was the blatant departure from the provision of Nobel's will creating the Peace Prize for "the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity among nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace." A Peace Prize for the man at the helm of the world's most militarized state? A peace prize for the man at the helm of two belligerent occupations? A peace prize for the man with the blood of innocent Gazans, and Pakistanis, and Afghans, and Iraqis, and others, killed either by his acquiescence or orders? Obama is a man of war and opportunism, he is not a man of peace.

Political satire became obsolete when Henry Kissinger received the prize, but it is no less inappropriate to hand the award to Obama. If the Nobel Committee could not find a suitable candidate they should have abstained from awarding it to preserve the integrity of the prize. However, there are thousands of worthy recipients. Most of them endure discomforts and risks to fight the abuses of the system Barak Obama presides over from Washington's comfortable and safe halls of power.

Anyone who participates in a system that so frequently and systematically damages the cause of peace and abuses human rights would be better served by an appearance in the docks at the Hague than one in Oslo.

Tuesday, October 6, 2009

ABU MAZEN

Does anyone have any information about the credibility of this story, first published by the small Palestinian news agency Shihab and reprinted in the Israeli tabloid Ma'ariv? Is it reliably sourced or is it just politically motivated tabloid junk?
Ma’ariv (p. 5) by Amit Cohen et al. — A Palestinian press agency claims that the surprising decision by Palestinian Authority officials to postpone the discussion of the Goldstone report in the UN Human Rights Council is the result of an Israeli threat. According to a report by Shihab, the Palestinian Authority refused Israel’s demand that it withdraw its support for the harsh report, which Israel considered one-sided. Following this, Israeli figures showed the PA a series of tapes in which Palestinian Authority officials could be heard urging Israel to continue the operation in Gaza. Israel threatened to reveal the material to media outlets as well as to the UN and this, in turn, resulted in the Palestinian retreat. It was further claimed that the Palestinians were shown footage showing a meeting between Abu Mazen, Defense Minister Ehud Barak and then foreign minister Tzippi Livni. In the course of the meeting, according to the report, Abu Mazen attempted to convince Barak to continue the operation. Barak appeared hesitant whereas Abu Mazen was enthusiastic. In addition, a telephone conversation recording between Abed Al-Rahim, secretary general of the Palestinian Authority and director of Gen. Gabi Ashkenazi’s bureau was presented. The Palestinian senior official can be heard saying that now is the time to bring ground forces into the Jabalya and Shati refugee camps. “The fall of these two camps will bring about the fall of the Hamas regime in Gaza, and will cause them to wave a white flag,” says Abed Al-Rahim. According to the report, Dov Weissglas told Abed Al-Rahim that such a move could result in the deaths of thousands of civilians. “They all voted for Hamas,” says Abed Al-Rahim, “they chose their fate, not us.” Following Hamas’s allegations against him, Abu Mazen ordered the establishment of an investigative committee to examine the cause for the postponement of the discussion of the Goldstone report, which sparked a furor and much criticism in the Palestinian street. Officially, Israel argues that Abu Mazen withdrew his request for the discussion as a result of Netanyahu making it clear that such a move would greatly harm the peace process. Moreover, Israel prefers to keep quiet since it has no desire to harm Abu Mazen any more than he has already been harmed and thus play into Hamas’s hands. “Abu Mazen did the correct thing on his part,” says a political source. “Had he insisted on pushing through the proposal, he would have badly harmed the peace process.” In addition, the Palestinian Authority has attempted over the last year to establish an additional cellular network in the West Bank—Wataniya, to be directed by Abu Mazen’s son. “The IDF had opposed the new cellular network, claiming that this would clash with its frequencies, and it was proposed to the Palestinians the minimum frequency allocation, which the Palestinians did not accept,” explained a senior security source. “It would be fairly correct to state that it was hinted to Palestinian senior officials that if they would withdraw their endorsement of the Goldstone report, they would get help in promoting their interests to form a second cellular network in the West Bank.”

