Anthony McIntyre's Blog, page 1175
November 18, 2017
‘The Myanmar Deception': Reviewing The Context
In a follow-up to his recent article, The Myanmar Deception, and by way of response to those who have attacked it, Sean Bresnahan, a regular contributor to The Pensive Quill, offers an interesting insight into his thinking and motives when writing the piece.
Though it can sometimes expose us to ridicule – worse still to the charge of being ‘reactionary’ or ‘racist’ – it’s important no less that we try and speed a greater awareness regards geopolitics and the reality of how imperialism operates. We will not always get it right. Thanks, no matter, to The Pensive Quill for affording a platform were such can be attempted.
‘Human rights’ have now become an instrument of imperialist warfare, as crazy as that might sound. The agenda is manipulated on two fronts through the employ of Islamist jihadis — these having been integrated by the Western intelligence apparatus to divide target nations and in turn to usurp their resources.
On the one hand and in the first guise – that of which ‘Jihadi John’ was a notable caricature – they provide a pretext for military intervention to quash their supposed threat. On the other and in a different guise they provide a different pretext, one useful to target ‘human rights abusers’ who respond or are seen to respond to their provocations; a la Milosevic, Qaddafi and Assad. This is the grisly genius of ‘humanitarian war’.
With the routing of the ISIS and Peshmerga mercenaries in Iraq and Syria, the imperialist is getting nervous. The inability to finish off Yemen only compounds matters further. He has no intention, however, of quitting his heinous game — knowing no other way than death and destruction as his empire threatens to unravel. The Middle East on fire, Far Asia is now in his sights.
To speak candidly on all of this is to put yourself on a ledge to be stoned by the ultra-liberal ‘PC’ Left, who have been wholly absorbed by identity politics and the cultivation of image requirement introduced us by modern propaganda methods. The ultimate purpose here is to deflect us away from the concrete setting in which events take shape. That is the sad reality of where we are at.
While it may not be their intention, their browbeating serves to subdue thinking that is ‘outside the box’ — leaving people too afraid to voice their opinion for fear of being cast in the wrong light. Perhaps this is the real aim, even if those concerned don’t partake in this action consciously. In this respect, petty bourgeois leftists are as much an obstacle as the bankers — perhaps, indeed, they are even more so.
In their self-righteous assuredness, they inhibit (by their attacks on any narrative from outside their neat little boxes) the pressing requirement that we advance a greater understanding among ordinary people as to how the world really works, this that we might from there set out toward improving the lives of working people – and with them the poor – at a structural level. Fail to countenance the structure at core and we can change very little in regards where it counts.
My aim was towards this intent and not to determine the ins-and-outs of the crisis in Rakhine — who done what to whom; who is right or wrong; who is more worthy of our support or condemnation. My interest is not to dismiss such issues, which are worthy in their own regard, but to look beyond in search of solutions that the ills of our imperiled world might be found. As socialists and anti-imperialists, it is this in the end that we seek.
Rape, torture and murder are in no way acceptable and there is no suggestion otherwise. That said it's noteworthy that, rather than present proof that Suu Kyi is responsible for what she stands accused of or to admit in any way that the Buddhists – or even the Burmese state itself – might themselves have a different story worth considering, the do-gooder liberal class resort instead to a familiar type: smear and shout down anyone who dares to step outside their narrative.
But that differing versions of events should be considered does not mean we support or deny a particular narrative either way – except of course in the minds of fanatical internet warriors who treat discussion as though a contest of intellect. We consider these things not to win or to ‘do down’ the other but to try and establish a more complete picture for the benefit of all.
As argued in the piece, we must examine events as we meet and find them in their core ideological setting. In the instance of Myanmar, the US ‘Asia Pivot’ and its immediate rival – the Chinese ‘One Belt One Road’ – is the context to which we must look. The Zionist ‘War On Terror’ and the tactics it utilises is also important to our understanding.
There are those, no doubt, for whom the idea intelligence agencies would manipulate events to the point of their generation is well-beyond fanciful. The historical record, in spite of them, clearly tells us otherwise — not least in regard to the most recent history of the Middle East. The directing of jihadi terrorist groups to serve ulterior strategies is well-established and, like the collusion war in Ireland, is not mere 'conspiracy theory' as some would seek to tar it.
Returning to the Asia Pivot, the campaign to isolate Aung San Suu Kyi is for travelling in the wrong direction and has no relationship, beyond that, with the crisis in Rakhine State — a crisis which, of course, is very real for its many victims. None of that is to say that there aren’t issues with the Burmese military but that the situation is much more complex than what we are being presented.
We are presented a packaged version of the Myanmar story that ignores objectivity and with it the narrative of Rakhine’s Buddhist community. Here, only the Rohingya are victims as the ‘Rogingya genocide’ is the narrative which suits the requirements of the imperialist grand design.
In this regard, similar to the Libyan and Syrian instances (also no doubt 'conspiracy theories' in the minds of the liberal left), the Rohingya genocide story is intended to manipulate the vast majority here in the West, who have next-to-no understanding of both the history and the geopolitical context of Myanmar, the Bay of Bengal or the Silk Road old and new. In and through our state of ignorance, the Zionist ‘War Of Terror’ marches on.
Not to be terse but perhaps we’ll be content when our naivety helps deliver a ‘Balkanisation’ of Myanmar, with an Al Qaeda-run Kosovo-style ‘independent’ Rakhine – subject of course to Washington – in turn to be used as a base to push the Zionist false flag Salvador Option deeper and deeper into Asia.
In the final analysis, if we don’t deal with imperialism – regardless its hue – then in truth we cannot effect the changes we require as a global society and community. This is as much a necessity for the Rohingya as it is for all others. If we don’t understand imperialism and the tactics it uses in pursuit of its objects then how could we ever hope to deal with it, as we must?
Regardless of them who smear and undermine, often for their own sly motives, thanks to those who took the time to countenance what was actually written — not how they’d prefer it to be read. Articles as these are extremely tricky, to say the least, made all the more so in the knowledge there are always those lying in wait for the opportune moment to strike. The issues we face, though, are much too important that they and their methods be allowed to intimidate.
‘We have nothing to lose but our chains...’
Though it can sometimes expose us to ridicule – worse still to the charge of being ‘reactionary’ or ‘racist’ – it’s important no less that we try and speed a greater awareness regards geopolitics and the reality of how imperialism operates. We will not always get it right. Thanks, no matter, to The Pensive Quill for affording a platform were such can be attempted.
‘Human rights’ have now become an instrument of imperialist warfare, as crazy as that might sound. The agenda is manipulated on two fronts through the employ of Islamist jihadis — these having been integrated by the Western intelligence apparatus to divide target nations and in turn to usurp their resources.
On the one hand and in the first guise – that of which ‘Jihadi John’ was a notable caricature – they provide a pretext for military intervention to quash their supposed threat. On the other and in a different guise they provide a different pretext, one useful to target ‘human rights abusers’ who respond or are seen to respond to their provocations; a la Milosevic, Qaddafi and Assad. This is the grisly genius of ‘humanitarian war’.
With the routing of the ISIS and Peshmerga mercenaries in Iraq and Syria, the imperialist is getting nervous. The inability to finish off Yemen only compounds matters further. He has no intention, however, of quitting his heinous game — knowing no other way than death and destruction as his empire threatens to unravel. The Middle East on fire, Far Asia is now in his sights.
To speak candidly on all of this is to put yourself on a ledge to be stoned by the ultra-liberal ‘PC’ Left, who have been wholly absorbed by identity politics and the cultivation of image requirement introduced us by modern propaganda methods. The ultimate purpose here is to deflect us away from the concrete setting in which events take shape. That is the sad reality of where we are at.
While it may not be their intention, their browbeating serves to subdue thinking that is ‘outside the box’ — leaving people too afraid to voice their opinion for fear of being cast in the wrong light. Perhaps this is the real aim, even if those concerned don’t partake in this action consciously. In this respect, petty bourgeois leftists are as much an obstacle as the bankers — perhaps, indeed, they are even more so.
In their self-righteous assuredness, they inhibit (by their attacks on any narrative from outside their neat little boxes) the pressing requirement that we advance a greater understanding among ordinary people as to how the world really works, this that we might from there set out toward improving the lives of working people – and with them the poor – at a structural level. Fail to countenance the structure at core and we can change very little in regards where it counts.
My aim was towards this intent and not to determine the ins-and-outs of the crisis in Rakhine — who done what to whom; who is right or wrong; who is more worthy of our support or condemnation. My interest is not to dismiss such issues, which are worthy in their own regard, but to look beyond in search of solutions that the ills of our imperiled world might be found. As socialists and anti-imperialists, it is this in the end that we seek.
Rape, torture and murder are in no way acceptable and there is no suggestion otherwise. That said it's noteworthy that, rather than present proof that Suu Kyi is responsible for what she stands accused of or to admit in any way that the Buddhists – or even the Burmese state itself – might themselves have a different story worth considering, the do-gooder liberal class resort instead to a familiar type: smear and shout down anyone who dares to step outside their narrative.
But that differing versions of events should be considered does not mean we support or deny a particular narrative either way – except of course in the minds of fanatical internet warriors who treat discussion as though a contest of intellect. We consider these things not to win or to ‘do down’ the other but to try and establish a more complete picture for the benefit of all.
As argued in the piece, we must examine events as we meet and find them in their core ideological setting. In the instance of Myanmar, the US ‘Asia Pivot’ and its immediate rival – the Chinese ‘One Belt One Road’ – is the context to which we must look. The Zionist ‘War On Terror’ and the tactics it utilises is also important to our understanding.
There are those, no doubt, for whom the idea intelligence agencies would manipulate events to the point of their generation is well-beyond fanciful. The historical record, in spite of them, clearly tells us otherwise — not least in regard to the most recent history of the Middle East. The directing of jihadi terrorist groups to serve ulterior strategies is well-established and, like the collusion war in Ireland, is not mere 'conspiracy theory' as some would seek to tar it.
Returning to the Asia Pivot, the campaign to isolate Aung San Suu Kyi is for travelling in the wrong direction and has no relationship, beyond that, with the crisis in Rakhine State — a crisis which, of course, is very real for its many victims. None of that is to say that there aren’t issues with the Burmese military but that the situation is much more complex than what we are being presented.
We are presented a packaged version of the Myanmar story that ignores objectivity and with it the narrative of Rakhine’s Buddhist community. Here, only the Rohingya are victims as the ‘Rogingya genocide’ is the narrative which suits the requirements of the imperialist grand design.
In this regard, similar to the Libyan and Syrian instances (also no doubt 'conspiracy theories' in the minds of the liberal left), the Rohingya genocide story is intended to manipulate the vast majority here in the West, who have next-to-no understanding of both the history and the geopolitical context of Myanmar, the Bay of Bengal or the Silk Road old and new. In and through our state of ignorance, the Zionist ‘War Of Terror’ marches on.
Not to be terse but perhaps we’ll be content when our naivety helps deliver a ‘Balkanisation’ of Myanmar, with an Al Qaeda-run Kosovo-style ‘independent’ Rakhine – subject of course to Washington – in turn to be used as a base to push the Zionist false flag Salvador Option deeper and deeper into Asia.
In the final analysis, if we don’t deal with imperialism – regardless its hue – then in truth we cannot effect the changes we require as a global society and community. This is as much a necessity for the Rohingya as it is for all others. If we don’t understand imperialism and the tactics it uses in pursuit of its objects then how could we ever hope to deal with it, as we must?
Regardless of them who smear and undermine, often for their own sly motives, thanks to those who took the time to countenance what was actually written — not how they’d prefer it to be read. Articles as these are extremely tricky, to say the least, made all the more so in the knowledge there are always those lying in wait for the opportune moment to strike. The issues we face, though, are much too important that they and their methods be allowed to intimidate.
‘We have nothing to lose but our chains...’
Radio Free Eireann Broadcasting 18 November 2017
Martin Galvin
with details of this weekend's broadcast from
Radio Free Eireann.
Radio Free Eireann will broadcast this Saturday November 18th on wbai 99.5 FM or wbai.org at 12noon-1pm New York time or 5pm-6pm Irish time or anytime after the program on wbai.org/archives.
Award winning journalist ,now political editor of the Belfast Telegraph, Suzanne Breen will give up to the minute coverage of the Sinn Fein Ard Fheis or national party convention, including a dramatic policy shift on entering coalitions in the south, report on Stormont talks, an announcement about Gerry Adams' succession plans and debate on abortion policy.
Author and journalist Ed Moloney will cover new developments on the Boston Tapes litigation.
John McDonagh will talk about the final performances on his one man show Off The Meter: On The Record, at the Irish Repertory Theatre.
John McDonagh and Martin Galvin co- host.
Radio Free Eireann is heard Saturdays at 12 Noon New York time on wbai 99.5 FM and wbai.org.
It can be heard at wbai.org in Ireland from 5pm to 6pm or anytime after the program concludes on wbai.org/archives.
Radio Free Eireann will broadcast this Saturday November 18th on wbai 99.5 FM or wbai.org at 12noon-1pm New York time or 5pm-6pm Irish time or anytime after the program on wbai.org/archives.
Award winning journalist ,now political editor of the Belfast Telegraph, Suzanne Breen will give up to the minute coverage of the Sinn Fein Ard Fheis or national party convention, including a dramatic policy shift on entering coalitions in the south, report on Stormont talks, an announcement about Gerry Adams' succession plans and debate on abortion policy.
Author and journalist Ed Moloney will cover new developments on the Boston Tapes litigation.
John McDonagh will talk about the final performances on his one man show Off The Meter: On The Record, at the Irish Repertory Theatre.
John McDonagh and Martin Galvin co- host.
Radio Free Eireann is heard Saturdays at 12 Noon New York time on wbai 99.5 FM and wbai.org.
It can be heard at wbai.org in Ireland from 5pm to 6pm or anytime after the program concludes on wbai.org/archives.
November 17, 2017
Lord Bob
Back in the 1980s the late Brian Mór, had called time on the ethics of Bob Geldof.
BBC's 'Irish Troubles',
Christopher Owens with the latest in a series of reviews looks at a book on BBC NI.
Long regarded as the bastion of the British establishment, the BBC have often produced works that have both dealt with the history of this country in terms that could be described as informative. However, it's well publicised that their news coverage (which, let's remember, goes around the world) can often be lacking.
First published in 2015, Robert J. Savage's look at the history of BBC NI and it's role in this country and it's recent history. There have been studies of this topic before, like Rex Cathcart's The Most Contrary Region: The BBC in Northern Ireland 1924-1984, but Savage is able to use recently declassified documents in order to help give a broader picture for the scenes that played out in Broadcasting House.
Beginning from the first BBC NI radio broadcast in 1924, it's clear that the local members of the organisation were all too aware of the need to toe the line by the Stormont government. English journalists often tried to offer a more nuanced view, but were shot down by horrified executives, politicians and newspaper editors (Alan Whicker's segment for 'Tonight' that aired in 1959 is one such example cited).
These depictions of the early stages of the Six Counties make for tremendous reading. Often, the history books tend to start with the 1960's, so it's always intriguing to see just how far discrimination went down in the state, to the extent that references to gerrymandering and the poor upkeep of nationalist areas of the country were often deleted from programmes.
As events move onto the Civil Rights Association, through to the Army arriving and the beginning of violence, BBC NI journalists are depicted as seekers of the truth, openly despised by Stormont officials because of their questioning of the official line. Indeed, it's claimed that UTV and ITV were much preferred as they took the press office at their word. But said BBC journalists freely admit that their coverage of August 1969 was deeply flawed, and led to the perception in England of the conflict being one purely about religious differences, as opposed to civil rights and overt oppression.
Savage's writing style can be a little on the dry side at times, being overtly direct and with a tendency to repeat certain phrases and information about particular people. Unsurprisingly, this grates on the reader quickly. Also, he doesn't really ask questions that arise from particular incidents (apart from one that will be dealt with later on). It's just a case of describing particular moments, the reaction/coverage from the BBC and the implications of it.
In most cases, this is fine as events in the early 70's move so quickly throughout the book that it's quickly replaced by another. But by the time we get to the end of that decade, and the description of Roy Mason's open war on the corporation for their coverage of the Bernard O'Connor case, there are enough questions that can be raised by the reader.
For example, he uses the coverage of the Ulster Workers Council strike to show the disconnect that often existed between the BBC and the rest of the world. The Board of Governors genuinely seemed to think the NI branch had done a good job covering the strike (despite not offering any alternate viewpoints so beloved of the BBC), and Robert Fisk's expose of the coverage burst that particular bubble.
So what exactly made the Board decide such coverage was acceptable for broadcast? Did BBC NI staff do anything to indicate their supposed frustration at their bosses, like threaten a walkout? Questions like these are left unanswered, and I think they do deserve answers.
It has often been written about journalists north and south routinely felt the need to display how anti IRA they could be, in order to displace notions of them being (to quote Ed Moloney) "fellow travellers", and this is something that could certainly have been explored in depth as to why BBC NI staff (seemingly) did nothing.
The most fascinating moment comes when a Panorama crew end up filming an IRA unit setting up an impromptu checkpoint in Carrickmore in 1979. Through a set of circumstances involving lack of communication and gut reaction, the footage threatened the stability of the BBC with the Thatcher government, who were already furious at the BBC for interviewing an INLA spokesperson the same year.
Although there is a pervading feeling throughout that someone somewhere is holding back (and he is not prepared to cross the line and name names), Savage explores the various reactions from BBC management, and it comes across as the sort of bureaucratic nightmare often envisaged by Orwell and Kafka, with the ever real threat of journalists potentially being arrested for interviewing illegal organisations.
Savage argues, convincingly, that this was the beginning of the crackdown of broadcasters freedom by the Thatcher government which would ultimately culminate in her reaction to the ITV 'Death on the Rock' programme.
After the "Carrickmore incident", the book gets quite tedious, with the usual round of people complaining about bias over the hunger strike. The book ends with the broadcasting ban, and Savage admits this is mainly because the amount of declassified papers from this period onwards are nowhere near the same amount as the previous years.
It's certainly a worthy addition to the ever growing shelf of Troubles related texts, but it's writing style, lack of open questioning and cut off period stop it from being definitive. What is really needed are volumes dealing with the other major British broadcasters, and the media. The results would be interesting, and would give academics pause for thought about the power of the media to shape the ordinary person's opinion on such matters.
