Inside the Mountain

Dateline: Potosi, Bolvia
January 2000

First posted on Vizshun.com

This morning I ventured inside the Cerro Rico, and I was stunned.

At the turn of the new millennium the working conditions of the silver miners here are medieval, worse than those of the French miners immortalized by Emile Zola in his 1885 novel “Germinal”.
These Bolivian miners use open flame lamps on their rickety safety helmets, powered by 96% alcohol and a silver rock that costs them a dollar a day to purchase at a shack in the mining supply camp on the outskirts of Potosi. Headlamps like this were outlawed in the United States more than a century ago. Face masks to keep out the dust and poisons within the hill are non-existent.

The glory days of Cerro Rico are long gone. Mostly today these miners are digging out minute traces of silver, and some zinc and copper if they are lucky. The tin is long gone. We entered the mine through as shaft opening first dug by Incas 500 years ago. They drilled 300 feet into the mountain using the finest technology they could afford in the 1400’s before the Spanish conquistadors and their successors seized the mine for themselves.

The tunnels are dark and cramped, built for the average five foot tall Indian of the 1400’s. No one has ever bothered to spend the money to widen the tunnels out to fit 20th Century humans. In places a visitor has to get down on hands and knees to crawl through the tunnels.

The air is bad—first you can see your labored breath, then around the next corner the temperature shoots up to 100 degrees or more. And at 4300 meters, there isn’t much oxygen to spare anyway, and toxic gases abound—arsenic, boron, carbon monoxide, acetylene. The harsh bitter taste burned my throat and lungs, lasting for days after spending three hours underground.

Most miners die of silicosis or black lung disease. Many enter the mines to work in their early teens, and life expectancy is low.

After the Spanish stole the mountain from the Incas, they mined Cerro Rico continuously for more than 300 years, using mostly Quechua Indians and African slaves. Bolivian historians estimate more than eight million miners died from accidents and disease over that timeframe. All to fund the Spanish monarchy and the Inquisition.

Legend maintains that a bridge of silver extending from Potosi to Madrid could have been built with the amount of silver pulled out of the mountain. Potosi once had a population of 200,000, the largest city in the world at the time, larger than London or Paris. Old-timers claim their ancestors paved the streets of Potosi with the silver that fell out of Spanish pockets. The streets are cobble-stoned now, but left behind is a tightly packed inner city perched on a hillside filled with colonial architecture, stone buildings of grace and beauty built for the Spanish oligarchy and their mangers.

By the time Bolivia won its independence from Spain in 1825, the mine was past its prime, but a new generation of Bolivian aristocrats took over the Cerro Rico, now focused on the mining of tin ore. Massive fortunes were built—at the beginning of the 20th Century Cerro Rico provided nearly 30% of the world’s tin.

In the Bolivian revolution of 1952 the mine was nationalized, and working conditions improved greatly—largely because the Bolivian miners, long the most militant sector of the Bolivian population, provided most of the muscle to overthrow the military dictatorship. But it was too little, too late. The mine was mostly played out, and when the silver and tin markets collapsed in the last two decades of the century, the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank, and a potpourri of Neo-liberal economic advisors convinced the government to sell the mine and lay off thousands of miners. One result was a mass migration to the jungles of eastern Bolivia, where many miners turned their hand to growing coca.

What is left at Cerro Rico are cooperative mining operations, owned by the workers themselves. This is not as progressive at it sounds. There is so little silver and zinc left (tin is almost non-existent) the miners struggle in poverty. Where 200,000 miners once toiled, some 8,000 now scratch out 50 Bolvianos a day ($10).

They dig several miles underground, amongst a maze of shafts and tunnels that spread out for miles underground, in a darkness lit only by the aforementioned open-flame gas lamps. Most days are marked by explosions, as various groups of miners explode sticks of dynamite at the end of active shafts (one stick of dynamite costs a miner about $2, purchased at one of many shady mining supply shacks), blowing holes once or twice a day with sticks of dynamite they spend 10 Bolivianos on at the shady mining supply shacks on the edge of Potosi.

After these daily morning explosions, the miners spend their day shifting through rubble and loading what ore they find into 60 kilo gunny sacks they then carry out of the hole on their backs. Once they reach the main shaft they load the ore on old-fashioned wooden carts (with their wooden wheels) and push it out of the mine by hand. It can take more than an hour to reach the mine opening.

There it is weighed and immediately bought by ore merchants who wait patiently all day, chewing coca leaves and smoking harsh cigarettes, for the ore to trickle out from underground. Once paid, the miner heads back underground for the next 60 kilo load.

One fellow, shirtless, dirty, and sweating profusely, shoved his few precious Bolivianos into his raggedy pockets and shrugged at his fate. “It is the only life I know. It is the only life my family has ever known, going back for generations.”

