What Their Denial Says
In a usual rush to grab coffee I normally never drink outside exam and paper season, I pushed through the doors of the central campus library. The breath of warmth which accompanied the opening of the doors was welcomed by my body. February in Montreal is generous in providing frostbite to all who dare to venture outside their homes.
I unraveled the several thousand scarves from my face, and sniffed a look around. My eyes fell onto an unfamiliar sight. In front of me stood two young South Asian looking women, behind a table upon which a simple banner draped reading “STOP THE GENOCIDE OF THE TAMILS.” Unaware that a new genocide had been taking place, I cautiously and curiously walked over and inquired about their efforts.
I had heard about the peril of the Tamils of Sri Lanka and the astounding number of the recently killed as a result of the bloody battles between the Sri Lankan government and the Tamil Tigers. Regardless, my knowledge was limited, as was the knowledge of several others that I knew.
For the Tamils, the Sri Lankan state heavily and negatively employs majoritarian rule (Sinhalese Buddhist), partaking in state terrorism against its big minority population, the Tamils. The most viable and popular solution, for the Tamils, seems to be the ever-famous two-state solution: one for the Sinhalese and another for the Tamils. For the Sri Lankan government, the Tamils and their self-proclaimed singular leadership the Tamil Tigers, represent a constant threat to the power dynamics which have been sustained for over 60 years, as well as general state security.
After a quick six minute chat with the young women, I headed downstairs to meet for coffee with two friends of mine, one of whom was of Arab descent, Noor, and the other who was a Sri Lankan Muslim (who have a completely different role to play in the conflict between the Tamils and the Sinhalese Buddhists), Amina.
Noor and I had discussed our complete lack of knowledge regarding the history and current situation in Sri Lanka. She was an International Development Studies Major, and I a Political Science. We had both fallen into the glamour of Middle East politics, with a dash of Africa, forgetting academically that a world of conflict existed outside our geographical haven. I grabbed a cup of coffee and joined Noor and Amina. Without hesitation, I immediately jumped to tell them about my experience with the young Tamil women. I was particularly interested in what Amina, also an International Development Studies major, would have to say on the issue. This conversation was, after all, taking place in the context of post-Gaza invasion aftermath. All three of us are active within the political community, and all of us had been working tirelessly in different ways, since January, to do what we could to spread the message of the recent invasion and slaughter to the masses in Montreal and on our campus.
I told them about the table upstairs and how I found it odd that the Tamil students were not receiving any support from the Sri Lankan Students Association. Amina snorted, smirked and rolled her eyes.
Noor and I quickly exchanged confused glances.
Amina continued, ‘Yeah, okay, genocide. Please, it’s not a genocide. They’re just abusing the use of that word. It’s so in vogue.”
Our jaws dropped.
‘Amina, what do you mean? You can’t say that. If these people are claiming a genocide, we have the obligation to listen to their–’
‘No, listen–’
‘Wait, Amina, tell us what’s going on..from your perspective. Are you Tamil?’
‘No, I’m Muslim and speak both Tamil and Sinhalese – I don’t really identify with either group.’
The conversation continued calmly for about the five to six minutes, as Amina explained the treatment of the Tamils by the Sinhalese Buddhist government. She admitted that the government did not treat its minority population in the most preferable of ways, but argued that the Tamils were unable to appreciate all the government had done to bring the population on a more equal footing and to keep the country unified. She said the government had to do what it had to do to keep the country together and to keep the people of Sri Lanka safe from a terrorist organization. With this justification as a foundation, she insinuated that the recent killing of thousands of Tamils in Sri Lanka was not surmountable to genocide; they were just, albeit most unfortunately, collateral damage.
Throughout the brief explanation, Noor and I would interupt to ask questions and would also exchange looks of concern. Amina’s words sounded all too familiar.
So I pushed her further.
‘What about the recent report of around three thousand Tamils killed by the Sri Lankan government? Isn’t that indicative of deliberate targetting by the Sri Lank–’
‘No! Of course not. The Sri Lankan government calls the homes of the Tamils before they bomb–”
‘Wait, Amina what? Are you serious? Do you hear yourself? Where can these Tamils who are caught in between the fighting run to? Their area is extremely densely populated–’
‘The LTTE uses the Tamils as human shields; they don’t want them to get out.’
Our voices, at this point, had escalated slightly beyond the casual bellowing. My Sri Lankan Muslim Sinhalese Tamil friend sounded like every Zionist Jew and/or Israeli I had encountered in the days and weeks following the invasion of Gaza. She spoke about terrorism, the right of the government to self-defense, thousands of civilians as unfortunate (but required?) collateral damage, the use of human shields, and a benevolent government which called the homes of the people it would bomb within the ensuing minutes.
