The Americano

William Morgan was an adventure seeking misfit from the U.S in when he landed in Cuba in late 1957. In the next and final three years of his life he would become a senior rebel commander, save Fidel Castro's nascent revolutionary government from a foreign coup attempt, receive Cuban citizenship, and oversee agricultural development efforts before falling out of favor, facing a firing squad, being declared a traitor, and having his memory erased from both the Cuban and the American versions of the Revolution. This momentous period of Morgan's life, recounted in Aran Shetterly's The Americano, forms a thrilling plot. The personal drama of the man who would become the only foreigner, other than Che Guevara, to hold the rank of Comandante in Cuba's rebel army, is an enthralling narrative and so is the legacy of the man Cubans called El Americano.

People, nations, and governments define themselves through their history. History is a powerful ideological weapon and it is a battleground for ideologues. And the history of the Cuban Revolution is that movement's last open front. Despite being a leading figure in the actual fighting Morgan has been erased from the selective memories of partisans from all sides who cannot reconcile his fate with their preconceived worldview.

Morgan's legendary courage and personal dedication to Cuba libre helped defeat Bastista, he fought against a tyrant armed by his own government, foiled the attempt of another American backed tyrant to overthrow the Revolutionary government, and paid for it with his U.S citizenship. But he does not fit neatly with the Communist version of the Revolution either. He was an ardent opponent of Communism who paid for the support he gave anti-Marxist rebels in the Escambray Mountains with his life. Recalling the legacy of the man revered as a hero and reviled as a traitor to two different nations forces historians to separate opposition to an American backed tyranny from support for Fidel. For those who view every historical event in clear ideological terms that proposition is too uncomfortable to grapple with, it is much easier to forget.

In its title The Americano captures the essence of the man who attempted to belong to two radically different worlds and was ultimately rejected by both and in its pages it tells a story that flows like the script of an action movie. This entertaining account of one man's life and death exposes and challenges traditional approaches to the historical record while relating an intriguing, unexplored narrative.

ANTI-ABORTION ACTIVISM

Most leftists support the right to an abortion, that is not a position that I have embrace, because while I lean in that direction I remain essentially without an opinion on the abortion question. Perhaps because it is an issue that has been decided by the courts, not one that can be addressed through normal political channels, perhaps because there are more pressing issues to focus on, but perhaps also because of much of the anti-abortion camp I have been content to stay on the sidelines of this issue. It would be wrong to include every opponent of abortion in this grouping, there are certainly many people, such as the Dalia Lama, who oppose legalized abortions out of sincere beliefs and genuine compassion, but in America where abortion has become a flashpoint in the cultural wars the anti-abortion crowd has been defined by bigotry and close mindedness. A cause is not wrong because an unsavory group found it in their interest to embrace, bigots routinely bemoan the human rights abuses of their ideological enemies and that certainly doesn't tarnish the cause of human rights, but the abortion debate in the U.S explains much about right wing politics.

Ending legalized abortions is a perennial priority of right wing politicians, an ironic one since the courts have repeatedly ruled it a Constitutional rights, but an issue that never fails to win applause and votes from the millions of religious fundamentalists who form the backbone of the Republican party. For politicians the social issues of the cultural wars might be a convenient way to shift the focus of politics away from actual policy and towards nominal non-issues, but for the mass movement they are a genuine priority. Abortion is the most important issue for many on the right; it's about saving human lives we are told.

Unfortunately the right never seems to be concerned with human life when it does not mean an opportunity for them to thump their Bibles or express their cultural identity. Even, if for the sake of argument, one is to adopt their worldview that life begins at conception their efforts have produced few positive results. For a genuine pro-life activist one would think hunger would be the highest priority, both because at 30,000 deaths every day it takes far more life than abortion and also because it could be addressed with minimal cost and effort by a mass movement in the developed world, but it is not. Hunger prevention is routinely branded by many on the right as a pet project of the bleeding heart leftists. But not abortion, that is about saving lives. Actually, that's not fair, almost everyone acknowledges hunger is an enormous problem, but only if it doesn't require any sacrifice on their part. It does not matter if babies are born into the world to die from hunger, there can be no abortion. If the pro-life movement could devote its tremendous resources to protecting born as well as unborn life then perhaps their arguments could be respected. If they could join the left in opposing the human rights abuses they have in the past cheered they could be taken seriously. If pro-life meant defense of life and not just an opportunity for an expression of political identity then their arguments could be respected. If they did not use the abortion issue to demonize everyone they disagreed with elsewhere then their arguments could be respected. But, as it stands the movement that pro-life activism is the emblazonment of destroys any hope for that position to be taken seriously.