Robert J. Savage, 2015, The BBC's 'Irish Troubles': Television, Conflict and Northern Ireland Manchester University Press, ISBN-13: 978-1526116888
Christopher Owens reviews for Metal Ireland and finds time to study the history and inherent contradictions of Ireland.
Follow Christopher Owens on Twitter @MrOwens212
Long regarded as the bastion of the British establishment, the BBC have often produced works that have both dealt with the history of this country in terms that could be described as informative. However, it's well publicised that their news coverage (which, let's remember, goes around the world) can often be lacking.
First published in 2015, Robert J. Savage's look at the history of BBC NI and it's role in this country and it's recent history. There have been studies of this topic before, like Rex Cathcart's The Most Contrary Region: The BBC in Northern Ireland 1924-1984, but Savage is able to use recently declassified documents in order to help give a broader picture for the scenes that played out in Broadcasting House.
Beginning from the first BBC NI radio broadcast in 1924, it's clear that the local members of the organisation were all too aware of the need to toe the line by the Stormont government. English journalists often tried to offer a more nuanced view, but were shot down by horrified executives, politicians and newspaper editors (Alan Whicker's segment for 'Tonight' that aired in 1959 is one such example cited).
These depictions of the early stages of the Six Counties make for tremendous reading. Often, the history books tend to start with the 1960's, so it's always intriguing to see just how far discrimination went down in the state, to the extent that references to gerrymandering and the poor upkeep of nationalist areas of the country were often deleted from programmes.
As events move onto the Civil Rights Association, through to the Army arriving and the beginning of violence, BBC NI journalists are depicted as seekers of the truth, openly despised by Stormont officials because of their questioning of the official line. Indeed, it's claimed that UTV and ITV were much preferred as they took the press office at their word. But said BBC journalists freely admit that their coverage of August 1969 was deeply flawed, and led to the perception in England of the conflict being one purely about religious differences, as opposed to civil rights and overt oppression.
Savage's writing style can be a little on the dry side at times, being overtly direct and with a tendency to repeat certain phrases and information about particular people. Unsurprisingly, this grates on the reader quickly. Also, he doesn't really ask questions that arise from particular incidents (apart from one that will be dealt with later on). It's just a case of describing particular moments, the reaction/coverage from the BBC and the implications of it.
In most cases, this is fine as events in the early 70's move so quickly throughout the book that it's quickly replaced by another. But by the time we get to the end of that decade, and the description of Roy Mason's open war on the corporation for their coverage of the Bernard O'Connor case, there are enough questions that can be raised by the reader.
For example, he uses the coverage of the Ulster Workers Council strike to show the disconnect that often existed between the BBC and the rest of the world. The Board of Governors genuinely seemed to think the NI branch had done a good job covering the strike (despite not offering any alternate viewpoints so beloved of the BBC), and Robert Fisk's expose of the coverage burst that particular bubble.
So what exactly made the Board decide such coverage was acceptable for broadcast? Did BBC NI staff do anything to indicate their supposed frustration at their bosses, like threaten a walkout? Questions like these are left unanswered, and I think they do deserve answers.
It has often been written about journalists north and south routinely felt the need to display how anti IRA they could be, in order to displace notions of them being (to quote Ed Moloney) "fellow travellers", and this is something that could certainly have been explored in depth as to why BBC NI staff (seemingly) did nothing.
The most fascinating moment comes when a Panorama crew end up filming an IRA unit setting up an impromptu checkpoint in Carrickmore in 1979. Through a set of circumstances involving lack of communication and gut reaction, the footage threatened the stability of the BBC with the Thatcher government, who were already furious at the BBC for interviewing an INLA spokesperson the same year.
Although there is a pervading feeling throughout that someone somewhere is holding back (and he is not prepared to cross the line and name names), Savage explores the various reactions from BBC management, and it comes across as the sort of bureaucratic nightmare often envisaged by Orwell and Kafka, with the ever real threat of journalists potentially being arrested for interviewing illegal organisations.
Savage argues, convincingly, that this was the beginning of the crackdown of broadcasters freedom by the Thatcher government which would ultimately culminate in her reaction to the ITV 'Death on the Rock' programme.
After the "Carrickmore incident", the book gets quite tedious, with the usual round of people complaining about bias over the hunger strike. The book ends with the broadcasting ban, and Savage admits this is mainly because the amount of declassified papers from this period onwards are nowhere near the same amount as the previous years.
It's certainly a worthy addition to the ever growing shelf of Troubles related texts, but it's writing style, lack of open questioning and cut off period stop it from being definitive. What is really needed are volumes dealing with the other major British broadcasters, and the media. The results would be interesting, and would give academics pause for thought about the power of the media to shape the ordinary person's opinion on such matters.
Robert J. Savage, 2015, The BBC's 'Irish Troubles': Television, Conflict and Northern Ireland Manchester University Press, ISBN-13: 978-1526116888
Christopher Owens reviews for Metal Ireland and finds time to study the history and inherent contradictions of Ireland.
Follow Christopher Owens on Twitter @MrOwens212
November 16, 2017
The Terrible Problem
The Uri Avnery Column discusses the ideas of Ze'ev Begin.Ze'ev Begin, the son of Menachem Begin, is a very nice human being. It is impossible not to like him. He is well brought up, polite and modest, the kind of person one would like to have as a friend.
Unfortunately, his political views are far less likeable. They are much more extreme than even the acts of his father. The father, after leading the Irgun, sat down and made peace with Anwar al-Sadat of Egypt. Ze'ev is closer to Golda Me'ir, who ignored Sadat's peace overtures and led us into the disastrous Yom Kippur war.
Begin jr. is a strict follower of the "revisionist" Zionist creed founded by Vladimir Ze'ev Jabotinsky. One of the characteristics of this movement has always been the importance it gave to written texts and declarations. The labor movement, headed by David Ben-Gurion, didn't give a damn about words and declarations and respected only "facts on the ground".
Last week, Ze'ev Begin wrote one of his rare articles. Its main purpose was to prove that peace with the Palestinians is impossible, a pipe-dream of Israeli peace-lovers (Haaretz 9.10). Quoting numerous Palestinian texts, speeches and even schoolbooks, Begin shows that the Palestinians will never, never, never give up their "Right of Return".
Since such a return would entail the end of the Jewish State, Begin asserts, peace is a pipe dream. There will never be peace. End of story.
A Similar point is made by another profound thinker, Alexander Jakobson, in another important article in Haaretz (9.26). It is directed against me personally, and its headline asserts that I am "True to Israel, but Not to the Truth". It accuses me of being tolerant towards the BDS movement, which is out to put an end to Israel.
How does he know? Simple: BDS confirms the Palestinians' "Right of Return", which, as everybody knows, means the destruction of the Jewish State.
Well, actually I object to BDS for several reasons. The movement to which I belong, Gush Shalom, was the first (in 1997) to declare a boycott of the settlements. Our aim was to separate the Israeli people from the settlements. The BDS (Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions) movement, by boycotting all of Israel, achieves the opposite effect: it pushes the Israeli people into the arms of the settlers.
I also don't like to call on people to boycott me.
But of all the points in the BDS platform, the one that bothers me the least is the demand that the State of Israel recognize the Palestinians' Right of Return. It is simply ridiculous. Not in a thousand years will the BDS compel Israel to do so. So why bother?
Let' Us First throw some light on the issue.
When the British withdrew from Palestine in 1948, there were in the country between the Mediterranean and the Jordan about 1.2 million Arabs and 635,000 Jews. By the end of the war that ensued, some 700,000 Arabs had fled and/or were driven out. It was a war of what was (later) called "ethnic cleansing". Few Arabs were left in the territory conquered by Jewish arms, but it should be remembered that no Jews at all were left in the territory conquered by Arab arms. Fortunately for our side, the Arabs succeeded in occupying only small slices of land inhabited by Jews (such as the Etzion bloc, East Jerusalem et al.), while our side conquered large, inhabited territories. As a combat soldier, I saw it with my own eyes.
The Arab refugees multiplied by natural increase, and today number about 6 million. About 1.5 million of them live in the occupied West Bank, about a million in the Gaza Strip, the rest are dispersed in Jordan, Lebanon, Syria, and all over the world.
Would they all come back, if given the opportunity? Let us consider this.
Years Ago, I had a unique experience.
I was invited to give a lecture in New York. To my pleasant surprise, in the front row I saw a good friend of mine, the young Arab poet Rashid Hussein. Rashid was born in a village near Nazareth. He begged me to come and visit him in his New Jersey apartment.
When I arrived, I was flabbergasted, The small apartment was crowded with people – Palestinian refugees of all kinds, young and old, men and women. We had a long and extremely emotional discussion on the refugee issue.
When we drove home, I told my wife: "You know what I felt? That only a few of them really care to return, but that all of them were ready to die for their right to return!"
Rachel, a very keen observer, replied that she had the same impression.
Today, Dozens of years later, I am convinced that this basic truth is still valid: there is a huge difference between the principle and its implementation.
The principle cannot be denied. It belongs to the individual refugee. It is safeguarded by international law. It is sacred.
Any future peace treaty between the state of Israel and the State of Palestine will have to include a paragraph saying that Israel affirms in principle the Right of Return of the Palestinian refugees and their descendants.
No Palestinian leader could possibly sign a treaty that does not include this clause.
Only after this obstacle has been removed from the table, can the real discussion about the solution start.
I can imagine the scene: after agreement has been reached on this at the peace conference, the chairperson will take a deep breath and say, "Now, friends, let's get to the real issue. How shall we solve the refugee problem in practice?"
The six million Palestinian refugees constitute six million individual situations. There are many categories of refugees. No single solution can apply to all.
There are many refugees – perhaps most of them - who during the last 50 years have built for themselves a new life in another country. For these, the right of return is – well – a principle. They would not dream of going back to their ancestral village, even if it were still there. Some of them are well-to-do, some are rich, some very rich.
One of the richest is my friend (may I call you so?) Salman Abu Sitta, who started life as a barefoot boy in the Negev, fled in 1948 with his family to Gaza and later became an immensely successful contractor in Britain and the Gulf. We met at a peace conference, had a long and emotional private dinner afterwards and did not agree.
Abu Sitta insists that all refugees must be allowed to return to Israel, even if they are to be settled in the Negev desert. I do not see the practical logic in this.
I have had hundreds of discussions about solutions with Palestinians, from Yasser Arafat down to people in the refugee camps. The great majority nowadays would sign a formula that seeks a "just and agreed solution of the refugee problem" – "agreed" includes Israel.
This formula appears in the "Arab Peace Plan" devised by Saudi Arabia and officially accepted by the entire Muslim world.
How would this look in practice? It means that every refugee family would be offered a choice between actual return and adequate compensation.
Return – where? In a few extraordinary instances, their original village still stands empty. I can imagine some symbolic reconstruction of such villages – say two or three – by their former inhabitants.
An agreed number must be allowed to return to the territory of Israel, especially if they have relatives here, who can help them to strike roots again.
This is a hard thing for Israelis to swallow – but not too hard. Israel already has some 2 million Arab citizens, more than 20% of the population. Another – say - quarter million would make no real difference.
All the others would be paid generous compensation. They could use that to consolidate their lives where they are, or emigrate to places like Australia and Canada, which would gladly receive them (with their money).
About 1.5 million refugees live in the West Bank and Gaza. Another large number live in Jordan and are Jordanian citizens. Some still live in refugee camps. For all of them, compensation would be welcome.
Where will the money come from? Israel must pay its share (at the same time reducing its huge military budget). The world organizations will have to contribute a large part.
Is This feasible? Yes, it is.
I dare say more: if the atmosphere is right, it is even probable. Contrary to Begin's belief in texts written today by demagogues to serve today's purposes, once the process starts rolling, a solution like this – more or less – is almost unavoidable.
And let's not forget for a moment: these "refugees" are human beings.
Unfortunately, his political views are far less likeable. They are much more extreme than even the acts of his father. The father, after leading the Irgun, sat down and made peace with Anwar al-Sadat of Egypt. Ze'ev is closer to Golda Me'ir, who ignored Sadat's peace overtures and led us into the disastrous Yom Kippur war.
Begin jr. is a strict follower of the "revisionist" Zionist creed founded by Vladimir Ze'ev Jabotinsky. One of the characteristics of this movement has always been the importance it gave to written texts and declarations. The labor movement, headed by David Ben-Gurion, didn't give a damn about words and declarations and respected only "facts on the ground".
Last week, Ze'ev Begin wrote one of his rare articles. Its main purpose was to prove that peace with the Palestinians is impossible, a pipe-dream of Israeli peace-lovers (Haaretz 9.10). Quoting numerous Palestinian texts, speeches and even schoolbooks, Begin shows that the Palestinians will never, never, never give up their "Right of Return".
Since such a return would entail the end of the Jewish State, Begin asserts, peace is a pipe dream. There will never be peace. End of story.
A Similar point is made by another profound thinker, Alexander Jakobson, in another important article in Haaretz (9.26). It is directed against me personally, and its headline asserts that I am "True to Israel, but Not to the Truth". It accuses me of being tolerant towards the BDS movement, which is out to put an end to Israel.
How does he know? Simple: BDS confirms the Palestinians' "Right of Return", which, as everybody knows, means the destruction of the Jewish State.
Well, actually I object to BDS for several reasons. The movement to which I belong, Gush Shalom, was the first (in 1997) to declare a boycott of the settlements. Our aim was to separate the Israeli people from the settlements. The BDS (Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions) movement, by boycotting all of Israel, achieves the opposite effect: it pushes the Israeli people into the arms of the settlers.
I also don't like to call on people to boycott me.
But of all the points in the BDS platform, the one that bothers me the least is the demand that the State of Israel recognize the Palestinians' Right of Return. It is simply ridiculous. Not in a thousand years will the BDS compel Israel to do so. So why bother?
Let' Us First throw some light on the issue.
When the British withdrew from Palestine in 1948, there were in the country between the Mediterranean and the Jordan about 1.2 million Arabs and 635,000 Jews. By the end of the war that ensued, some 700,000 Arabs had fled and/or were driven out. It was a war of what was (later) called "ethnic cleansing". Few Arabs were left in the territory conquered by Jewish arms, but it should be remembered that no Jews at all were left in the territory conquered by Arab arms. Fortunately for our side, the Arabs succeeded in occupying only small slices of land inhabited by Jews (such as the Etzion bloc, East Jerusalem et al.), while our side conquered large, inhabited territories. As a combat soldier, I saw it with my own eyes.
The Arab refugees multiplied by natural increase, and today number about 6 million. About 1.5 million of them live in the occupied West Bank, about a million in the Gaza Strip, the rest are dispersed in Jordan, Lebanon, Syria, and all over the world.
Would they all come back, if given the opportunity? Let us consider this.
Years Ago, I had a unique experience.
I was invited to give a lecture in New York. To my pleasant surprise, in the front row I saw a good friend of mine, the young Arab poet Rashid Hussein. Rashid was born in a village near Nazareth. He begged me to come and visit him in his New Jersey apartment.
When I arrived, I was flabbergasted, The small apartment was crowded with people – Palestinian refugees of all kinds, young and old, men and women. We had a long and extremely emotional discussion on the refugee issue.
When we drove home, I told my wife: "You know what I felt? That only a few of them really care to return, but that all of them were ready to die for their right to return!"
Rachel, a very keen observer, replied that she had the same impression.
Today, Dozens of years later, I am convinced that this basic truth is still valid: there is a huge difference between the principle and its implementation.
The principle cannot be denied. It belongs to the individual refugee. It is safeguarded by international law. It is sacred.
Any future peace treaty between the state of Israel and the State of Palestine will have to include a paragraph saying that Israel affirms in principle the Right of Return of the Palestinian refugees and their descendants.
No Palestinian leader could possibly sign a treaty that does not include this clause.
Only after this obstacle has been removed from the table, can the real discussion about the solution start.
I can imagine the scene: after agreement has been reached on this at the peace conference, the chairperson will take a deep breath and say, "Now, friends, let's get to the real issue. How shall we solve the refugee problem in practice?"
The six million Palestinian refugees constitute six million individual situations. There are many categories of refugees. No single solution can apply to all.
There are many refugees – perhaps most of them - who during the last 50 years have built for themselves a new life in another country. For these, the right of return is – well – a principle. They would not dream of going back to their ancestral village, even if it were still there. Some of them are well-to-do, some are rich, some very rich.
One of the richest is my friend (may I call you so?) Salman Abu Sitta, who started life as a barefoot boy in the Negev, fled in 1948 with his family to Gaza and later became an immensely successful contractor in Britain and the Gulf. We met at a peace conference, had a long and emotional private dinner afterwards and did not agree.
Abu Sitta insists that all refugees must be allowed to return to Israel, even if they are to be settled in the Negev desert. I do not see the practical logic in this.
I have had hundreds of discussions about solutions with Palestinians, from Yasser Arafat down to people in the refugee camps. The great majority nowadays would sign a formula that seeks a "just and agreed solution of the refugee problem" – "agreed" includes Israel.
This formula appears in the "Arab Peace Plan" devised by Saudi Arabia and officially accepted by the entire Muslim world.
How would this look in practice? It means that every refugee family would be offered a choice between actual return and adequate compensation.
Return – where? In a few extraordinary instances, their original village still stands empty. I can imagine some symbolic reconstruction of such villages – say two or three – by their former inhabitants.
An agreed number must be allowed to return to the territory of Israel, especially if they have relatives here, who can help them to strike roots again.
This is a hard thing for Israelis to swallow – but not too hard. Israel already has some 2 million Arab citizens, more than 20% of the population. Another – say - quarter million would make no real difference.
All the others would be paid generous compensation. They could use that to consolidate their lives where they are, or emigrate to places like Australia and Canada, which would gladly receive them (with their money).
About 1.5 million refugees live in the West Bank and Gaza. Another large number live in Jordan and are Jordanian citizens. Some still live in refugee camps. For all of them, compensation would be welcome.
Where will the money come from? Israel must pay its share (at the same time reducing its huge military budget). The world organizations will have to contribute a large part.
Is This feasible? Yes, it is.
I dare say more: if the atmosphere is right, it is even probable. Contrary to Begin's belief in texts written today by demagogues to serve today's purposes, once the process starts rolling, a solution like this – more or less – is almost unavoidable.
And let's not forget for a moment: these "refugees" are human beings.