The day before, the mine had shut down for the day as the miners buried one of their own, an old-timer, a leader of one of the cooperative mining operations. The man had been a union leader in the government mine, and had spent several stretches in prison under one Bolivian dictator or another over the years for his union activity, the first time 20 years ago.

He died of silicosis. He was 38.

The Spiritual Architecture of Machu Picchu



Dateline: Machu Picchu, Peru
January 2008

appeared in a variety of newspapers

Awesome, deep, orgasmic—these are a few of the words I or others have used to describe Machu Picchu. All are inadequate.

The gateway to Machu Picchu is Cuzco, Peru, a beautiful city in the heart of the Inca Empire. The city boasts a graceful colonial main square, uniquely open and without trees but with a two-story fountain in the middle, surrounded by a cathedral and a church on two sides, and colonial buildings with restaurants and balconies overlooking.

The encircling businesses of course are geared towards the tourists—gift shops, tours, and the now-ubiquitous internet cafes, where one can email to all of your home-bound friends while watching the rain hammer down into the square on a Saturday afternoon, the hills surrounding the city shrouded in mist. Wandering beyond the main square reveals centuries old residencies, churches, stables and workshops churning out metals and fine woodwork, mixed in with artist galleries and local eateries where the food is as scrumptious at a third of the price of the more touristy fare.

My hotel is up the hill from the main plaza, under the watchful eye of a statute of the Madonna with her arms spread wide, a lovely place of white stucco and red-tiled roofs, terraced up the hillside in four levels. There are two patios to sit on, and my room is in reality two, a small bedroom accompanied by a sitting room with rattan furniture, a tiny fireplace, and a commanding vista overlooking Cuzco below and the surrounding valley.

After unpacking I walk down into town, and instantly realize I had under-budgeted my time for this spot, and immediately pushed back my departure flight at one of the numerous travel agencies surrounding the plaza. Who would really miss me? And in the long run, four more days would be better spent here than in the normal workaday world back home.

The next morning the tour guide collected me at 5 a.m. and whisked me off to the train station. Everyone goes to Machu Picchu in one of three ways—the intrepid hike the Inca Trail for four days (an option precluded to me by inclement weather, the less active or time pressed ride by train, or for the rich, by helicopter. The first half hour of the train journey is switchbacks up the mountain behind Cuzco, affording another commanding view, then it’s off through the Peruvian countryside, fertile valleys stuffed with farms growing corn and potatoes and every other vegetable imaginable, and then some. (There are fourteen varieties of potato grown in the Andes.) In the middle of the rainy season the countryside is a verdant green blanket contrasting with rich red-brown stretches of soil. High clouds dotted a blue sky that hurt to gaze at.

After an hour, the tracks ventured upon the Rio Urubamba and the landscape grew dramatic, the river gorged with rain water, overflowing the banks at points, coursing past boulders and villages. Sinkholes formed in the river that could swallow whole houses. Run-off creeks coursed down steep muddy hillsides that threatened to slide and obliterate the railroad at any moment. The altitude dropped as we progressed, and rocky highland converted to jungle vegetation, incredibly lush and promising to recapture the train tracks left after the potential mudslides. The last hour of the ride the train plunged into canyons with rocky cliffs towering above us. All of this was but preparation for the splendor of Machu Picchu itself.

The train ride ends in Aguas Caliente, a town out of the American Wild West. Mud streets lined with ramshackle eating establishments, bed and breakfasts, and thinly disguised flophouses were there was more for sale than just the bed. Crowded narrow lanes featured stalls displaying the inevitable Latin American informal economy, the one designed by the neo-liberal economic reformers to make vendors out of everyone. Disembarking from the train we were assaulted by a gauntlet of neo-capitalists, pushing tee-shirts and weavings and trinkets, exhorting us to come back down the mountain and buy from them for a very good price after we’d viewed the historic ruins above.

My first impression of Machu Picchu itself is not so much of the Inca village itself, but where they decided to build it. The majesty of the place begins to hit you as the shuttle bus from the train station winds up something like 89 switchbacks, regal rock formations sprouting around to reach towards the sun peeping through the overcast above. Machu Picchu perches on the very top of a mountain ridge, ringed by mountains, with the river deep in its canyon below encircling the ruins in a 270 degree arc. The two days I was there the surrounding mountain tops always wore a crown of mist of clouds, adding to the deep mystery of the place. And this is not a rounded hill—steep slopes require you go up three feet for every corresponding foot of territory gained.