THE (unsustainable) BASIS OF OBAMA'S POPULARITY

A DISTORTED VIEW OF SECURITY? NSA ATTEMPTED TO SPY ON MEMBER OF CONGRESS

The New York Times revealed that illegal surveillance on American citizens by the NSA under the Bush administration were so broad that officials attempted to intercept communications from an unnamed Member of Congress. Although the effort ultimately failed, the allegation, confirmed by an anonymous senior FBI official, raised new concerns about the scope of the Bush Administration's illegal surveillance programs which some fear may have been used against domestic political dissidents. The Inspector General's office was said to have received allegations of “significant misconduct” relating to probes that were opened against American citizens on flimsy evidence. Officials still don't know how many violation occurred.

In the past the government has spied on and interfered with domestic political opponents, even assassinating Fred Hampton, a Black Panther activist in Chicago, but details of the Bush administration program, which the NSA has said will continue under the Obama administration "in strict accordance with U.S. laws and regulations", are still largely unknown. It is possible that the Bush program was only exceeded the law in overzealous monitoring suspected terrorists, in which case the slippery slope problem would be the only issue, it is also entirely possible that the Bush administration used the program to spy on political opponents. It is hard to know the scope of the program, but it is easy to see why illegal surveillance of American citizens inside the U.S is a cause for concern.

PALESTINIANS MARK PRISONER DAY

“It would be better to drown these prisoners, in the Dead Sea if possible, since that’s the lowest point in the world,"

- Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman

"They wanted to break our will and destroy our dignity. But, of course, we are stronger than all their virulent tactics,"

-Freed twenty-four year old Palestinian prisoner Sherine Sheikh Khalil

Palestinians held vigils across the West Bank and Gaza yesterday to commemorate Prisoner Day and ask for the release of those held in Israeli jails. Israel holds thousands of Palestinians, often in administrative detention, meaning without charge or trial. Although the case of captured soldier Gilad Shalit, the only Israeli in Palestinian custody, has garnered international attention Palestinian prisoners are seldom mentioned in western media.

It remains a contentious issue in Palestine though where prisoners, including many woman and children and much of Palestine's educated leadership, are regarded as hostages and political prisoners, a charge echoed by human rights groups. Hundreds of demonstrators in Gaza, chanting "freedom for prisoners" and carrying pictures of imprisoned family members, were reassured the issue remained a top priority for their elected leadership.

Prisoners are often faced with indefinite detention and poor treatment. Recently released prisoner Sherine Sheikh Khalil spoke out about the mistreatment in an online interview. Khalil spent six years in Israeli custody after being arrested in the West Bank at age 17. Speaking from Gaza where the Israeli authorities deported her, Khalil said of prison authorities "[t]hey treated us as if we were animals. . .[i]t is really difficult to communicate to you the bestiality and savagery of their behavior," she went on to add that "[y]ou can’t really speak about a genuine justice system in Israel. . .[it is] a country that sanctions murder of non-Jews, theft of their property and demolition of their homes. It is a state that uses every conceivable extenuating circumstances to exonerate Jewish murderers of Palestinians while concocting all sorts of pretexts to condemn and incriminate Palestinians."

Khalil went on to describe some of the abuse detainees suffered at the hands of their Israeli captors. She reported that Palestinian prisoners were moved to facilities housing dangerous Israeli criminals and spoke of women being forced to give birth with their hands and feet shackled. Harsher measures introduced by Israel's new hawkish government, including medical negligence and a decrease in food, have already led to the deaths of two prisoners. Abdul Nasser Farwana who oversees the Statistics Department of the Prisoners’ Ministry in Ramallah spoke of headscarves being tightened around detainees to the point of strangulation. The new Israeli government acknowledges escalating mistreatment of Palestinian prisoners, but claims it is justified in doing to so to help secure the release of a captured Israeli soldier. Previously Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman argued “It would be better to drown these prisoners, in the Dead Sea if possible, since that’s the lowest point in the world," and offered to pay for the needed buses if the government adopted his policy.

Khalil indicated she believed the goal of abuse is "to break our will and destroy our dignity," but added "we are stronger than all their virulent tactics."

DETAINED EGYPTIAN BLOGGER ON HUNGER STRIKE

Egyptian blogger and journalist Ahmed Seif Al-Nasr is on hunger strike in protest of his April 10 arrest. Nasr is being held by police in Fayoum where he was arrested after he reported on student protests the previous day. Reporters Without Borders issued a statement condemning the arrest of the blogger and correspondent for the independent daily Al-Dostour. Nasr has been critical of government policy on his blog in a country where dissidents are routinely harassed and detained. The U.S backed government of dictator Hosni Mubarak has escalated its clampdown on dissident activities since December, targeting scores of bloggers, journalists, and human rights activists.

Previously detained on two occasions, Nasr was aware of the risks of his political activity. His detention comes amidst a wave of arrests targeting members of the Muslim Brotherhood and other dissident groups as the government is putting senior opposition officials on trial.

CUBA, A NEW WAY FORWARD?

Relations between Cuban and the U.S appear to be thawing after forty-eight years of tension following the failed Bay of Pigs invasion. Senior officials from both nations struck a conciliatory tone President Barak Obama, speaking from Trinidad at the Summit of the Americas said "[t]he US seeks a new beginning with Cuba." Earlier Secretary of State Hillary Clinton responded favorably to Cuban leader Raul Castro's offers of talks on "everything". The change of tone comes after the new U.S administration eased travel restriction to the Communist island.