China: Collective Resistance Against iSlavery
Gabriel Levy reviews a book on the world of digital technology.
When 15 young workers jumped or fell from the upper floors of Foxconn’s factories in China in five months of 2010 – 13 of them to their deaths – it made international headlines. People across the world felt outrage at the oppressive working conditions in which iPhones and other high-tech products are made.
Much less well-publicised were the collective resistance movements that flowered at Foxconn and other big Chinese factories in the years following the “Suicide Express”.
In April 2012, 200 Foxconn employees at Wuhan took pictures of themselves on the factory rooftop, and circulated them on social media, along with threats to jump if the company kept ignoring their demand for a wage increase. The company backed down.
This action “differ[ed] qualitatively from individual acts of suicide. Instead, it became a collective behaviour that successfully pressurised Foxconn to increase wages”, the Hong Kong-based activist and university teacher Jack Linchuan Qiu writes in Goodbye iSlave (p. 134).
Qiu describes a world – our world – in which the latest technological devices are made by workers who are subject to dehumanising super-exploitation, and are also used by those workers in organising collective resistance to their conditions.
The main focus of the book is Foxconn, the world’s largest electronics manufacturer. Its workforce of 1.4 million, mostly in China, make most i-products for Apple – including iPads, iPhones, iMacs and MacBooks – and devices for HP, Dell, Nokia, Microsoft, Sony, Cisco, Nintendo, Intel, Motorola, Samsung, Panasonic, Google, Amazon and others.
Qiu describes how, after the slew of Foxconn suicides in 2010, the Chinese state – which had always, at central and local level, supported and encouraged the company’s bosses – felt compelled to act.
The authorities sent an investigation team to Foxconn Shenzhen. Its findings, leaked to the press by a trade union official, were that Foxconn workers were being compelled to do up to 100 hours of overtime a month, while the legal maximum was 36 hours; and that the company’s “semi-militarised management system” put too much pressure on workers, both when they were at the factory and when they were off duty (p. 126).
The friction between the authorities and Terry Guo, the multi-millionaire owner of Foxconn and a Chinese media darling, was real enough – but, as I understand it, was aimed at containing and dampening worker resistance at the giant factories.
If that was the idea, it didn’t work. Foxconn workers found new ways of fighting back , and students and others in China found ways to build solidarity.
Resistance to, and with, smartphones
Qiu argues that collective resistance in the aftermath of the “Suicide Express” (that is, in 2011-14) took different forms from earlier workers’ movement in China, partly because a new generation of workers were at the fore, and partly because they deployed the latest technology.
This new generation were migrants from the countryside, who were “less united, confrontational and militant compared with their elders in state-owned enterprises and the rural villages”, Qiu writes (p. 132). “While those of older age still remember and try to continue practising Maoist politics after they are laid off or facing illegal land grabs, young workers are much more individualistic, consumeristic and prone to seductions leading toward manufactured iSlavery [i.e. work in the high-tech sector].”
There were instances of collective violence in 2012-13 – but these often took the form of “in-fights among employees of different regional and/or ethnic identities and across internal divisions of labour, rather than organised against the ruling elite or the factory itself”. Examples included riots in Foxconn Taiyuan in September 2012 (Sha’anxi guards versus Henan workers), Foxconn Zhengzhou in October 2012 (assembly line workers versus quality-control employees) and Foxconn Yantai in September 2013 (Guizhou versus Shandong workers), Qiu writes.
Against this background, the use of poetry, folk songs, music, theatrical performance and online videos had played a positive and unifying role, Qiu argues. These “alternative expressions, social networking and cultural formation” are “worker generated content (WGC)” for digital media, that is “beyond the scope of user-generated content (UGC) […] which is governed by corporate goals and/or the logic of state surveillance.”
Just as Africans used singing and dancing on slave ships and plantations in the 19th century as “spiritual and poetic, gratifying and powerful” means of defiance, so millions of Chinese workers, in an age of inexpensive digital media – especially affordable camera phones, mobile internet and social networking – have found means of “self-expression and participation in public discussion” on an unprecedented scale.
There is a parallel in the USA, Qiu argues, with the smartphone videos of police brutality, shared through social media, that initiated widespread mobilisation in 2014-15 by African Americans against state oppression.
He gives examples of mobilisation using networked technology, in addition to the collective suicide threat mentioned above, including:
■ A small-scale protest at Foxconn Shenzhen in January 2014 that “went viral via Weibo [a social networking site] among workers in different parts of China. Following each other’s Weibo accounts, they discussed overtime wages in different Foxconn facilities across the nation, the usefulness in appealing to labour unions, and ways to bring more public attention to their collective cause. All the conversations were in the public domain and easily retrievable” (p. 134).
■ A campaign led by grassroots workers and their families to protect Tongxin Experimental Elementary School in a migrant workers’ community on the outskirts of Beijing, which Qiu characterised as “collective activism with empowerment” (p. 138).
■ The use of photographs, videos and text messages to publicise high-profile cases, such as that of Zhang Tingzhen, a Foxconn worker injured on the job, or the Tiny Grass Workers Cultural Home, a community group that were forcibly evicted. Here there was “collective activism without empowerment” (p. 138).
■ Individuals who shared grievances, or demands, via social media, to great effect. An example was Zhang Jun, a worker-activist “who used high-impact videos during the Ole Wolff strike of 2009, resulting in China’s first independent workplace union born out of an industrial action.” This, Qiu writes, was “individual activism with an empowerment effect” (p. 139).
Qiu does not suggest that any medium of communication is a replacement for, or alternative to, collective discussion and action. Rather he argues that the form of action taken, collectively or individually, is changing in a country of 688 million internet users (in December 2015), of which 620 million rely on mobile access.
Digital media has been diffused among working-class communities “in the seething context of increasing social unrest”, and successive types of network used to evade and subvert repeated attempts at state censorship (p. 147).
Since 2014 Chinese workers have repeatedly deployed digital media on their picket lines; “these digital tools have been added to the toolkit of working-class struggles against iSlavery”; no economic sector has been left untouched by this use of digital media for “collective empowerment”.
Another significant initiative came from students and teachers at 20 universities in mainland China, Taiwan and Hong Kong, who set up a joint investigative team to collect and publish information on labour conditions at Foxconn and other companies. Between 2010 and 2015 they issued four major reports on Foxconn. (See the Students and Scholars Against Corporate Misbehaviour web site. Here are reports on Foxconn and other companies.)
Qiu himself participated in the 20-university team, and devotes a chapter of Goodbye iSlave to details of working conditions at Foxconn, and reflects on that experience. Qiu describes the impunity with which the company hires and fires; the illegal and inhuman methods it uses to prevent workers who want to leave of their own accord from doing so; and the bullying and violence used by management and security hierarchies.
Workers and slaves
The title of Goodbye iSlave is not just a slogan. Qiu argues that workers at Foxconn and other big Chinese manufacturers are slaves in both historical and legal senses. He starts with some telling analogies – of young women migrant workers of today, with women slaves in the past; and of the nets that 18th-century slave traders used to prevent captive Africans from jumping off their ships to their deaths in the Atlantic, with the “safety nets” installed by Foxconn after the suicides of 2010.
A central slave-like quality in the labour relations at Foxconn was, until 2010, the systematic social isolation of migrant workers. They were billeted in dormitories separate from friends and from those who travelled from the same rural communities.
Anti-suicide nets at Foxconn (above) and on an 18th-century slave ship (top). Pictures from Goodbye iSlave communities.
“Separation and isolation are among the most quintessential experiences of being a dehumanised slave”, Qiu argues (p. 71). “This was true for African slaves centuries ago as much as it was for Chinese workers who had to live under the dormitory labour regime of Foxconn. Although there are notable differences in the degree and methods of coercion, the origin of such atomisation was the same: essentially, these are efforts to structure a worker’s life – not just work, but life in the holistic sense, 24/7, throughout the year – for the goal of profit maximisation.”
I was convinced about the all-encompassing and dehumanising character of labour practices, but not so much by the analogy with African slaves, who were the property of their masters. Many types of “free” labour under capitalism have, through history, included aspects of slave-like comprehensive coercion and dehumanisation of the sort that Qiu mentions. There is a continuum between slavery and “free” labour; there are grey areas; there is no neat divide.
In fact Qiu quotes (p. 39) the Marxist writers Karl Heinz Roth and Marcel van der Linden, who argued that “the historical reality of capitalism has featured many hybrid and transitional forms between slavery and ‘free’ wage-labour. Moreover, slaves and wage-workers have repeatedly performed the same work in the same business enterprise.” That way of looking at it works well for me.
Qiu acknowledges the differences between types of labour (which made me still more doubtful about the usefulness of categorising Chinese electronics workers as slaves). Twenty-first century capitalism, in contrast to 18th century European capitalism, no longer relies on “brute force, intimidation and coercive measures of the law”, he writes (p. 35). Rather it uses a “hegemonic cultural regime” to stimulate market growth.
“There has to be a newfangled regime of (servile) consumption to match the marvellous regime of miraculous (slave) productivity. The goal of this new hegemonic system is to generate a new culture, even a new religion of consumerism, an indispensable pillar of capitalist world-economy.”
Yes. The creation of consumers’ “want” (or “need”) for smartphones is the other side of the coin of the coercion and exploitation used to produce the smartphones.
What we might learn
There is much for militants in Europe and north America to learn here. In terms of sheer scale, these events in the cradle of modern manufacturing dwarf many of the movements that we have participated in. These movements face a combination of a treadmill of capitalist production in the “workshop of the world” and ruthless Stalinist dictatorship. Many of them are first- or second-generation migrants from the countryside, in contrast to European workers, most of whom have lived for several generations in an urban world of wage labour exploitation.
In part due to language problems, accurate information about social and labour movements in China is hard to get. Jack Linchuan Qiu’s book makes a massive contribution to bridging that gap. GL, 23 October 2017.
■ Jack Linchuan Qiu’s university web page
■ A video of Jack Linchuan Qiu addressing a meeting last month in London, organised by Breaking the Frame. (I went to the meeting and bought a copy of Goodbye iSlave there. I am glad to say that all the royalties go to a campaign against exploitative labour conditions in the Democratic Republic of Congo, where coltan used in smartphones is mined, for export to China for use in factories such as Foxconn.)
■ More about technology on People & Nature: Interrogating digital capitalism … The Lucas plan and the politics of technology … I have seen the techno-future and I am not so sure it works.
Jack Linchuan 2016. Goodbye iSlave : A Manifesto For Digital Abolition Publisher: University of Illinois Press. ISBN-13: 978-0252040627
Gabriel Levy blogs @ People And Nature.
When 15 young workers jumped or fell from the upper floors of Foxconn’s factories in China in five months of 2010 – 13 of them to their deaths – it made international headlines. People across the world felt outrage at the oppressive working conditions in which iPhones and other high-tech products are made.
Much less well-publicised were the collective resistance movements that flowered at Foxconn and other big Chinese factories in the years following the “Suicide Express”.
In April 2012, 200 Foxconn employees at Wuhan took pictures of themselves on the factory rooftop, and circulated them on social media, along with threats to jump if the company kept ignoring their demand for a wage increase. The company backed down.
This action “differ[ed] qualitatively from individual acts of suicide. Instead, it became a collective behaviour that successfully pressurised Foxconn to increase wages”, the Hong Kong-based activist and university teacher Jack Linchuan Qiu writes in Goodbye iSlave (p. 134).
Qiu describes a world – our world – in which the latest technological devices are made by workers who are subject to dehumanising super-exploitation, and are also used by those workers in organising collective resistance to their conditions.
The main focus of the book is Foxconn, the world’s largest electronics manufacturer. Its workforce of 1.4 million, mostly in China, make most i-products for Apple – including iPads, iPhones, iMacs and MacBooks – and devices for HP, Dell, Nokia, Microsoft, Sony, Cisco, Nintendo, Intel, Motorola, Samsung, Panasonic, Google, Amazon and others.
Qiu describes how, after the slew of Foxconn suicides in 2010, the Chinese state – which had always, at central and local level, supported and encouraged the company’s bosses – felt compelled to act.
The authorities sent an investigation team to Foxconn Shenzhen. Its findings, leaked to the press by a trade union official, were that Foxconn workers were being compelled to do up to 100 hours of overtime a month, while the legal maximum was 36 hours; and that the company’s “semi-militarised management system” put too much pressure on workers, both when they were at the factory and when they were off duty (p. 126).
The friction between the authorities and Terry Guo, the multi-millionaire owner of Foxconn and a Chinese media darling, was real enough – but, as I understand it, was aimed at containing and dampening worker resistance at the giant factories.
If that was the idea, it didn’t work. Foxconn workers found new ways of fighting back , and students and others in China found ways to build solidarity.
Resistance to, and with, smartphones
Qiu argues that collective resistance in the aftermath of the “Suicide Express” (that is, in 2011-14) took different forms from earlier workers’ movement in China, partly because a new generation of workers were at the fore, and partly because they deployed the latest technology.
This new generation were migrants from the countryside, who were “less united, confrontational and militant compared with their elders in state-owned enterprises and the rural villages”, Qiu writes (p. 132). “While those of older age still remember and try to continue practising Maoist politics after they are laid off or facing illegal land grabs, young workers are much more individualistic, consumeristic and prone to seductions leading toward manufactured iSlavery [i.e. work in the high-tech sector].”
There were instances of collective violence in 2012-13 – but these often took the form of “in-fights among employees of different regional and/or ethnic identities and across internal divisions of labour, rather than organised against the ruling elite or the factory itself”. Examples included riots in Foxconn Taiyuan in September 2012 (Sha’anxi guards versus Henan workers), Foxconn Zhengzhou in October 2012 (assembly line workers versus quality-control employees) and Foxconn Yantai in September 2013 (Guizhou versus Shandong workers), Qiu writes.
Against this background, the use of poetry, folk songs, music, theatrical performance and online videos had played a positive and unifying role, Qiu argues. These “alternative expressions, social networking and cultural formation” are “worker generated content (WGC)” for digital media, that is “beyond the scope of user-generated content (UGC) […] which is governed by corporate goals and/or the logic of state surveillance.”
Just as Africans used singing and dancing on slave ships and plantations in the 19th century as “spiritual and poetic, gratifying and powerful” means of defiance, so millions of Chinese workers, in an age of inexpensive digital media – especially affordable camera phones, mobile internet and social networking – have found means of “self-expression and participation in public discussion” on an unprecedented scale.
There is a parallel in the USA, Qiu argues, with the smartphone videos of police brutality, shared through social media, that initiated widespread mobilisation in 2014-15 by African Americans against state oppression.
He gives examples of mobilisation using networked technology, in addition to the collective suicide threat mentioned above, including:
■ A small-scale protest at Foxconn Shenzhen in January 2014 that “went viral via Weibo [a social networking site] among workers in different parts of China. Following each other’s Weibo accounts, they discussed overtime wages in different Foxconn facilities across the nation, the usefulness in appealing to labour unions, and ways to bring more public attention to their collective cause. All the conversations were in the public domain and easily retrievable” (p. 134).
■ A campaign led by grassroots workers and their families to protect Tongxin Experimental Elementary School in a migrant workers’ community on the outskirts of Beijing, which Qiu characterised as “collective activism with empowerment” (p. 138).
■ The use of photographs, videos and text messages to publicise high-profile cases, such as that of Zhang Tingzhen, a Foxconn worker injured on the job, or the Tiny Grass Workers Cultural Home, a community group that were forcibly evicted. Here there was “collective activism without empowerment” (p. 138).
■ Individuals who shared grievances, or demands, via social media, to great effect. An example was Zhang Jun, a worker-activist “who used high-impact videos during the Ole Wolff strike of 2009, resulting in China’s first independent workplace union born out of an industrial action.” This, Qiu writes, was “individual activism with an empowerment effect” (p. 139).
Qiu does not suggest that any medium of communication is a replacement for, or alternative to, collective discussion and action. Rather he argues that the form of action taken, collectively or individually, is changing in a country of 688 million internet users (in December 2015), of which 620 million rely on mobile access.
Digital media has been diffused among working-class communities “in the seething context of increasing social unrest”, and successive types of network used to evade and subvert repeated attempts at state censorship (p. 147).
Since 2014 Chinese workers have repeatedly deployed digital media on their picket lines; “these digital tools have been added to the toolkit of working-class struggles against iSlavery”; no economic sector has been left untouched by this use of digital media for “collective empowerment”.
Another significant initiative came from students and teachers at 20 universities in mainland China, Taiwan and Hong Kong, who set up a joint investigative team to collect and publish information on labour conditions at Foxconn and other companies. Between 2010 and 2015 they issued four major reports on Foxconn. (See the Students and Scholars Against Corporate Misbehaviour web site. Here are reports on Foxconn and other companies.)
Qiu himself participated in the 20-university team, and devotes a chapter of Goodbye iSlave to details of working conditions at Foxconn, and reflects on that experience. Qiu describes the impunity with which the company hires and fires; the illegal and inhuman methods it uses to prevent workers who want to leave of their own accord from doing so; and the bullying and violence used by management and security hierarchies.
Workers and slaves
The title of Goodbye iSlave is not just a slogan. Qiu argues that workers at Foxconn and other big Chinese manufacturers are slaves in both historical and legal senses. He starts with some telling analogies – of young women migrant workers of today, with women slaves in the past; and of the nets that 18th-century slave traders used to prevent captive Africans from jumping off their ships to their deaths in the Atlantic, with the “safety nets” installed by Foxconn after the suicides of 2010.
A central slave-like quality in the labour relations at Foxconn was, until 2010, the systematic social isolation of migrant workers. They were billeted in dormitories separate from friends and from those who travelled from the same rural communities.
Anti-suicide nets at Foxconn (above) and on an 18th-century slave ship (top). Pictures from Goodbye iSlave communities.“Separation and isolation are among the most quintessential experiences of being a dehumanised slave”, Qiu argues (p. 71). “This was true for African slaves centuries ago as much as it was for Chinese workers who had to live under the dormitory labour regime of Foxconn. Although there are notable differences in the degree and methods of coercion, the origin of such atomisation was the same: essentially, these are efforts to structure a worker’s life – not just work, but life in the holistic sense, 24/7, throughout the year – for the goal of profit maximisation.”
