Of the many, many figures and statements I could quote from Samantha Power's stunning A Problem from Hell: America and the Age of Genocide, I give you this anecdote, from her chapter on the Rwandan genocide. It's for all those of you wondering how, exactly, the worth of an American life stacks up against the lives of Others.
Ready?
"On July 29 President Clinton ordered 200 U.S. troops to occupy the Kigali airport so that relief could be flown directly into Rwanda. Ahead of their arrival, [Major General Romeo] Dallaire, [commander of UN peacekeeping forces in Rwanda,] says he got a phone call. A U.S. officer was wondering precisely how many Rwandans had died. Dallaire was puzzled and asked why he wanted to know. 'We are doing our calculations back here,' the U.S. officer said, 'and one American casualty is worth about 85,000 Rwandan dead.'" (pg 381)
Monday, June 29, 2009
Monday, June 15, 2009
dreaming with Ali Abunimah
Ali Abunimah, Palestinian-American, activist and founder of The Electronic Intifada, lays out his vision for a one-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in his 2006 book One Country. The conflict feels more like a stalemate than ever, a two-state solution the only one most people consider publicly. Most Israelis, many Palestinians, and many activists in disparate camps, bristle at the notion of a one-state solution. So even talking about this right now seems a little crazy.
But One Country is one of the most hopeful things I’ve heard about Israel-Palestine. Abunimah asserts that the issues any peace process must resolve- West Bank settlements, refugees, Arab citizens of Israel, Jerusalem- cannot be truly reconciled with the creation of two states. He then suggests that Israel proper, Gaza, the West Bank, and all of Jerusalem, be turned into one multi-ethnic, democratic, pluralistic state, with protections in place to ensure that the majority group cannot enforce discrimination against the minority.
It sounds idealistic, but Abunimah’s model, unlike most suggested for Israel-Palestine, is rooted in history. South Africa also created a multi-ethnic, multi-party democracy with protections for minorities, ending the injustice of apartheid and a conflict that seemed, as it does in Israel, intractable. “If peace could happen in South Africa,” Desmond Tutu says, “peace could happen anywhere.”
Abunimah does not touch on regional politics in his book. But I suggest that a one-state solution could significantly diffuse the larger regional conflict, too, for three reasons that come to mind.
1. The market for supporting Palestinian militias will dry up. Assuming that, given the choice between real democracy and fighting, most people will in fact choose real democracy, groups like Hamas will either be marginalized or drop their military efforts to become political parties. (Skeptical? Sinn Fein in Northern Ireland. The PLO in the 90’s. Etc.) Then, Syria, Iran, or whoever happens to be arming them will have no means- and perhaps no cause- to arm Palestinians; there will be no “proxy wars” fought in Gaza.
2. Tensions surrounding Palestinian refugees in Lebanon will ease as they are allowed to return to Israel-Palestine peacefully. Historically, Palestinian militias have formed and fought from neighboring states. Palestinians in Lebanon have not been integrated into Lebanese society; a failing of Lebanon, no doubt, but their conflicts with the Lebanese and with the Israelis will end if they’re offered full citizenship and a chance to return.
3. A multi-ethnic state will diffuse anti-Semitism regionally, undermining the potential for ethnicity or religion to play a role in conflicts. Many chaff at the idea of diluting Israel’s Jewish character. And understandably so. But one can argue- as one Jewish, anti-occupation, anti-Zionist activist I know does at his family gatherings- that Jews are actually much safer if they live in peaceful, pluralistic societies than they are in a defensive, militaristic enclave. In a multi-ethnic Israel-Palestine, one could not conflate the state’s actions with the actions of Judaism or “the Jews.” And Israelis, seen as Others in the Arab Middle East, will be far less demonized if they partner with Palestinians to form a working state. What cause will Arab nations, those who’ve claimed to support the Palestinians for the past 60 years partly out of a sense of pan-Arabism, have to consider an Israel-Palestine an enemy state?
But One Country is one of the most hopeful things I’ve heard about Israel-Palestine. Abunimah asserts that the issues any peace process must resolve- West Bank settlements, refugees, Arab citizens of Israel, Jerusalem- cannot be truly reconciled with the creation of two states. He then suggests that Israel proper, Gaza, the West Bank, and all of Jerusalem, be turned into one multi-ethnic, democratic, pluralistic state, with protections in place to ensure that the majority group cannot enforce discrimination against the minority.