That a better relationship would be in the interests of both countries has long been the consensus of foreign policy experts, it was a move advocated by Henry Kissinger in the 1970's. However, the large number of anti-Castro Cubans in the critical swing state of Florida has left past Presidents unwilling to address the issue. Relations that were strained when Fidel Castro's rebel movement toppled the regime of American backed dictator Fulgencio Batista broke when the U.S launched terrorist attacks, and later an invasion, of Cuba and the Cuban government responded by placing Soviet missiles 90 miles from the American coast. Although relations have improved slightly since the 1960's they remain cold, unnaturally cold.

The U.S's Caribbean neighbor represents a significant export market, which despite its proximity is dominated by European firms, and the U.S represents for Cuba a new source of tourism. Obstacles remain, but there are enough common interests to proceed with a normalisation of relations. For decades the U.S has supported and sheltered terrorists operating against Cuba while listing Havana, without explanation, as a state sponsor of terrorism, banned most Americans from even visiting the island, blocked trade, and excluded the nation from regional bodies. For its part Cuba sided with America's Cold War foe and sheltered fugitives from the mainland. But the Cold War is over. It is time to move forward in the spirit of cooperation with a common interest. For the past hundred and twenty years the U.S's policy towards Cuba has been disgraceful, a shift, even if only for strategic reasons is a needed improvement and one that will set the stage for future dialogue and normalisation with other states.

WAEL ABBAS FREED

Egyptian journalist, blogger, and human rights activist Wael Abbas has been released from police custody after being detained earlier today. Internationally and in dissident circles, Abbas is respected for his documentation of police brutality, which has forced the prosecution of several former officers. "Wael Abbas is the best and bravest of us all," says fellow blogger Shahnaz Abdel Salem. Last year he declined to meet with U.S President George W. Bush. His work has earned him awards from Human Rights Watch, CNN, and the International Center for Journalists, but also attention from the Egyptian authorities who regard him as a nuisance. Two days ago a police officer broke into Abbas's Cairo home and attacked him. In the past his online accounts have been shut down, he has been (falsely) declared a criminal by the Interior Minister, and been accused of being an apostate and a homosexual, serious labels in conservative Egyptian society.

KARZAI'S FUTURE

Since being installed in the Presidential Palace by American soldiers shortly after the fall of the Taliban Karzai has been content following orders from Washington while siphoning off public funds for the construction of palaces and other trapping of power. He has even described himself as an American puppet. However, there appears to have been some falling out recently. In the last few months Karzai's stature as a courageous democratic visionary has diminished drastically.

Some of his less admirable characteristics were suddenly noticed in the West about the same time as the State Department's man in Afghanistan repeatedly broke with the official line to angrily denounce civilian casualties resulting from NATO military operation, his first real crime. With an election approaching it is likely the Americans will hand over the operations of the Afghan government to a more obedient crony, perhaps their former proconsul and U.N ambassador will, while retaining Karzai as a figurehead or even attempt to oust him all together in favor of a less free-minded visionary.

For seven years Karzai was adored for his courage and honesty while the tribal warlord and his cronies looted government coffers. Karzai would do well to remember the fate of other Washington allies who displayed an independent streak, the fate of Saddam Hussein and Manuel Noriega should be at the front of his mind. Perhaps the rift will be healed and Karzai's heroic stature will be renewed, if not it will be entertaining to watch the falling out, to watch the sudden concern of western officials for Karzai's corruption, dealmaking with warlords, anti-democratic tendencies, and connections to the drug trade. Certainly real issues, but ones of negligible importance when Karzai was following orders.

TOM HURNDALL REMEMBERED

"What do I want from this life? What makes you happy is not enough. All the things that satisfy our instincts only satisfy the animal in us. I want to be proud of myself. I want more. I want to look up to myself and when I die, I want to smile because of the things I have done, not cry for the things I haven’t done."

-Slain peace activist Tom Hurdall

Six years ago today a team of nine peace activists in Gaza was travelling to the Egyptian border to set up a peace tent to block tank patrols. The group abandoned their protest when they encountered a fighting at a military checkpoint, but when several children who had been playing in the street came under fire Tom Hurndall, a twenty-one year old British activist, ran to bring them to safety. After evacuating a girl Hurndall returned for the rest of the children, as he knelt to collect a second child a bullet from an Israeli sniper struck him in the head.

The Israeli government initially refused to investigate, initially claiming Hurndall was unintentionally hit in crossfire, then supporting the sniper's claim that Hurndall was wearing military fatigues and carrying a weapon. The British government eventually seceded in pressuring Israel to launch an investigation which subsequently resulted in the conviction of Sergeant Taysir Hayb for manslaughter, one of only two IDF soldiers to ever be convicted for abusing human rights in the Occupied Territories.

