'No Checkpoints in Heaven' - Ramzy Baroud

Dear Editor,

This is my latest article, entitled: No Checkpoints in Heaven, written in the memory of my father, who passed away recently in Gaza.

Thanks and regards
Ramzy Baroud
+++++

No Checkpoints in Heaven

By Ramzy Baroud

I still vividly remember my father’s face - wrinkled, apprehensive, warm - as he last wished me farewell fourteen years ago. He stood outside the rusty door of my family’s home in a Gaza refugee camp wearing old yellow pyjamas and a seemingly ancient robe. As I hauled my one small suitcase into a taxi that would take me to an Israeli airport an hour away, my father stood still. I wished he would go back inside; it was cold and the soldiers could pop up at any moment. As my car moved on, my father eventually faded into the distance, along with the graveyard, the water tower and the camp. It never occurred to me that I would never see him again.

I think of my father now as he was that day. His tears and his frantic last words: “Do you have your money? Your passport? A jacket? Call me the moment you get there. Are you sure you have your passport? Just check, one last time…”

My father was a man who always defied the notion that one can only be the outcome of his circumstance. Expelled from his village at the age of 10, running barefoot behind his parents, he was instantly transferred from the son of a landowning farmer to a penniless refugee in a blue tent provided by the United Nations in Gaza. Thus, his life of hunger, pain, homelessness, freedom-fighting, love, marriage and loss commenced.

The fact that he was the one chosen to quit school to help his father provide for his now tent-dwelling family was a huge source of stress for him. In a strange, unfamiliar land, his new role was going into neighbouring villages and refugee camps to sell gum, aspirin and other small items. His legs were a testament to the many dog bites he obtained during these daily journeys. Later scars were from the shrapnel he acquired through war.

As a young man and soldier in the Palestinian unit of the Egyptian army, he spent years of his life marching through the Sinai desert. When the Israeli army took over Gaza following the Arab defeat in 1967, the Israeli commander met with those who served as police officers under Egyptian rule and offered them the chance to continue their services under Israeli rule. Proudly and willingly, my young father chose abject poverty over working under the occupier’s flag. And for that, predictably, he paid a heavy price. His two-year-old son died soon after.

My oldest brother is buried in the same graveyard that bordered my father’s house in the camp. My father, who couldn’t cope with the thought that his only son died because he couldn’t afford to buy medicine or food, would be found asleep near the tiny grave all night, or placing coins and candy in and around it.

My father’s reputation as an intellectual, his obsession with Russian literature, and his endless support of fellow refugees brought him untold trouble with the Israeli authorities, who retaliated by denying him the right to leave Gaza.

His severe asthma, which he developed as a teenager was compounded by lack of adequate medical facilities. Yet, despite daily coughing streaks and constantly gasping for breath, he relentlessly negotiated his way through life for the sake of his family. On one hand, he refused to work as a cheap labourer in Israel. “Life itself is not worth a shred of one’s dignity,” he insisted. On the other, with all borders sealed except that with Israel, he still needed a way to bring in an income. He would buy cheap clothes, shoes, used TVs, and other miscellaneous goods, and find a way to transport and sell them in the camp. He invested everything he made to ensure that his sons and daughter could receive a good education, an arduous mission in a place like Gaza.

But when the Palestinian uprising of 1987 exploded, and our camp became a battleground between stone-throwers and the Israeli army, mere survival became Dad’s new obsession. Our house was the closest to the Red Square, arbitrarily named for the blood spilled there, and also bordered the ‘Martyrs’ Graveyard’. How can a father adequately protect his family in such surroundings? Israeli soldiers stormed our house hundreds of times; it was always him who somehow held them back, begging for his children’s safety, as we huddled in a dark room awaiting our fate. “You will understand when you have your own children,” he told my older brothers as they protested his allowing the soldiers to slap his face. Our ‘freedom-fighting’ dad struggled to explain how love for his children could surpass his own pride. He grew in my eyes that day.

It’s been fourteen years since I last saw my father. As none of his children had access to isolated Gaza, he was left alone to fend for himself. We tried to help as much as we could, but what use is money without access to medicine? In our last talk he said he feared he would die before seeing my children, but I promised that I would find a way. I failed.

Since the siege on Gaza, my father’s life became impossible. His ailments were not ‘serious’ enough for hospitals crowded with limbless youth. During the most recent Israeli onslaught, most hospital spaces were converted to surgery wards, and there was no place for an old man like my dad. All attempts to transfer him to the better equipped West Bank hospitals failed as Israeli authorities repeatedly denied him the required permit.