Viewing the ruins filled me with an awe of the human spirit, the sense of dedication (or was it chutzpah?) it must have taken to build Machu Picchu. Granted, much of it was built with slave labor. But to have the vision of what was to be requires an intelligence far too often denied even the enviable Inca mind. It took will to build on top of this mountain—for practical defense, for spirit, to be closer to the sun as a vision of god and life essence.

It’s all built of stone—stairways, walls, homes, terraces, palaces, temples. The terraces are packed with earth hauled up bit by bit in reed baskets on the backers of those slave laborers from the riverbed 500 meters below, as were the stones themselves.

The terraces are fantastic, spreading up and down the hill, knitted together by steep Incan stairways perfectly designed for easy climbing. The stone work reflects the importance of the buildings—the temples are built with no mortar between the rocks, the craftsmanship so the stone blocks, often measuring three feet by three feet and sometimes even larger, lay flat against each other, with no gaps, no place even for a weed to grow. Many of the stones are perfectly square, fitted with notches and fancy corners. Everything is trapezoidal, earthquake protection so walls and doorways begin to fall in onto themselves and so hold each other up when the earth moves.

All of this done of course with no modern tools, no iron, nothing to cut with. Just rock pounding against rock, sanding and polishing to create perfect forms. Massive rocks are put in place by rolling them over other stones used as a crude form of ball-bearings, pushed and pulled by ropes and human sweat. The houses and common buildings are less exact, with mud mortar in between, but none the less remarkable for such a flaw.

Machu Picchu was built in just over 100 years, and abandoned unfinished, one slab destined for the temple of the sun left on its rollers just in front of the altar. No one really knows why the Incas abandoned the place. One theory has an earthquake damaging the temple of the sun, and such an omen pushed the architects to leave things as they were. Other theories speak of civil war fought between two brothers, one of Quitos and one of Cuzco. The men of Machu Picchu left to fight, and the women moved to friendly habitation. Or maybe it was disease, smallpox or influenza brought to Cuzco by the newly arrived Spanish conquistadors spreading to the city of the sun.

Regardless, the Incas left, the city undiscovered by the invading Spanish, and the jungle reclaimed the site. It was more than 400 years before Hiram Bingham, an archeologist from Yale University, persuaded local Indian farmers who knew of the ruins to take him there in 1911.

Late in the afternoon after most of the tourists had returned to the sins of Agua Caliente, I wandered the empty ruins imagining what it must have been like to live there, to gaze out a window at the river, watching the rain clouds close in. A light rain formed, while brilliant sunshine still shone through holes in the overcast sky.

A rainbow began forming, coming straight out of the rapids of the river far below, arching up slowly. A small group formed and stood watching, with each minute the rainbow extending over our heads, our hushed voices exclaiming ‘Look at that’ with awe. The rainbow grew, arching over the top of the mountain just opposite the ruins, and came back down to hit the river where it curved around to the opposite side of the mountain. The brightest, most perfect rainbow I’ve ever seen. Then the second rainbow appeared, above it and fainter, but stretching from river to river as did the first.

In the hush of sunset, a local tour guide turned to the group assembled for this display of nature’s glory and proclaimed we were all blessed with the best of luck for the coming year. I thought I was blessed with the best of luck for that very moment.

As I left the grounds, the last to leave for the evening, I looked back at a cloud of mist flowing up the hillside from the river, covering the ruins like a blanket for the night. I came to Machu Picchu hoping and expecting some sort of spiritual enlightenment.

I found humility.

Negotiating with Bill Richardson


Dateline: Santa Fe, New Mexico
July 2008

posted on vizshun.com

So I’m shopping around for the next President of the United States. Given the political realities of America, I have two basic criteria. One, be a Democrat. Two, be electable. Other than that, I’m kicking the tires to see who might be the best candidate that meets those criteria. For reasons I’ll explain some other time, I don’t think the two putative front runners for the Democratic nomination, Senators Hilary Clinton and Barack Obama, met criteria number two. Neither does the guy most dear to my ideological heart, Dennis Kucinich, god love him and his Department of Peace.

So I turned to a potential candidate I’ve known about and followed since he was first elected to Congress back when I stilled called New Mexico home, the current governor of the Land of Enchantment, Bill Richardson. He spent 13 years in Congress, and a year as Ambassador to the United Nations and three as Energy Secretary under Bill Clinton. Now he’s in his second term as Governor of New Mexico, which is indeed in the United States. (When I first moved there in 1980, some of my friends were confused. And I discovered the San Francisco-native beer Anchor Steam would be stocked in the imported beer section of the grocery store. But that was before the micro beer/good beer revolution, back when my beer of choice was Schlitz, with the cool pewter and burgundy can. But I digress.)