Friday, October 2, 2009

R.I.P MAREK EDELMAN (1922-2009)

ISLAMIC EXTREMISM


While the existence of militant strands of Islam is not controversial the causes of this militancy is. The debate cleaves into two camps The first views Islamic extremism as it views all forms of religious extremism, entirely divorced from the hijacked tradition. The second school of thought takes the opposite view, conflating Islam and extremism. In this view, summarized by far right Dutch MP Geert Wilders, "there is no such thing as a moderate Islam," and the only recourse is for the west to "[b]an this wretched book [the Quran] like Mein Kampf is banned," and enact policies to make "no more Muslim immigrants allowed [and]. . .no more mosques,"

The ideology championed by Wilders and his far right cohorts is comforting for many, and perhaps that can explain its popularity. Eschewing nuanced understandings in favor of a dogmatic Us vs. Them approach, it shields westerners form introspection and appeals to powerful ethnocentric impulses. We are inherently good, so therefore, anyone with a conflict with us must be inherently evil, we can do no wrong and they can do right. It is easy to see how this belief fits within the context of a worldview where there are no distinctions between us and them, good and evil, where nothing distinguishes Barak Obama, Hugo Chavez, and Adolf Hitler from one another, and it is equally easy to see how detrimental this worldview is to attempts at fostering tolerance, interfaith dialog, and liberal Islam.

Islam is no more at fault for the conflict between East and West than Arab nationalism or Communism were a few decades ago, indeed Islam plays a similar role, as an ideology of resistance, though like then this is not widely understood. Western policy makers have again confused a historical movement, the backlash against colonialism and neo-imperialism, with the ideology encapsulating it. Like Communist and Arab nationalist movements within the Middle East during the 1970s and 1980s the popularity of militant Islam is rooted in societal factors only superficially related to the religion. Grievances are always expressed within an ideological framework, and so long as the grievances persist so will an ideology to encapsulate them.

When that ideology was Communism and nationalism western policy makers mistook these beliefs for the cause of anti-western sentiments and sought to replace them by encouraging a third ideology; militant Islam. The most violent fundamentalist movements within the Middle East, Hamas, the Taliban, Wahibism all enjoyed the backing of the West, which hoped Islam would pacify the Middle East by weakening the other two movements. It accomplished that much, it did weaken Communism and nationalism, but from a historical perspective it only replaced them, changing nothing.

Those who ascribe anti-western violence to Islam ignore history. Militant Islam is made potent by the same factors that gave rise to ideologically opposed, but equally violent movements. Displacement and occupation in Palestine led to the rise of Hamas, an organization generally cited as an example of the violence inherent in Islam. The most violent and rejectionist Palestinian group, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP), was born out of the same conditions as it Hamas, and it is much extremist than the Islamic Resistance, but it is not an Islamic organization. It embraces nationalism and Marxism, and though it is secular, it was founded and led by a Christian, Dr. George Habash, not a Muslim. Oppression, and not Islam, or Communism, or nationalism, is the root of the backlash against the West.

Sometimes it is articulated in Islamic rhetoric, elsewhere in terms of nationalism, paganism, Marxism, liberation theology, or hero worship, but no matter what ideology gives it voice there will be a backlash wherever people are subjugated. Oftentimes this backlash is so strong it transcends belief, in Latin American Osama bin Laden is a popular figure among Catholics with virulently anti-western views, and American atheists of the left are popular among many Muslims, not because of any ideological or religious qualification, but because of the perception of resistance.

In the case of Islam it is important to distinguish the religion from what is done in its name. It does not matter how popular extremism is Islam and its moderate followers are entitled to the respect due one of the world's great religions. Just as it would be unfair to condemn Christianity for the Inquisition and the Crusades or Judaism for the role of groups such as the JDL and Kach, condemnations of Islam on the basis of 9/11 or 7/7 is bigoted and intolerant.

Those who attempt to conflate Islam with its radical elements champion a transparently bigoted agenda that has done nothing but further alienate Muslims and worsen extremism. Al-Qadea is not the only organization to fantasize about a non-existent clash of civilizations. Western extremists often demand to see the evidence of Muslims protesting violence done in the name of Islam, though they don't hesitate demonize those in their own society making "not in my name" demonstrations against western atrocities. By asking where is the face of moderate Islam, but never seeking an answer they beg the question.