But ten minutes into the conversation, we both had lost our cool. People in the library cafe looked on, as I yelled at her, asking her to then support the Israeli government’s assault unless she dared to be labeled a hypocrite; she yelled at me for comparing two incomparable situations. Noor attempted to play the mediator role, but was repeatedly pushed back by our angry confrontation. I kept pushing Amina, and pushing. I normally bow out of an argument when I know my opponent will not budge or I know that my opponent’s belief is deeply rooted in something far more cosmic that history or facts. But I knew Amina was a smart girl, capable of discerning between fact and fiction. She was well aware and well-read about the situation of occupied Palestine, as well as the recent invasion. Her strong support for the Sri Lankan government baffled me and I could not let her fall into what I saw as hypocrisy and unjust.
Little did I know, however, that the epiphany would not strike Amina the hardest but rather Noor and I.
As I challenged Amina’s stance more, bringing into the light the comparisons between what she was saying and what our campus Zionists were spewing, she began to struggle with her words. She stuttered. She became more frustrated. She became more defensive. I begged
her how she saw the slaughter of the Palestinians as genocide but not the slaughter of the Tamils (even if based on giving their claims the benefit of the doubt)?
“I just..I just can’t imagine my society doing something like that,” Amina burst out after several minutes of my incessant hounding.
Noor and I, once again, found our eyes leaping from their sockets and our mouths parting once again to take breaths which couldn’t be taken from our shocked nasal passages.
Amina had, unknowingly, taught Noor and I a lesson we had never quite learned in our four years of undergrad in international politics. Amina was unable to fathom how her society, which consisted of people just like her and her family, from her culture which was very much so alive in her and her country, which formed a basis of her identity, could hold a basis on the slaughter of another people. All of a sudden the several Armenian genocide denying Turks, Darfuri genocide denying Arabs and Zionists I had argued with several times over had become humanized in an almost vulnerable sense. For a fleeting moment, I understood, without any anger, why my arguments with such individuals never really went anywhere other than towards exasperated gasps and frustrated fleeing.
Their denial of such atrocities cannot be forgiven; an injustice is an injustice regardless of circumstance. The support for any injustice is support against all of justice. But, again, for that fleeting moment I finally understood how deniers of atrocities could deny what they did. Denial of atrocities, especially when they are linked strongly to a national, religious or ethnic identity, is a dissociation of the self’s complicity in any sinful doing. To accept the wrong committed is to accept that there is something somewhat deficient, in an indeed peculiar way, with oneself in terms of self-identification and history.
And that admittance is terrifying.
Thanks for this post. Really important, in a number of different ways. I'd encourage people who are interested to check out ” target=”_blank”>http://www.pearlaction.org. Interesting to note that U.S. military aid goes to Sri Lanka as well–certainly not as much as the amount given to Israel, but still significant. Obama requested $1,600,000 for Sri Lanka for 2010, way up from 2009. (The request for Israel is $2.775 billion for 2010).
Thanks for this post. Really important, in a number of different ways. I'd encourage people who are interested to check out ” target=”_blank”>http://www.pearlaction.org. Interesting to note that U.S. military aid goes to Sri Lanka as well–certainly not as much as the amount given to Israel, but still significant. Obama requested $1,600,000 for Sri Lanka for 2010, way up from 2009. (The request for Israel is $2.775 billion for 2010).
Wow, this was such an eye-opener. It's interesting how subjectivity is not examined when trying to understand an argument. It now makes sense why many organizations that try to spread awareness or take action in international conflicts like Darfur and Sri Lanka rarely compose of SUDANESE activists or SRI LANKAN activists; rather it always seems to be people of other origins with no direct ties to the region. Thank you so much for sharing this.
I think you were being a little unfair to your friend. While I don't support her characterization of innocent civilians killed by the government as "collateral damage," she is right when she says that the Tamil Tigers have used civilians as human shields and prohibited them from leaving the war zone. They have also forced men, women and children to fight for them as soldiers, and used forced civilian labor in the war zones. They have also carried out targeted assassinations against critics in Sri Lanka and abroad. While the accusations made against the Tigers sound eerily similar to those made by Israel against Hamas and Hezbollah, the difference is that there has never been solid, substantial proof that either Hamas or Hezbollah used human shields or prohibited civilians from fleeing the war zone. Indeed, it was Israel that prevented civilians from fleeing the fighting in Gaza, and which has been accused by Human Rights Watch and others of using human shields. That is not the case with the Tamil Tigers, whose abuses according to HRW are in fact quite similar to those of the Israeli government, which has also been accused of using human shields, targeted assassinations, deliberate targeting of civilians, journalists and UN personnel, and refusing to allow civilians to flee the war zone (in Gaza) or attacking them as they fled the war zone, as in Lebanon. While according to HRW the Sri Lankan government has also willfully attacked civilians, including in supposed safe areas, as well as treated escaping civilians as criminals and forced many to return to the war zone, the impression I get from reading HRW's reports is that the Tigers are responsible for a disproportionate amount of the suffering among the people they claim to be fighting for. Sri Lanka: Rebels and Government Should Cease Attacks on Civilians ” target=”_blank”>http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2007/11/29/sri-lanka-r... We cannot Ignore Sri Lanka ” target=”_blank”>http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2009/04/27/we-cannot-i... Sri Lanka: Tamil Tigers Abuse Civilians in Stronghold ” target=”_blank”>http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2008/12/14/sri-lanka-t...