"I am sick, son, I am sick," my father cried when I spoke to him two days before his death. He died alone on March 18, waiting to be reunited with my brothers in the West Bank. He died a refugee, but a proud man nonetheless.

My father’s struggle began 60 years ago, and it ended a few days ago. Thousands of people descended to his funeral from throughout Gaza, oppressed people that shared his plight, hopes and struggles, accompanying him to the graveyard where he was laid to rest. Even a resilient fighter deserves a moment of peace.

-Ramzy Baroud (www.ramzybaroud.net) is an author and editor of PalestineChronicle.com. His work has been published in many newspapers and journals worldwide. His latest book is The Second Palestinian Intifada: A Chronicle of a People's Struggle (Pluto Press, London).

QuestionItNow Voices

Five Years into Iraq - Only 3% of American news stories covered the $3,000,000,000,000 War in Iraq in February

Dear America,

This week marks the fifth anniversary of the war in Iraq, but you might not have seen much about it on TV recently. Just 3% of the news in February was dedicated to the war and fewer than one in three Americans know how many American troops have died in Iraq. Believe it or not, a study just released by the Pew Research Center shows that press coverage of the war is at the lowest point since the war began.
Please take a minute now to sign an open letter to the media and demand that major networks increase their coverage of the Iraq war.

The economy and the presidential campaigns are both important stories, but news of the ongoing wars shouldn't fall by the wayside. The media must demonstrate that they can walk and chew gum at the same time. Over 80% of Americans are aware that Oprah Winfrey endorsed Senator Barack Obama for president, while just 28% know how many troops have died in Iraq- even though we are rapidly approaching 4,000 casualties.

An unprecedented detachment between the American public and the men and women at war makes the media's coverage of the conflicts more vital than ever. Just because the coverage has waned doesn't mean our troops aren't facing daily dangers or major issues once they return home.

Men and women continue to serve in Iraq, though you might not realize that just from watching the news. Please sign this open letter and honor the sacrifice of those who have served in the past five years by making sure they remain in the public eye.Please sign this open letter and honor the sacrifice of those who have served in the past five years by making sure they remain in the public eye.
Thank you for your continued support.

Sincerely,

Paul Rieckhoff
Iraq Veteran
Executive Director
Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America


As an aside, the American public can easily track the depressing statistics of the Iraqi civilian dead at IRAQ BODY COUNT. As of this evening, the five year anniversary total is estimated between 82,249 and 89,760.

Happy Anniversary President Bush!

QuestionItNow

Senator Carl Levin stands against torture

Senate Floor Statement on the Army Field Manual Provision in the Intelligence Authorization Conference Report:
02/13/08

I urge my colleagues to support the Intelligence Authorization conference report which includes a requirement that all government agencies, including the CIA, comply with the Army Field Manual on Interrogations in the treatment and interrogation of detainees.

The result will be a single standard of treatment for detainees, a standard consistent with American values and international standards. The Army Field Manual is consistent with our obligations under Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions, which prohibits subjecting detainees to "cruel treatment and torture." This is the standard to which our soldiers are trained and which they live by.

Consistent with this standard, the Army Field Manual specifically prohibits certain interrogation techniques. These include:

* Forced nudity;
* "Waterboarding," that is, inducing the sensation of drowning;
* Using military working dogs in interrogations;
* Subjecting detainees to extreme temperatures; and
* Mock executions.

Unfortunately, the Bush Administration has insisted that it reserves the right for the CIA to engage in certain "enhanced interrogation techniques." It has been reported that these CIA techniques include "waterboarding." While this Justice Department continues to refuse to say one way or the other, let there be no doubt: waterboarding is torture.

The Judge Advocates General of all four services have told us unequivocally that waterboarding is illegal. Requiring that all government agencies comply with the standards of the Army Field Manual is not mushy intellectualism. It’s hard-headed pragmatism. When we fail to live up to our own standards for humane treatment, we compromise our moral authority. Our security depends on the willingness of others to work with us and share information, information which could prevent the next attack. When we project moral hypocrisy, we lose the support of the world in the fight against the extremists. Requiring a single standard for the treatment of detainees consistent with the Army Field Manual protects our men and women in uniform, should they be captured. It strengthens our hand in demanding that American prisoners be treated humanely, consistent with values embodied in the Field Manual. I urge my colleagues to support the Intelligence Authorization conference report with the provision that standards in the Army Field Manual for treatment of detainees will apply to all elements of the intelligence community.

- Michigan Senator Carl Levin

QuestionItNow

CHANGE?