Nice resume, lots of experience. A Latino, despite his Anglo sounding last name, who could appeal to the fastest growing and politically-flexible part of the U.S. population. And I know he’s a tough-minded pragmatist, willing to roll his sleeves up and get things done. But what does he really stand for, what are his politics, his vision for America?

So I went to the library and picked up his autobiography. Penned in 2005 when he was prepping for his gubernatorial re-election campaign, it’s a quick and agreeable read, starting traditionally enough with his boyhood years and dreams (traditional anyway, if you grow up in Mexico City where his father was manger of Citibank). Actually, his bi-racial nature (Mexican mom) fits in with Barack Osama as an interesting way to view who We As Americans are today.

What I learned is that Bill Richardson calls himself a mainly centrist Democrat. And after that, he never really talks about what he stands for, what his positions are on any given issue. He sticks to telling stories about his life, things he did and saw, matters as they pertained to the flow of his life. And it all sounded pretty reasonable, except for his stumping for votes to pass NAFTA (despite that, Richardson is regularly supported by the labor movement in New Mexico).

But border politics in border states doesn’t always follow easily recognizable ideological lines.
Foreign policy has always been a passion of Richardson’s, and as a congressman he quickly became a go-to guy for countries interested in opening back channel dialogue with the United States, under both Bush the First and Clinton. He led congressional delegations on fact finding trips to Africa, Asia, Latin America, and the Middle East. And he became a guy who would go in and negotiate the release of Americans being held as political captives under criminal pretenses. He went toe-to-toe with Saddam Hussein, Fidel Castro, and the North Koreans. Each time he came away with those Americans on his airplane, back to the United States. A hero.

In these tales Richardson is always tough with the opposition, making it clear he is not there to make policy or deals, but to get the release of the captive Americans. But he also makes it clear to them, and is the dominant theme of the biography, that he believes in negotiating, in each side treating the other with respect, of listening to what the other side has to say and understanding their point of view, and talking and talking and talking some more to resolve differences. He always waves the possibility of American military might being used if it is absolutely necessary, but he’d rather not. That decision is really up to the other guy by being too intransient. So let’s talk it out.

I love that. I mean, I never understood the Bush Diplomatic principle of “We’re not going to talk to you at all about anything until you concede to all of our demands. Then we will be willing to sit down with you and discuss how you are going to implement all of our demands”. I mean, duh, no wonder we’re not getting anywhere with anybody.

So Richardson’s sounding pretty good, que no? But I kept finding myself more and more dissatisfied by what I was reading. One, Richardson never really states what he believes in any of the huge policy disputes he’s been in the middle of, with North Korea, with Iraq, with Cuba. And Two, he clearly relished playing the good soldier to the President (especially so with Bill Clinton) and backing official American foreign policy—even while he was willing to talk the night away about the differences between that policy and what the other guy was saying. But Bill Richardson never conceded anything.

And that leads to number three. Richardson seems to be firmly in the American foreign policy establishment, especially as manifested under the Democratic Party, an adherent of American Exceptionalism. That because we are good people and moral and the most powerful nation in the world naturally no matter what we want it is right. Whatever the United States wants or believes is exactly the right thing for everybody. And everything will go better for whoever Richardson or the United States is negotiating with if they will just accept that and start working out the details of how to get around to putting into practice in their country what the United States wants. Which is just a more user-friendly and verbally-oriented version of the Republican’s version of American Exceptionalism diplomacy as practiced by the Bushites (see above).

In short, Richardson is a good soldier for The American Empire. And he’s effective at it because of his personal approach, how he respects people and talks frankly with them. Other countries seek him out; even today as he’s Governor of a small border state (and supposedly about to announce his candidacy for President) he’s off to Darfur to see what he can do about stopping the genocide occurring there, invited by the Sudanese government to see if he can talk to the rebels. And the rebels are listening to him.

But I don’t know what his vision is for the world. Except I guess as America’s playground. In a book written in 2005, he has nothing to say about our current situation in Iraq. Why? He wasn’t in Congress when the war vote was taken, so he’s not on record approving or disapproving. And as Governor of New Mexico, well, it didn’t come up as an issue (although I wonder how he feels about members of New Mexico’s National Guard serving in Iraq?).

And if it doesn’t affect his direct personal narrative, he didn’t write about it. The only things he says about Iraq are his personal impressions of Saddam Hussein (which are negative, surprise, surprise) and his frustration with Iraq’s refusal to cooperate with United Nations inspectors and sanctions while Richardson was at the U.N. And he makes it clear that at that time, he thought Iraq did have a program actively developing weapons of mass destruction. As did almost everybody else. But he never comments in his book written in 2005 on the evidence that points to the conclusion that indeed Iraq did destroy their weapons in the early 90’s and likely didn’t have a large weapons program in the late 90’s (or early 2000’s) at all.