I think you were being a little unfair to your friend. While I don't support her characterization of innocent civilians killed by the government as "collateral damage," she is right when she says that the Tamil Tigers have used civilians as human shields and prohibited them from leaving the war zone. They have also forced men, women and children to fight for them as soldiers, and used forced civilian labor in the war zones. They have also carried out targeted assassinations against critics in Sri Lanka and abroad. While the accusations made against the Tigers sound eerily similar to those made by Israel against Hamas and Hezbollah, the difference is that there has never been solid, substantial proof that either Hamas or Hezbollah used human shields or prohibited civilians from fleeing the war zone. Indeed, it was Israel that prevented civilians from fleeing the fighting in Gaza, and which has been accused by Human Rights Watch and others of using human shields. That is not the case with the Tamil Tigers, whose abuses according to HRW are in fact quite similar to those of the Israeli government, which has also been accused of using human shields, targeted assassinations, deliberate targeting of civilians, journalists and UN personnel, and refusing to allow civilians to flee the war zone (in Gaza) or attacking them as they fled the war zone, as in Lebanon. While according to HRW the Sri Lankan government has also willfully attacked civilians, including in supposed safe areas, as well as treated escaping civilians as criminals and forced many to return to the war zone, the impression I get from reading HRW's reports is that the Tigers are responsible for a disproportionate amount of the suffering among the people they claim to be fighting for. Sri Lanka: Rebels and Government Should Cease Attacks on Civilians ” target=”_blank”>http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2007/11/29/sri-lanka-r... We cannot Ignore Sri Lanka ” target=”_blank”>http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2009/04/27/we-cannot-i... Sri Lanka: Tamil Tigers Abuse Civilians in Stronghold ” target=”_blank”>http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2008/12/14/sri-lanka-t...
Agreed completely. Mind you – the story and conversation have been shortened and when I was speaking to her, my knowledge was extremely limited and I was purposely being hard on her. I was taken aback by her strong pro-government stance and apparent complete denial of any serious problems for the Sri Lankan Tamils. The LTTE are definitely responsible for the plight of the Tamils as much as the government is. It's unfortunate that no other source of leadership exists for the Tamils in Sri Lanka other than that of the LTTE. It's imperative for the leadership of the Tamils to change so that the fight for the rights of the Tamils can have a more diplomatic and less violent face. The Sri Lankan government's abuses are being noticed now, with a recent accusation of "war crimes" thrown at the state for targeting hospitals and schools.
Just in! ” target=”_blank”>http://english.aljazeera.net//news/asia/2009/05/2...
Just in! ” target=”_blank”>http://english.aljazeera.net//news/asia/2009/05/2...
I came across a similar thing here in the UK. To be fair to your friend though, the Tamil Tigers haven't been especially kind to the Muslims in Sri Lanka – they were expelled from Tamil controlled areas a several years ago to keep the area 'ethnically-pure' (although they later apologised for this). And ordinary Tamils aren't that crazy to be ruled under the Tigers either. This is a case where I support the Tamils in their quest for a homeland (unless the Sinhalese really do try to incorporate them into the country instead of treating them as 'others') but I don't support the Tigers, who are ruthless and don't really care about the Tamils. I do wish Sri Lankan Muslims would stop their war-mongering though, like you said, it's hypocritical.
no doubt the sri lankan govt has and continues to oppress the tamils, but the ltte definitely tries to blackmail people into fighting and does the whole child soldier thing. they are also, (and this is important to point out) the original authors of suicide bombings against civilians in crowded places a la what everyone thinks hamas created. they pioneered this in the 1980's.
Its always important to bear in mind that no matter how morally repugnant the enemy can become,. they are still humans and its really hard at times to hold back from completely dehumanizing the other, more powerful side of any conflict….I still can't bring myself to read the diary of Anne Frank though I was supposed to simply because I couldn't deal with all the emotions it would evoke, identifying with Holocaust victims is hard for people who suffered because of those very victims…Its true that one must always recognize the humanity of the oppressor- but only to a limit.