Hurdall never regained consciousness before dying in London nine months after his shooting. The aspiring photojournalist and social activist lost his life in an act of compassion, but he gave the world an inspiring example in courage and solidarity. The military can crush the bodies and end the lives of those who come to Gaza in solidarity with its dehumanized victims, but it can never extinguish the spirit of humanity that brings foreigners to Palestine to join a forgotten people in their struggle for survival.

DEBATING GAZA

A debate over Israel's recent offensive in the Gaza Strip

I suggested having this debate because it is critical to understand your opponents. Realizing the humanity of your opponents is important, but this is about more than that. No one can truly understand their own views without understanding the beliefs of those who disagree with them. The dialogue within Israel is worth remembering, it is generally as revealing as it is disturbing. The recent actions in Gaza are not isolated, but are rather emblematic of Israel's treatment of the Palestinians, it is worth recalling the words of leading Israeli military analyst Zeev Schiff spoken years before the latest assault on Gaza, as he summarized the sentiments of IDF Chief of Staff Mordechai Gur, "the Israeli Army has always struck civilian populations, purposely and consciously ... [it] has never distinguished civilian targets ... [the army] purposefully attacked civilian targets." [1] Later Israeli statesmen Abba Eban criticized Prime Minister Menachin Begin for issuing a report depicting "an Israel wantonly inflicting every possible measure of death and anguish on civilian populations in a mood reminiscent of regimes which neither Mr. Begin nor I would dare to mention by name." [2] Ebban agreed with the factual validity of the report, but was angry that Begin's comments were made public, he was, evidently unconcerned that Israel was behaving like regimes he would not name.

An Israeli intelligence officer acknowledged the IDF was targeting "both aspects of Hamas -- its resistance or military wing and its dawa, or social wing," [3] Bombing schools, hospitals, universities, the water system, police stations, and other civilian infrastructure was entirely justified because, as NYT correspondent Stephen Erlanger makes clear, "in a war, [Hamas's] instruments of political and social control were as legitimate a target as its rocket caches." [3] Of course, when Hamas acts on a smaller scale, but in a similar fashion, it must be denounced as terrorism.

If Israel's apologists are to be believed these actions, namely the firing of rockets, necessitated the bombing and subsequent invasion of Gaza. The attack was launched to save lives, Israeli lives that is, Palestinian blood is worthless. [4] But even if we accept the premise that Palestinian deaths are of no consequence this justification quickly falls apart.

Six months before the offensive began in earnest Hamas and Israel signed a cease fire: both sides would halt their attacks and Israel would open the borders. Rocket attacks essentially stopped, although a trickle of fire from dissident groups continued with no fatalities, but Israel refused to open the borders. [5] Nonetheless Hamas was interested in a renewal of the cease fire before it expired, Israel repudiated this offer with violence. [6] This was not the long term settlement endorsed by Hamas and the entire world save Israel and the U.S where Israel and Palestine would recognize each other on the June 1967 borders and all hostilities would cease, this was a short term agreement to end immediate attacks. [7] Israel not only refused to renew the cease fire, it violated it with a Nov. 4 raid that killed several Palestinian fighters. [8]

Immediately, and predictably, Hamas responded with a barrage of rockets in what the MFA acknowledged was "retaliation" for Israel's violation of the cease fire agreement. If the sole objective of Israel's leaders was to save Israeli lives they would have pursued an extension of the cease fire. The attack, as predicted, resulted in more Israeli deaths. As it launched its offensive the IDF was preparing for scores of Israeli casualties, in the end only eleven Israeli soldiers were killed, several by friendly fire, but this was still many more than had been killed in the preceding six years by rocket fire. [6]

The air attacks began shortly before noon on the Sabbath, Dec. 27 just as children were returning from school and midday crowds were out on the streets. Within moments over two hundred people were dead. [9] Israel's deterrent capabilities, terrorism is lay man's terms, were quickly reestablished to the applause of over 90% of the non-Arab population. One Israeli political analyst predicted that the parties of then Prime Minister Ehud Olmert's governing coalition would capture one additional seat in the upcoming Parliamentary elections for every forty Palestinians killed, a prediction that ultimately proved false but still reflected well on the mood of the country. [10]

Israel's PR arm has claimed civilians were warned to leave by the world's most moral army before the fighting began, they couldn't leave the conflict zone through the sealed border crossing, but Israel nonetheless quickly absolved itself of all blame for deaths inflicted by its forces. Unfortunately civilians were not given an opportunity to flee, the result was nearly a thousand dead Palestinian non-combatants. Writing in the nation's leading newspaper Israeli intelligence analyst Reuven Pedatzur noted "[t]he IDF, which planned to attack buildings and sites populated by hundreds of people, did not warn them in advance to leave, but intended to kill a great many of them, and succeeded." [11] Indeed, on one occasion Israeli soldiers ordered a family to evacuate the fighting to a shelter which they promptly bombed, killing scores of people. [12]