Last night my wife and I watched a re-run of Robin Williams in "Man of the Year." Watching his performance reminded me how brilliant and insightful this comedian is. Williams hits the nail on the head about so many issues in his rapid-fire delivery it is tough to keep up with him. Still, his performance reminds that too often the American political landscape is littered with influence peddling and shameless hypocrisy.

The recent wins of Barrack Obama, and Mike Huckabee in Iowa, along with the record turnout have the analysts pointing to a growing American hunger for change. Yet, the questions remain ‘will things truly change?’ Will the common good trump the special interests? Will America elect a government that will be focused on the issues that affect the lives, liberty, and pursuit of happiness of everyday Americans?

Interestingly America seems ready to finally discard the Bush/Cheney era politics of fear. The evidence lays in the smack-down of fear monger #1 Rudy Giuliani. The fire-fighter foe scored less than half as well as the self-proclaimed change-agent Ron Paul. Paul took ten percent, and remains within striking distance of the unsettled, and bitterly divided republican field.

Joel Hirshorn has his own take on these recent events and how they relate to Ron Paul in particular:

Change Yes, Ron Paul No
Joel S. Hirschhorn

Ron Paul’s obnoxious supporters like more traditional political activists can spin and delude themselves about election results. But the Iowa caucus results could not be clearer: The vast national desire for political change is manifesting itself through support for both Democratic and Republican change-candidates. Despite Paul being flush with money and having a large number of workers in Iowa, he was solidly rejected as the leading change agent.

Even with a huge historic turnout of about 348,000 participants, Paul did not attract significant numbers of independents that could easily participate in the Republican caucuses. They went to Obama, Edwards and Huckabee.

On the Democratic side, of some 232,000 people that turned out for the caucuses, nearly doubling what it was four years ago, about 70 percent wanted change and went for Obama and Edwards, roughly 150,000 participants.

On the Republican side, of the 116,000 participants, about 40,000 change-voters went for Huckabee, compared to 11,600 that chose Paul, giving him fifth place. That 10 percent for Paul was very close to the 9 percent found in a Des Moines Register poll of likely caucus voters (margin of error 3.5 points). Interestingly, like Paul, Huckabee also wants to eliminate the federal income tax.

In both parties, change-voters totaled about 200,000. So Paul received just 6 percent of that large fraction, and just 3 percent of the total of all caucus participants in Iowa. Paul was first in only one county, Jefferson, with 36 percent

Edwards was absolutely correct when he summed things up this way: “The one thing that is clear from the results in Iowa tonight is the status quo lost and change won.”

With all the hoopla from Paul supporters about younger people being for Paul, that’s not what the Iowa results showed. Younger people seeking change and inspiration flocked to Obama, in particular. There was no demographic in Iowa that overwhelmingly went for Paul. Sure, Paul beat Giuliani, but Paul’s effort in Iowa was much bigger than Giuliani’s.

None of these results will impact Paul’s supporters nationwide. Earl Ofari Hutchinson wrote a great article on Alternet.org: “Ron Paul is Scary, But Those Who Cheer Him Are Even Scarier.” He was right when he said: “The scariest thing about GOP presidential contender Ron Paul is not his fringe, odd-ball racial views. It is that people take him seriously.” But now Iowa has thankfully shown that the vast majority of Americans, especially those seeking political change, reject Paul.

After losing badly in Iowa Paul said: “The other candidates talk about tinkering with the status quo. We don’t want to tinker; we want to change the status quo.” He said that his campaign is on the upswing and gaining support among independents, frustrated Republicans and unhappy Democrats. Just one very big problem: The Iowa results show that all these people are much more likely to vote for other Democratic and Republican change-candidates.

Paul’s supporters claim that he will do much better in New Hampshire where Libertarian Party members hold a number of offices. I don’t think so. Several polls taken before the Iowa results found Paul at just 5 to 9 percent. Will Paul get a big boost from Iowa? I don’t think so. Paul had predicted he could finish in third place in Iowa, and many of his supporters think he will do that in New Hampshire. I don’t think so. Paul will likely finish fifth in New Hampshire, in large part because more independents will go to Obama and McCain.

When Paul first ran for president as the Libertarian Party candidate in 1988, he won just 0.54 percent of the vote. Iowa shows that his second presidential bid will not produce much better results. Paul is definitely not tapping in a major way into the national populist movement, major desire for political change, anti-status quo sentiment, or even the anti-Iraq war issue. Clearly, other Democratic and Republican change-candidates are doing much better. This reality will not affect Paul’s passionate, cult-like followers that are solidified like cement in their belief that Paul can and should be our next president, something that Paul himself probably never really believed.