Welcome Sana! A Solid Post! Great idea to touch on a subject that often goes under the radar.
Before the suicide bombings in Lebanon that killed hundreds in 1983?
Agreed. I enjoyed reading it. While I understand where you're coming from, I don't agree with comparing the current situation in Sri Lanka to that of occupied Palestine, Darfur, or other blood baths of the past. Aside from people dying, there are important differences between them. In Darfur for example, it's not a battle between Arabs and Africans as you keep hearing in the Western news – the situation is much more complicated. The situation with the, LTTE is also not as clear cut as the conflict between Zionists and Palestinians. You touch on some very interesting points in an original way, and I look forward to reading more.
As a disclaimer, I'm not that well informed on most issues, but especially the Tamil issue. But I will say that the impressions I get from reading HRW reports about the occupation of Palestine are highly problematic and biased towards Israel as a state actor, so I wonder if similar biases run in their reports on Sri Lanka. Thanks for your well-sourced and informative comments.
Welcome to KABOBFEST, can't wait to see what else you'll write!
I'm not sure that I agree with comments to the effect that the situation for the Tamils is somehow more complicated than that for the Palestinians. Certainly both are complex situations in their own rights, and certainly both situations involve breaches of human rights by multiple parties involved. But in both situations the "complexity" argument is usually, in my view, used to draw attention away from the underlying situation of one group being dispossessed, targeted, and attacked for the benefit (chalked up as "security") of the other group. I'm wondering if some of the commenters would mind explaining why the Sri Lankan government should be let off the hook to a greater extent than the Israeli government, and why the LTTE should be criticized so much more stridently than Hamas? (The use of child soldiers is the primary documented difference that I can see, but I'm open to education in this area).
Check out the book "dying to win". It has some interesting info on how the LTTE and groups in tLebanon learned from each other's tactics. Up until fairly recently the LTTE had committed by far the majority of all suicide bombings.
Great post and welcome aboard Sana. It is also worth noting that as with other conflicts there are different political parties in Sri Lanka's gov't with different attitudes towards the Tamil. Also, not that things are perfect now, but the anti-Tamil chauvinism was a lot more pronounced in the 1980s than some of the more recent governments. The LTTE also do themselves no favors. Child soldiers, forced military service and there are even stories of them extorting members of the Tamil diaspora in Canada and UK to help fund their operations. One of the main reasons the LTTE has been so greatly weakened and the Sri Lanken gov't has the upper-hand now is that the anti-terror funding measures enacted after 9/11 in N. America and the Europe to combat sending money to Muslim groups also worked to greatly curtail the ability of the LTTE to raise/receive funds (it is basically bankrolled by ideologues in the diaspora). I have a lot of sympathy for the Tamil people, but none for the LTTE (aside from the cool names they come up with for their armed forces, e.g., Tiger Sharks=LTTE "navy"). A lot of the Muslims in Sri Lanka claim to be of Arab/Persian heritage and I think that removes them somewhat from the Tamil/Sinhalese tension. There are actually very small Muslim and Catholic populations of African descent in Sri Lanka as well.
Wow, great post Sana, and welcome. I don't know enough about the situation in Sri Lanka to comment really, but as to the whole subject…A very non-zionist American Jewish friend of mine once asked me to try to humanize the way the children of settlers of Gaza felt when they were "ripped from their homes" last decade. In fact, the only humanity I could feel is that it's not the children's fault – there is an entire generation of Israelis who've been entirely indoctrinated into believing their country is right. Now, don't take that to mean I think it's an acceptable excuse – just that I'm not sure that belligerent approaches toward such people makes any sense.
I left a comment hours ago, I dunno where it went. But I agree with Yaman. Although I tend to trust almost everything Sean says, my experience with HRW and Palestine (and Lebanon during the 2006 war) is a bit unsatisfactory. The reports do tend to take the official Israeli line on a variety of issues for granted (which is a glimpse of how fucked up Israel is since HRW still ends up roundly condemning the Zionist state), but I do want to see an LTTE perspective, as well as that of the Sri Lanken government and international human rights organizations. The accusations leveled against the Tigers are almost a word for word copy of the false accusations routinely hurled at Hamas and Hezbollah, which is reason enough to wonder just how true these allegations are.
Agreed!
i thought that was a car bomb near the us embassy, or am i confusing it w another incident?
Just to clarify – I don't think the situation in Darfur is comparable to the situation in PAlestine which in turn is comparable to the situation in Sri Lanka and so forth. I think to actually believe them to be completely similar undermines their severity and creates this one-solution-for-all belief which is, in my humble opinion, of the bullshit persuasion. My point was, rather, what I say at the end – Will put it well in an email he sent me about the propensity within all of us to become morally blinded. That was the point of the piece.