The IDF made little effort to distinguish between civilian and military targets, often it deliberately attacked civilian targets. It ordered its soldiers to shoot at medical workers. [13] It destroyed the warehouse of UNRWA on whom most Palestinians depend for sustenance, it used banned chemical weapons against civilians, it destroyed the al-Quds hospital where hundreds of terrified residents had taken shelter, it refused to allow emergency aid in, ramming and nearly sinking a relief vessel in international waters, and shooting at ambulances attempting to evacuate the injured during Israel's "three hour daily humanitarian cease fire". [14] These reports come from Palestinians, the U.N, and those westerners in Gaza when the attack began, the IDF refused to allow foreign doctors or journalists into Gaza. Who did they want to die from lack of medical attention? What were they hiding? Perhaps the scale of the violence was too great even for Israel's well oiled propaganda machine to talk away. IDF soldiers, some of whom proudly dawned T-Shirts bearing images of a pregnant Palestinian women in a sniper's crosshairs with the words "1 shot 2 kills", [15] killed even the animals at the Gaza zoo during their rampage through the coastal enclave. [16]

Norwegian Mads Gilbert, one of only two western doctors on hand for much of the conflict, estimated half of the casualties were woman and children and almost all casualties in Israel's "[a]ll out war against the civilian population of Gaza," were civilian. [17] But perhaps the onslaught was justified, because as the Jerusalem Post noted one Sephardic Rabbi wrote to the Prime Minister that there is "absolutely no moral prohibition against the indiscriminate killing of civilians during a potential massive military offensive on Gaza aimed at stopping the rocket launchings," [18] Perhaps the only fault in killing over 1,300 people, mainly civilians, was that it did not go far enough in reestablishing Israel's deterrent and it failed in returning Kadima to power. Perhaps a 100:1 kill ratio was just not good enough. Perhaps what Israeli commentators frequently refer to as the "Palestinian peace offensive" was not sufficiently thwarted. As for the official pretense, the attack was, as predicted by Israeli officials, counterproductive to its declared aims. When the fighting subsided thirteen Israelis were dead and Hamas remained in power in Gaza, more popular than ever.

We are told if there were no rockets than Israel would not have been compelled to massacre Gaza, but in the West Bank there are no rockets, but there are land seizures, there are checkpoints, there are regular IDF kidnappings, there are daily incursion into Palestinian communities, there are Jewish only roads, there are illegal settlements, there are attacks on peaceful demonstrations, and there is still the occupation. If peace is what Israel wants then it will engage the Arab world with words and not weapons.

Bar Kochba responds:


An Israeli intelligence officer acknowledged the IDF was targeting "both aspects of Hamas -- its resistance or military wing and its dawa, or social wing," Bombing schools, hospitals, universities, the water system, police stations, and other civilian infrastructure was entirely justified because, as NYT correspondent Stephen Erlanger makes clear, "in a war, [Hamas's] instruments of political and social control were as legitimate a target as its rocket caches." Of course, when Hamas acts on a smaller scale, but in a similar fashion, it must be denounced as terrorism.

My fellow blogger is making a false distinction between Hamas's military and "social" wings. They are both parts of the same entity, Hamas using its "social" wing to build schools that indoctrinate Arab children in hatred. Just as the Allies during WWII made no distinction between the Nazi Wehrmacht and the social centers built by the Nazi regime, so too this is completely irrelevant. The media has succeeded in portraying the Arabs of Gaza as poor victims of Israeli aggression. Such a characterization is demeaning and in fact bigoted, because it implies that the Arabs cannot be held accountable for their own actions, essentially infantilizing them. Israel withdrew its 7000 Jewish citizens from Gaza in 2005, in a bid to give the Arabs a chance at self-government and a better future. Israel poured aid into the Gaza and even left behind the greenhouses and agricultural infrastructure that had made the Jewish communities so successful. [1] While Israel extended the olive branch, they got terror in return. In the 2006 Palestinian elections, Hamas was elected with a clear majority of 74 of the 132 available seats. Hamas is recognized as a terrorist organization by the United States and the European Union. It was founded with an explicit dedication to the destruction of the State of Israel and has carried out hundreds of murderous suicide and other terrorist attacks against Jewish targets. Hamas' charter is based on rejections and says that "Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it." Lest anybody claim that Hamas makes a distinction between Jews and Israel, its charter declares its genocidal intent. "The Day of Judgement will not come about until Muslims fight the Jews (killing the Jews), when the Jew will hide behind stones and trees. The stones and trees will say O Muslims, O Abdulla, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him. Only the Gharkad tree, would not do that because it is one of the trees of the Jews." (related by al-Bukhari and Muslim)." Concerning this intended genocide, the charter promises that " the Islamic Resistance Movement aspires to the realisation of Allah's promise, no matter how long that should take." To claim that the Arabs who voted for Hamas as their legitimate representatives were not aware of their goals and aspirations is simply dishonest. The Arabs of Gaza must take collective responsibility for freely choosing Hamas as their government. During the past 3 years, there was not a single protest against Hamas using homes, schools, hospitals and mosques to fire rockets against Israeli civilians. The Arabs cannot allow Hamas to use their homes as rocket launch pads while at the same time claim innocence.