[Joel S. Hirschhorn can be reached through www.delusionaldemocracy.com.]


QuestionItNow

"The Present Crisis"

"They have rights who dare maintain them...

New occasions teach new duties; Time makes ancient good uncouth;
They must upward still, and onward, who would keep abreast of Truth..."

- James Russell Lowell (1819–1891)


QuestionItNow

Mormonism, Islam, and the Seperation of Church & State

On Romney, Mormonism and Islam

By: Ramzy Baroud

Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney's speech on December 6th - in which he tried to 'explain' his Mormon faith - was met with a mostly sympathetic reception at George Bush Library in Texas.

The speech has been long anticipated, not so much for its relevance to the pressing debate on the defining role of religion in American politics, and how this undermines the very meaning of secular democracy. It was awaited simply because Romney belongs to the wrong faith. Recent polls indicate that one out of every three Republicans will not vote for Romney because he is a Mormon.

The whole affair has done much to reveal the hypocrisy of institutional democracy in the United States. While every presidential candidate, Republican or Democrat, has unreservedly uttered lip service to democratic ideals, very few have dared push the boundaries by actually explaining their personal views on what separation of church and state means.

Given the Republicans' reservations on Romney and the fact that the religious vote has long been shown to be a formidable factor in determining who claims the throne of the Oval Office, one can easily deduce that religion is hardly a personal matter in the American political milieu. Imagine, for instance, the sort of chances a presidential candidate would have as a dedicated atheist, or worse, as a devout Muslim.

It might be a long time - if ever - before the possibility of a Muslim candidate representing a major party is put to the test. But one need not wait that long to appreciate the narrow-mindedness of the media and politicians, and how this influences public opinion.

While the urgency of 'responding' to Islamic fundamentalism has been consistently highlighted in the ongoing presidential campaign, very little has been said about Christian, Jewish or other religious fundamentalisms. Rarely has a candidate – with the exception of Democrat Dennis Kucinich – dared to examine the relationship between Christian fundamentalism and the Iraq war, or Jewish fundamentalism and the Israeli occupation of Palestine. Religious fanaticism and fundamentalism are rarely discussed as perilous phenomena in their own right; if it's not 'Islamic' it simply doesn’t count.

Such short-sightedness has wide-ranging and deeply harmful implications. All that a volunteer for Senator Hilary Clinton's presidential campaign needed to do to temporarily disrupt the recent gains of Barack Obama's campaign was to distribute an email suggesting that Obama was a Muslim intent on 'destroying' the United Sates. As laughable as this may sound, one cannot underestimate the impact that such rumours have on voters filled with fear and disdain for everything Muslim. Of course, Christian fundamentalist President George W. Bush’s wholesale destruction of a Muslim country, Iraq, is not a mere rumour. That this is not considered noteworthy is most telling. Chances are Obama will do his utmost to distance himself from the rumour – as he has done in the past - which could reinvigorate the old accusation that he spent time studying at a Muslim school. Obama previously responded by vowing to respond severely to Muslim terrorism, going so far as to say he would bomb Pakistan if necessary. Whether he will upgrade further his hostile language to show his worthiness to lead America is yet to be seen.

Although Islam and Muslims were hardly relevant to Romney’s speech, Naomi Schaefer Riley of the conservative Wall Street Journal couldn't prevent herself from shoving Islam into the picture, predictably in an unfavorable light. In her article, 'What Iowans Should Know About Mormons' (December 7), Riley cites a recent Pew poll which shows that "only 53% of Americans have a favourable opinion of Mormons." She then observes: "That's roughly the same percentage who feel that way toward Muslims. By contrast, more than three-quarters of Americans have a favorable opinion of Jews and Catholics."

Riley then gets to her main and vindictive point: "Whatever the validity of such judgments, one has to wonder: Why does a faith professed by the 9/11 hijackers rank alongside that of a peaceful, productive, highly educated religious group founded within our own borders?"

Not only did Riley isolate 9/11 from the pre and post 9/11 contexts (again conveniently neglecting the fact that nearly a million Iraqis were killed by those who mostly profess the Christian faith), she also implicitly indicated that Mormonism is everything that Islam is not. The latter religion is thus hostile, unproductive, backward and alien.

Riley was hardly satisfied with selectively linking a religion professed by over a billion people of all colors and ethnicities worldwide - including millions of Americans - to a few hijackers. She used the rest of her inadequate 'analysis' to inappropriately bring Islam to a discussion from which it should have been entirely spared.