I'll be writing more on Sri Lanka (and of course several other topics) in the coming weeks..Montreal has a significant Tamil population and I've been trying to learn more from their perspective. We've been having massive protests at the US consulates…LTTE flags and drums and all. thanks for the feedback!
Looking forward to future posts!
This is very powerful and you should it down some and submit it to The Arab American News or other publications.
Yaman and Mohammad: I agree that HRW is often biased towards Israel, and they have been widely criticized for being so. Their reports typically provide enough facts about Israel to convince any reasonable person that Israel is guilty of war crimes, but they often present those facts out of context, and in a vague, equivocal and non-committal way. They often omit important details or fail to draw obvious conclusions based on available evidence. Most people who read HRW's reports, including government ministers, are not experts on International law nor are they human rights lawyers. For this reason HRW has to do more than just present the facts, it has to give us an interpretation of those facts within the context of international law and ideally, render an opinion whether or not the behavior in question constitutes a war crime or other violation. This is something they frequently fail to do with regards to israel, even though they provide you with the tools to draw that conclusion yourself. I believe that HRW's equivocation is not the result so much of a natural bias towards Israel, though that is the effect of it, but a vain attempt to be "balanced" and thereby appease the Israeli lobby and avoid the usual accusations of anti-Semitism or singling out Israel. They have obviously failed miserably in both regards. That being said, I don't believe that HRW deliberately lies, even though it could be argued that failure to present the whole truth or present things in context is tantamount to a lie. If HRW claims the Tamil Tigers are using child soldiers or suicide bombers, I would accept that this is most likely the truth. On the other hand, if they fail to adequately identify the abuses comitted by the Sri Lanka government, I would not see that as evidence that Sri Lanka government is innocent of charges other parties may have brought against it, any more than I would see that as evidence that Israel is innocent. As an example of HRW's equivocation, consider this report by HRW of Israel's attack against a family picnicking on a beach in Gaza back in 2006, an event which caused Hamas to end its unilateral ceasefire with Israel. Israel: Investigate Gaza Beach Killings Artillery Strike Probably Killed Palestinian Family ” target=”_blank”>http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2006/06/13/israel-inve... In this report , they demonstrate that the shellholes on the ground around the spot the family was hit are consistant with an artillery barrage, find evidence of 155mm shell casings which could only have come from Israel, have an admission from Israel that they fired artillery within 250 meters of the family at the time the attack occurred, and have another Israeli general openly admitting that the purpose of Israel's shelling is to deter future attacks and punish area residents—a war crime, though HRW fails to mention this. HRW's conclusion? "Artillery Strike Probably Killed Palestinian Family." There is no "probably" about it, their evidence doesn't "strongly suggest" Israel's guilt, it proves it. Although HRW presents enough facts here for you to draw this conclusion yourself, nowhere do they mention specifically that this event constituted a war-crime. Instead they give some vague crap about how international law prohibits indiscriminate attacks, without mentioning that artillery is an inherently indiscriminate weapon, and Israel is clearly targeting civilians by their own admission. (End of Part 1)
Yaman and Mohammad: I agree that HRW is often biased towards Israel, and they have been widely criticized for being so. Their reports typically provide enough facts about Israel to convince any reasonable person that Israel is guilty of war crimes, but they often present those facts out of context, and in a vague, equivocal and non-committal way. They often omit important details or fail to draw obvious conclusions based on available evidence. Most people who read HRW's reports, including government ministers, are not experts on International law nor are they human rights lawyers. For this reason HRW has to do more than just present the facts, it has to give us an interpretation of those facts within the context of international law and ideally, render an opinion whether or not the behavior in question constitutes a war crime or other violation. This is something they frequently fail to do with regards to israel, even though they provide you with the tools to draw that conclusion yourself. I believe that HRW's equivocation is not the result so much of a natural bias towards Israel, though that is the effect of it, but a vain attempt to be "balanced" and thereby appease the Israeli lobby and avoid the usual accusations of anti-Semitism or singling out Israel. They have obviously failed miserably in both regards. That being said, I don't believe that HRW deliberately lies, even though it could be argued that failure to present the whole truth or present things in context is tantamount to a lie. If HRW claims the Tamil Tigers are using child soldiers or suicide bombers, I would accept that this is most likely the truth. On the other hand, if they fail to adequately identify the abuses comitted by the Sri Lanka government, I would not see that as evidence that Sri Lanka government is innocent of charges other parties may have brought against it, any more than I would see that as evidence that Israel is innocent. As an example of HRW's equivocation, consider this report by HRW of Israel's attack against a family picnicking on a beach in Gaza back in 2006, an event which caused Hamas to end its unilateral ceasefire with Israel. Israel: Investigate Gaza Beach Killings Artillery Strike Probably Killed Palestinian Family ” target=”_blank”>http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2006/06/13/israel-inve... In this report , they demonstrate that the shellholes on the ground around the spot the family was hit are consistant with an artillery barrage, find evidence of 155mm shell casings which could only have come from Israel, have an admission from Israel that they fired artillery within 250 meters of the family at the time the attack occurred, and have another Israeli general openly admitting that the purpose of Israel's shelling is to deter future attacks and punish area residents—a war crime, though HRW fails to mention this. HRW's conclusion? "Artillery Strike Probably Killed Palestinian Family." There is no "probably" about it, their evidence doesn't "strongly suggest" Israel's guilt, it proves it. Although HRW presents enough facts here for you to draw this conclusion yourself, nowhere do they mention specifically that this event constituted a war-crime. Instead they give some vague crap about how international law prohibits indiscriminate attacks, without mentioning that artillery is an inherently indiscriminate weapon, and Israel is clearly targeting civilians by their own admission. (End of Part 1)
Part 2: Note that they unequivocally accept Israel's assertions that the artillery barrages are in response to Qassem attacks as if these are accepted facts, rather than at least qualifying the remarks with "Israel claims." In my opinion, the purpose of these attacks beyond the usual habitual abuse and harassment of Palestinians was to force Hamas to break its ceasefire so that Israel would then have grounds to escalate its siege and attacks, which is exactly what it did. But they fail to mention that Hamas was maintaining a unilateral ceasefire at this time in the face of extreme provocation by Israel and that it was this event that caused Hamas to break its ceasefire. What Qassems were fired at this time were fired by Islamic Jihad or Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade, who claim their attacks were in retaliation to Israeli attacks against Palestinians, which began just three days after Israel's alleged withdrawl from Gaza when they shot a farmer and attacked a fishing boat. There is no mention of this context or that it was Israel, as usual, that initiated and then escalated the violence, or that Israel had refused repeated requests for a truce with Hamas. I have a lot of other issues with this report but I think I'll stop with that. So while this report is clearly damning of Israel, like many of HRW's reports on Israel it is nowhere near as critical as it needs to be and it clearly sacrifices clarity on the altar of "balance," which is a fool's errand and contrary to HRW's stated mission. Jonathan Cook has taken HRW to task over its equivocation, and I think these articles from Counterpunch, as well as HRW's rebuttal and Cook's response to that rebuttal, are an excellent argument in favor of what I am trying to say here. How Human Rights Watch Lost Its Way in Lebanon The Israel Lobby Works Its Magic, Again ” target=”_blank”>http://www.counterpunch.org/cook09072006.html A Response to Jonathan Cook Hezbollah's Rockets and Civilian Casualties ” target=”_blank”>http://www.counterpunch.org/whitson09222006.html Should We Deny Lebanon the Right to Defend Itself? Human Rights Watch: Still Missing the Point ” target=”_blank”>http://www.counterpunch.org/cook09252006.html Would HRW Have Attacked Martin Luther King, Too? Palestinians Are Being Denied the Right of Non-Violent Resistance? ” target=”_blank”>http://www.counterpunch.org/cook11302006.html
Part 2: Note that they unequivocally accept Israel's assertions that the artillery barrages are in response to Qassem attacks as if these are accepted facts, rather than at least qualifying the remarks with "Israel claims." In my opinion, the purpose of these attacks beyond the usual habitual abuse and harassment of Palestinians was to force Hamas to break its ceasefire so that Israel would then have grounds to escalate its siege and attacks, which is exactly what it did. But they fail to mention that Hamas was maintaining a unilateral ceasefire at this time in the face of extreme provocation by Israel and that it was this event that caused Hamas to break its ceasefire. What Qassems were fired at this time were fired by Islamic Jihad or Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade, who claim their attacks were in retaliation to Israeli attacks against Palestinians, which began just three days after Israel's alleged withdrawl from Gaza when they shot a farmer and attacked a fishing boat. There is no mention of this context or that it was Israel, as usual, that initiated and then escalated the violence, or that Israel had refused repeated requests for a truce with Hamas. I have a lot of other issues with this report but I think I'll stop with that. So while this report is clearly damning of Israel, like many of HRW's reports on Israel it is nowhere near as critical as it needs to be and it clearly sacrifices clarity on the altar of "balance," which is a fool's errand and contrary to HRW's stated mission. Jonathan Cook has taken HRW to task over its equivocation, and I think these articles from Counterpunch, as well as HRW's rebuttal and Cook's response to that rebuttal, are an excellent argument in favor of what I am trying to say here. How Human Rights Watch Lost Its Way in Lebanon The Israel Lobby Works Its Magic, Again ” target=”_blank”>http://www.counterpunch.org/cook09072006.html A Response to Jonathan Cook Hezbollah's Rockets and Civilian Casualties ” target=”_blank”>http://www.counterpunch.org/whitson09222006.html Should We Deny Lebanon the Right to Defend Itself? Human Rights Watch: Still Missing the Point ” target=”_blank”>http://www.counterpunch.org/cook09252006.html Would HRW Have Attacked Martin Luther King, Too? Palestinians Are Being Denied the Right of Non-Violent Resistance? ” target=”_blank”>http://www.counterpunch.org/cook11302006.html
Thanks as always. I understand your point, but can we assume that HRW's reports on Israel are uniquely weak (i.e. is it not a trend towards the stronger party in most conflicts the organization reports on)?