I was convinced about the all-encompassing and dehumanising character of labour practices, but not so much by the analogy with African slaves, who were the property of their masters. Many types of “free” labour under capitalism have, through history, included aspects of slave-like comprehensive coercion and dehumanisation of the sort that Qiu mentions. There is a continuum between slavery and “free” labour; there are grey areas; there is no neat divide.
In fact Qiu quotes (p. 39) the Marxist writers Karl Heinz Roth and Marcel van der Linden, who argued that “the historical reality of capitalism has featured many hybrid and transitional forms between slavery and ‘free’ wage-labour. Moreover, slaves and wage-workers have repeatedly performed the same work in the same business enterprise.” That way of looking at it works well for me.
Qiu acknowledges the differences between types of labour (which made me still more doubtful about the usefulness of categorising Chinese electronics workers as slaves). Twenty-first century capitalism, in contrast to 18th century European capitalism, no longer relies on “brute force, intimidation and coercive measures of the law”, he writes (p. 35). Rather it uses a “hegemonic cultural regime” to stimulate market growth.
“There has to be a newfangled regime of (servile) consumption to match the marvellous regime of miraculous (slave) productivity. The goal of this new hegemonic system is to generate a new culture, even a new religion of consumerism, an indispensable pillar of capitalist world-economy.”
Yes. The creation of consumers’ “want” (or “need”) for smartphones is the other side of the coin of the coercion and exploitation used to produce the smartphones.
What we might learn
There is much for militants in Europe and north America to learn here. In terms of sheer scale, these events in the cradle of modern manufacturing dwarf many of the movements that we have participated in. These movements face a combination of a treadmill of capitalist production in the “workshop of the world” and ruthless Stalinist dictatorship. Many of them are first- or second-generation migrants from the countryside, in contrast to European workers, most of whom have lived for several generations in an urban world of wage labour exploitation.
In part due to language problems, accurate information about social and labour movements in China is hard to get. Jack Linchuan Qiu’s book makes a massive contribution to bridging that gap. GL, 23 October 2017.
■ Jack Linchuan Qiu’s university web page
■ A video of Jack Linchuan Qiu addressing a meeting last month in London, organised by Breaking the Frame. (I went to the meeting and bought a copy of Goodbye iSlave there. I am glad to say that all the royalties go to a campaign against exploitative labour conditions in the Democratic Republic of Congo, where coltan used in smartphones is mined, for export to China for use in factories such as Foxconn.)
■ More about technology on People & Nature: Interrogating digital capitalism … The Lucas plan and the politics of technology … I have seen the techno-future and I am not so sure it works.
Jack Linchuan 2016. Goodbye iSlave : A Manifesto For Digital Abolition Publisher: University of Illinois Press. ISBN-13: 978-0252040627
Gabriel Levy blogs @ People And Nature.
November 15, 2017
Gender Segregation Is Humiliating And Damaging
Maryam Namazie slams Gender Segregation. This piece was first published in The Freethinker.
Add caption
Segregation was humiliating. Just the reality of signs that said you couldn’t use front doors or you couldn’t use this water fountain implied that you were subhuman … Every time I complied with a sign, I felt like I was acquiescing to my own inhumanity. I felt outraged and hated it. - Diane Nash, a leader of the 1960s US Civil Rights Movement
When the Hezbollah came to segregate the girls from the boys at my school in Iran in 1980 after an Islamic regime took power, I remember wondering what was so wrong with me that I had to be separated from my male friends.
I was only 12 at the time.
I soon learnt that segregation was a “necessity” because girls over the age of nine (considered the age of maturity) are “sources of fitnah“, “temptations that incite men’s lust” eventually leading to adultery (Zina). And that gender segregation “protects” society from “moral decay” and “sex anarchy”.
Better to be segregated, I was told, than to have to be stoned to death for adultery.
I was elated, therefore, when a Court of Appeal found that gender segregation – including in the classroom, corridors, school clubs, play areas and school trips – at Al-Hijrah school in Birmingham was discriminatory.
Given the rise of gender segregation at schools and universities in this country (including at the Rabia School in Luton, Madani school in Leicester, the LSE, Queen Mary University of London as well as Orthodox Jewish schools), the land-mark decision should have far-reaching effects in favour of the rights of minority women and girls in particular. The decision is also a victory against the religious-Right which uses religion in the educational system to police and control women and girls.
The basis for gender segregation (as well as veiling, banning women’s singing, prohibiting hand-shaking with women, male guardianship and so on) is that a woman’s and girl’s place is in the home, that she is lesser than a man or boy and that mixing with her will lead to “corruption”.
In Bas les Voiles , Chahdortt Djavan argues that the psychological damage done to girls from a very young age by making them responsible for men’s arousal is immense and builds fear and feelings of disgust at the female body.
Sayyid Maududi, the founder of Jama’at-i Islami (the Salafis of South Asia that are running some of the mosques, schools and Sharia courts here in Britain) explains why segregation is important in his book Purdah and the Status of Women in Islam :
Sharia courts here in Britain reinforce this point of view. For example Haitham al-Haddad, who was until recently a Sharia judge at the Leyton Sharia council and who testified at the Home Affairs Committee Sharia Councils inquiry (which was by the way quietly closed without any resolution), says on gender segregation:
Those who defend gender segregation as being “separate but equal” ignore the reality that women and men are not equal in any sense of the word. In fact, “one is confined while the other is at large.”
Cultural relativists who would never defend inequality between non-minority women and men or segregation based on race excuse gender segregation because they say it is “voluntary” and a “choice”. Aside from the fact that Islamists use rights language to curtail rights, of course women and girls can sit where they choose. “What is discriminatory”, however, says Algerian sociologist Marieme Helie Lucas “is to assign a place to somebody, whatever that place may be. It says: keep to your place; to women’s place!”
In her witness statement to the Court of Appeal, Pragna Patel, Director of Southall Black Sisters stated:
In a piece entitled “Education and the Muslim Girl”, Saeeda Khanum quotes an interview with Liaqat Hussein from the Council for Mosques, which shows the real aims of gender segregation:
For now though, we should celebrate this important decision. As Pragna Patel of Southall Black Sisters stated:
Add captionSegregation was humiliating. Just the reality of signs that said you couldn’t use front doors or you couldn’t use this water fountain implied that you were subhuman … Every time I complied with a sign, I felt like I was acquiescing to my own inhumanity. I felt outraged and hated it. - Diane Nash, a leader of the 1960s US Civil Rights Movement
When the Hezbollah came to segregate the girls from the boys at my school in Iran in 1980 after an Islamic regime took power, I remember wondering what was so wrong with me that I had to be separated from my male friends.
I was only 12 at the time.
I soon learnt that segregation was a “necessity” because girls over the age of nine (considered the age of maturity) are “sources of fitnah“, “temptations that incite men’s lust” eventually leading to adultery (Zina). And that gender segregation “protects” society from “moral decay” and “sex anarchy”.
Better to be segregated, I was told, than to have to be stoned to death for adultery.
I was elated, therefore, when a Court of Appeal found that gender segregation – including in the classroom, corridors, school clubs, play areas and school trips – at Al-Hijrah school in Birmingham was discriminatory.
Given the rise of gender segregation at schools and universities in this country (including at the Rabia School in Luton, Madani school in Leicester, the LSE, Queen Mary University of London as well as Orthodox Jewish schools), the land-mark decision should have far-reaching effects in favour of the rights of minority women and girls in particular. The decision is also a victory against the religious-Right which uses religion in the educational system to police and control women and girls.
The basis for gender segregation (as well as veiling, banning women’s singing, prohibiting hand-shaking with women, male guardianship and so on) is that a woman’s and girl’s place is in the home, that she is lesser than a man or boy and that mixing with her will lead to “corruption”.
In Bas les Voiles , Chahdortt Djavan argues that the psychological damage done to girls from a very young age by making them responsible for men’s arousal is immense and builds fear and feelings of disgust at the female body.
Sayyid Maududi, the founder of Jama’at-i Islami (the Salafis of South Asia that are running some of the mosques, schools and Sharia courts here in Britain) explains why segregation is important in his book Purdah and the Status of Women in Islam :
In the eyes of law, adultery implies physical union only, but from the moral point of view every evil inclination towards a member of the Opposite sex outside marriage amounts to adultery. Thus, enjoying the beauty of the other woman with the eyes, relishing the sweetness of her voice with the ears, drawing pleasure of the tongue by conversing with her, and turning of the feet over and over again to visit her street, all are the preliminaries of adultery, nay, adultery itself.
Sharia courts here in Britain reinforce this point of view. For example Haitham al-Haddad, who was until recently a Sharia judge at the Leyton Sharia council and who testified at the Home Affairs Committee Sharia Councils inquiry (which was by the way quietly closed without any resolution), says on gender segregation:
What really amazes me, however, is the denial many people suffer when it comes to gender interactions in the 21st century. Even more astonishing is the blind eye that countless Muslims turn towards the masses of cases in Islamic law and jurisprudence in regulating the relationship between men and women, in particular minimising ikhtil?t (intermingling) between sexes. The Prophet (sallAll?hu ‘alayhi wasallam) said, ‘I am not leaving behind a more harmful trial for men than women’.
Those who defend gender segregation as being “separate but equal” ignore the reality that women and men are not equal in any sense of the word. In fact, “one is confined while the other is at large.”
Cultural relativists who would never defend inequality between non-minority women and men or segregation based on race excuse gender segregation because they say it is “voluntary” and a “choice”. Aside from the fact that Islamists use rights language to curtail rights, of course women and girls can sit where they choose. “What is discriminatory”, however, says Algerian sociologist Marieme Helie Lucas “is to assign a place to somebody, whatever that place may be. It says: keep to your place; to women’s place!”
In her witness statement to the Court of Appeal, Pragna Patel, Director of Southall Black Sisters stated:
The impact of segregation is detrimental to girls since its aim of gender segregation is not to promote gender equity but to reinforce the different spaces – private and public – that men and women must occupy, and their respective stereotyped roles which accord them differential and unequal status.
In a piece entitled “Education and the Muslim Girl”, Saeeda Khanum quotes an interview with Liaqat Hussein from the Council for Mosques, which shows the real aims of gender segregation:
The struggle, he said, is between Islam and godlessness, which in the schools takes the form of coeducation, Darwinian theory, female emancipation and Muslim girls running away with non-Muslim boys. There’s no such thing as freedom in religion. You have to tame yourself to a discipline. We want our children to be good Muslims, whereas this society wants children to be independent in their thinking.
For now though, we should celebrate this important decision. As Pragna Patel of Southall Black Sisters stated:
We very much welcome the judgment and its recognition that gender segregation can be unlawful and discriminatory, especially in contexts where the practice is tied to the rise of religious fundamentalist and conservative norms. For over three decades, we have seen how regressive religious forces have targeted schools and universities as a means by which to control and police female sexuality in minority communities. The imposition of gender segregation, dress codes and sharia laws are just some means by which gender inequality is legitimised and promoted despite the serious and harmful consequences. This judgment is a vital step forward in our effort to persuade the courts and state bodies to take account of the reality of the misogyny and gender stereotyping that is promoted in our schools and universities in the name of religious and cultural freedom. We are delighted that the court has seen through this and upheld the equality principle.
The Myanmar Deception
Sean Bresnahan, Chairman of the Thomas Ashe Society in Omagh and a regular contributor to The Pensive Quill, places the emerging narrative on Myanmar in its wider strategic context. He writes here in a personal capacity.Aung San Suu Kyi.
With the mainstream media ramping up its coverage of the goings on in Myanmar, using craven slaves as Bob Geldof to serve its deceptive agenda, as anti-imperialists and socialists we must not be misled and must wonder on the real objective. As always in this regard, we must view what is happening in its concrete ideological setting.
Mineral-rich Myanmar is a key strategic prize for whoever can assert dominance there. That is the backdrop as to why the Rohingya issue is gaining prominence in the Western media. Like Kosovo in the '90s and Syria today, 'the Rohingya' are a means to an end for the powers-that-be – an end without relation to genuine humanitarian concerns and born instead of imperialism.
The Suu Kyi Government's embrace of the 'New Silk Road' is the true reason Geldof and his ilk have been spurred into action. It is for this reason our news feeds are awash with all things Myanmar. Their feigned concern has zero to do with the Rohingya Muslims and everything to do with China. Jihadi terrorism, as in both Libya and Syria, is being fomented for this same purpose. Myanmar will not be let 'fall' to Beijing without resistance or consequence. 'Baalkanisation' is on the cards should it prove necessary.
Missing from the picture presented us here is what is really happening in Rakhine State – what the mainstream media prefers we never see. Missing here is that, as carried through elsewhere in recent times – from Iraq through Libya and then on through Syria – Al Qaeda-type terrorists are being employed as 'freedom fighters' to bend the regime to the demands of the West.
As in the Middle East before it, the propaganda arm of imperialism – Amnesty, Human Rights Watch and others of their ilk (supposedly independent non-governmental agencies but in reality components of the imperialist matrix) – in turn promote a one-sided narrative without regard for objectivity. This serves to set in place a pretext for whatever has been planned for the Bay of Bengal and its environs.
The genius of this strategy is twofold. On the one hand it fosters instability, 'bleeding' and draining the resources of the subject and serving thus as a shot across the bows – 'turn back before its too late' – while on the other it paves the way for direct 'humanitarian' intervention when the subject by necessity responds to the promptings, this to proceed in the event that 'warnings' issued go unheeded.
Like Syria's Assad, who also was thought primed and in their pocket, Suu Kyi's government is being targeted in this manner because it refuses to hand Myanmar to the West on a plate, as had been planned and understood. Instead it has moved closer to China and its 'One Belt One Road' initiative, this in defiance of the 'Pivot to Asia' and at the expense of Western imperialism. That is the lens through which Geldof's intervention, with the wider media focus, should be seen.
The media action in which Geldof partakes is a ratchet that serves to heighten the narrative around Myanmar. Suu Kyi and Myanmar are cast as genocidal maniacs – transgressors of human rights in the mold of Milosevic and Assad. The likely intent here is that 'R2P' be employed should they fail to 'correct their actions' (doublespeak for failing to advance the interests of the West). This narrative serves as the pretext should more direct intervention be required, as we have seen before elsewhere.
In Myanmar – a former British colony it's worth noting – there are Saudi connections to armed jihadi factions like the Rohingya Liberation Organisation. The role of Saudi Arabia in the application of terror as a tool of imperialism has by now, of course, been well established. Saudi Arabia is likewise to be noted as a former British possession and remains a vassal of the British Empire, which rules now from behind through finance imperialism.
It is no coincidence that Geldof – who incidentally has no issue with the British-backed Saudi war on Yemen – is a member of that same empire, of which he is a supposed 'Knight'. The funding of the terrorist factions in Myanmar by arch-Zionist George Soros points also to an Israeli hand, with Israel of course being yet another creature of the British Crown.
In regard to all of this, Bob Geldof and his bogus concern is a willing tool of the agenda in motion. Like those he serves, he is no humanitarian. Nor though, as some might mistakenly interpret from his ego, is this merely a case of his being full of his own attention-seeking importance. In the entirety of the picture, he is an active cog in the process of deception. Not for nothing has it been said that 'by way of deception thou shalt do war'.
The true purpose of media today is to 'train' our minds to know and care only about issues that suit the requirements of vested power and its interests. Yesterday it was Assad killing his own; now it’s Aung San Suu Kyi. The common denominator in the narrative around both is the interests of Western imperialism, of which Geldof is an agent.
Suu Kyi, like Assad before her, is in the crosshairs because she refuses to hand Myanmar over. In Syria, the issue in large part related to a need to open its economy – an economy consisting of 22 million prospective consumers – to Western business interests. With the Middle East already on fire the same is going on now in Myanmar, with the same methods being used to discredit the regime and to thus advance a wider strategic ambition relating to the 'Asia Pivot'.
Strip it all back and Suu Kyi's real crime is of no relation to her treatment of the Rohingya, regardless of the particulars of their experience under her government or the complex history of the situation in Rakhine. Her crime is simply to have not handed her country to the West as planned – to have sought out instead a rapprochement with China and the emerging 'New Silk Road'.
As others have found out to their personal misfortune, among them Libya's Qaddafi, the consequences for her well-being could be grave beyond imagine. Furthermore, Suu Kyi's fall from grace with former sponsors might well prove a harbinger for the ultimate destruction of her country, by the very same forces who not long ago were championing her as a paragon of virtue – until, that is, she began to read from the wrong script.,
With the mainstream media ramping up its coverage of the goings on in Myanmar, using craven slaves as Bob Geldof to serve its deceptive agenda, as anti-imperialists and socialists we must not be misled and must wonder on the real objective. As always in this regard, we must view what is happening in its concrete ideological setting.
Mineral-rich Myanmar is a key strategic prize for whoever can assert dominance there. That is the backdrop as to why the Rohingya issue is gaining prominence in the Western media. Like Kosovo in the '90s and Syria today, 'the Rohingya' are a means to an end for the powers-that-be – an end without relation to genuine humanitarian concerns and born instead of imperialism.
The Suu Kyi Government's embrace of the 'New Silk Road' is the true reason Geldof and his ilk have been spurred into action. It is for this reason our news feeds are awash with all things Myanmar. Their feigned concern has zero to do with the Rohingya Muslims and everything to do with China. Jihadi terrorism, as in both Libya and Syria, is being fomented for this same purpose. Myanmar will not be let 'fall' to Beijing without resistance or consequence. 'Baalkanisation' is on the cards should it prove necessary.
Missing from the picture presented us here is what is really happening in Rakhine State – what the mainstream media prefers we never see. Missing here is that, as carried through elsewhere in recent times – from Iraq through Libya and then on through Syria – Al Qaeda-type terrorists are being employed as 'freedom fighters' to bend the regime to the demands of the West.
As in the Middle East before it, the propaganda arm of imperialism – Amnesty, Human Rights Watch and others of their ilk (supposedly independent non-governmental agencies but in reality components of the imperialist matrix) – in turn promote a one-sided narrative without regard for objectivity. This serves to set in place a pretext for whatever has been planned for the Bay of Bengal and its environs.
The genius of this strategy is twofold. On the one hand it fosters instability, 'bleeding' and draining the resources of the subject and serving thus as a shot across the bows – 'turn back before its too late' – while on the other it paves the way for direct 'humanitarian' intervention when the subject by necessity responds to the promptings, this to proceed in the event that 'warnings' issued go unheeded.
