|
FOCUS | Ferguson, Gaza and Luhansk - What Responsibility to Protect? |
|
|
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=20877"><span class="small">William Boardman, Reader Supported News</span></a>
|
|
Wednesday, 20 August 2014 11:45 |
|
Boardman writes: "Ferguson, Gaza, and Luhansk bleed all the time these days and the United States does nothing very useful for any of them."
Protesters in Ferguson, Missouri. (The News Commenter)

Ferguson, Gaza and Luhansk - What Responsibility to Protect?
By William Boardman, Reader Supported News
20 August 14
U.S. takes little responsibility, offers little protection
erguson, Gaza, and Luhansk bleed all the time these days and the United States does nothing very useful for any of them. Not in our “national interest.” Simpler and easier to blame the victims. Can’t waste our precious resources.
Ferguson, Gaza, and Luhansk have been bleeding for days, for weeks, for years, forever in current and chronic crisis, and what does the United States do to help any of them?
Faced with these and other huge humanitarian challenges, the United States puts its big-hearted humanitarian effort into a renewed war in Iraq, acting as if it were only a mission to rescue Yazidis. To be sure, it’s a good thing to rescue Yazidis, even if the true U.S. motivation is to prop up a quasi-legitimate Iraqi government that will still only pretend to love us a little for just a few more years, while continuing to oppress its own other minorities.
But keeping the world safe for Zoroastrianism is an inherently good thing. Such tolerance should be universally honored, though few actually see it that way. All heretics have a legitimate right to the free practice of their beliefs without harming others. That clearly leaves out the Islamic State jihadis as much as their zealous Christian American counterparts. Also omitted would be all those other places where people with crazy obsessions even control states, sometimes states with nuclear weapons. So the U.S. defense of tolerance is honorable enough, but way too paltry.
What in the world is more important than rushing to rescue Yazidis?
This rushing to rescue Yazidis raises questions of priority and scale. THIS is the most valuable thing the United States can do in the world today? THIS is what matters most in a warming globe of seven billion people?
Rescuing 20,000 or so Yazidis matters more than bringing relief to millions of Ukrainian Slavs in cities under siege by a proto-fascist government bent on ethnic cleansing? Well, maybe that’s not exactly what Kiev is up to, but so far the pattern holds and the Kiev-inspired slaughter of innocents in Odessa offers a terrifying template. How is it better to wait and see whether greater atrocities occur when the alternative is supporting the Red Cross?
Rescuing 20,000 or so Yazidis matters more than bringing relief to almost two million Gazans in cities under siege by a relentlessly expansionist, right-wing Israeli government bent on ethnic cleansing? Well, maybe that’s not exactly what Tel Aviv/Jerusalem is up to, but decades of repetitive behavior that includes repeated war crimes is anything but reassuring. How is it better to keep arming Israel, the better to kill Palestinians, or at least to kill those Palestinians who survive the lethal and illegal Israeli occupation and blockade, when the alternative is to support the United Nations and perhaps prevent more atrocities?
Rescuing 20,000 or so Yazidis matters more than protecting at least as many Americans in Ferguson, a city under siege by white privilege? Saving the Yazidis for now matters more than bringing justice to African-American Americans who have suffered their country’s crimes against their humanity for longer than the United States has existed? How is it better to arm local police with the weapons of international war in a country where police already commit the atrocity of killing a black man on average every 28 hours?
Is there any humane excuse for U.S. tolerance of extreme suffering in Luhansk, Gaza, or Ferguson? Confronted by a constellation of war crimes and crimes against humanity, the best the U.S. government can do is rescue some Yazidis and give a great big political shrug to all the rest? Is Washington simply saying: you don’t really expect the U.S. to be principled in defense of the great values we so often trumpet, or trash, depending on the interests involved, do you?
Anyone here remember the principle of Responsibility to Protect?
Less than a year ago, U.S. Ambassador to the UN Samantha Power was reminding the world of the importance of the Responsibility to Protect:
… in 2005 the nations of the world met in this Assembly and reached a consensus that the protection of civilians against the most horrific crimes known to man presents an urgent summons to each and all of us. All governments have a responsibility to protect their people from these crimes, and all nations have a stake in helping them meet that responsibility.
She was speaking in the context of trying to get someone to intervene in Syria, but she articulated the principle as a universal truth: “All attacks on civilians are an outrage that should shock the conscience.”