NYT correspondent Stephen Erlanger's statement reveals a dangerous lack of moral clarity and hypocrisy. There is no comparison between a terrorist organization attacking civilians and a sovereign state trying to protect its civilians. This is the same twisted mentality that would denounce both a robber and the law enforcement officer who tries to neutralize him.

If Israel's apologists are to be believed these actions, namely the firing of rockets, necessitated the bombing and subsequent invasion of Gaza. The attack was launched to save lives, Israeli lives that is, Palestinian blood is worthless. But even if we accept the premise that Palestinian deaths are of no consequence this justification quickly falls apart.

This last statement is mere rhetoric, intending to portray Israel as a racist state. The obligation and responsibility of the Israeli government is to protect Israeli citizens, just as it is Russia's duty to protect Russian citizens.

Six months before the offensive began in earnest Hamas and Israel signed a cease fire: both sides would halt their attacks and Israel would open the borders. Rocket attack essentially stopped, although a trickle of fire from dissident groups continued with no fatalities, but Israel refused to open the borders. Nonetheless Hamas was interested in a renewal of the cease fire before it expired, Israel repudiated this offer with violence. This was not the long term settlement endorsed by Hamas and the entire world save Israel and the U.S where Israel and Palestine would recognize each other on the June 1967 borders and all hostilities would cease, this was a short term agreement to end immediate attacks. Israel not only refused to renew the cease fire, it violated it with a Nov. 4 raid that killed several Palestinian fighters.

Hamas never abided by the truce for even a moment. Almost immediately after the truce was signed in June 2008, Hamas fired rockets into Israel. Despite such a flagrant violation of this truce, Israel promised "restraint" [2]. In fact, during the entire 6 month truce period, Hamas fired a total of 329 rockets at Israel [3].

Immediately, and predictably, Hamas responded with a barrage of rockets in what the MFA acknowledged was "retaliation" for Israel's violation of the cease fire agreement. If the sole objective of Israel's leaders was to save Israeli lives they would have pursued an extension of the cease fire. The attack, as predicted, resulted in more Israeli deaths. As it launched its offensive the IDF was preparing for scores of Israeli casualties, in the end only eleven Israeli soldiers were killed, several by friendly fire, but this was still many more than had been killed in the preceding six years by rocket fire.

Dozens of Israelis have been killed by Hamas rocket attacks. The small number of casualties has been nothing short of miraculous yet it is twisted thinking to argue that Israel should have waiting until a higher number of Jews had been killed before responding.

The air attacks began shortly before noon on the Sabbath, Dec. 27 just as children were returning from school and midday crowds were out on the streets. Within moments over two hundred people were dead. Israel's deterrent capabilities, terrorism is lay man's terms, were quickly reestablished to the applause of over 90% of the non-Arab population. One Israeli political analyst predicted that the parties of then Prime Minister Ehud Olmert's governing coalition would capture one additional seat in the upcoming Parliamentary elections for every forty Palestinians killed, a prediction that ultimately proved false but still reflected well on the mood of the country.

Israel's PR arm has claimed civilians were warned to leave by the world's most moral army before the fighting began, they couldn't leave the conflict zone through the sealed border crossing, but Israel nonetheless quickly absolved itself of all blame for deaths inflicted by its forces. Unfortunately civilians were not given an opportunity to flee, the result was nearly a thousand dead Palestinian non-combatants. Writing in the nation's leading newspaper Israeli intelligence analyst Reuven Pedatzur noted "[t]he IDF, which planned to attack buildings and sites populated by hundreds of people, did not warn them in advance to leave, but intended to kill a great many of them, and succeeded." Indeed, on one occasion Israeli soldiers ordered a family to evacuate the fighting to a shelter which they promptly bombed, killing scores of people.

Israel's army went to great lengths to prevent unnecessary civilian casualties, unfortunately often putting Israeli soldiers in harm's way. Following international allegations that Israeli soldiers acted immorally in Gaza, Israel's military launched an investigation into the matter. The military probe revealed that there was little truth behind the accusations. [4] Maj. Yehoshua Gurtler, a military lawyer, said that "these allegations were based on hearsay. They were not based on firsthand evidence. They were rumors. They did not reflect the operational circumstances which had actually taken place on the ground." We are still waiting for the NY Times and other news agencies to publicize the findings with the same zealousness with which they smeared the reputation of the Israeli army.