It sounds idealistic, but Abunimah’s model, unlike most suggested for Israel-Palestine, is rooted in history. South Africa also created a multi-ethnic, multi-party democracy with protections for minorities, ending the injustice of apartheid and a conflict that seemed, as it does in Israel, intractable. “If peace could happen in South Africa,” Desmond Tutu says, “peace could happen anywhere.”
Abunimah does not touch on regional politics in his book. But I suggest that a one-state solution could significantly diffuse the larger regional conflict, too, for three reasons that come to mind.
1. The market for supporting Palestinian militias will dry up. Assuming that, given the choice between real democracy and fighting, most people will in fact choose real democracy, groups like Hamas will either be marginalized or drop their military efforts to become political parties. (Skeptical? Sinn Fein in Northern Ireland. The PLO in the 90’s. Etc.) Then, Syria, Iran, or whoever happens to be arming them will have no means- and perhaps no cause- to arm Palestinians; there will be no “proxy wars” fought in Gaza.
2. Tensions surrounding Palestinian refugees in Lebanon will ease as they are allowed to return to Israel-Palestine peacefully. Historically, Palestinian militias have formed and fought from neighboring states. Palestinians in Lebanon have not been integrated into Lebanese society; a failing of Lebanon, no doubt, but their conflicts with the Lebanese and with the Israelis will end if they’re offered full citizenship and a chance to return.
3. A multi-ethnic state will diffuse anti-Semitism regionally, undermining the potential for ethnicity or religion to play a role in conflicts. Many chaff at the idea of diluting Israel’s Jewish character. And understandably so. But one can argue- as one Jewish, anti-occupation, anti-Zionist activist I know does at his family gatherings- that Jews are actually much safer if they live in peaceful, pluralistic societies than they are in a defensive, militaristic enclave. In a multi-ethnic Israel-Palestine, one could not conflate the state’s actions with the actions of Judaism or “the Jews.” And Israelis, seen as Others in the Arab Middle East, will be far less demonized if they partner with Palestinians to form a working state. What cause will Arab nations, those who’ve claimed to support the Palestinians for the past 60 years partly out of a sense of pan-Arabism, have to consider an Israel-Palestine an enemy state?
Saturday, June 13, 2009
suspect iranian elections
The BBC quotes Ahmedinejad as blaming the current tensions in Iran on Western propaganda.
Is most of his rhetoric just a way to keep himself in power? There must be some recipe for leaders: create an Other, rally everyone together against the Other, claim yourself a victim of the Other, decry the injustices of the Other, and accuse everyone who questions you of somehow colluding with the Other. Distract everyone from your real aim: amassing and maintaining your own power.
Is most of his rhetoric just a way to keep himself in power? There must be some recipe for leaders: create an Other, rally everyone together against the Other, claim yourself a victim of the Other, decry the injustices of the Other, and accuse everyone who questions you of somehow colluding with the Other. Distract everyone from your real aim: amassing and maintaining your own power.
Monday, June 8, 2009
extremists are the new terrorists
Guess what word President Obama did not use, not even once, during his hour-long speech to "the Muslim world" in Cairo last week.
Terrorism.
Did you notice? I didn't realize the absence- which should have seemed so conspicuous- until the day after I heard the speech. Sure, he talked about the extremists who commit violence against civilians, "exploiting tensions" in Muslim countries and harming more Muslims than non-Muslims. He talked about how America needs to remain secure against the violence of the extremists, and how it benefits the Muslim world to marginalize them. But he never referred to any acts of "terrorism," and he never labeled these "extremists" terrorists.
What gives? We all knew what he was talking about so maybe it's just a simple exchange of signifiers. But the choice must have been intentional, and I wonder if his language shows a shift in thinking about "terrorism," a word we all understand but find difficult, in the end, to define.
Terrorism.
Did you notice? I didn't realize the absence- which should have seemed so conspicuous- until the day after I heard the speech. Sure, he talked about the extremists who commit violence against civilians, "exploiting tensions" in Muslim countries and harming more Muslims than non-Muslims. He talked about how America needs to remain secure against the violence of the extremists, and how it benefits the Muslim world to marginalize them. But he never referred to any acts of "terrorism," and he never labeled these "extremists" terrorists.
What gives? We all knew what he was talking about so maybe it's just a simple exchange of signifiers. But the choice must have been intentional, and I wonder if his language shows a shift in thinking about "terrorism," a word we all understand but find difficult, in the end, to define.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)