One can understand the urge of the faithful of any religion to make preferences for presidential candidates on the basis of their faith. One can thus also understand why politicians cater to the religious sensibilities of their constituents, even if this means resorting to untruths. But one cannot in any way sympathize with the mainstream media – perceived largely as 'liberal' – for failing to realign the debate by bringing it back to its proper boundaries: that of equitable democracy vs religious prejudices, looking at Romney as a man who can do good, or bad for America rather than a man who professes a 'wacky' or 'cult-like' faith.

It's odd that in the first decade of the 21st century, the media still validates the same religious thoughtlessness that had prevailed in America when Catholic John F. Kennedy made his famous statement in 1960 asserting that the Pope would not sway his presidency. Indeed, the media should have chastised the entire debate which ranks potential presidents based on whose God is best, or whether comparative religion should be discussed at all. Needless to say mediocre journalism like that of Riley should have never made it to print in the first place.

-Ramzy Baroud (www.ramzybaroud.net) is an author and editor of PalestineChronicle.com. His work has been published in many newspapers and journals worldwide. His latest book is The Second Palestinian Intifada: A Chronicle of a People's Struggle (Pluto Press, London).
QuestionItNow

"Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. Disappoints" by: Joel S. Hirschhorn

Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. Disappoints
Joel S. Hirschhorn

RFK, Jr. has disappointed millions of liberals, progressives and environmentalists by endorsing Hillary Clinton.

RFK, Jr. once said: "the Republicans are 95 percent corrupt and the Democrats are 75 percent corrupt." This has been widely quoted because of its honest assessment of the corrupt two-party system.

He has also pointed out: "While communism is the control of business by government, fascism is the control of government by business. The biggest threat to American democracy is corporate power. Our most visionary political leaders have warned the American public against the domination of government by corporate power. That warning is missing in the national debate right now. Because so much corporate money is going into politics, the Democratic Party itself has dropped the ball. They just quash discussion about the corrosive impact of excessive corporate power on American democracy."

Those these statements were made some time ago, a few days ago on November 28 he talked about the impact of industry on environmental agencies: "It’s been a revolving door of plunder." Kennedy saved special scorn for "the negative and indolent press of this country," which he said has become controlled by corporate interests in the last 20 years. "Americans have become the best-entertained, least-informed people on earth," Kennedy said. He also said five companies control 80 percent of newspapers and almost all radio, and those corporations are not in business to tell news thoroughly or fairly. "The only ideology they represent is their own pockets," Kennedy said. So his criticism of the corporate plutocracy seems as strong as ever.

Such honest views of the sad state of America have made Kennedy the darling of many people – independents, liberals, progressives and environmentalists.

But the news that this esteemed honest liberal has endorsed the candidacy of Hillary Clinton was startling. Now he says: "Hillary Clinton has the strength and experience to bring the war in Iraq to an end and reverse the potentially devastating effects of global warming. Hillary will inspire the real change America needs." That Kennedy can see Hillary as an agent of change is a betrayal of all the good will that Kennedy has built up over many years.

Kennedy said he feels "very uncomfortable" about the amount of corporate money flowing into Clinton's campaign, "But I also think you can't come into this race with one arm tied behind your back." How’s that for convenient rationalization? There is no reason why any sane American should be very comfortable about the poisonous and corrupting amount of corporate money dumped into Clinton’s campaign.

In examining media coverage of Kennedy’s endorsement of Clinton I could find no references to his earlier critical remarks of Democrats and the corporatist plutocracy. But people commenting on the New York Times article often were aghast at his endorsement, noting that it would have made much more sense for him to endorse Obama or Edwards. Bloggers, so far, have also not been critical of the Kennedy endorsement. The progressive community seems frozen by self-delusion and unwilling to criticize their adored Kennedy.

Here is my take: Hillary Clinton represents the worst of the Democratic contenders. She is totally committed to take all the corporate money she can get and pay whatever that eventually costs, should she become president. She really is a hawk when it comes to the Iraq war and even voted the wrong way recently when it comes to Iran. She is incredibly dishonest and phony. The reason why there are millions of Hillary haters is that she inspires distrust. A Hillary presidency would pursue corporate globalization and the terrible trade policies of her husband that has done so much to destroy America’s middle class. Her views on universal health coverage do not seem focused on getting rid of all the insurance industry involvement.

Kennedy’s endorsement of Hillary just shows how the status quo political establishment can rig the system to get what it wants. What has Bobby been promised? Head of the US EPA? Support for replacing Hillary in the Senate? Who knows? But his endorsement stinks and puts a big blemish on his credibility and reputation.

[Reach Joel S. Hirschhorn through www.delusionaldemocracy.com.]


QuestionItNow Blogs