I’ve resigned my post from Hong Kong News and I’m officially ‘unemployed’ by August 25 (because I filed by resignation letter July 25) and I’ll be returning home to the Philippines by the first week of September.

I am so…relieved. I am grateful for everything I’ve learned and experienced here in Hong Kong these last seven months (sure, including the crap David Chen kept giving me. To be fair, I also gave him hell. I can be a bitch sometimes, I know); but it’s now time for me to go back to my real work. I think I’ve rested long enough; and I miss my family and friends (my husband and my dogs! my mom and my sis!)

So I have only two more issues to put out and then I can go off and walk into the sunset. I’ll stay a few days longer and be a real freaking tourist and then it’s off to the Philippines I go, yay!

David in this morning’s meeting said ‘Maybe our next headline will be ‘former Hong Kong News editor shot in the Philippines…’ For him that was supposed to be a joke; but it wasn’t at all to me. But anyways, I’ve already quit so I don’t really care about David and what he says and thinks anymore.

————–

I will miss the wonderful, wonderful public transport system of Hong Kong, however. And Lamma. And of course, the friends I’ve made here. (They all think I’m deranged for wanting to go back to the Philippines; and I keep explaining to them that this was all just my vacation and I sought to make something meaningful from it. I think I did. I hope I did. I hope my work here made some difference, however small.)

—————

And the political killings continue. Ang sarap mag-mura, leche talaga!

—————-

Last Saturday I watched videos of George Carlin’s shows in New York (back in the 80s) and his stand up acts on Johnny Carson’s ‘The Tonight Show’ (1970s) and when he was a guest on David Letterman’s.

The man is angry genius. If you don’t have a sense of humor, you’ll be offended by him; if you’re narrow-minded, you’ll be offended by him; if you believe in God and religion and George W. Bush, you’ll be offended by him. For the most part, everything he says is angry and upsetting; but they’re also very, very funny in an angry and upsetting way that makes you think (if you can go beyond being upset and angry yourself).

These are some quotes:

1. I would never want to be a member of a group whose symbol was a guy nailed to two pieces of wood.

2. I credit that eight years of grammar school with nourishing me in a direction where I could trust myself and trust my instincts. They gave me the tools to reject my faith. They taught me to question and think for myself and to believe in my instincts to such an extent that I just said, ‘This is a wonderful fairy tale they have going here, but it’s not for me.’ [George Carlin, in the _New York Times_ 20 August 1995, pg. 17. He attended Cardinal Hayes High School in the Bronx, but left during his sophomore year in 1952 and never went back to school. Before that he attended a Catholic grammar school, Corpus Christi, which he called an experimental school.]

3. If churches want to play the game of politics, let them pay admission like everyone else

4. This is a little prayer dedicated to the separation of church and state. I guess if they are going to force those kids to pray in schools they might as well have a nice prayer like this: Our Father who art in heaven, and to the republic for which it stands, thy kingdom come, one nation indivisible as in heaven, give us this day as we forgive those who so proudly we hail. Crown thy good into temptation but deliver us from the twilight’s last gleaming. Amen and Awomen.

5. I’m completely in favor of the separation of Church and State. My idea is that these two institutions screw us up enough on their own, so both of them together is certain death.

6. Religion convinced the world that there’s an invisible man in the sky who watches everything you do. And there’s 10 things he doesn’t want you to do or else you’ll to to a burning place with a lake of fire until the end of eternity. But he loves you! …And he needs money! He’s all powerful, but he can’t handle money!

7. The only good thing ever to come out of religion was the music.

8. I’ve begun worshipping the sun for a number of reasons. First of all, unlike some other gods I could mention, I can see the sun. It’s there for me every day. And the things it brings me are quite apparent all the time: heat, light, food, a lovely day. There’s no mystery, no one asks for money, I don’t have to dress up, and there’s no boring pageantry. And interestingly enough, I have found that the prayers I offer to the sun and the prayers I formerly offered to God are all answered at about the same 50-percent rate.

9. A man came up to me on the street and said I used to be messed up out of my mind on drugs but now I’m messed up out of my mind on Jeeesus Chriiist.

10. I have as much authority as the pope, I just don’t have as many people who believe it.

11. I finally accepted Jesus. Not as my personal savior, but as a man I intend to borrow money from.

12. Instead of school busing and prayer in schools, which are both controversial, why not a joint solution? Prayer in buses. Just drive these kids around all day and let them pray their fuckn’ empty little heads off.

13. When it comes to BULLSHIT…BIG-TIME, MAJOR LEAGUE BULLSHIT… you have to stand IN AWE, IN AWE of the all time champion of false promises and exaggerated claims, religion.