The point blank execution of a jaywalker in Ferguson on August 9 shocked a lot of consciences. But not many shocked consciences belonged to the local leadership, least of all to police and prosecutors. As a result, the country (and the world) got a good look at what militarization of the police looks like in the United States. Now this decades-old process or arming police to the teeth is a hot button of the moment. Even The New York Times all of a sudden takes notice and has an interactive map showing how well armed your local police have become (the map shows St. Louis County getting 12 assault rifles, 6 pistols and 3 helicopters from the feds, but no MRAP armored vehicles are listed, even though they’ve shown up on the streets of Ferguson).
Will enough consciences remain shocked to keep this hot button hot? Will the political will to protect civilians and prevent atrocities actually emerge? Or will the permanent government in Washington be able to continue its bipartisan building of what looks and acts like an occupying army in its own country?
William M. Boardman has over 40 years experience in theatre, radio, TV, print journalism, and non-fiction, including 20 years in the Vermont judiciary. He has received honors from Writers Guild of America, Corporation for Public Broadcasting, Vermont Life magazine, and an Emmy Award nomination from the Academy of Television Arts and Sciences.
Reader Supported News is the Publication of Origin for this work. Permission to republish is freely granted with credit and a link back to Reader Supported News.

|
|
In Defense of Rioting |
|
|
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=7118"><span class="small">Carl Gibson, Reader Supported News</span></a>
|
|
Wednesday, 20 August 2014 09:30 |
|
Gibson writes: "The community of Ferguson, Missouri, has every right to take back their streets from the occupying military force also known as the Ferguson Police Department."
Ferguson protesters behind banner with names of young people killed by the police. (photo: Scott Olson/Getty Images)

In Defense of Rioting
By Carl Gibson, Reader Supported News
20 August 14
he community of Ferguson, Missouri, has every right to take back their streets from the occupying military force also known as the Ferguson Police Department. This means not respecting any infringements on their rights, like local curfews, or retreating in response to displays of excessive force like flash bang grenades, tear gas, and LRAD sound cannons.
Before you decry the riots of Ferguson, open a history book and read about how we initially gained our freedom from the occupying military force of the British crown. We didn’t gain First Amendment rights like free speech, free assembly, and free press by peacefully petitioning our oppressors, but by raising hell. And if you say you’re okay with the white founding fathers’ acts of insurrection in response to British oppression, but not okay with a black community’s indignant response to a child’s execution, check your racism.
The Boston Tea Party was, at its core, an act of willful destruction of corporate property. Those who participated in the act protested the East India Tea Company, which was the chief symbol of crony capitalism in its time. They had lobbyists who worked the British Parliament, many wealthy aristocrats and high government officials owned shares in their company, and they were able to secure an international trade monopoly as a result of their connections in government.
In the 1770s, the East India Tea Company was fighting to stay out of bankruptcy. The British Government passed the Tea Act in 1773, allowing the company to skirt trade costs that its competitors were forced to pay. The Tea Act also validated the Townshend Acts, which were meant to keep colonial officials in the pocket of the British crown, and which was thought to be a prelude to further financial obligations to the crown paid by residents of the colonies. American merchants vowed to boycott the company, and anger against the East India Tea Company culminated in the Boston Tea Party.
The British wouldn’t stand for such insurrection from the colonists, and subsequently passed the Coercive Acts, repealed the sovereignty of Boston’s local government, and shut off the city’s commerce. Local protesters responded by forming the first Continental Congress and demanding a repeal of the acts. Protests escalated in all 13 colonies. And two years after the Tea Act was passed, the Revolutionary War began in Boston. The rest is history.
When Darren Wilson shot Michael Brown six times, twice in the head, while the teen was on his knees with his hands in the air, he did it without orders from a superior, and without any knowledge of Brown’s alleged involvement in an incident at a nearby convenience store. And in 1770, the British soldiers who shot several civilians to death in the Boston Massacre likewise did it without orders from their superior officer. Did the city of Boston have the right to riot and raise hell in their streets after the Boston Massacre? Do Ferguson residents have the right to take back their streets using any means necessary after the shooting of Michael Brown? You bet your ass.
Amnesty International has condemned the actions of police in Ferguson, who they allege are actively violating basic human rights. After multiple documented incidents of police willfully arresting journalists for not staying within cordoned-off areas far away from protests, Vox.com suggested that police are making a political statement that they have the absolute right to control the movements of everyone in their jurisdiction (click here for a list of the journalists arrested in Ferguson). As more and more police departments all over the country gain new military equipment, it could be said that Ferguson is a prototype of martial law in the United States that could be applied in all cities in the event of a mass civil breakdown.