I think their reports on Israel can be used as a benchmark as to how far they are willing to defer to power. There is no taboo greater in the US and Europe than criticism of Israel, and no propaganda machine enforcing such a taboo as powerful as the Israeli lobby and pro-Zionist organizations. But HRW can say whatever they want about Sri Lanka without 5,000 newspapers in the US and Europe accusing them of "anti-Sinhalism." As equivocal as HRW reports on Israel are, they are still way beyond the boundaries of accepted discourse on Israel, and clearly give the impression Israel is a major human rights violator. If they are willing to go even that far in their criticism of Israel, I would expect they are willing to go even further with regards to less protected countries. I don't think we need to assume that HRW will feel compelled in every situation to put self-preservation above principle the way they do with Israel.
Way to go Kebobfest, however, we have the little problem of fascist stats (Israel/US) murdering at will all over the Middle East. Is it me or the number of fascist occupations are in the rise the in Middle East? —————– I invite you to come to Michigan Student Assembly tonight (Wed 13 May 2009, 3rd floor of the Michigan Union at 6:00 PM) and take a stand against Israel. Demand serious action against the fascist State of Israel. Boycott movement is growing all over the world. Be a serious part of the Boycott Israel movement. Come to Michigan Student Assembly tonight (Wed 13 May 2009, 3rd floor of the Michigan Union at 6:00 PM,) and demand boycott of Israel at all U of M campuses.
I agree with you on both counts. Excellent story, Sana, and it touched on some thoughts I've had myself. Whether the current situation in Israel and Palestine is right or wrong, or what wrongs brought us to where we are, the reality is that you cannot affect any change in the hearts of those we need to change most without showing compassion to their situation. We cannot ask Israeli settlers to leave the West Bank without giving them an alternative, for example. When people are pushed into a corner it is natural to act defensively. But unfortunately, most people who are working to affect change in these areas have been too emotionally involved or too traumatized to retain compassion for the oppressor.
hey sana, thanks for the writeup, but i think it's important to note that by no means do all sri lankan muslims ascribe to aminah's views. the island is home to a staggering array of political opinions. they vary greatly with region, religion, and class. judging by amina's comments, i'm going to guess she hasn't lived in sri lanka's north or east, where the violence is most acute and, ironically enough, the politics more nuanced. people, sinhalese, muslims, and tamils, living elsewhere on the island are prone to the reductivist politics amina expresses here. it's the people who are living in or near the war zones, who have been harmed by violence from both the govt forces and the tigers, who, because they are aware of the daily realities of the conflict, don't buy into the sinhala/tamil binary. "A lot of the Muslims in Sri Lanka claim to be of Arab/Persian heritage and I think that removes them somewhat from the Tamil/Sinhalese tension." do they? i think there's definitely been a history of arab trading with the island, which has led to the construction of an arab-informed history of islam on the island. that said, i don't think many sl muslims actually claim Arab descent, at least not in terms that distance themselves from the war — especially since there have been muslims on the island for centuries. even if they did, by no means does that remove them from the conflict. in fact, sri lankan muslims occupy a strange interstitial space in sri lanka because they are subject to violence from both warring factions and represented by neither.
It's over. The Tigers have been defeated – more importantly, they have accepted this. Rather than an unaccountable group of totalitarian terrorists subjecting a brutalized population an "ordinary" government has unified the country and relieved the captives. I wish Israel had done the same to Gaza in January. Unfortunately, unlike Sri Lanka, it is still socially and politically acceptable for Arabs to seek totalitarian dominion and the exterminations of "others". Here's hoping the world – and the Arabs themselves – will take a lesson from the sorry island of Columbo and move in the opposite direction.
” target=”_blank”>http://www.kabobfest.com/2009/05/srilankans-your-...
” target=”_blank”>http://www.kabobfest.com/2009/05/srilankans-your-...