Religion easily has the greatest bullshit story ever told. Think about it, religion has actually convinced people that there’s an INVISIBLE MAN…LIVING IN THE SKY…who watches every thing you do, every minute of every day. And the invisible man has a list of ten special things that he does not want you to do. And if you do any of these ten things, he has a special place full of fire and smoke and burning and torture and anguish where he will send to live and suffer and burn and choke and scream and cry for ever and ever ’til the end of time…but he loves you.

I want you to know, when it comes to believing in god- I really tried. I really really tried. I tried to believe that there is a god who created each one of us in his own image and likeness, loves us very much and keeps a close eye on things. I really tried to believe that, but I gotta tell you, the longer you live, the more you look around, the more you realize…something is FUCKED-UP. Something is WRONG here. War, disease, death, destruction, hunger, filth, poverty, torture, crime, corruption and the Ice Capades. Something is definitely wrong. This is NOT good work. If this is the best god can do, I am NOT impressed. Results like these do not belong on the resume of a supreme being. This is the kind of shit you’d expect from an office temp with a bad attitude. And just between you and me, in any decently run universe, this guy would have been out on his all-powerful-ass a long time ago. [George Carlin, from "You Are All Diseased".]

Trillions and trillions of prayers every day asking and begging and pleading for favors. ‘Do this’ ‘Gimme that’ ‘I want a new car’ ‘I want a better job’. And most of this praying takes place on Sunday. And I say fine, pray for anything you want. Pray for anything. But…what about the divine plan? Remember that? The divine plan. Long time ago god made a divine plan. Gave it a lot of thought. Decided it was a good plan. Put it into practice. And for billion and billions of years the divine plan has been doing just fine. Now you come along and pray for something. Well, suppose the thing you want isn’t in god’s divine plan. What do you want him to do? Change his plan? Just for you? Doesn’t it seem a little arrogant? It’s a divine plan. What’s the use of being god if every run-down schmuck with a two dollar prayer book can come along and fuck up your plan? And here’s something else, another problem you might have; suppose your prayers aren’t answered. What do you say? ‘Well it’s god’s will. God’s will be done.’ Fine, but if it gods will and he’s going to do whatever he wants to anyway; why the fuck bother praying in the first place? Seems like a big waste of time to me. Couldn’t you just skip the praying part and get right to his will?

You know who I pray to? Joe Pesci. Joe Pesci. Two reasons; first of all, I think he’s a good actor. Ok. To me, that counts. Second; he looks like a guy who can get things done. Joe Pesci doesn’t fuck around. Doesn’t fuck around. In fact, Joe Pesci came through on a couple of things that god was having trouble with. For years I asked god to do something about my noisy neighbor with the barking dog. Joe Pesci straightened that cock-sucker out with one visit. [George Carlin, from "You Are All Diseased".]

Am glad attention is again falling on the Overseas Workers Welfare Office (OWWA).

Back when I was still working in Congress I used to write speeches and resolutions for Ka Bel exposing how the Arroyo government has relently abused the OWWA fund and created the OWWA Omnibus Policies which further ensured and legitimzed the national government’s (not to mention the executive’s) abuse of what is supposedly a quasi-government institution.

Connie Bragas-Regalado, the chairperson of Migrante International would come to Ka Bel’s office at least twice a week togive us updates on the OFW front. Migrante  has one of the most well-organized and efficient data-gathering systems among all the NGOs and people’s organizations I’ve had the honor of working with/for. Ka Connie is always loaded down with documents and testimonies and materials proving again and again how OFWs save the economy yet are so grossly neglected by the government (nothing shocking about that). OWWA is the main fund for OFWs, and the money that runs it comes directly from OFWs in the form of fees for per-contract memberships.

Anyways, this issue concerning the evacuation of OFWs from Lebanon is another case study of how the government manipulates the OWWA funds and uses it for other (self-serving) purposes and never really not to provide much needed assistance to OFWs. The funds in OWWA right now are more than enough to evacuate the OFWs in Lebanon; but Arroyo has had the gall to say that there is no money and has essentially OFW evacuees should rely on sheer luck and maybe the deux ex machina to help them get out of the country alive.

There are 30,000 OFWs in Lebanon. So far, less than 2,000 have been repatriated. 

The following is my article in this week’s issue of Hong Kong News on OWWA. Featured is  Eman Villanueva, the secretary general of United Filipinos in Hong Kong.

MATAGAL nang maingay ang mga OFW sa dami ng sinisingil sa kanila bago maka-pag-abroad. Mula sa pagkuha ng mga marriage certificate, birth certificate sa National Statistics Office; mga clearance sa NBI, diploma sa eskwela at kung ano-ano pa, mas malamang kaysa hindi baon  na sa utang ang OFW bago makalipad.