Like Syria's Assad, who also was thought primed and in their pocket, Suu Kyi's government is being targeted in this manner because it refuses to hand Myanmar to the West on a plate, as had been planned and understood. Instead it has moved closer to China and its 'One Belt One Road' initiative, this in defiance of the 'Pivot to Asia' and at the expense of Western imperialism. That is the lens through which Geldof's intervention, with the wider media focus, should be seen.
The media action in which Geldof partakes is a ratchet that serves to heighten the narrative around Myanmar. Suu Kyi and Myanmar are cast as genocidal maniacs – transgressors of human rights in the mold of Milosevic and Assad. The likely intent here is that 'R2P' be employed should they fail to 'correct their actions' (doublespeak for failing to advance the interests of the West). This narrative serves as the pretext should more direct intervention be required, as we have seen before elsewhere.
In Myanmar – a former British colony it's worth noting – there are Saudi connections to armed jihadi factions like the Rohingya Liberation Organisation. The role of Saudi Arabia in the application of terror as a tool of imperialism has by now, of course, been well established. Saudi Arabia is likewise to be noted as a former British possession and remains a vassal of the British Empire, which rules now from behind through finance imperialism.
It is no coincidence that Geldof – who incidentally has no issue with the British-backed Saudi war on Yemen – is a member of that same empire, of which he is a supposed 'Knight'. The funding of the terrorist factions in Myanmar by arch-Zionist George Soros points also to an Israeli hand, with Israel of course being yet another creature of the British Crown.
In regard to all of this, Bob Geldof and his bogus concern is a willing tool of the agenda in motion. Like those he serves, he is no humanitarian. Nor though, as some might mistakenly interpret from his ego, is this merely a case of his being full of his own attention-seeking importance. In the entirety of the picture, he is an active cog in the process of deception. Not for nothing has it been said that 'by way of deception thou shalt do war'.
The true purpose of media today is to 'train' our minds to know and care only about issues that suit the requirements of vested power and its interests. Yesterday it was Assad killing his own; now it’s Aung San Suu Kyi. The common denominator in the narrative around both is the interests of Western imperialism, of which Geldof is an agent.
Suu Kyi, like Assad before her, is in the crosshairs because she refuses to hand Myanmar over. In Syria, the issue in large part related to a need to open its economy – an economy consisting of 22 million prospective consumers – to Western business interests. With the Middle East already on fire the same is going on now in Myanmar, with the same methods being used to discredit the regime and to thus advance a wider strategic ambition relating to the 'Asia Pivot'.
Strip it all back and Suu Kyi's real crime is of no relation to her treatment of the Rohingya, regardless of the particulars of their experience under her government or the complex history of the situation in Rakhine. Her crime is simply to have not handed her country to the West as planned – to have sought out instead a rapprochement with China and the emerging 'New Silk Road'.
As others have found out to their personal misfortune, among them Libya's Qaddafi, the consequences for her well-being could be grave beyond imagine. Furthermore, Suu Kyi's fall from grace with former sponsors might well prove a harbinger for the ultimate destruction of her country, by the very same forces who not long ago were championing her as a paragon of virtue – until, that is, she began to read from the wrong script.,
November 14, 2017
Gunpowder
Mick Hall argues that there is a clear line from the violence portrayed in the BBC's new serial Gunpowder and actions of the British state today.
A scene in which a Catholic woman is crushed to death.There has been a brouhaha brewing about the violence in the BBC's new drama Gunpowder. It's critics claim it's unnecessarily portraying the graphic violence of the English state during the reign of James 1st. Written by Ronan Bennett, a man who has himself experienced the injustice and cruelty of the British State, although thankfully not as it's portrayed in Gunpowder.
One critic said:
In my view the drama was all the better for that, as the woman actor portrayed the woman in her nakedness as haughty, proud and contemptuous of her tormentors. She knew what awaited her but in her mind her tormentors could do their worst as she was already in the safety of her god in heaven. And I for one found it very moving as it showed the power of religion in some peoples lives.
Powerful stuff for sure but titillating and unnecessary violence no. Ronan is highlighting what makes ordinary, mainly young men and women into what are called today by the state, terrorists, and his drama does it in spades.
Going back centuries the British state has used gratuitous violence on it's own citizens/subjects and the peoples it has conquered by the sword and it still does today.
Legality rarely comes into it, and when it does a pliable and class ridden judiciary write tailor made laws to justify it.
Only this week Rory Stewart, a favorite of the liberal media glitterati and international development minister in the Tory government said:
Even James 1 gave the captured gunpowder plotters a trial of sorts. And at the end of WW2 the worst of the Nazi leadership were put on trial at Nuremberg, but according to Stewart we have no need of such niceties today: we should just murder the Brits who joined Isis.
Never mind since 2003 the British government has time and again said it's engaged in a 'war' on terror, thus the defeated and captured Isis combatants should be either treated as prisoners of war or brought before a court of law for war crimes.
After all if Gunpowder tells us one thing it was not that long ago when those who headed the English state used an extremely hateful doctrine to create a state in their own image, which involved using violence, brutality and killing their own people because of their religion.
A tiny minority of British Muslims joined Isis because they believed their co-religionists were being treated appallingly by the West's coalition forces in places like Iraq. They may have been foolhardy, stupid or maybe some even wicked, but they were not wrong about the UK government's role in the middle east. It has proven disastrous for the people of that region.
Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo, rendition, when with the British government's covert approval, one or more of the CIA's secret prisons across the globe were used to torture prisoners, often in the most obscene way.
All three became prime recruiting sergeants for Isis and other Islamic extremist groups.
It's as if the British governments never learn from their mistakes, from Kenya to Malaya, Ireland to north America, India to Burma, Iraq to Afghanistan, etcetera. Whenever the British state uses violence, brutality and killings, in the end they always make a bad situation worse.
Mick Hall blogs @ Organized Rage.
A scene in which a Catholic woman is crushed to death.There has been a brouhaha brewing about the violence in the BBC's new drama Gunpowder. It's critics claim it's unnecessarily portraying the graphic violence of the English state during the reign of James 1st. Written by Ronan Bennett, a man who has himself experienced the injustice and cruelty of the British State, although thankfully not as it's portrayed in Gunpowder.One critic said:
I had a really strong reaction to seeing a middle aged woman stripped and tortured. And some longer shots of her nudity than were needed.
In my view the drama was all the better for that, as the woman actor portrayed the woman in her nakedness as haughty, proud and contemptuous of her tormentors. She knew what awaited her but in her mind her tormentors could do their worst as she was already in the safety of her god in heaven. And I for one found it very moving as it showed the power of religion in some peoples lives.
Powerful stuff for sure but titillating and unnecessary violence no. Ronan is highlighting what makes ordinary, mainly young men and women into what are called today by the state, terrorists, and his drama does it in spades.
Going back centuries the British state has used gratuitous violence on it's own citizens/subjects and the peoples it has conquered by the sword and it still does today.
Legality rarely comes into it, and when it does a pliable and class ridden judiciary write tailor made laws to justify it.
Only this week Rory Stewart, a favorite of the liberal media glitterati and international development minister in the Tory government said:
The only way of dealing with most of the British Islamic State fighters in Syria is to kill them. They were absolutely dedicated, as members of the Islamic State, towards the creation of a caliphate. They believe in an extremely hateful doctrine which involves killing themselves, killing others and trying to use violence and brutality to create an eighth-century or seventh-century state. So I’m afraid we have to be serious about the fact these people are a serious danger to us, and unfortunately the only way of dealing with them will be, in almost every case, to kill them.
Even James 1 gave the captured gunpowder plotters a trial of sorts. And at the end of WW2 the worst of the Nazi leadership were put on trial at Nuremberg, but according to Stewart we have no need of such niceties today: we should just murder the Brits who joined Isis.
Never mind since 2003 the British government has time and again said it's engaged in a 'war' on terror, thus the defeated and captured Isis combatants should be either treated as prisoners of war or brought before a court of law for war crimes.
After all if Gunpowder tells us one thing it was not that long ago when those who headed the English state used an extremely hateful doctrine to create a state in their own image, which involved using violence, brutality and killing their own people because of their religion.
A tiny minority of British Muslims joined Isis because they believed their co-religionists were being treated appallingly by the West's coalition forces in places like Iraq. They may have been foolhardy, stupid or maybe some even wicked, but they were not wrong about the UK government's role in the middle east. It has proven disastrous for the people of that region.
Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo, rendition, when with the British government's covert approval, one or more of the CIA's secret prisons across the globe were used to torture prisoners, often in the most obscene way.
All three became prime recruiting sergeants for Isis and other Islamic extremist groups.
It's as if the British governments never learn from their mistakes, from Kenya to Malaya, Ireland to north America, India to Burma, Iraq to Afghanistan, etcetera. Whenever the British state uses violence, brutality and killings, in the end they always make a bad situation worse.
Mick Hall blogs @ Organized Rage.
Newsweek Middle East Long Read: “Peter Kassig The Untold Story”
The following piece by Stanley Cohen appeared recently in Newsweek Middle East (Arabic), and is reproduced from
Mideastwire Blog.
Thee of a “radical” defense attorney in the United States is a seamless journey of never ending, tense, often complex battles with implications that extend well beyond a given case or the courthouse doors. At times, some of these struggles necessarily make for strange bedfellows.
The life and death of Peter Kassig is one such journey.
To activist attorneys, in particular, people’s liberty… on occasion their very lives… comes at us in waves of political uncertainty sculpted by events and decisions over which we have little control.
I had just finished almost two years of non-stop work on behalf of Suliman Abu Ghayth, Usama Bin Laden’s son-in law. Having been released from prison in Iran, Abu Ghayth was kidnapped by the US from Jordan after tasting short-lived freedom for the first time in eleven years. Shackled, ear muffed and hooded, he was immediately renditioned to NYC to stand trial, more than a decade later, not far from the footprint of 9-11.
Seated, surrounded by a pile of files, in my time worn leather chair and dozing off as I prepped for my next trial… a case of an 87 year old who, having consumed a few beers too many, had run over and killed a jogger on a deserted mountain road… I was suddenly jarred awake by my phone.
“Hello, is this Mr. Cohen? My name is Mohammad. We’ve never met, but I’m a fan of yours. I’m Palestinian, and a friend of an American, Peter Kassig, who has been taken by ISIS… to cut his head off. Can you help? He is a very good man… and you know many important people here.”
Though exhausted, and busy, I’ve never been able to say no, at least without listening to the troubles of one who’s reached out to me. So, Mohammad and I chatted for about 20 minutes as he told me the Kassig story, an aid worker kidnapped by ISIS while helping those in need in Syria. Before we parted, I promised to look into it and asked him to call me back in a week.
Hanging up, I browsed an online story of Mr. Kassig who had converted to Islam and was now known as Abdul-Rahman. Set to begin a trial in a few days, and with a flight to catch, I made a mental note to follow-up with our discussion when I returned.
A week later, not long after my arrival back in NYC, my phone rang to the voice of an old friend, a photo journalist who had served in the military, many years before, during the Vietnam era. Irate over the lack of support for Kassig, a veteran himself, he asked whether I might be able to do anything to help.
With two calls from people and worlds and scant weeks apart, I asked an associate to research Abdul-Rahman’s background and circumstances.
“The first thing I want to say is thank you. Both to you and mom for everything you have both done for me as parents, for everything you have taught me, shown me, and experienced with me. I cannot imagine the strength and commitment it has taken to raise a son like me but your love and patience and things I am so deeply grateful for.
I am obviously pretty scared to die…
I wish this paper would go on forever and never run out and I could just keep talking to you. Just know I’m with you. Every stream, every lake, every field and river. In the woods and in the hills, in all the places you showed me. I love you.”
Kassig aka Abdul-Rahman’s words… part of a longer message smuggled out to his parents from his ISIS captors… moved me very much the way visits to Gaza or refugee camps or still smoldering ruins of civilian dwellings turned to steaming rubble have moved me for years. As tears welled up in my eyes, I knew I had to try.
“Salaam-Alaikum X. It’s Stanley. “kaif halak”? With these words, a desperate race against time to save the life of Peter Kassig began.
“X” is the code name I gave my friend who I met, along with a dozen or so other ex long-term Gitmo detainees, during my frequent trips to the Middle East and Gulf while preparing the defense of Abu Ghayth.
Although I had spent years in the courts and the streets representing various national liberation movements such as Hamas, up to this point I had scant hands–on experience with Al-Qaeda and none with ISIS. With the defense of Abu Ghayth, that was to change.
Over the course of a year, I met with these men fairly often. All had been tortured by the US, and its allies, beginning in Kandahar and Bagram… eventually ending up in Gitmo. All but one had been captured and sold by Pakistanis to US forces… usually for a bounty of five-thousand dollars each.
They were the lucky ones. Thousands of other Arabs were simply executed by the US or Northern Alliance in Afghanistan.
All of these men knew Abu Ghayth, not as a member of Al-Qaeda but from his days in the Gulf as an Imam and school principle or during the short period of time he was in Kandahar in the days leading up to 9-11.
X and I hit it off almost immediately… me with my broken Arabic and him with his Gitmo assimilated English filled with slang. Of all the men I got to know, he alone had been “involved” with Al-Qaeda. The rest were teachers, tourists or laborers… in the wrong place at the wrong time.
One man, in particular, speaks volumes of how so many Arabs ended up in Gitmo uncharged and untried. Anas (not his real name) spent years imprisoned there solely because of his Rolex watch. Yes, a watch.
According to declassified Department of Defense reports, when seized, he became a presumptive subject of “interest” because of a Rolex watch on his wrist… “The preferred IED timer of choice for Al-Qaeda.” Years before, he had received the watch to commemorate his membership in an Olympic sports team. Ultimately, this gift came to steal 7 years of freedom from Anas and his family.
His crime? He was in Afghanistan helping to set up a youth sports league at the time of 9-11.
Not long before my call to X, I heard from a mutual friend that he and some Islamic scholars had quietly played the lead in the successful negotiated release of 45 UN peacekeepers held hostage, by Al-Nusra Front (Al-Qaeda’s arm in the Levant), for two weeks in Syria. If anything could be done to save Peter, this I thought was the way to go.
With help from a translator, X and I briefly revisited old friends and places. Soon, the discussion turned to Peter Kassig with me asking if there was anything that could be done to save him. When he asked why, I simply recounted the letter to his parents and the two phone calls I had received. For me, that was enough. Mere coincidence had suddenly become reality. He understood and said he would get back to me later on.
Early the next day, X called and said reliable contacts had spoken to ISIS directly. He continued on telling me that Abdul Rahman was still alive and that he thought we might be able to win his release.
With the usual signpost of caution I had come to expect from him, X asked how soon I could come to the region for further discussions… noting that my presence there would be viewed by ISIS as a sign of our seriousness. I agreed, but did so only with a guarantee that Abdul Rahman would remain alive while I traveled and during discussions among the parties. Not long thereafter, X called again indicating ISIS had agreed.
Hanging up, I remained frozen, in time and place, for what seemed like an eternity. Though, on occasion, I’d been involved in very sensitive unfolding matters in the Middle East, this was different.
Having no experience with ISIS, and but a relatively short-term connection with X and his contacts, the usual advice and protection that comes from long-term relationships with clients and friends in the Middle East was markedly absent. Here, I was essentially on my own.
In Gaza, years before, I moved quickly to save the life of a US intelligence “asset” who had been unmasked in the early stages of a blackmail scheme directed, by him, at a prominent political leader in the coastal enclave long before the Israeli siege began. It took a series of flights and discussions to have him evicted from the territory… rather than fed to the sea.
Did I intervene because he was an agent, or an American? Of course not. That wasn’t the issue at all. No, politically, his killing would have been bad “business” for Gaza.
Some four years on from this Gaza intervention, I became involved in the negotiated surrender of the beheading tape of Wall Street reporter Daniel Pearle… by Khalid Sheikh Mohammad… when a client of mine, a local Pakistani journalist, received the tape from Al-Qaeda.
Though asked to provide it to US officials, he didn’t know how to proceed, let alone without casting a feared shadow over him for its possession and his contact with Al-Qaeda. Once again, I was able to reach out to sources that I trusted to accomplish the best end without any damage to my client.
If the Kassig effort was to have any chance of success, personal experience had taught me that it could not be undertaken in a vacuum and without the knowledge, if not, at times, assistance from reliable sources within the United States Government.
For me, however, “reliable” and “sources” are not two words that typically merge… let alone resonate when it comes to the United States. I‘ve spent 30 plus years fighting the government in and out of courts and though I’ve developed a begrudging respect, if not trust, for some of my adversaries, as a whole, I’ve seen institutions and persons with very dark lives driven not by principle but by narrow, often, selfish and destructive purpose.
Despite trepidation, I reached out to a federal terrorism prosecutor with whom I had handled a number of cases over the years. Although our battles had often been intense, I found him to be a person of integrity… one who could be trusted. His response? “This is above my pay grade. I’ll have to get back to you.”
Later that day, I heard from him and was told there was a senior FBI supervisor from Washington, on hold, on a separate line with overall responsibility for hostage situations in the Middle East. Not knowing this person, I agreed to speak with him as long as the prosecutor remained on the line.
Over the next few days, calls went back and forth among the prosecutor, FBI supervisor, and me. Though X did not participate, as was my practice, he was well aware of them and their purpose… and the limits that I had set, including my refusal to identify him by name.
For me, these exchanges were an attempt to set up a protocol that could be used if, and when, the need arose for assistance from the government…and nothing else. Although uncertain as to just what that might come to mean, given the fact I was about to leave for the Middle East… for parts and persons unknown (including ISIS)… to do otherwise would have been reckless.
Although the FBI supervisor (to be called Bob) pushed for a procedure that would keep him informed of my efforts… including knowing the identity of who I was meeting with, when and where and the essence of our discussions… I refused. As I did, his suggestion that I maintain face to face contact with government “assets” wherever I might be… for my own “safety.” Talk about an oxymoron.
Boarding the airplane with a private translator, the only agreement that had been reached with Bob was that I was proceeding as a private citizen, could not make any representations on behalf of the government, and would stay in periodic contact with him just to assure that I was safe.
As I settled into my seat and prepared for takeoff, I laughed, to myself, over Bob’s push to know where and when I would be… as if the optics of my cell phone, itself, and a worldwide network of surveillance and informants would fail to leave him with a very well documented trail of my journey.