What does suggest itself to me though is Richardson’s willingness to toe the establishment line undercuts even his willingness to negotiate, which I find his best quality. In the book he talks about how he developed solid relations with Iran, and routinely had informal talks with highly placed Iranian diplomats. When he was confirmed as U.N. Ambassador he describes how one of his highly placed Iranian contacts called to congratulate him, and say he hoped this meant the United States and Iran could begin serious dialogue about opening up relations between the two countries.

Richardson reported this to his new boss, Secretary of State Madeline Albright, who had preceded him at the United Nations. She responded by telling Richardson that he needed to cut off all of his Iranian contacts because official U.S. policy under Clinton was that we weren’t talking to them. And Richardson did, to the point where he talked about how awkward it was when he saw His Iranian contact at a U.N. event six months later where all he could do was say “Hi!” and move on. Richardson approvingly says this was when he learned the difference between his previous “freelance” version of diplomacy and what is official diplomacy, as should be practiced by the United States Ambassador to the United Nations.

I don’t think that’s the kind of guy I want to be President of the United States, even if he is electable. I guess I need another level of criteria.

Dennis Kucinich is looking better again.

The Exception to the Rule

Dateline: Oakland, CA
March 2007

posted on Perils of Empire.com

The Bush regime claims they are trying to establish a secure and democratic government of peace and tranquility in Iraq. And we know how best to do that for the Iraqis (and their oil fields). Because We are the forces of moral right and justice in the world. We have the best society, and have the best system of government, a system that we will gladly export to the Iraqis. And we (represented by George Bush the Shrub) are willing to sacrifice by sending even more American troops in to occupy and suppress those who disagree. It is all of these militant insurgent terrorists who disagree with us who are mucking it up, preventing the creation of a peaceful Iraq that allows its natural resources to be controlled by foreign corporate interests.

That’s the way of the New World Order, after all. And that is what the American foreign policy establishment has been all about in Iraq for more than 15 years. With Democrats or Republicans in control of the government, the ideas remain basically the same. Replace Saddam Hussein with a government friendly to our interests and which allows us (through U. S. oil companies) to exploit the vast natural resources of one of the potentially richest countries in the world. Oh yes, let’s build and maintain huge military bases in the region to assure that no Iraqi’s decide to change that situation.

This is thought process is called American Exceptionalism. That our way must be the right way to do it, because it’s what is best for America. Whatever is best for America must be best for other people as well. After all, Americans, are good people, devoted to family and friends, want what’s best. As the Michael Keaton character says in Live from Baghdad, HBO’s excellent movie about the lead up to the first Iraq War, “We’re Americans, we’re the liberty people.”

And so we try to patrol and control a population that continues to disagree with us, that has a different vision of what Iraq should be, and we vilify those who disagree with our policies by calling them terrorists. And we don’t understand why they hate us.
I know that Iraq may break down into civil war, and that many more thousands of people may die because of that. But I don’t believe that’s why the troops are there. Too many analyses by respected journalists and military men show that the war in Iraq is not being fought to win what’s best for the Iraqi people, it’s being fought to maintain. enough stability for American business interests to control the wealth of the country. But they’re losing even that war.
I don’t know how to stop the bloodbath that might occur in Iraq if/when the America military leaves. And it will take the moral weight and good intentions and economic support of the entire world to help them through the mess they are going to have to go through to truly create their future. But we set it up, didn’t we? By doing what the American foreign policy establishment wanted—regime change, dictating a friendly government willing to do our bidding. We didn’t do it for what was best for the Iraqis to control their own destinies. We did it to pursue American interests.

The point is simply this: America’s foreign policy establishment is exactly that, America’s foreign policy establishment. It is about pushing American interests in other countries. It’s about manipulating the world to accept and even agree to the point of view of what best for American—or better put, American business interests—is what is best for them. The American Empire’s goals should be their goals. It’s about how to organize the world in our American interest. Not in the interest of Palestinians, or Iraqis, or North Koreans. Or the French, or the Japanese, or the Bolivians.
As long as we keep thinking that American exceptionalism is always right, that what our interests are what’s best for everybody, we’re going to create problems in the world.

Because what’s in our interest isn’t always in everybody else’s best interest. until Americans start thinking of foreign policy as what’s best for everybody to get along and thrive, then we’re going to keep finding ourselves stuck in the morass of a Korean War…no sorry, a Viet Nam War…no sorry, an Iraqi war. I don’t want to have to write this again about the Iranian War, or the Syrian War, or the North Korean War, or the Chinese War, or the Canadian…

Because someday, somewhere along the line, somebody is going to fire an atomic weapon, drop an atomic bomb. And then the world as we know it is forever altered, disrupted, messed up. Or maybe worse, an On The Beach scenario happens where we kill the whole planet. And it might be the United States and its foreign policy establishment that uses an atomic weapon to force its Vision of the World on everybody else.
After all, we’re the only ones who have used one up to now. Maybe we’re not so exceptional.