“Dito nga sa Hong Kong, $425 ang passport.  Sumakay lang ng eroplano, naging P2,6775 na ang P550 na presyo ng passport sa Pilipinas (kung palitan ay P6 =HK$1),” reklamo ni Delia Arcelis, taga-Sha Tin.

Mainit din ang ulo ni Delia nang banggitin ang iba pang bayarin gaya ng authentication at verification fees ($297.50) at ang overseas employment certificate o OEC ($32).

“’Di ko maintindihan yang authentication  na yan. Nalagyan lang ng pulang ribbon ang papeles ko, ang laki na ng bayad. E kung ako na lang ang maglagay ng ribbon?”

Pagdating naman sa OEC, napapailing na lang si Delia.

“Ano pa bang klaseng patunay ang kailangan na OFW ako na employed? Nasa passport ko na yun, nakatatak kung kelan mag-eexpire ang visa ko.”

             Lalo lang sigurong uusok ang tenga ni Delia kung alam niyang ni hindi nire-require ng Hong Kong Immigration and OEC, at hindi rin ito requirement ng Labor Code ng Pilipinas para sa mga OFWs.

Kung ganito na katindi ang reaksyon ng mga OFW gaya ni Delia sa mga sinisingil sa kanila, mai-imagine na lang ang pwede nilang sabihin kapag nalaman nila ang masalimuot na isyu ng pera sa Overseas Workers Welfare Office o OWWA. Ang pondo ng institusyong ito na pag-aari ng mga OFWs ang matagal nang laman ng mga anomalya at hindi matapos-tapos na imbestigasyon. Kasama pa nga ang mag isyu kaugnay nito sa impeachment complaint at akusasyon ng kurapsyon laban kay Pangulong Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo.

Damubuhalang Pondo

PINAGBABAYAD ang bawat isang OFW ng US$25 para sa OWWA membership. Ang kabuuang halagang naiipon ay tinatawag na OWWA Trust Fund. Sa kasalukuyan, umaabot na sa P6 bilyon ang naipong halaga. Lumalaki ito ng halos P1 bilyon kada taon.

Kung may average na 2,500 na OFW ang lumilipad kada araw at nagbayad ng US$25 kada isa, US$62,500 agad ang nadadagdag sa OWWA funds o $1.875 million kada 30 araw.

Ayon kay Eman Villanueva, secretary general ng United Filipinos in Hong Kong Kong (UNIFIL-HK) , dahil may katangian ito bilang trust fund, hindi madaling magalaw ang pondo ng OWWA

“Kaso,  gumagawa naman ang pamahalaan ng iba’t-ibang milagro para magamit ang pera na sa tutoo lang e pag-aari ng mga OFW at dapat nakalaan para sa kanila at sa kanilang mga pangangailangan. Naryan na gumawa ng kung ano-anong investment, ;magtayo ng mga task force para daw sa emergency needs ng mga OFW sa mga war-torn na bansa gaya ng Iraq, at iba pang ma-anomalyang hakbang.”

Upang gawin umanong sistematiko  ang proseso ng paggamit sa OWWA funds,  nilikha ang OWWA Omnibus Policies.  Ito ang kabuuan ng mga patakaran at regulasyon na gumagabay sa paggamit ng pondo.

Pinagtibay ang Omnibus Policies ng OWWA Board of Trustees nang aprubahan ang Board Resolution No. 038 noong September 19, 2003. Ayon kay Villanueva, kaagad na nalantad kung ano ang layunin ng mga policies.

“Dahil sa OWWA Omnibus Policies, nalipat  ang OWWA Medicare Fund sa pribadong Philhealth. Palihim na pinirmahan ni Pangulong Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo ang Executive Order No. 182 noong Pebrero 13, 2003. Ginamit ang pera sa electoral campaign ni Arroyo. Napigilan lang ang buong-buong transfer nang nabuko ang hakbang, maraming OFW groups at mga pro-OFW na kongresista ang tumutol,” aniya.

Mahaba rin umano ang talaan ng mga attempts ng pamahalaan na i-manipulate ang pera ng OWWA. Ani Villanueva, kasangkot sa mga attempts na ito si Patricia Sto. Tomas na nag-resign lang kamakailan bilang secretary ng Department of  Labor and Employment (DOLE).

“Sa pamumuno ni Sto. Tomas, tinangka ng OWWA trustees na ilusot ang paglipat ng OWWA Livelihood Program sa National Livelihood Service Fund (NLSF) na direktang nasa ilalim ng Office of the President. Nalantad din agad ang pakana, naagapan at naharang,” aniya.