Critics of rioters argue that civil rights leaders like Martin Luther King Jr. and Rosa Parks didn’t resort to such tactics to gain lasting social change like the end of public segregation and passage of the Voting Rights Act. And while protest movements of past decades had to subject themselves to beatings, fire hoses, and mass arrests to gain those victories, they also didn’t have to go up against heavily-militarized police forces armed to the teeth with assault weapons and tear gas. Today’s post-9/11 law enforcement agencies are well trained and well equipped to disperse crowds of nonviolent protesters peacefully exercising their rights. When they escalate their tactics, we have every justification and every obligation to do the same if we want to take our streets back.
If police are so concerned about stopping looters, all they need to do is charge Darren Wilson with homicide in the killing of Mike Brown, track him down from wherever he’s hiding, and show Mike Brown’s family and the Ferguson community that justice will be served in the event of an unjustified killing. Then, the protesters demanding justice for Mike Brown’s death will be satisfied, and the only ones left will be the ones taking advantage of the situation to commit petty crimes. Those people won’t have the backing of the community, and will be dealt with in their own way.
When a child’s life is taken by rampant gun violence, whether in Ferguson or Sandy Hook, whether by a serial killer with access to assault rifles or a killer with a badge, we have the right to demand justice. When our cries for justice are met with violent repression and violations of basic human rights, we have the right to escalate. Sometimes escalation means rioting. Sometimes it means arming militias to organize a revolution against an occupying military force. Hopefully Ferguson won’t come to that. But historical precedent will always be on the side of the rioters.
Carl Gibson, 27, is co-founder of US Uncut, a nonviolent grassroots movement that mobilized thousands to protest corporate tax dodging and budget cuts in the months leading up to Occupy Wall Street. Carl and other US Uncut activists are featured in the documentary We're Not Broke, which premiered at the 2012 Sundance Film Festival. Carl is also the author of How to Oust a Congressman, an instructional manual on getting rid of corrupt members of Congress and state legislatures based on his experience in the 2012 elections in New Hampshire. He lives in Sacramento, California.
Reader Supported News is the Publication of Origin for this work. Permission to republish is freely granted with credit and a link back to Reader Supported News.

|
|
|
Where Were the Soldier-Cops at Bundy Ranch? |
|
|
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=63"><span class="small">Marc Ash, Reader Supported News</span></a>
|
|
Tuesday, 19 August 2014 15:25 |
|
Ash writes: "Nothing could better illustrate the reality of anti-African-American bias in America today than the stark contrast between what happened at the Bundy Ranch in Nevada and what is happening in Ferguson, Missouri. The response to those two events is a portal to the soul of a nation that still belongs to Jim Crow."
People protest Sunday, Aug. 17, 2014, for Michael Brown who was killed by a police officer last Saturday in Ferguson, Mo. (photo: Charlie Riedel/AP)

Where Were the Soldier-Cops at Bundy Ranch?
By Marc Ash, Reader Supported News
19 August 14
othing could better illustrate the reality of anti-African-American bias in America today than the stark contrast between what happened at the Bundy Ranch in Nevada and what is happening in Ferguson, Missouri. The response to those two events is a portal to the soul of a nation that still belongs to Jim Crow.
In Nevada, a rancher defied a federal court order with the support of hundreds of heavily armed self-styled militia members. Together they confronted federal agents attempting to serve a warrant, in some cases training their weapons on the agents.
In Ferguson, Missouri, following the fatal shooting of an unarmed 18-year-old black man by a white police officer, angry black residents left their homes, stood unarmed in the streets, and faced down a fully militarized, almost entirely white police force. Yes, looting of local businesses is taking place, but it began after the entirely peaceful protests were met by Ferguson Police in full combat mode.
To understand the state of race relations in America in the year 2014, you need look no further than the reactions by state and federal law enforcement to the two events.
In Nevada, state and federal law enforcement simply walked away, doing so, they said, “in the name of public safety.” The federal warrant remains unserved to this day.
In Ferguson, the guns remain pointed at the people, black people specifically. What started out as a shocking display of what can happen when a civilian police force adopts military methods and equipment has now become exponentially more volatile as the “real military” arrives, in the form of the Missouri National Guard.
Where was the full military response when it was really appropriate in Nevada? The Bundy Ranch incident was a far more aggressive assault on law and order than the defensive action in Ferguson. There was no response in Nevada – and an overwhelming, fully militarized response in Ferguson. Why? White fear.
To a white-dominated America, angry black folks in the streets are far more terrifying than the most heavily armed whites, regardless of the circumstances.