Shutting Up Jimmy Carter


Dateline: Washington D.C.
January 2007


Jimmy Carter’s new book Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid continues to create ripples in America’s foreign policy establishment, with the announcement January 11th that fourteen member’s of the advisory board of the Carter Center, including a former Carter Ambassador to the Bahamas and the former Carter-Mondale campaign’s national finance chairman, have resigned from the Center because they “could not longer endorse” Carter’s “strident and uncompromising position”.
In the book, former President Carter criticizes Israel’s policies regarding Palestine and its treatment of Palestinians and further criticizes Israel’s supporters in the United States for attempting to stifle media and public debate here on the issue. I wonder what their wish for Carter is in resigning? To stop debate on the book?

The critics go on to say Carter has “abandoned” his “historic role of honest broker and mediator between warring parties.” Carter’s sin, it seems, is he pointed out, firmly and with ample documentation, the sins of one side of the “war”—the repeated and multiple violations of international law and the ignoring of United Nation’s resolutions by the Israeli government through their continued illegal military occupation of the West Bank and their periodic military incursions into Gaza.
Carter goes on as well to mention the multiple violations of the Oslo Agreement that end up squeezing the Palestinian economy through curfews and closures and fences and military checkpoints which create broken up urban sections of Israeli-controlled “settlements” and Palestinian controlled “Bantus” on the West Bank, and which completely disrupt Palestinian life and commerce, especially Israel’s withholding of $55 million dollars each month in tax payments owed to the Palestinian Authority.

The principle taken by critics such as these within the foreign policy establishment has remained consistent—the Palestinians must end all of their quite natural resistance to the illegal military occupation of their land by Israel before any talks will be held on how to solve the problems between the two. And heaven forbid in the meantime that they should freely elect the Party of their choice to conduct those negotiations if that Party’s policies differ from those of Israel and the United States.

The obvious bugaboo here is violence. The Palestinians should stop theirs, the Israelis say, and the American foreign policy establishment goes along. The Palestinians are the bad guys for firing home-made rockets into Israel, sending suicide bombers to blow up buses and discos and pizza stands, or for defending themselves against armed Israeli settlers who live on formerly Palestinian land, land generally taken away without due process.
For that resistance, such Palestinians are labeled terrorists. And so are considered equals in the equation of warring factions that Jimmy Carter should be an honest broker between. And the violence perpetrated by the vastly superior Israeli forces—the firing of rockets into Palestinian civilian neighborhoods by American-manufactured Israeli helicopters, the bull-dozing of Palestinian homes and orchards and agricultural fields, the raids into Palestinian homes by Israeli Defense Force patrols—is considered defensive in nature, and so okay (what if we had supported Germany’s invasion of Poland, or France? Wouldn’t the German’s have called the French Resistance a bunch of “terrorists”?)

And don’t forget, Carter’s other sin is pointing out that Israel’s supporters in the United States would rather we not debate such information in the media or in public here, such as on the floors of Congress where the $3 billion or so in foreign and military aid we send to Israel (which has one of the strongest economies in the world) every year is appropriated. We instead should accept the Israeli and American point of view (there is little difference in the two) as to how we view the conflict and negotiations for the proper road to peace. When was the last time anybody ever talked about the Palestinian point of view?

I’m going to go out on a limb here and not do what everybody else always does at this point in the essay. I think the Palestinian’s violence is a natural response to the situation they find themselves in. I think it is completely understandable. I think they think they are defending themselves, but they would like to see the violence come to an end.
Carter describes in his book a meeting right after the 2006 elections with Hamas legislative secretary and spokesperson Dr. Mahmoud Ramahi, who when pressed on whether Hamas would renounce violence and recognize Israel, responded that Hamas had enforced a cease-fire for 18 months prior to the elections, and “would gladly enforce a cease-fire for ‘two, ten or fifty years’ if Israel would reciprocate by refraining from attacks on Palestinians.”
Neither has happened. But this sentiment was repeatedly and excitedly proclaimed to me personally by Hamas leaders and other Palestinians I met in Gaza and in the West Bank shortly after the beginning of the second and current Intifada. And why exactly is it we always call such people Palestinian militants? They think of themselves as, to borrow a term from Ronald Reagan, freedom fighters. Not terrorists.

So essentially, the foreign policy establishment wants to Carter to shut up about conditions which might argue against the one-sided Vision of the World the United States tries to paint for the American public.