The thing is you can sit in another country and assess and analyze situations, but it's only when you really get down on the ground and see how the people live all over the island that you realise that you can't be so cut and dried about your statements. Perhaps your eagerness to compare the situation in Sri Lanka and Israel are coloring your views and no doubt you have very strong feelings about Palestine which tip over into this other conflict. Don't be so quick to take sides and holler out how depraved/and or clueless the other side is. Because then you are doing exactly what you criticize the opposing people/govt. of doing. Peace out.
Hey Aysha, I'm not comparing the Palestinian issue with the Sri Lankan issue – as I said in another comment (above): "Just to clarify – I don't think the situation in Darfur is comparable to the situation in Palestine which in turn is comparable to the situation in Sri Lanka and so forth. I think to actually believe them to be completely similar undermines their severity and creates this one-solution-for-all belief which is, in my humble opinion, of the bullshit persuasion. My point was, rather, what I say at the end – Will put it well in an email he sent me about the propensity within all of us to become morally blinded. That was the point of the piece.
" Key words "propensity within all of us to become morally blinded" Additionally, Palestine is not the only country or geographical conflict which falls under my care-radar. I'd like a little more credit than that. If you check out my other recent post, you can see I'm not exactly 'cut and dry' about this situation – or any situation. You can't be cut and dry. Additionally, at the end of the day I put a great burden on state actors in terms of fixing things as they are the (albeit not always..but whatever, we'll take on rousseau's social contract shit) the legitimate apparatus within a country, ruling within certain boundaries and thus I believe they should be more responsible than non-state actors (who deserve a crapload of blame themselves, but I do believe that if a state is going to uphold itself as legitimate then it must take the higher ground in such situations).
I agree about state actors needing to take responsibility for its citizens' welfare. It seems the 3 yr old or so elected SL govt. has been trying to do this, but it seems from reading more and more of these articles, foreign views have been shaped in the face of what I would say is unfair intl. media bias towards discussing the LTTE and the diaspora's fear-mongering of genocide, as opposed to what the national solutions and approaches have been. And a good question actually Sana would be to ask how does the diaspora inform themselves of what is going on in Sri Lanka? How have they informed themselves over the years. An investigation into these sources may tell you a lot about how powerful the LTTE propaganda arm was. In fact, I'd venture to say that it was their most important and sustaining feature, which ensured ideological & financial support, and in its last hours, a hope that the intl. community might be able to persuade the govt. for a ceasefire so that they could recoup, as they have always done during ceasefires in the past, and this is all very well-documented if you look into the issues independently. One commenter in this thread mentioned that we do not see Sudanese or Sri Lankan activists…that's the thing, YOU don't see it, the media that you depend on have their "storylines" which they "follow" and then they keep you "updated on the situation." And once in a while they might feature the story of the "remarkable journey" of some 3rd world activist. I assume it helps their ratings. In any case, I can't say about Sudan, but in SL, civil society yells foul when crazy situations arise. I think in this instance the reason you don't see much domestic activity is because, 1) the media weren't covering it because there was opposition and derision from the duh..opposition party UNP re: the war, and 2) what foreign journalists here are starting to see is what with the "community-wide celebrations", everyone pretty much backed the president and army on this campaign irrespective of ethnicity when the situation came down to the wire. There was massive organisation to provide food aid and necessities to the IDPs coming in by the masses and encouragement for the army's work. Everyone understood the importance of pushing through, all the while repeatedly reminding the govt. to protect the civilians, and you may not see this in your media but the Army upon their honour as they say, had been trying their best to safeguard the civilian population while at the same time juggling the attacks from the LTTE's side. The thing is the situation flipped in a short amount of time from cornering the LTTE to what became the need for a concerted effort to separate the civilians from the cadres as the army realised not only were the cadres on the move, but the whole entire population was herded along with them after the capture of Killinochchi. It's been a complicated process for the army, and I'd say that all the UN estimates on death tolls, are just that, estimates; they are all yet to be verified. So it seems unfair to cry foul without substantial proof, and dangerous too if decisions and opinions are based on what may not be the truth. A friend of mine worked for the govt. and I asked her about how accurate govt. figures usually were, and she said that "more or less" they coincided with official findings at the end of the day, although at times they were known to lower their army casualty numbers to not allow the enemy to understand how successful or not their operations have been, but these figures too come to light at the end of the day obviously among the war dead. Man oh man..good discussion though people. Thank god we're not the ultimate arbitrators of stuff, but seriously I have a pretty niggling understanding these days that man… the people with big hearts at the UN and stuff don't know shit either. Good call by Ban-Ki Moon though to visit SL himself. Guess we'll know a little bit more about how the UN positions or re-positions itself after that.
[...] September 11, 2009 Another post from Kabobfest. I know. I really should get some new stuff. [...]