In reality, the white para-military Ferguson police are more closely aligned ideologically, and more likely to be sympathetic with the white so-called militiamen that defied federal agents at the Bundy Ranch than they are to oppose them. Both groups are largely comprised of members with military training and experience. The tactics each group employed at Bundy Ranch and Ferguson clearly relied on military methods. The views of both groups are equally hostile to African-Americans as well, as their words and actions clearly demonstrate.
During times of African-American unrest there is always a common refrain: “No justice, no peace.” In Ferguson, as across America today, there is no justice or peace.
How may deaths will it take?
Marc Ash is the founder and former Executive Director of Truthout, and is now founder and Editor of Reader Supported News.
Reader Supported News is the Publication of Origin for this work. Permission to republish is freely granted with credit and a link back to Reader Supported News.

|
|
Personal Essay: When the Sea Comes to Gaza |
|
|
Tuesday, 19 August 2014 15:16 |
|
Hammad writes: "As the latest siege and shelling of the Gaza Strip goes on, I've come back to my relationship with Gaza - not only for the indignation I feel over the catastrophe that is taking place but also because of the effect his departure had on me."
The author's father during a trip back to his family's village, Barbara, in the Gaza Strip. (photo: Sousan Hammad)

Personal Essay: When the Sea Comes to Gaza
By Sousan Hammad, Al Jazeera America
19 August 14
rowing up, I never summered in Gaza. Whenever we left Texas as kids, it was for Amman, where my mother had lived after leaving Jerusalem in 1956.
The mystery of Gaza was always associated in my mind with my father, whom I never really knew. It was a symbol of the unknown, the faraway place where he lived as a child after his family’s village, Barbara — on the northern outskirts of the coastal city now called Ashkelon — was destroyed by Israel in 1948. Later, Gaza became a feeling that something was being kept half-hidden from us when, just after I turned 9, my father returned there to live out his life.
It wasn’t until my early 20s that I wanted a clearer understanding of why he left us. During a trip to the Palestinian territories one summer, I traveled from Ramallah to the Erez Crossing to see him, only to be detained for 15 hours and eventually denied entry. Seven months later, my father died. That was my only attempt to go to Gaza.
Nearly a decade has passed since then. As the latest siege and shelling of the Gaza Strip goes on, I’ve come back to my relationship with Gaza — not only for the indignation I feel over the catastrophe that is taking place but also because of the effect his departure had on me.
Only this time I decide to move past the ghostly relationship I have with my father and his other family and mourn for Gaza.
I had never seen my father’s house until now. A cousin sends a photograph of the house, which my father had built after remarrying, in Beit Lahiya — shelled but not destroyed in the second week of Israel’s invasion. Via text message, my older siblings begin to exchange memories of the house, as when people do after a common friend dies. One of my brothers remembers how every day my father sat outside on one of the cluttered balconies, smoking his cherished menthol cigarettes. Somehow, the photograph of his house sparks a collective mourning.
It was the first time I thought about my father’s death in a long time. But I don’t have any pleasant memories to share, so I stay quiet. As I look back at the charred window of the house and try to make sense of everything, I begin to feel resentful. It’s not a bad feeling but one of undisguised jealousy — a jealousy of not having any memories of that balcony, as my older brothers and sisters do, and of not knowing what the house looked like from inside.
As more and more family details are uncovered in our family messaging group, I find myself getting upset by not knowing which cousin is which and by only now hearing stories of my aunts and uncles. Their names often enter the void of a virtual family tree my brothers and sisters have constructed in our back-and-forth texting. They check in with one another daily to ascertain the safety of our cousins, but names whirl in and out, and I start to feel overwhelmed.
It is July, and we are watching Gaza from our screens, talking and texting as towns are ablaze. Me from Paris, my brother from Dubai, a sister in Amman and my mother and six other siblings in Houston. One day, my phone beeps with a message from my sister saying one of our half-sisters, J., is stuck in Gaza. “She’s nine months pregnant and can’t get out.” I ask where she is. “Somewhere near Rafah,” my sister says. Years ago, J.’s family (my father’s new wife and three other children) left Gaza to live in Amman, where my father had a second house built.
My father had more children, but I don’t even know what they look like. As the youngest of his first family, I’m the only one who has never met them. Before the Gaza airport was destroyed, my older brothers and sisters traveled frequently to visit my father, who was often sick. I always stayed behind.
Growing up, I would think often of Gaza. What attracted my father back? Was it the Mediterranean shore? What kinds of lives do people live in that overcrowded and tortured place? Why did it mean so much to him? Out of curiosity or perhaps nostalgia for a memory I have no access to, I message my mother to ask if she has any family photos from Gaza. Several days pass before she finds and sends a series of blurry photographs. One faded shot is of my father carrying my two oldest siblings on the beach, waves curling behind a man who is shirtless and smiling. Another photograph is of several children splashing in the sea, back when the sea belonged to Gaza and when drones didn’t buzz in the sky. It was 1974, the first trip back east after my parents moved to Chicago in the late ’60s, where my father finished graduate school to become an engineer. They were summering in Gaza.