State of Peace: The Siege of Hebron



Dateline: Hebron, West Bank
February 2, 2001

posted on vizshun.org and Salon.com


As soon as I looked for a taxi to Hebron outside of Damascus Gate this morning, I got hit by the bad news. "Sorry, boss, Hebron's closed. The roads are blocked. A settler got killed last night."

Another killing. If you believe in non-violence this is a terrible place to be. It is the Palestinians Achilles' heel, this question of violence. For decades a succession of Israeli leaders have clubbed the Palestinians over the head on the international stage, "Arab terrorists killed another Jew". The taxi drivers weren't buying it.

"The settlers are terrorists, not us. There is more blood on their hands than on ours."

"They never report when settlers attack Arabs, when we get killed. Over 400 people have died in the Intifada, less than 50 are Israelis."

"The army shoots us, settlers shoot us. How are we supposed to turn the other check, like your religious leaders say? What about the everyday violence we face?"

The men were angry. The road closures meant they were going to lose money today, but they were more concerned about politics, about the fate of their fledgling, still-born freedom. "You should go to Hebron, see what the army and settlers are doing to us there. When that settler killed 29 people in the Mosque they punished us, not the settlers!"


(They are referring to Baruch Goldstein's murderous attack on praying Muslims in the Mosque at Hebron, the burial place of Abraham and his wife, sons and their wives. It happened in February 1994. The army placed the Arabs in town on a 22-hour a day curfew for 40 days, to "protect them" from the settlers in the area. The settlers did not have a curfew placed on them).

After awhile the taxi drivers cooled down and realized I did want to go to Hebron, to see for myself. Sami said he'd take me, we'd get around the damn Israeli roadblocks, even if we had to drive to the Dead Sea and in the back door to do it. So off we went.

There were soldiers everywhere on the road, armored jeeps, we counted two tanks--one keeping people out of one settlement, one tank keeping people in one refugee camp. Four checkpoints and an hour later, we'd made 20 miles, and were faced with a mound of fresh red dirt across the main entrance into Hebron. I got out and hiked over the barrier into the waiting arms of a new group of taxi drivers from Hebron, who all wanted to know what it was like out there.

They groaned and muttered angrily about the description of tanks, of the checkpoints. When I took out my camera they were insistent upon asking why the city of Hebron was being singled out again.

"Look at this road," one young driver in a New York Yankees baseball cap said, "Last night I drove through here. It wasn't blocked then. Now this pile of dirt will hurt business here for weeks. We're suffocating!"

Once in Hebron, I met up with Bob Holmes, a Catholic priest, and Rebecca Johnson, a Mennonite
lay person, who are part of the Christian Peacemaking Team in Hebron. The CPT is a collection
of Christian folks of all denominations who go to hot spots all over the world, as observers and mediators if they can, using non-violence and steady determination. They arrived in Hebron after the massacre at the Mosque, as part of the negotiated "mini"-peace agreement in Hebron.


Anita Fast of CPT told me that originally the agreement was the settlers would be moved out, and the CPT would be there only 3 months. Six years later, 8 people live in a small 4-room apartment and daily patrol the streets, inserting themselves in between settlers and Palestinians, Palestinians and soldiers, and working with the town leaders to fight back against Israeli land confiscation's and house demolitions.

And it turned out, lots had been happening in Hebron over the last few days. Bob showed me the spot where on Wednesday a bomb was discovered in the souq (marketplace), near several Palestinians shops. The army blew it up with a bomb robot so no one or thing got hurt, then immediately placed Hebron on curfew for two days. No Palestinian could go outside until this morning.

This was a relatively mild curfew by Israeli standards--after the Intifada started in October, Hebron was under curfew for 90 days. 90 days when Palestinians couldn't go outside of their homes except for two hours a day to shop. Imagine being in your house 22 hours a day for 3 months, with your kids asking you why they can't go outside to play. Or go to school. Or pray at the mosque.

Of course, the Israeli settlers weren't under curfew. Rebecca asked a soldier why would the Palestinians place a bomb in their own market. He had no answer. Bob hinted darkly at a settler scheme. "They want the market gone, so they can expand the settlement. So they disrupt the market, get the army to close it down as a security risk."

We walked about town, and immediately met an old shopkeeper who when he saw my video camera wanted to show me the bullet holes in his shop. This has happened in every Palestinian community I've been in; the first thing they show you is where the Army has shot at them. Buildings are pockmarked with dozens of holes, and rocket holes I can put my head in, punched through metal and concrete. The shopkeeper told me the whole story in Arabic as I followed him around the shop, then going outside to look at the seven bullet holes in the windows. He was angry, and defiant. He, like most other Hebronites I met, could not see a peaceful future if the settlers or the Israeli army remained in Hebron.