They always talk of the Salman Rushdie fatwa, though they appear to be unaware that the faculty of the oldest and most respected Islamic school, Al-Ajhar University in Cairo declared the ruling un-Islamic, or that the fatwa was condemned a month after being issued by 48 of the 49 member states of the Islamic Conference. They never tire of prattling on about how the Mumbai attacks demonstrate the barbaric nature of Islam, though they never mention the bodies of the ten attackers were refused an Islamic burial by officials at local Muslim cemeteries who were outraged at the attack.

Sadly, among the leaders of the anti-Islamic bigots, these omissions are not due to ignorance. An illustrious example is the reaction to the 9/11 attacks. The attacks were condemned by a flurry of fatwas representing almost the entire range of Islamic, even militant Islamic thought, they were condemned in spontaneous mass demonstrations across Iran and Pakistan, they were condemned by Muslims worldwide.

One such Muslim is Debbie Almontaser. Speaking of the attacks Almontaser commented “I don’t recognize the people who committed the attacks as either Arabs or Muslims. … Those people who did it have stolen my identity as an Arab and have stolen my religion." Later when Almontaser became the founding principal of New York City's first Arabic-English public school, one of 67 such dual language schools, a xenophobic hate group calling itself "Stop the Madrassa" initiated a campaign against the school, attacking Almontaser personally. The group had trouble proving she was a "soft Jihadist", a radical, but law-abiding Muslim, seeking to establish a caliphate from within. But they had experienced help. At the helm of the effort was veteran racist activist Daniel Pipes.

Pipes took Almontaser's statement condemning 9/11, removed the last sentence so the quote read “I don’t recognize the people who committed the attacks as either Arabs or Muslims," and branded her a "9/11 denier", a petty conspiracy theorist. The original quote did not conform to his ideological preconceptions so he distorted it to validate his bigotries.

The bigots are so caught up in their ethnocentric fantasies they are unable to appreciate elementary distinctions. One of the most popular scaremongering phrases among European Islamaphobes is Bat Ye'or's term Eurabia, in this simplistic worldview there is no difference between Muslim and Arab.

Sadly, this phenomenon is not confined to the traditional nativist xenophobes of the far right. Harvard law Professor Alan Dershowitz, O.J's leading defense attorney, is both an ardent Democrat and one of the most active anti-Islamic hate mongers in the U.S. For years he has championed a plainly bigoted agenda, his fanaticism is so overpowering not even basic facts stand in his way. Seeking expert commentary on the occasion of the fortieth anniversary of Robert F. Kennedy's assassination by Christian Sirhan Sirhan a Boston Globe columnist consulted Derschowitz. "It [the assassination] was in some ways," Dershowitz informed him, "the beginning of Islamic terrorism in America. It was the first shot. A lot of us didn't recognize it at the time."

R regardless of how bigots exploit the issue for their own purposes there are legitimate concerns about Islamic extremism. For leftists, many of them atheists and agnostics, any form of religious extremism is abhorrent. In the west they are often the only voice of protest against supporting repressive Islamic forces such as in Saudi Arabia, East Timor, and Bosnia. In the Middle East they are typically the greatest rival of Islamic extremists. Yet it is evident the sole issue for leftists is human rights, and so, even when they issue scathing denunciations of militant Islam, they are never condemned as anti-Muslim.


Still, they are the greatest challenge to Islamic extremism. Islamic extremism is dependent on the alienation of Muslims by bigots such as Pipes, Derschowitz, and Wilders and the oppression of Muslims in the third world. Leftists work to integrate Islam and Muslims, they oppose all forms of oppression, and they condemn violence irrespective of the ideology whose name it is perpetrated in. If they did not view these activities as such a threat, radical Islamists would have never felt compelled to kidnap British MP George Galloway, or engage in armed clashes with leftists in the Middle East. Leftists, who are castigated as radical appeasers of Islamofascism by those on the radical right, pose a genuine threat to militant Islam whereas the self-appointed guardians of the fatherland only encourage it.