Paris is manicured and beautiful, but the city can smell unpleasant, especially after it rains. The casserole of rainwater mixed with pollution that wafts through my open window pushes me into Gaza again. It’s hard to imagine, but I think of the way places like Shujaiya and Khuza’a must smell as I start to pack my life into boxes that will be shipped to Brooklyn in New York. My pantry is filled with food and spices I can’t bear to throw away. I refresh Gaza on my screen, news of more tragedy.
I look back at the food sitting on rows of shelves, thinking about all the stomachs that must be droning with hunger at sunset. It is Ramadan, after all.
The phone, which I’ve now placed on silent, lights up. My brother shares a photo of our cousins gathering to break their fast. I see five small cucumbers, a couple of slices of bread the children are holding and four tomatoes. There are nine people, sitting patiently and waiting to eat.
July nearly comes to an end, and J., the eldest of my half-siblings, gives birth to a boy. One of my sisters writes a celebratory post on Facebook saying, “In Gaza — my sister brings life back in.” I look at the baby, closely inspecting the words “my sister” and search for physical similarities. But I don’t find any.
Every place has its reputation. For Gaza, it means you are tough. That’s why I didn’t think the story of my aunt carrying a switchblade in her bra was embarrassing. I thought it was funny, and I thought it would be nice to share experiences of my Gaza family, tales that weren’t filled with the typical rhetoric of how “steadfast” and “resilient” Palestinians in Gaza are. My mother thought otherwise. When I shared the story of how our aunt once threatened to take out the switchblade on my grandmother, she asked me to take the story down from Facebook. “You’re making your father’s family look bad,” she said. My sister came to my defense, writing, “But Mom, Amti carried her lipstick in there too. Lots of women carried things in their bra — it was like a purse!”
Even though I can’t repeat their names without consulting my phone, I’m beginning to learn more about my aunts, uncles and cousins. There are still some gaps in the narrative, but the door is opening, and rather than shut it as I’ve done in the past, I leave it ajar.
I learn, for example, that it was my cousins who persuaded my father to return. “They told him he would become the patriarch of the family, and he believed it,” my brother says. “But things didn’t work out well for him in the end. Dad felt used.”
Somehow this is comforting. Not that my father was manipulated but that leaving Houston and his family was a decision he didn’t make on his own. I always knew he was never really happy after we moved to Houston from Saudi Arabia, but it’s difficult to say why, since I barely spoke with him even when he was around. Maybe he was too young to retire, or maybe it was because his businesses failed one after another. He was excited to have bought an entertainment ranch that we loved going to as kids. It was called Rock ’n’ R Ranch, and it had a swimming pool, bumper cars, mini golf and a catering team that cooked Southern-style barbecue. But he was conned out of a contract and lost it. What I do know is he was stubborn, because he did it again, opening a business he knew nothing about — this time a video store — only to see it fail.
Then one summer he said he was going to Gaza. Sometimes I think it was chronic depression that made him leave. Throughout my adolescent years I stayed angry with him, not because I missed him or felt betrayed but because I saw how it made my mother suffer. And for that, I still can’t forgive him.
Just when I’m starting to feel less physically drained, hoping this time Israel will finally stop dropping bombs on Gaza, it starts all over again. Tales of gloom have marked the months of July and August, more than anyone could be expected to take in.
Today it’s still hard to form an adequate idea of what the destruction has done to Palestinian men, women and children. I know that they are still suffering — my cousins, half-siblings and everyone included — and that the horrors involved in the devastation caused by Israel is a reality I will never know how to translate. I also know now that my father’s return there was based on a very personal experience, one from which I will never entirely emerge or understand but one that I can at least acknowledge.
Gaza was my father’s home. It may still feel like an empty room to me, but there’s new life moving beneath it, and I’m beginning to search for things to fill it with.
Finally my thoughts are starting to move past the familial and toward a tangled understanding of what things will resemble after the apocalypse is over. I think about Gaza beyond the surname I share with a clan of Palestinians. Already my sister has plans for when the siege collapses. She has twin boys who are 2 years old. As I sit down to write, my phone buzzes with a message. “Soon, my boys will be able to spend their summers in Gaza,” she says.
I write back, “I hope I can spend a summer there too.”

|
|