The IDF made little effort to distinguish between civilian and military targets, often it deliberately attacked civilian targets. It bombed a U.N school housing refugees killing scores of innocents claiming it was sheltering Hamas fighters, a claim the IDF was later forced to retract, it destroyed the warehouse of UNRWA on whom most Palestinians depend for sustenance, it used banned chemical weapons against civilians, it destroyed the al-Quds hospital where hundreds of terrified residents had taken shelter, it refused to allow emergency aid in, ramming and nearly sinking a relief vessel in international waters, and shooting at ambulances attempting to evacuate the injured during Israel's "three hour daily humanitarian cease fire". These reports come from Palestinians, the U.N, and those westerners in Gaza when the attack began, the IDF refused to allow foreign doctors or journalists into Gaza. Who did they want to die from lack of medical attention? What were they hiding? Perhaps the scale of the violence was too great even for Israel's well oiled propaganda machine to talk away. IDF soldiers, some of whom proudly dawned T-Shirts bearing images of a pregnant Palestinian women in a sniper's crosshairs with the words "1 shot 2 kills", killed even the animals at the Gaza zoo during their rampage through the coastal enclave.

Just as in the case of the case of the 2002 Jenin massacre that wasn't, Israel was falsely accused of crimes against humanity. rael faced a similar rush to judgment after reports of an Israeli attack on January 6, 2009 on a UN-run school in Jabalya. The building was not being used as a school at the time but was sheltering Palestinian noncombatants. Initial reports said at least 30 (the figure was later revised to 43) Palestinians were killed and UN officials claimed they had given Israeli forces coordinates of this building and others that they said were not associated with Hamas. The incident was immediately portrayed as a deliberate Israeli attack on innocent people.

Israel maintained that the building was being used as a shelter and that Israeli forces fired in the direction of the building because they were attacked by Hamas terrorists launching mortars from the area. Israel later identified two of the casualties at the site as Imad and Hassan Abu Asker, who served as heads of the Hamas mortar units in Gaza. A witness from Jabalya said that he had seen Abu Asker in the area of the school right before the attack when he answered a call for volunteers to pile sand around the camp “to help protect the resistance fighters.” In addition, two residents of the area near the school told the Associated Press they had seen a small group of terrorists firing mortar rounds from a street close to the school. [5]

Journalists who investigated the incident and spoke to eyewitnesses, including a teacher who was in the schoolyard at the time of the shelling, concluded that no one in the school compound was killed. “The 43 people who died in the incident were all outside, on the street, where all three mortar shells landed.” As the Globe and Mail noted, this is very different than the UN’s allegation that the IDF had fired into a schoolyard crowded with refuge-seekers.

Nearly a month after the incident, following the publication of accounts discrediting UNRWA’s story, Maxwell Gaylord, the UN humanitarian coordinator in Jerusalem, was forced to admit that Israel’s account was true after all, that the IDF mortar shells fell in the street near the compound, and not on the compound itself. Gaylord said that the UN “would like to clarify that the shelling and all of the fatalities took place outside and not inside the school.” [6]

One explanation for the inflated civilian casualty figures is that Hamas routinely hides among civilians, since more Arab dead is better for their propaganda purposes. Hamas has stored weapons in schools, mosques and hospitals, and used them as bases for rocket attacks.

Norwegian Mads Gilbert, one of only two western doctors on hand for much of the conflict, estimated half of the casualties were woman and children and almost all casualties in Israel's "[a]ll out war against the civilian population of Gaza," were civilian. But perhaps the onslaught was justified, because as the Jersusalem Post noted one Sephardic Rabbi wrote to the Prime Minister that there is "absolutely no moral prohibition against the indiscriminate killing of civilians during a potential massive military offensive on Gaza aimed at stopping the rocket launchings," Perhaps the only fault in killing over 1,300 people, mainly civilians, was that it did not go far enough in reestablishing Israel's deterrent and it failed in returning Kadima to power. Perhaps a 100:1 kill ratio was just not good enough. Perhaps what Israeli commentators frequently refer to as the "Palestinian peace offensive" was not sufficiently thwarted. As for the official pretense, the attack was, as predicted by Israeli officials, counterproductive to its declared aims. When the fighting subsided thirteen Israelis were dead and Hamas remained in power in Gaza, more popular than ever.

Pure anti-Israel rhetoric. Official Israeli statistics put 300 of the 1200 casualties as civilians [7]. This amounts to one-third, not the two-thirds Arab propagandists claimed. This is a much lower rate of civilian casualties than the United States in Iraq or Afghanistan, Russia in Chechnya or NATO in the Balkans. It is despicable to argue that Israel's operation was not justified because a fair or equal amount of Jews hadn't been killed.

The rage over the T-shirts worn by Israeli soldiers highlights the selective anger of the world. While many brimmed with righteous indignation about these T-shirts, nary a word has been said about Hamas' explicit genocidal statements and the constant and deadly anti-semitic and murderous incitement in Arab culture.

We are told if there were no rockets than Israel would not have been compelled to massacre Gaza, but in the West Bank there are no rockets, but there are land seizures, there are checkpoints, there are regular IDF kidnappings, there are daily incursion into Palestinian communities, there are Jewish only roads, there are illegal settlements, there are attacks on peaceful demonstrations, and there is still the occupation. If peace is what Israel wants than it will engage the Arab world with words and not weapons.