The barbershop across the street was the same way, the chair backs blown apart, mirrors shattered. A Palestinian journalist from one of the TV groups in town, who asked not to be identified, said that usually it starts with a rock being thrown, or a sniper bullet. Then the army controls the rooftops and all of the highest points in town, confiscating them from Palestinians or merely encamping on people's rooftops.

Several people told me the soldiers shit on the roofs, and urinate in the Palestinian's water tanks. Hard to imagine, but I heard it from multiple sources. Maybe it is popular mythology, urban legend. Maybe not. The army returns fire-sometimes for hours. And into the night. Often people say they start shooting and shelling the town without provocation. Some buildings are riddled and walls blown apart, water tanks are shattered. I'm shown where one ten year old was killed by falling shrapnel, and others talk about a man killed by an Israeli bullet fired from the next hillside, 800 meters away, as he sat down to dinner.

Hebron, I'm told, has 500,000 people in the region, easily the biggest area on the West Bank outside of Jerusalem. Qiryat Arba, the large Israeli settlement 1km from the center of town, has 25,000 residents, scattered about in homes and large apartments with lawns and swimming pools. Qiryat Arba has twice the water Hebron has. Hebronites cannot build new homes (when they do, the army comes and bulldozes them, and charges the resident for the cost of destroying his new home. People refuse to pay of course, and rebuild. One man has built 8 times, and been bulldozed 8 times, all on the same small piece of land on the edge of town).

There have been no demolitions in more than a year now. Meanwhile, settlements sprout all around the region, beginning to spread southward towards the Dead Sea.

The real problems, the Palestinians claim, come from Beit Hadasseh, the 200-person settlement in the middle of town, next to the souq. The 200 settlers live next door to where all of Hebron comes to buy their meat and vegetables, and Israel has posted 3000 troops in Hebron to protect the settlers. The street in front of the settlement is blocked off to Palestinians and heavily guarded. Palestinians cannot drive cars within four blocks of the settlement buildings and the yeshiva school--formerly a Palestinian high school confiscated by Israel and turned over to the settlers. The CPT says the settlers often go on rampages through the market on Saturdays, overturning tables and carts and vandalizing shops. The Palestinians start throwing rocks and fists, and the army wades in, defending the settlers, firing tear gas and rubber bullets. I didn't see any such activity in my two days there, but I heard the story from about 10 different people--journalists, CPT'ers, and locals.

What I saw was the daily clash that occurs two blocks from Beit Hadasseh, just past the market, where five soldiers huddled under tin canopies while a cascade of rocks came sailing over the buildings, crashing into the street and above their heads. An occasional Israeli rubber bullet gets fired off indiscriminately into the air. Mostly the soldiers just stood there patiently, guns trained on civilians two blocks up the street. During pauses in the bombardment groups of men went up the street, then the stones came again. A molotov cocktail crashed into the street, followed by another that splashed up alongside the stone wall of a grocery store long since out of business, it's façade scarred by bullet holes, rocks, and prior burnings.

Later we walked around to where the stones were being hurled--again, we found mostly young boys standing around, building up arsenals of loose stones for the next assault. Because the boys were in a Palestinian Authority controlled area, the soldiers were not allowed to go after them (although last fall a patrol did enter PA territory, shot a man, drug him bleeding profusely back to Israeli controlled territory, and tried to claim he was shot and killed there--until they realized about 6 TV crews videotaped the whole incident). Although the clashes seem pointless, there is a constant message from all over Palestine--you are an occupying army, go home. And take your settlers with you.

(This is a good time to remind all that according to the 4th Geneva Convention in 1949, for an occupying army to insert civilian settlers in an occupied territory is illegal under international law. The United States signed the 4th Geneva Convention, but supplies the Israeli army with bullets and other materials and weapons to defend the settlers.)

The difference today in this clash was that suddenly a Palestinian policeman appeared on the street. The rocks stopped. People dispersed. The policeman approached the army patrol, and the patrol leader cautiously stepped out to meet him. They talked for a few moments, then the policeman offered his right hand. After hesitating the soldier shook it, walked back to his squad, and they prepared to depart. Just when it seemed to be over, a cascade of stones crashed into the streets again, and the soldiers returned to their positions. So much for peace. Hours later, dusk fell to the sound of stones and rubber bullets flying through the night air.

A group of us tried to head back to Jerusalem in a taxi. The driver drove all over town, up one hill and down another, looking for a road out not blocked by dirt and stones or closed by Israeli checkpoints. Finally he skirted over a rough hill on a dirt track that no one would call a road, slid past a boulder in the middle of a paved road, bumped down a small gully, and came out on the highway to Jerusalem.


It took us less time to get to the Holy City than it did getting out of Hebron.