I’ve traveled abroad dozens of times over the course of my life and work. Unlike many who find departing the United States as a source of great stress, for me it’s always been a welcome respite from the drudgery and defeat that has long been companion to a society that generally views itself as exceptional but, deep down, knows it is lost.
De-boarding the plane, almost a dozen hours later, and anxious to meet X in a country that I visited often without incident, for the very first time, I was detained by security personnel who obviously were expecting me as I was led to their office upon arrival at the visa gate.
Oddly, no questions were asked of me. In what struck everyone there as very much an awkward moment of procedure without purpose, security scurried around until a supervisor arrived to welcome me and provide a visa.
In what was to become ritual throughout the arduous effort to save Abdul-Rahman, on each occasion, when I entered or left a country… whether in the Gulf or Middle East… I was detained by security personnel for varying periods of time. Subtle, Bob… subtle.
There are no places in the world with more hospitality and warmth than the Middle East and Gulf. With so much to do and so little time, on the drive to the hotel I hoped that, for once, this would prove to be the exception. I was wrong.
Two hours later, X arrived… predictably, with food and lots of it… and a half dozen or so friends, of his, to greet us. Though I knew none of the other men, each told me they had followed and respected my work in the region over the years and wanted a chance to say hi and thanks in person.
Over the next several hours, we exchanged lots of anecdotes and laughter with me periodically, nodding to X as I pointed to my own watch. He just smiled and shrugged his shoulders. One by one, the men eventually departed with the last one saying goodnight to us at around 2:00 in the morning… leaving the two of us free, at last, to chat.
“He’s all right”, said X… referring to Abdul Rahman (Kassig)… as we spoke until sunrise designing a plan of how to proceed. That was the good news. The bad news seemed to grow by the hour.
To begin, unlike negotiations which freed UN hostages, ISIS was a completely different beast from Nusra. It was, after-all, not concerned with being seen as receptive to “reason” but rather exploited public displays of senseless brutality as an organizing tool to draw fighters toward its own unique brand of explosive nihilism. Indeed, by this point, it was well into its grotesque bi-monthly beheadings of captive aid workers, journalists and travelers. Although on hold, Abdul Rahman was scheduled to be next.
Nor was ISIS open to “token” gestures, such as hostage releases, without getting something of significant value in return … whether large ransoms of cash and equipment or the release of their own “soldiers.” I came to the table with none of these.
Finally… the most daunting roadblock of all: ISIS leadership was angry with former members and leaders of Al-Qaeda who had frequently vilified it in public for its systematic brutality against civilians, women, and other Muslims. These were the very persons at the heart of our effort to free Abdul-Rahman.
With these hurdles in mind, I bid my friend goodnight to attempt obtaining some much needed relief from jet lag as the Gulf sun overtook the sky. I didn’t. I kept hearing Peter Kassig’s final words to his parents… over and over again.
That evening, X returned for more discussions that, again, lasted long into the early morning hours covering a wide range of potential obstacles.
One problem was strategic tension within the group in which X was working. Though fully committed to obtaining Kassig’s freedom, some members also wanted to initiate a long term protocol with ISIS to end its un-Islamic attacks on civilians. While I agreed with the goal, I opposed the conflation of the two issues as needlessly complicating and likely delaying the very narrow effort to obtain the release of Abdul-Rahman.
This debate was to continue right up to the first formal discussion with ISIS after my arrival… when the idea of the protocol was, at last, abandoned.
Likewise, others didn’t see Kassig being released by ISIS solely as a sign of good faith… even for a civilian aid worker who had converted to Islam before his capture. For them, the nagging question remained, of whether the US might be willing to release ISIS captives or, even, Abu Ghayth as part of a package deal.
When I immediately noted there was no possibility of any such exchange, with classic Gitmo banter X replied, “You can’t blame a guy for trying.” It proved to be one of the few moments of shared laughter that were to punctuate the intensity of our efforts over the coming days.
As our meeting ended, it was agreed X would continue speaking with ISIS, through intermediaries, while I traveled on to speak with others who were interested in meeting with me. Among those I saw over the next week were Gitmo veterans, former Al-Qaeda members, some religious scholars and other activists.
Except for one unexpected meeting, it seemed the discussions had less to do with the process of obtaining freedom for Abdul-Rahman than about some wanting a chance to draw their own conclusions about me and my intentions.
In the surprise meeting which occurred at a local mini-mall, and almost as an afterthought, two men asked lots of detailed probing questions of me. In particular, they were specifically interested in how I became involved with the effort to save Abdul-Rahman, the relationship of the US government to this effort, and what the US might be willing to do in exchange for his release. Only much later, did I learn that these men were members of ISIS.
Though Abdul-Rahman remained alive, on the return flight to the country where the journey had begun, I was not particularly hopeful… as all who I had met with, though supportive, were largely guarded in their beliefs about whether the effort could succeed. Much to my surprise, when X and I met at the airport he congratulated me for a successful journey… noting that, as a result of it, everyone had agreed to proceed with our plan.
More important, I learned that, after a day or so of rest, I was to travel on to Jordan to meet with a well-known religious scholar, Abu Muhammad al-Maqdisi, who would take the lead in continuing the discussions with ISIS.
Maqdisi, who I had heard of but not previously met, and who had not long before been released from a Jordanian prison, is a Jordanian-Palestinian scholar who is seen as a spiritual mentor of al-Qaida… and Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, in particular. Zarqawi went on to found ISIS, in Iraq, after a reported split with his mentor due, at least in part, to Zarqawi’s attacks on civilians.
Not one to miss a chance at intrigue, I was present during a lengthy discussion with a caller… with the echo of a fire-fight blasting out over the car’s speaker phone. I later learned that the caller was in Syria and confirming that Abdul-Rahman was still alive.
As the car pulled up next to a modest three story sandstone building with a stairway facing the street, my heart began to race with uncertainty. This racing grew stronger as I started the climb. The day before, I was present during a news conference, of sorts, at the home of Abu Qatada… a Salafi Jordanian cleric who had, several years before, been extradited from the UK to stand trial in Jordan on terrorism charges for which he was acquitted. Although al-Maqdisi was also present, we spoke only briefly as he welcomed me to Jordan and invited me to come see him the following day at his home.
Knocking on the door, it opened, slowly, to a young girl hiding partially behind it revealing just her glowing face and a mass of curly brown unkempt hair streaming down it. As she smiled, uncertain who we were, al-Maqdisi suddenly arrived to welcome us inside. A humble apartment, with the sound of lots of kids, we were led to a rear room and settled into the library.
We, in the West, are maneuvered by descriptions of dark insular Salafist scholars, locked in century old space, driven by the narrow vision born of rigid minds and experience. It sells.
Sitting in the book lined library of Abu Muhammad al-Maqdisi quickly put that sale to bed. Maqdisi is a smart man with a wide reach of world events… well beyond those driven solely by any theological construct or limited to the geographical confines of the world where he exercises such significant influence.
Well before our discussion turned to Abdul-Rahman, we spoke at length about a wide range of contemporary world events including the summer’s Israeli aggression on Gaza, increasing police violence in the United States, and tension in Ukraine and Crimea. Throughout our exchange, his daughter sat by her dad coyly stealing periodic glimpses of me as we enjoyed a never ending stream of coffee and, of course, the treasured sweets of Jordan.
Just as suddenly as our discussion began with Palestine, as so much a light switch, it abruptly turned to Abdul Rahman.
Not surprisingly, it was apparent there was no need for me to spend any time briefing him on whom Peter Kassig was or why I had hoped to obtain his release. He also was aware that while the US government knew of my efforts I was not there as its representative.
Describing ISIS as Islam’s worst nightmare, my host made it very clear that he would help in any way he could. He hoped the effort to free Abdul-Rahman would begin to move ISIS away from its brutal assaults upon civilians which he described as nothing short of an all-out assault on Islam, as well.
Al-Maqdisi went on to speak of some of the religious leadership of ISIS as former students of his that had strayed from his teachings. In particular he noted Turki al-Binali who was to become the mufti… or chief religious advisor of ISIS… and whom al-Maqdisi had authorized, years before, to teach his works. At one time, they were more like father and son than teacher and pupil.
He was optimistic that, if given a chance to speak with them, we could succeed… but noted that, under the terms of his recent release from prison, he was prohibited from meeting with, or speaking to, any members of ISIS.
As I left al-Maqdisi’s home, I asked him for the names of those in ISIS he felt he needed to speak with in order to further our efforts. Although he provided three names, today I can recall only that of Turki al-Binali.
“Hey, Bob. How are you?” With these few words, I reached out to the FBI contact that had, before I left the United States, agreed to help with my efforts. Though, as agreed, I had periodically kept in touch with him while traveling… just to let him know I was ok… this was the first time that I asked him for specific help:
“I’ve just met with al-Maqdisi (I had told Bob in advance) who has agreed to assist but cannot reach out to ISIS under the conditions of his release from prison.
These are the three men he wants to speak with but obviously cannot do so unless Jordanian security approves. In addition, I am setting four conditions of my own that must be agreed to, as well, for us to proceed: 1) al-Maqdisi’s discussions cannot, at any time, be used against him for any purpose whatsoever; 2) the calls, if approved, will be unmonitored and made on his own phone… at a time and place of his own choosing; 3) the substance of the calls will not have to be shared or vetted with anyone else… including intelligence officials either in Jordan or the US; and 4) there is no requirement that he provides copies of any exchanges with ISIS, including text and email messages, to anyone.”
Hanging up, Bob indicated that my requests were not “his call” but that they would be passed along to those with the authority within the Unites States and in Jordan for approval, if possible.
Over the next day or two, al-Maqdisi and I stayed in touch… as did X, who spent his time continuing to deal with ISIS who, by now, was well aware that I was in the region. Abdul-Rahman was still alive and, to the surprise of US officials, the bimonthly beheadings had stopped with the last occurring before I traveled abroad.
Awakened by an early morning call, it was Bob who tersely indicated, “it was a go”… with all the required terms and conditions agreed to. Before hanging up, I asked that he email the stream of our discussions, and the approval, for me to share with al-Maqdisi. He agreed.
A few minutes later, I received the email and observed that there was a redacted name and local address on the exchange which indicated that the approval on the Jordanian end had been conveyed to Bob through a local US based “asset.”
Later that morning, just after his required weekly report to Jordanian security… a condition of his release from prison… al-Maqdisi met with me, and my translator, at our hotel.
Even before I had a chance to share, with him, the email I had received, he told me that he had learned, earlier that morning, that the proposed plan to communicate with ISIS had been approved as outlined by me, with the added caveat that his discussions with the three persons could not involve anything other than the effort to obtain Kassig’s release. He agreed.
Anxious to proceed, al-Maqdisi wanted to immediately make his initial outreach to Turki al-Binali. In abundance of caution, and for added security, I suggested that it be delayed until we purchased a new cell phone, and obtained a new number, from which to place the call.
What unfolded that day, as we set off to buy the phone, quickly became truly a comedy of errors. Not far from the hotel, al-Maqdisi, a humble man, was forced to exit his ten year old car which had suddenly come to a halt and could not be restarted.
Opening the hood, there stood one of the world’s most influential Islamic scholars, about to talk with ISIS, standing in the middle of the narrow street pulling and cleaning wires from his car while the traffic jam of beeping vehicles grew behind us. Some five minutes later, we drove off… however, the scene was to repeat itself twice more… turning what should have been a 30 minute drive, to an old Suq, into a three hour odyssey.
Arriving at the phone store not long before it was to close, al-Maqdisi and I proceeded to “argue” over which phone to buy, with him leaning towards the cheapest possible one… that required an app to be purchased elsewhere… and me insisting on a high-tech one that came with the necessary app already built in. I lost. We bought the cheap phone but lost a day as the necessary app could not be installed in this particular model phone. The next morning, we set off, once again. This time, in a borrowed car, to a high tech phone shop where we got the right phone.
Not long thereafter, al-Maqdisi called his former pupil and left a message. As we sat in a coffee shop directly across the street from the ruins of an old Roman amphitheater, busy with the bustle of tourists posing for pictures, I suddenly began to travel without leaving our cramped table.
With al-Maqdisi and my translator speaking about favorite dishes and exchanging family anecdotes I was suddenly struck by the oddity, almost strangeness, of the moment. It was not the first time. It’s happened before, over my many years in the region, where, inexplicably, I found myself trying to reconstruct how I had come to be in this place and time. It was not a long journey… as, suddenly, I was jarred back to the discussion by a ring on al-Maqdisi’s phone. It was Turki al-Binali returning the call.
Faces speak volumes… often more so than words themselves. As I sat watching al-Maqdisi and his former student talk, it was obvious the exchange, though awkward at times, was nevertheless one built of warmth and a rich past.
I could have asked the translator what was being discussed but, instead, the two of us got up and went across the street to take a seat on the aged stone benches of the amphitheater, grab some sun, and reflect on history. Half an hour later, al-Maqdisi joined us with thanks for a chance to speak in private with his onetime apprentice.
Over the next few days, the two of them apparently spoke often… at times, voice to voice… at others, by text or email. On several occasions, I was present during an exchange and, after they ended, had a chance to review the email or text.
Though I never saw the name of Abdul Rahman metioned between them, more than once, Turki al-Binali noted he knew what al-Maqdisi wanted and, while not easy, would likely be achieved.
Understandably, most of their communications were directed at trying to rebuild personal bonds that had been broken through the passage of time and, according to al-Binali, because of al-Maqdisi’s public, and ceaseless, attacks on ISIS.
At one point, Turki al-Binali texted that it pained him beyond words to see his teacher, who he loved, attack him for what he had, in fact, learned from him. Al-Maqdisi simply replied that he had obviously missed the lesson and moved on.
Over the week, I came to see less and less of al-Maqdisi. Though we still spoke by phone, he seemed removed, distant, unable or willing to keep appointments… although he was still upbeat about his efforts. Of interest, his detachment seemed to parallel a series of calls that I received, from X, about the need for me to return to meet with him, and some others, for a face to face update on my efforts and theirs.
On my final day in Jordan, I met al-Maqdisi, late in the afternoon, just beyond the security barrier of the hotel. He was not the same up-beat man I had spent a lot of time with over the previous days… seemingly, now, edgy, nervous, and stripped of his smile and humor. As we spoke one final time, in person, he promised that late that night he was going to, in a call, bring up the issue of Abdul-Rahman’s release… and was hopeful the release would take place not long thereafter.
When I asked him to join me for one final dinner, he declined… noting that he had been ordered by security forces to come and see them. This was an odd request, he opined, given the fact that he had just seen them several days before.
I have good instincts that, on occasion, provide a pathway into events as yet to unfold. As it turned out, this was to be one such time. As I boarded the airplane, I had a strange feeling something was terribly wrong. It was the first time I had felt this way since the journey had begun.
Eight or nine hours later, I was startled by a pounding on my door. I opened it to find my translator, visibly upset, and rambling on about something he had seen on TV. He brought me to his room where a bulletin flashed across the top of the screen, in Arabic, that Abu Maqdisi had, once again, been arrested by Jordanian security officials for some non-descript terrorism charge.
Racing from the room, I immediately called Bob and, as he was unavailable, left a message. I next reached out to X who, himself, had only just learned what had happened. We agreed to meet at my hotel as soon as possible… a drive of some 30 minutes.
Not long thereafter, Bob returned my call… denying any knowledge about al-Maqdisi’s arrest or why. I believed him. He seemed every bit as shocked as me and said several times that all the news he was getting back from his sources, in Amman, was upbeat. He promised to follow-up on al-Maqdisi and get back to me as soon as possible.
As the sun set, X arrived desperate for answers about what had happened in Jordan, now the day before. Although I had spent a lot of time with him over the last several years, I had not before seen him to be in a state of panic. He was. Indeed, this is a man who had survived years of imprisonment and torture at the hands of the US, and its allies, with his determination and dignity intact… one not likely to panic because of unforeseen events.
Yet, this was different. X was at the center of an international effort to free an American aid worker essentially because I, another American, had asked him to do so and because it was the right thing to do. In that effort, he had enlisted the help of a group of friends and activists… including one of the world’s preeminent Islamic scholars who was, once again, back in custody, seemingly, because of our efforts… efforts that had been approved, I had thought, at the highest level of government in the United States and Jordan.
Over the next half hour or so, I revisited, with X, all that had occurred in Amman, with and without al-Maqdisi, and shared not just the content of his discussions with Turki al-Binali, but my email exchanges with Bob that had given us the necessary cover, I thought, upon which we had proceeded.
Though I told him of al-Maqdisi’s recent change in demeanor, I had no explanation for it… nor did he. Quickly, however, it became obvious that X already knew much of what I told him about events in Jordan… including al-Maqdis’s contacts with al-Binali and the fact that we seemed to be moving toward the release of Peter Kassig.
Though X expressed no doubt in my personal integrity, he pointed out what I had already realized… namely that some might view this entire effort as a ruse to bring about the re-arrest of Abu Maqdisi. Rejecting this out of hand, X noted that not all in the region knew me personally, nor my reputation, and might just jump to wild conclusions. He also noted that this very visit, by him, had been opposed by some of his own friends because of events in Jordan.
On that point, for one brief moment, the thought flashed through my mind that, all at once, the government had, perhaps, been able to accomplish not just the re-arrest of al-Maqdisi but compromised me, in a way, and in a region where I had long challenged its policies, and those of its proxy states, with some degree of success.
I didn’t have much time to dwell on this thought, however, as the phone rang. It was Bob. Still looking for how this plan had gone awry, he indicated only that he had learned that the arrest had been initiated solely by Jordanian security … and because al-Maqdisi had violated the terms of his release by contact with ISIS leaders!
Hearing this, I yelled into the phone that these were the precise authorizations that had been approved, in writing ,with the agreement of Jordanian security and that he needed to do whatever must be done to obtain al-Maqdisi’s release… and right away.
I closed by demanding that if he, or the FBI, could not accomplish it then someone had to get a hold of the State Department or the White House to get it done… as our own bad faith had, essentially, now become the threat to Abdul-Rahman’s life.
Not long thereafter, X got up and left… telling me, as he did, that he had heard all he needed to know at this point and was on his way to a meeting with others that had been involved in the effort to win Peter Kassig’s release.
The next morning, X dropped by, unexpectedly, just to say goodbye… as he, and others, had been contacted by domestic security agents and told they were no longer permitted to see me.