In typical anti-Israel fashion, history began yesterday. The Arab assault on Jews in Israel has continued unimpeded for over a hundred years. In 1920-21, 1929 and the 1930s, Arabs rioted and massacred hundreds of Jews in Jerusalem, Jaffa, Hebron, Safed, etc. This was before there was a state, let alone an "occupation" or checkpoints. When Israel declared its independence in 1948, its was attacked by a million Arab soldiers from 7 different countries. Again in 1967, Israel was threatened and attacked, before any "settlements". Israel has offered the Arabs peace numerous times. Former Israeli PM Ehud Olmert recently announced that he offered the PA more than even Ehud Barak did [8]. Barak offered Yasser Arafat practically 95% of Judea, Samaria and Gaza, with a capital in East Jerusalem and control over the Temple Mount. In typical Arab fashion, Arafat wanted everything and walked away. "At one point, I put everything on the table and offered Abu Mazen [PA Chairman Mahmoud Abbas – ed.] an offer that had never been made before, that touched on the core of the conflict and the most heavily emotionally charged issues, the rawest nerves, the historical baggage,” Olmert said, recalling his negotiations with Abbas. “I told him, 'Come on, sign.' That was half a year ago, and I'm still waiting,” he added. The ball is in the Arab's court.

MEDIA BIAS

Zimbabwe's President Robert Mugabe topped Parade Magazine's recently released annual rankings of the world's worst dictators. An accompanying article depicts Mugabe as a desperate tyrant struggling to satisfy his addiction to power through violence and intimidation; not an unfair description of the African tyrant. Only a wilfully delusional partisan or a government spokesman would try to portray Mugabe as a visionary reformer struggling to restrain extremists within the establishment whose violence and terror against his own people deeply troubles him. That is exactly how Christopher Dickey, writing for Newsweek, envisioned the fifth member of the list, Saudi King Abdullah, in a lengthy article of praise reminiscent of Orewell's observation that "good propaganda doesn't lie; it omits".

Conservatives have long claimed bias in the mass media is and it is easy to see the source of this thinking. Anyone who thinks Fox News and talk radio is "fair and balanced" will inevitably judge the media's accuracy not by how much its portrayal deviates from the situation on the ground, but rather by how much it deviates from their preconceived fantasy of what they would like the situation to be. They would be right in one thing though, the mass media does carry a discernible bias, just not in the direction they imagine. Some of it is easy to see by reading a newspaper, for example the word "radical" generally precedes the name of anyone opposed to U.S policy, even when that view represents the majority of humanity, finding other bias requires a basic grounding in current events.

Someone who is unaware that Mugabe and Abdullah are equally repressive rulers will likely not realize that the only difference between the two is that one is pro-American and the other is not, that one is armed and kept in power by America and the other is not. This pattern, of which the Mugabe-Abdullah example typifies, of loudly lamenting the crimes of regimes hostile to U.S interests while ignoring and even whitewashing comparable behavior by the U.S and its allies has helped to divert the public's natural concern for human rights and perpetuate abusive behavior.

Fortunately, alternative and foreign media, as a supplement to the American press, give a much more accurate picture of the world. Democracy Now!, aired on many public radio and public access TV stations, and available for free download from iTunes, is among the most reliable American media outlets. While the opinions of the presenters do occasionally make it into the discussion, and it should be viewed like anything else, skeptically, DN provides a more representative view of events than other domestic media. Its coverage is focused primarily on issues of human rights, environmentalism, and social justice and no attention is paid to celebrities or the antics of public officials. DN is highly recommended as an intelligent, informed, and representative supplement to other new sources.

UN INVESTIGATING GAZA WAR CRIMES

South African jurist Richard Goldstone has been tapped to lead a four member United Nations team charged with investigating "all violations of international humanitarian law" committed during Israel's recent offensive in the Gaza Strip. The move comes after Israel absolved its troops of any wrongdoing in Gaza saying any such accounts were "hearsay" that had been "purposely exaggerated". The Israeli press created an outrage earlier when it reported the testimony of soldiers detailing the deliberate killing of civilians and destruction of property.

The intense assault on Gaza produced hundreds of non-combatant deaths. The Israeli military acknowledges killing as many as 460 civilians during its offensive. Rights groups pin the number closer to a thousand. Human rights observers say the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) committed both war crimes and crimes against humanity during its three week invasion of the coastal enclave. Aid groups accuse Israel of shooting at ambulances, blocking humanitarian supplies, shelling a United Nations compound, attacking relief workers, using banned chemical weapons against a civilian population, destroying aid supplies, ordering civilians to concentrate in an area that was shelled, and violating the terms of a cease-fire agreement before it was allowed to expire in December. Rights groups have denounced Israel's internal probes and called for an independent credible investigation into crimes committed by both sides. The government has already offered protection to any IDF soldier implicated in war crimes.