Abeer Al-Janabi and the Case for Burka

Like the abuses at Abu Ghraib, the rape-murder of fourteen year-old Abeer al-Janabi by U.S. soldiers was labeled an aberration, excused under the now stale label of "work of a misguided few," by the military and their corporate media apologists. The obvious question is: How many "bad apples" can there possibly be?

Rumsfeld is the Secretary of Defense. Rumsfeld (and other U.S. military leaders) opined that torture is okay. Rape is one type of torture. So, the syllogism holds that rape is okay. Why then is it surprising that that U.S. troops, under Rumsfeld's chain of command, might engage in rape-murders?

Military atrocities are almost always underreported. I would bet my car (one of my few assets) that hundreds if not thousands of similar attacks on Iraqi women have occurred. In my view, the attack was not an aberration, but wholly congruous with the savage way in which the war has targeted Iraqi civilians from start to finish. Time and again, U.S. soldiers themselves have attested to attacks on civilians.

Another angle to the perfidy visited on Abeer: Since this was not just a random attack, the soldiers had to see her before going after her specifically. So, she was not wearing a burka.

Burkas were rare in both Iraq and Afghanistan prior to imperialist invasion. In Bagdad under Saddam, next to nobody wore the burka. Now burkas are pervasive in Afghanistan, though not as common yet in Iraq.

In light of the U.S.-style liberation of Abeer Al-Janabi, the rants of how Islam/burka-wearing oppresses Muslim women rings hollow. Why wouldn't the Islamists want the women to wear the burka, given the circumstance of occupation by a party which abides by no international law, does not recognize the ICC (or any other body which would hold it accountable for anything), and insists on immunity for its troops? What nation in good conscience wouldn't want to protect the weakest segment of its population against war-time rape, rampant in just about every conflict? To me, what's odd is not that the Islamists want the women to wear the burka, but rather that many, even in the (Eurocentric) anti-war camp, with which I align myself, want Iraqi Muslim women to shed the hijab so they can look more like Barbie--never mind the unrestrained dogs running around their country.

The occupying power, which—under international law—bears responsibility for the welfare of Iraqi women, has shown itself incapable of guaranteeing their safety. And Bosnia should have taught women like Abeer not to wait around for Muslim men to defend them. Muslim women under occupation would do well to wear the burka, as well as to learn self-protection.

Lebanon Invasion: the Question of U.S. Leverage

The U.S. response to Israel's invasion of Lebanon and the corporate media reporting on it are a textbook study in Zionist propaganda. Every propaganda technique--from obfuscation and prevarication to transference, name calling, and direct censorship--is represented. Here I write to NPR's "All Things Considered" on the obfuscation of very direct leverage which the U.S. could exercise in reigning in Israel--if it so chose.

---
To: All Things Considered
Date: July 15, 2006

I am writing in response to Michele Norris' July 14 interview with Edward Djerejian. When Norris asked the former U.S. ambassador to Israel (and Syria) what steps the U.S. should take to address the current situation, the ambassador blithely came up with a mouthful of diplomatic-sounding niceties, like a U.S. call for cessation of hostilities by all parties, getting the opposing sides to talk, and possible prisoner exchange.

He did not mention--and Norris did not dare ask about--the most obvious leverage the U.S. has in the conflict--the six billion dollars plus, which the U.S. doles out to Israel every year. Does that mountain of U.S. tax payers' money come with no accountability whatsoever?

It would seem that attempting to unseat a duly elected government (Hamas), bombing the Beirut Airport, and destroying vast civilian infrastructure in Gaza are violations of international law, whatever excuses Israel makes for these actions. If an Arab state engaged in such violations--for any reason--it would be under international sanctions or other forms of economic strangulation, like yesterday. A perfect example is the U.S. rush to block previously promised aid to Hamas, in the absence of any provocative acts by the latter, subsequent to the PA election.

It is high time to hold Israel to basic standards of International Law, or stop sending them our tax dollars.

Sincerely,