As X left, he stopped, and turned to tell me they had heard from al-Maqdisi who was doing well, that he did not believe I had played any role in his arrest, and had asked for my help in trying to gain his release. It was the last time I was to see X.
Return flights, to the United States from the Middle East, are, for me, always the most difficult. Despite the tension and, at times, violence once airborne, I always miss the echo of the call to prayer. Even as a non-believer, it seems to ground me.
Leaving X and al-Maqdisi behind that day, my flight was particularly painful. As the plane lifted, my spirits dropped with each rise in altitude. Weeks had been spent to save the life of Peter Kassig from a fate that was now all but certain to follow.
Betrayal had surely undone a slow, but steady, march to freedom that, for Kassig, could have meant a return to the very streams, lake and fields about which he had written in what was to become his final message of love to his parents.
As the first sound of music came through my earphones, I hoped to find comfort in the sleep that was expected… deep down, I knew there would be none.
Arriving back in my office, exhausted, I called Bob hoping to hear some good news about al-Maqdisi. There was none. Instead, I reached a voice mail. Not long thereafter, I received a call-back from a Deputy Director of the FBI.
Though he thanked me for my efforts, predictably, his message was little more than excuse wrapped in apologia as to what had gone wrong… and why.
Indeed, I was shocked to hear the United States try to sell the specious tale that it didn’t know Jordan had decided to arrest al-Maqdisi… and to, then, claim it could do nothing to undo the damage.
Over the next few days, I heard from Bob several times. Although he assured me efforts were underway to see what could be done, neither of us really believed any good would come from it. I don’t fault Bob. I have no doubt that he was very much an unwitting surrogate to a collective of governments that, on the eve of a possible success, made a conscious decision to sacrifice Abdul-Rahman to the mantle of political expedience.
After-all, non-state actors accomplishing what states themselves could not seemed to be a bad message for a public looking for assurance that leaders could and would ,in fact, lead. This is particularly true where the guys coming to the rescue were former Gitmo detainees and an Islamic scholar vilified for his beliefs.
From nowhere, a few days later, I picked up the phone to hear the familiar voices of my translator and X who wanted to say hi and assure me that all was well with him and his friends.
Though al-Maqdisi was still in custody, he had sent his salam to me… and his thanks for my efforts on his behalf. Much to my surprise, X indicated that they wanted to once again try to obtain the release of Abdul-Rahman who was still very much alive. However, in order to do so, it required that his government lift the ban against them having any direct contact with me.
Over the next few days, Bob and I once again spoke as he tried to resolve this problem. Late one night, he called and suggested that I start to look for flights as it appeared the ban, along with my spirits, would soon be lifted.
Hours later, I received a second call from Bob asking me to check with “my people overseas” as they had heard that Abdul-Rahman had been beheaded. I immediately called X who doubted the veracity of the information, indicating that he would likely have heard about it had it happened. He had not. As he hung up he promised to get back to me shortly.
Not long thereafter, the phone rang. It was X. I will never forget his brief message. “I’m sorry, we waited too long… he’s gone.”
Conclusion
The notion that an FBI supervisor, or even Director, could themselves unilaterally approve breach of an agreement between the Government and a foreign State… and thereby sentence a United States citizen/hostage to certain death… is patently absurd.
Likewise, it is impossible to fathom a subordinate member of the executive branch of Government sitting idly by while another foreign State abrogates an agreement intended to safeguard a US citizen… and in so doing, guaranteed their death.
Yet, that is precisely what occurred here, in a circle dance of death, where the FBI first feigned ignorance about how the agreement with Jordan had been unilaterally breached… and then claimed it was powerless to intervene, with a country that has received billions in dollars of aid, to simply require it to adhere to the very agreement with which they were a knowing party in the first stead.
Here, there should be no doubt that the decision to permit the arrest of al-Maqdisi… and, thereby, blow up an effort to save the life of Peter Kassig, could not have happened without the specific knowledge, and approval, at the very highest reaches of the United States Government.
Though Peter Kassig was beheaded with a scimitar wielded by an ISIS assassin, ultimately, it bore the signature of the United States of America.
Speaking, not long after news of Peter Kassig’s beheading had been verified, then President, Barrack Obama stated “’He was taken from us in an act of pure evil.” On this point Mr. President we can all agree.
*The opinions of the author, above, are his alone.
Stanley L Cohen is a lawyer and human rights activist who has done extensive work in the Middle East and Africa.
Follow Stanley Cohen on Twitter @StanleyCohenLaw
Thee of a “radical” defense attorney in the United States is a seamless journey of never ending, tense, often complex battles with implications that extend well beyond a given case or the courthouse doors. At times, some of these struggles necessarily make for strange bedfellows.
The life and death of Peter Kassig is one such journey.
To activist attorneys, in particular, people’s liberty… on occasion their very lives… comes at us in waves of political uncertainty sculpted by events and decisions over which we have little control.
I had just finished almost two years of non-stop work on behalf of Suliman Abu Ghayth, Usama Bin Laden’s son-in law. Having been released from prison in Iran, Abu Ghayth was kidnapped by the US from Jordan after tasting short-lived freedom for the first time in eleven years. Shackled, ear muffed and hooded, he was immediately renditioned to NYC to stand trial, more than a decade later, not far from the footprint of 9-11.
Seated, surrounded by a pile of files, in my time worn leather chair and dozing off as I prepped for my next trial… a case of an 87 year old who, having consumed a few beers too many, had run over and killed a jogger on a deserted mountain road… I was suddenly jarred awake by my phone.
“Hello, is this Mr. Cohen? My name is Mohammad. We’ve never met, but I’m a fan of yours. I’m Palestinian, and a friend of an American, Peter Kassig, who has been taken by ISIS… to cut his head off. Can you help? He is a very good man… and you know many important people here.”
Though exhausted, and busy, I’ve never been able to say no, at least without listening to the troubles of one who’s reached out to me. So, Mohammad and I chatted for about 20 minutes as he told me the Kassig story, an aid worker kidnapped by ISIS while helping those in need in Syria. Before we parted, I promised to look into it and asked him to call me back in a week.
Hanging up, I browsed an online story of Mr. Kassig who had converted to Islam and was now known as Abdul-Rahman. Set to begin a trial in a few days, and with a flight to catch, I made a mental note to follow-up with our discussion when I returned.
A week later, not long after my arrival back in NYC, my phone rang to the voice of an old friend, a photo journalist who had served in the military, many years before, during the Vietnam era. Irate over the lack of support for Kassig, a veteran himself, he asked whether I might be able to do anything to help.
With two calls from people and worlds and scant weeks apart, I asked an associate to research Abdul-Rahman’s background and circumstances.
“The first thing I want to say is thank you. Both to you and mom for everything you have both done for me as parents, for everything you have taught me, shown me, and experienced with me. I cannot imagine the strength and commitment it has taken to raise a son like me but your love and patience and things I am so deeply grateful for.
I am obviously pretty scared to die…
I wish this paper would go on forever and never run out and I could just keep talking to you. Just know I’m with you. Every stream, every lake, every field and river. In the woods and in the hills, in all the places you showed me. I love you.”
Kassig aka Abdul-Rahman’s words… part of a longer message smuggled out to his parents from his ISIS captors… moved me very much the way visits to Gaza or refugee camps or still smoldering ruins of civilian dwellings turned to steaming rubble have moved me for years. As tears welled up in my eyes, I knew I had to try.
“Salaam-Alaikum X. It’s Stanley. “kaif halak”? With these words, a desperate race against time to save the life of Peter Kassig began.
“X” is the code name I gave my friend who I met, along with a dozen or so other ex long-term Gitmo detainees, during my frequent trips to the Middle East and Gulf while preparing the defense of Abu Ghayth.
Although I had spent years in the courts and the streets representing various national liberation movements such as Hamas, up to this point I had scant hands–on experience with Al-Qaeda and none with ISIS. With the defense of Abu Ghayth, that was to change.
Over the course of a year, I met with these men fairly often. All had been tortured by the US, and its allies, beginning in Kandahar and Bagram… eventually ending up in Gitmo. All but one had been captured and sold by Pakistanis to US forces… usually for a bounty of five-thousand dollars each.
They were the lucky ones. Thousands of other Arabs were simply executed by the US or Northern Alliance in Afghanistan.
All of these men knew Abu Ghayth, not as a member of Al-Qaeda but from his days in the Gulf as an Imam and school principle or during the short period of time he was in Kandahar in the days leading up to 9-11.
X and I hit it off almost immediately… me with my broken Arabic and him with his Gitmo assimilated English filled with slang. Of all the men I got to know, he alone had been “involved” with Al-Qaeda. The rest were teachers, tourists or laborers… in the wrong place at the wrong time.
One man, in particular, speaks volumes of how so many Arabs ended up in Gitmo uncharged and untried. Anas (not his real name) spent years imprisoned there solely because of his Rolex watch. Yes, a watch.
According to declassified Department of Defense reports, when seized, he became a presumptive subject of “interest” because of a Rolex watch on his wrist… “The preferred IED timer of choice for Al-Qaeda.” Years before, he had received the watch to commemorate his membership in an Olympic sports team. Ultimately, this gift came to steal 7 years of freedom from Anas and his family.
His crime? He was in Afghanistan helping to set up a youth sports league at the time of 9-11.
Not long before my call to X, I heard from a mutual friend that he and some Islamic scholars had quietly played the lead in the successful negotiated release of 45 UN peacekeepers held hostage, by Al-Nusra Front (Al-Qaeda’s arm in the Levant), for two weeks in Syria. If anything could be done to save Peter, this I thought was the way to go.
With help from a translator, X and I briefly revisited old friends and places. Soon, the discussion turned to Peter Kassig with me asking if there was anything that could be done to save him. When he asked why, I simply recounted the letter to his parents and the two phone calls I had received. For me, that was enough. Mere coincidence had suddenly become reality. He understood and said he would get back to me later on.
Early the next day, X called and said reliable contacts had spoken to ISIS directly. He continued on telling me that Abdul Rahman was still alive and that he thought we might be able to win his release.
With the usual signpost of caution I had come to expect from him, X asked how soon I could come to the region for further discussions… noting that my presence there would be viewed by ISIS as a sign of our seriousness. I agreed, but did so only with a guarantee that Abdul Rahman would remain alive while I traveled and during discussions among the parties. Not long thereafter, X called again indicating ISIS had agreed.
Hanging up, I remained frozen, in time and place, for what seemed like an eternity. Though, on occasion, I’d been involved in very sensitive unfolding matters in the Middle East, this was different.
Having no experience with ISIS, and but a relatively short-term connection with X and his contacts, the usual advice and protection that comes from long-term relationships with clients and friends in the Middle East was markedly absent. Here, I was essentially on my own.
In Gaza, years before, I moved quickly to save the life of a US intelligence “asset” who had been unmasked in the early stages of a blackmail scheme directed, by him, at a prominent political leader in the coastal enclave long before the Israeli siege began. It took a series of flights and discussions to have him evicted from the territory… rather than fed to the sea.
Did I intervene because he was an agent, or an American? Of course not. That wasn’t the issue at all. No, politically, his killing would have been bad “business” for Gaza.
Some four years on from this Gaza intervention, I became involved in the negotiated surrender of the beheading tape of Wall Street reporter Daniel Pearle… by Khalid Sheikh Mohammad… when a client of mine, a local Pakistani journalist, received the tape from Al-Qaeda.
Though asked to provide it to US officials, he didn’t know how to proceed, let alone without casting a feared shadow over him for its possession and his contact with Al-Qaeda. Once again, I was able to reach out to sources that I trusted to accomplish the best end without any damage to my client.
If the Kassig effort was to have any chance of success, personal experience had taught me that it could not be undertaken in a vacuum and without the knowledge, if not, at times, assistance from reliable sources within the United States Government.
For me, however, “reliable” and “sources” are not two words that typically merge… let alone resonate when it comes to the United States. I‘ve spent 30 plus years fighting the government in and out of courts and though I’ve developed a begrudging respect, if not trust, for some of my adversaries, as a whole, I’ve seen institutions and persons with very dark lives driven not by principle but by narrow, often, selfish and destructive purpose.
Despite trepidation, I reached out to a federal terrorism prosecutor with whom I had handled a number of cases over the years. Although our battles had often been intense, I found him to be a person of integrity… one who could be trusted. His response? “This is above my pay grade. I’ll have to get back to you.”
Later that day, I heard from him and was told there was a senior FBI supervisor from Washington, on hold, on a separate line with overall responsibility for hostage situations in the Middle East. Not knowing this person, I agreed to speak with him as long as the prosecutor remained on the line.
Over the next few days, calls went back and forth among the prosecutor, FBI supervisor, and me. Though X did not participate, as was my practice, he was well aware of them and their purpose… and the limits that I had set, including my refusal to identify him by name.
For me, these exchanges were an attempt to set up a protocol that could be used if, and when, the need arose for assistance from the government…and nothing else. Although uncertain as to just what that might come to mean, given the fact I was about to leave for the Middle East… for parts and persons unknown (including ISIS)… to do otherwise would have been reckless.
Although the FBI supervisor (to be called Bob) pushed for a procedure that would keep him informed of my efforts… including knowing the identity of who I was meeting with, when and where and the essence of our discussions… I refused. As I did, his suggestion that I maintain face to face contact with government “assets” wherever I might be… for my own “safety.” Talk about an oxymoron.
Boarding the airplane with a private translator, the only agreement that had been reached with Bob was that I was proceeding as a private citizen, could not make any representations on behalf of the government, and would stay in periodic contact with him just to assure that I was safe.
As I settled into my seat and prepared for takeoff, I laughed, to myself, over Bob’s push to know where and when I would be… as if the optics of my cell phone, itself, and a worldwide network of surveillance and informants would fail to leave him with a very well documented trail of my journey.
I’ve traveled abroad dozens of times over the course of my life and work. Unlike many who find departing the United States as a source of great stress, for me it’s always been a welcome respite from the drudgery and defeat that has long been companion to a society that generally views itself as exceptional but, deep down, knows it is lost.
De-boarding the plane, almost a dozen hours later, and anxious to meet X in a country that I visited often without incident, for the very first time, I was detained by security personnel who obviously were expecting me as I was led to their office upon arrival at the visa gate.
Oddly, no questions were asked of me. In what struck everyone there as very much an awkward moment of procedure without purpose, security scurried around until a supervisor arrived to welcome me and provide a visa.
In what was to become ritual throughout the arduous effort to save Abdul-Rahman, on each occasion, when I entered or left a country… whether in the Gulf or Middle East… I was detained by security personnel for varying periods of time. Subtle, Bob… subtle.
There are no places in the world with more hospitality and warmth than the Middle East and Gulf. With so much to do and so little time, on the drive to the hotel I hoped that, for once, this would prove to be the exception. I was wrong.
Two hours later, X arrived… predictably, with food and lots of it… and a half dozen or so friends, of his, to greet us. Though I knew none of the other men, each told me they had followed and respected my work in the region over the years and wanted a chance to say hi and thanks in person.
Over the next several hours, we exchanged lots of anecdotes and laughter with me periodically, nodding to X as I pointed to my own watch. He just smiled and shrugged his shoulders. One by one, the men eventually departed with the last one saying goodnight to us at around 2:00 in the morning… leaving the two of us free, at last, to chat.
“He’s all right”, said X… referring to Abdul Rahman (Kassig)… as we spoke until sunrise designing a plan of how to proceed. That was the good news. The bad news seemed to grow by the hour.
To begin, unlike negotiations which freed UN hostages, ISIS was a completely different beast from Nusra. It was, after-all, not concerned with being seen as receptive to “reason” but rather exploited public displays of senseless brutality as an organizing tool to draw fighters toward its own unique brand of explosive nihilism. Indeed, by this point, it was well into its grotesque bi-monthly beheadings of captive aid workers, journalists and travelers. Although on hold, Abdul Rahman was scheduled to be next.
Nor was ISIS open to “token” gestures, such as hostage releases, without getting something of significant value in return … whether large ransoms of cash and equipment or the release of their own “soldiers.” I came to the table with none of these.
Finally… the most daunting roadblock of all: ISIS leadership was angry with former members and leaders of Al-Qaeda who had frequently vilified it in public for its systematic brutality against civilians, women, and other Muslims. These were the very persons at the heart of our effort to free Abdul-Rahman.
With these hurdles in mind, I bid my friend goodnight to attempt obtaining some much needed relief from jet lag as the Gulf sun overtook the sky. I didn’t. I kept hearing Peter Kassig’s final words to his parents… over and over again.
That evening, X returned for more discussions that, again, lasted long into the early morning hours covering a wide range of potential obstacles.
One problem was strategic tension within the group in which X was working. Though fully committed to obtaining Kassig’s freedom, some members also wanted to initiate a long term protocol with ISIS to end its un-Islamic attacks on civilians. While I agreed with the goal, I opposed the conflation of the two issues as needlessly complicating and likely delaying the very narrow effort to obtain the release of Abdul-Rahman.
This debate was to continue right up to the first formal discussion with ISIS after my arrival… when the idea of the protocol was, at last, abandoned.
Likewise, others didn’t see Kassig being released by ISIS solely as a sign of good faith… even for a civilian aid worker who had converted to Islam before his capture. For them, the nagging question remained, of whether the US might be willing to release ISIS captives or, even, Abu Ghayth as part of a package deal.
When I immediately noted there was no possibility of any such exchange, with classic Gitmo banter X replied, “You can’t blame a guy for trying.” It proved to be one of the few moments of shared laughter that were to punctuate the intensity of our efforts over the coming days.
As our meeting ended, it was agreed X would continue speaking with ISIS, through intermediaries, while I traveled on to speak with others who were interested in meeting with me. Among those I saw over the next week were Gitmo veterans, former Al-Qaeda members, some religious scholars and other activists.
Except for one unexpected meeting, it seemed the discussions had less to do with the process of obtaining freedom for Abdul-Rahman than about some wanting a chance to draw their own conclusions about me and my intentions.
In the surprise meeting which occurred at a local mini-mall, and almost as an afterthought, two men asked lots of detailed probing questions of me. In particular, they were specifically interested in how I became involved with the effort to save Abdul-Rahman, the relationship of the US government to this effort, and what the US might be willing to do in exchange for his release. Only much later, did I learn that these men were members of ISIS.
Though Abdul-Rahman remained alive, on the return flight to the country where the journey had begun, I was not particularly hopeful… as all who I had met with, though supportive, were largely guarded in their beliefs about whether the effort could succeed. Much to my surprise, when X and I met at the airport he congratulated me for a successful journey… noting that, as a result of it, everyone had agreed to proceed with our plan.
More important, I learned that, after a day or so of rest, I was to travel on to Jordan to meet with a well-known religious scholar, Abu Muhammad al-Maqdisi, who would take the lead in continuing the discussions with ISIS.
Maqdisi, who I had heard of but not previously met, and who had not long before been released from a Jordanian prison, is a Jordanian-Palestinian scholar who is seen as a spiritual mentor of al-Qaida… and Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, in particular. Zarqawi went on to found ISIS, in Iraq, after a reported split with his mentor due, at least in part, to Zarqawi’s attacks on civilians.
Not one to miss a chance at intrigue, I was present during a lengthy discussion with a caller… with the echo of a fire-fight blasting out over the car’s speaker phone. I later learned that the caller was in Syria and confirming that Abdul-Rahman was still alive.
As the car pulled up next to a modest three story sandstone building with a stairway facing the street, my heart began to race with uncertainty. This racing grew stronger as I started the climb. The day before, I was present during a news conference, of sorts, at the home of Abu Qatada… a Salafi Jordanian cleric who had, several years before, been extradited from the UK to stand trial in Jordan on terrorism charges for which he was acquitted. Although al-Maqdisi was also present, we spoke only briefly as he welcomed me to Jordan and invited me to come see him the following day at his home.
Knocking on the door, it opened, slowly, to a young girl hiding partially behind it revealing just her glowing face and a mass of curly brown unkempt hair streaming down it. As she smiled, uncertain who we were, al-Maqdisi suddenly arrived to welcome us inside. A humble apartment, with the sound of lots of kids, we were led to a rear room and settled into the library.
We, in the West, are maneuvered by descriptions of dark insular Salafist scholars, locked in century old space, driven by the narrow vision born of rigid minds and experience. It sells.
Sitting in the book lined library of Abu Muhammad al-Maqdisi quickly put that sale to bed. Maqdisi is a smart man with a wide reach of world events… well beyond those driven solely by any theological construct or limited to the geographical confines of the world where he exercises such significant influence.
Well before our discussion turned to Abdul-Rahman, we spoke at length about a wide range of contemporary world events including the summer’s Israeli aggression on Gaza, increasing police violence in the United States, and tension in Ukraine and Crimea. Throughout our exchange, his daughter sat by her dad coyly stealing periodic glimpses of me as we enjoyed a never ending stream of coffee and, of course, the treasured sweets of Jordan.
Just as suddenly as our discussion began with Palestine, as so much a light switch, it abruptly turned to Abdul Rahman.
Not surprisingly, it was apparent there was no need for me to spend any time briefing him on whom Peter Kassig was or why I had hoped to obtain his release. He also was aware that while the US government knew of my efforts I was not there as its representative.
Describing ISIS as Islam’s worst nightmare, my host made it very clear that he would help in any way he could. He hoped the effort to free Abdul-Rahman would begin to move ISIS away from its brutal assaults upon civilians which he described as nothing short of an all-out assault on Islam, as well.
Al-Maqdisi went on to speak of some of the religious leadership of ISIS as former students of his that had strayed from his teachings. In particular he noted Turki al-Binali who was to become the mufti… or chief religious advisor of ISIS… and whom al-Maqdisi had authorized, years before, to teach his works. At one time, they were more like father and son than teacher and pupil.
He was optimistic that, if given a chance to speak with them, we could succeed… but noted that, under the terms of his recent release from prison, he was prohibited from meeting with, or speaking to, any members of ISIS.
As I left al-Maqdisi’s home, I asked him for the names of those in ISIS he felt he needed to speak with in order to further our efforts. Although he provided three names, today I can recall only that of Turki al-Binali.
“Hey, Bob. How are you?” With these few words, I reached out to the FBI contact that had, before I left the United States, agreed to help with my efforts. Though, as agreed, I had periodically kept in touch with him while traveling… just to let him know I was ok… this was the first time that I asked him for specific help:
“I’ve just met with al-Maqdisi (I had told Bob in advance) who has agreed to assist but cannot reach out to ISIS under the conditions of his release from prison.
These are the three men he wants to speak with but obviously cannot do so unless Jordanian security approves. In addition, I am setting four conditions of my own that must be agreed to, as well, for us to proceed: 1) al-Maqdisi’s discussions cannot, at any time, be used against him for any purpose whatsoever; 2) the calls, if approved, will be unmonitored and made on his own phone… at a time and place of his own choosing; 3) the substance of the calls will not have to be shared or vetted with anyone else… including intelligence officials either in Jordan or the US; and 4) there is no requirement that he provides copies of any exchanges with ISIS, including text and email messages, to anyone.”
Hanging up, Bob indicated that my requests were not “his call” but that they would be passed along to those with the authority within the Unites States and in Jordan for approval, if possible.
Over the next day or two, al-Maqdisi and I stayed in touch… as did X, who spent his time continuing to deal with ISIS who, by now, was well aware that I was in the region. Abdul-Rahman was still alive and, to the surprise of US officials, the bimonthly beheadings had stopped with the last occurring before I traveled abroad.
Awakened by an early morning call, it was Bob who tersely indicated, “it was a go”… with all the required terms and conditions agreed to. Before hanging up, I asked that he email the stream of our discussions, and the approval, for me to share with al-Maqdisi. He agreed.
A few minutes later, I received the email and observed that there was a redacted name and local address on the exchange which indicated that the approval on the Jordanian end had been conveyed to Bob through a local US based “asset.”
Later that morning, just after his required weekly report to Jordanian security… a condition of his release from prison… al-Maqdisi met with me, and my translator, at our hotel.
Even before I had a chance to share, with him, the email I had received, he told me that he had learned, earlier that morning, that the proposed plan to communicate with ISIS had been approved as outlined by me, with the added caveat that his discussions with the three persons could not involve anything other than the effort to obtain Kassig’s release. He agreed.
Anxious to proceed, al-Maqdisi wanted to immediately make his initial outreach to Turki al-Binali. In abundance of caution, and for added security, I suggested that it be delayed until we purchased a new cell phone, and obtained a new number, from which to place the call.
What unfolded that day, as we set off to buy the phone, quickly became truly a comedy of errors. Not far from the hotel, al-Maqdisi, a humble man, was forced to exit his ten year old car which had suddenly come to a halt and could not be restarted.
Opening the hood, there stood one of the world’s most influential Islamic scholars, about to talk with ISIS, standing in the middle of the narrow street pulling and cleaning wires from his car while the traffic jam of beeping vehicles grew behind us. Some five minutes later, we drove off… however, the scene was to repeat itself twice more… turning what should have been a 30 minute drive, to an old Suq, into a three hour odyssey.
Arriving at the phone store not long before it was to close, al-Maqdisi and I proceeded to “argue” over which phone to buy, with him leaning towards the cheapest possible one… that required an app to be purchased elsewhere… and me insisting on a high-tech one that came with the necessary app already built in. I lost. We bought the cheap phone but lost a day as the necessary app could not be installed in this particular model phone. The next morning, we set off, once again. This time, in a borrowed car, to a high tech phone shop where we got the right phone.
Not long thereafter, al-Maqdisi called his former pupil and left a message. As we sat in a coffee shop directly across the street from the ruins of an old Roman amphitheater, busy with the bustle of tourists posing for pictures, I suddenly began to travel without leaving our cramped table.
With al-Maqdisi and my translator speaking about favorite dishes and exchanging family anecdotes I was suddenly struck by the oddity, almost strangeness, of the moment. It was not the first time. It’s happened before, over my many years in the region, where, inexplicably, I found myself trying to reconstruct how I had come to be in this place and time. It was not a long journey… as, suddenly, I was jarred back to the discussion by a ring on al-Maqdisi’s phone. It was Turki al-Binali returning the call.
Faces speak volumes… often more so than words themselves. As I sat watching al-Maqdisi and his former student talk, it was obvious the exchange, though awkward at times, was nevertheless one built of warmth and a rich past.
I could have asked the translator what was being discussed but, instead, the two of us got up and went across the street to take a seat on the aged stone benches of the amphitheater, grab some sun, and reflect on history. Half an hour later, al-Maqdisi joined us with thanks for a chance to speak in private with his onetime apprentice.
Over the next few days, the two of them apparently spoke often… at times, voice to voice… at others, by text or email. On several occasions, I was present during an exchange and, after they ended, had a chance to review the email or text.
Though I never saw the name of Abdul Rahman metioned between them, more than once, Turki al-Binali noted he knew what al-Maqdisi wanted and, while not easy, would likely be achieved.
Understandably, most of their communications were directed at trying to rebuild personal bonds that had been broken through the passage of time and, according to al-Binali, because of al-Maqdisi’s public, and ceaseless, attacks on ISIS.
At one point, Turki al-Binali texted that it pained him beyond words to see his teacher, who he loved, attack him for what he had, in fact, learned from him. Al-Maqdisi simply replied that he had obviously missed the lesson and moved on.
Over the week, I came to see less and less of al-Maqdisi. Though we still spoke by phone, he seemed removed, distant, unable or willing to keep appointments… although he was still upbeat about his efforts. Of interest, his detachment seemed to parallel a series of calls that I received, from X, about the need for me to return to meet with him, and some others, for a face to face update on my efforts and theirs.
On my final day in Jordan, I met al-Maqdisi, late in the afternoon, just beyond the security barrier of the hotel. He was not the same up-beat man I had spent a lot of time with over the previous days… seemingly, now, edgy, nervous, and stripped of his smile and humor. As we spoke one final time, in person, he promised that late that night he was going to, in a call, bring up the issue of Abdul-Rahman’s release… and was hopeful the release would take place not long thereafter.
When I asked him to join me for one final dinner, he declined… noting that he had been ordered by security forces to come and see them. This was an odd request, he opined, given the fact that he had just seen them several days before.
I have good instincts that, on occasion, provide a pathway into events as yet to unfold. As it turned out, this was to be one such time. As I boarded the airplane, I had a strange feeling something was terribly wrong. It was the first time I had felt this way since the journey had begun.
Eight or nine hours later, I was startled by a pounding on my door. I opened it to find my translator, visibly upset, and rambling on about something he had seen on TV. He brought me to his room where a bulletin flashed across the top of the screen, in Arabic, that Abu Maqdisi had, once again, been arrested by Jordanian security officials for some non-descript terrorism charge.
Racing from the room, I immediately called Bob and, as he was unavailable, left a message. I next reached out to X who, himself, had only just learned what had happened. We agreed to meet at my hotel as soon as possible… a drive of some 30 minutes.
Not long thereafter, Bob returned my call… denying any knowledge about al-Maqdisi’s arrest or why. I believed him. He seemed every bit as shocked as me and said several times that all the news he was getting back from his sources, in Amman, was upbeat. He promised to follow-up on al-Maqdisi and get back to me as soon as possible.
As the sun set, X arrived desperate for answers about what had happened in Jordan, now the day before. Although I had spent a lot of time with him over the last several years, I had not before seen him to be in a state of panic. He was. Indeed, this is a man who had survived years of imprisonment and torture at the hands of the US, and its allies, with his determination and dignity intact… one not likely to panic because of unforeseen events.
Yet, this was different. X was at the center of an international effort to free an American aid worker essentially because I, another American, had asked him to do so and because it was the right thing to do. In that effort, he had enlisted the help of a group of friends and activists… including one of the world’s preeminent Islamic scholars who was, once again, back in custody, seemingly, because of our efforts… efforts that had been approved, I had thought, at the highest level of government in the United States and Jordan.
Over the next half hour or so, I revisited, with X, all that had occurred in Amman, with and without al-Maqdisi, and shared not just the content of his discussions with Turki al-Binali, but my email exchanges with Bob that had given us the necessary cover, I thought, upon which we had proceeded.
Though I told him of al-Maqdisi’s recent change in demeanor, I had no explanation for it… nor did he. Quickly, however, it became obvious that X already knew much of what I told him about events in Jordan… including al-Maqdis’s contacts with al-Binali and the fact that we seemed to be moving toward the release of Peter Kassig.
Though X expressed no doubt in my personal integrity, he pointed out what I had already realized… namely that some might view this entire effort as a ruse to bring about the re-arrest of Abu Maqdisi. Rejecting this out of hand, X noted that not all in the region knew me personally, nor my reputation, and might just jump to wild conclusions. He also noted that this very visit, by him, had been opposed by some of his own friends because of events in Jordan.
On that point, for one brief moment, the thought flashed through my mind that, all at once, the government had, perhaps, been able to accomplish not just the re-arrest of al-Maqdisi but compromised me, in a way, and in a region where I had long challenged its policies, and those of its proxy states, with some degree of success.
I didn’t have much time to dwell on this thought, however, as the phone rang. It was Bob. Still looking for how this plan had gone awry, he indicated only that he had learned that the arrest had been initiated solely by Jordanian security … and because al-Maqdisi had violated the terms of his release by contact with ISIS leaders!
Hearing this, I yelled into the phone that these were the precise authorizations that had been approved, in writing ,with the agreement of Jordanian security and that he needed to do whatever must be done to obtain al-Maqdisi’s release… and right away.
I closed by demanding that if he, or the FBI, could not accomplish it then someone had to get a hold of the State Department or the White House to get it done… as our own bad faith had, essentially, now become the threat to Abdul-Rahman’s life.
Not long thereafter, X got up and left… telling me, as he did, that he had heard all he needed to know at this point and was on his way to a meeting with others that had been involved in the effort to win Peter Kassig’s release.
The next morning, X dropped by, unexpectedly, just to say goodbye… as he, and others, had been contacted by domestic security agents and told they were no longer permitted to see me.
As X left, he stopped, and turned to tell me they had heard from al-Maqdisi who was doing well, that he did not believe I had played any role in his arrest, and had asked for my help in trying to gain his release. It was the last time I was to see X.
Return flights, to the United States from the Middle East, are, for me, always the most difficult. Despite the tension and, at times, violence once airborne, I always miss the echo of the call to prayer. Even as a non-believer, it seems to ground me.
Leaving X and al-Maqdisi behind that day, my flight was particularly painful. As the plane lifted, my spirits dropped with each rise in altitude. Weeks had been spent to save the life of Peter Kassig from a fate that was now all but certain to follow.
Betrayal had surely undone a slow, but steady, march to freedom that, for Kassig, could have meant a return to the very streams, lake and fields about which he had written in what was to become his final message of love to his parents.
As the first sound of music came through my earphones, I hoped to find comfort in the sleep that was expected… deep down, I knew there would be none.
Arriving back in my office, exhausted, I called Bob hoping to hear some good news about al-Maqdisi. There was none. Instead, I reached a voice mail. Not long thereafter, I received a call-back from a Deputy Director of the FBI.
Though he thanked me for my efforts, predictably, his message was little more than excuse wrapped in apologia as to what had gone wrong… and why.
Indeed, I was shocked to hear the United States try to sell the specious tale that it didn’t know Jordan had decided to arrest al-Maqdisi… and to, then, claim it could do nothing to undo the damage.
Over the next few days, I heard from Bob several times. Although he assured me efforts were underway to see what could be done, neither of us really believed any good would come from it. I don’t fault Bob. I have no doubt that he was very much an unwitting surrogate to a collective of governments that, on the eve of a possible success, made a conscious decision to sacrifice Abdul-Rahman to the mantle of political expedience.
After-all, non-state actors accomplishing what states themselves could not seemed to be a bad message for a public looking for assurance that leaders could and would ,in fact, lead. This is particularly true where the guys coming to the rescue were former Gitmo detainees and an Islamic scholar vilified for his beliefs.
From nowhere, a few days later, I picked up the phone to hear the familiar voices of my translator and X who wanted to say hi and assure me that all was well with him and his friends.
Though al-Maqdisi was still in custody, he had sent his salam to me… and his thanks for my efforts on his behalf. Much to my surprise, X indicated that they wanted to once again try to obtain the release of Abdul-Rahman who was still very much alive. However, in order to do so, it required that his government lift the ban against them having any direct contact with me.
Over the next few days, Bob and I once again spoke as he tried to resolve this problem. Late one night, he called and suggested that I start to look for flights as it appeared the ban, along with my spirits, would soon be lifted.
Hours later, I received a second call from Bob asking me to check with “my people overseas” as they had heard that Abdul-Rahman had been beheaded. I immediately called X who doubted the veracity of the information, indicating that he would likely have heard about it had it happened. He had not. As he hung up he promised to get back to me shortly.
Not long thereafter, the phone rang. It was X. I will never forget his brief message. “I’m sorry, we waited too long… he’s gone.”
Conclusion
The notion that an FBI supervisor, or even Director, could themselves unilaterally approve breach of an agreement between the Government and a foreign State… and thereby sentence a United States citizen/hostage to certain death… is patently absurd.
Likewise, it is impossible to fathom a subordinate member of the executive branch of Government sitting idly by while another foreign State abrogates an agreement intended to safeguard a US citizen… and in so doing, guaranteed their death.
Yet, that is precisely what occurred here, in a circle dance of death, where the FBI first feigned ignorance about how the agreement with Jordan had been unilaterally breached… and then claimed it was powerless to intervene, with a country that has received billions in dollars of aid, to simply require it to adhere to the very agreement with which they were a knowing party in the first stead.
Here, there should be no doubt that the decision to permit the arrest of al-Maqdisi… and, thereby, blow up an effort to save the life of Peter Kassig, could not have happened without the specific knowledge, and approval, at the very highest reaches of the United States Government.
Though Peter Kassig was beheaded with a scimitar wielded by an ISIS assassin, ultimately, it bore the signature of the United States of America.
Speaking, not long after news of Peter Kassig’s beheading had been verified, then President, Barrack Obama stated “’He was taken from us in an act of pure evil.” On this point Mr. President we can all agree.
*The opinions of the author, above, are his alone.
Stanley L Cohen is a lawyer and human rights activist who has done extensive work in the Middle East and Africa.Follow Stanley Cohen on Twitter @StanleyCohenLaw
Anthony McIntyre's Blog
- Anthony McIntyre's profile
- 2 followers
Anthony McIntyre isn't a Goodreads Author
(yet),
but they
do have a blog,
so here are some recent posts imported from
their feed.