Sinabi rin ni  Villanueva na hanggang sa kahuli-hulihan, hindi naipaliwanag ni Sto. Tomas at ni dating OWWA administrator  Virgilio Angelo ang pagsuspindi sa General Financial Assistance Program (GFAP). “Lalo pa silang nataranta nang mag back-fire sa kanila ang pinakulo nilang anomalya na may fake claimants daw ang Medicare, at umabot ang false claims sa P10 milyon,” aniya.

Kaagad na hinamon ng mga migrant groups sa Pilipinas kasama na rin ng mga pro-OFW na kongresista sa pamumuno nina  Zamboanga del Sur Rep. Roseller Barinaga, head ng Committee on Labor and Employment na ilabas nina Sto. Tomas ang listahan ng false claims. Giniit din ang imbestigasyon sa OWWA funds na P11,407,500 na nilabas  para kay General Roy Cimatu noong kasagsagan ng gera ng US laban sa Iraq. Para sana sa mass evacuation ng mga OFW sa Iraq  ang pondo, pero walang naganap na evacuation.

“Wala na ngang evacuation, wala na ring ginawang accounting at liquidation si Cimatu. Hanggang sa mag-resign siya, naka-tiwangwang ang isyung ito sa opisina ni Sto. Tomas,” dagdag pa ni Villanueva.

Puntos kontra Omnibus Policies

KUNG titilarin ang mga dahilan kung bakit umano masama para sa mga OFW at welfare services na dapat binibigay ng OWWA sa mga migrante, kayang ikahon ni Villanueva ang mga ito sa walong punto.

1.Nililimita ang membership ng bawat migrante sa bawat kontrata ng hindi lalampas sa dalawang taon.

“Ibig sabihin, tanggal na sa membership list ang mga OFW na umuwi pagkatapos ng kontrata. Kung materminate ka matapos ng tatlong buwan halimbawa, tanggal ka na rin sa pagiging member. O kung maaksidente ka at tinanggal ka ng employer dahil dito. Saan ka naman nakakita ng welfare institution na hindi ka kayang tulungan sa eksaktong panahon na kailangan mo ng tulong?”

2.Limitado ang coverage ng mga benefits lalo na para sa mga kapamilya ng OFW.

“Sa Article VIII ng Omnibus Policies, Family Assistance Loan at Education and Training Benefits lang ang nilaan para sa pamilya. Yung mas mahalaga at mas kailangan ng mga OFW at ng pamilya nila na Medical Assistance, hindi kasama.”

3. Peligroso umano ang Section 3 ng Article VI na nagpapaliwanag tungkol sa General Investment Policy ng OWWA.

“Dahil sa probisyon na ito, nabubukas ang posibilidad na pwedeng gamitin ang pera ng migrante sa OWWA para sa investment ng mga pribadong kumpanya na malapit sa gobyerno, mga crony nito kumbaga. Pwede ring gamitin ang OWWA trust funds para iligtas ang mga bankrupt na na government-owned and controlled corporations (GOCC) na ibinebenta naman sa mga foreign investors.”

4. Dapat din umanong suriin ang pagiging ‘vague’ ng Section 8 Article VII na nagbibigay kapangyarihan sa Board of Trustees na i-realign o ilaan ang pondo sa mga hindi malinaw na hangganan.

5. Pagtakas sa responsibilidad ng OWWA na i-repatriate ang OFW na may emergency na pangangailangang makauwi sa Pilipinas.

Ani Villanueva, naghuhugas kamay ang OWWA sa Section 6, provision (a) ng Article VIII. Sinasabi na ang repatriation ay pangunahing nakasalalay sa OFW mismo, at pangalawa lang sa recruiter. 

“Eeksena lang ang OWWA sa panahon ng sakuna, epidemya at mga gera, at hindi sa mga sitwasyong personal na OFW. Ang masaklap, kahit nga tuwing may matinding sakuna o gera, hindi agad masaklolohan ng OWWA ang mga OFW. Madalas, naka-kahon na ang mga OFW bago maka-uwi sa Pilipinas. Namatay sa sakit o pinatay ng employer, ” aniya.

6. Nalalabuan sina Villanueva sa Section 6, provision (b) ng Article VIII na inilipat sa DOLE ang implementasyon ng reintegration program at kawalan ng linaw sa process sa pagkuha ng Livelihood Loan.

7. Kakulangan ng transparency sa OWWA.

“Sa Section 4, Article II, sinasabing transparent ang OWWA at ang pangangalaga nito sa pondo. Binabaligtad naman ito ng Section 5, provision (h) ng Article III na nagsasabing confidential at hindi pwedeng ipalaam sa publiko ang mga minutes, transcripts at taps ng mga pulong at disisyon ng OWWA. Walang tutoong konsultasyon sa mga OFW at mga pamilya nila, at ginagawang palihim ang pagbuo ng mga disisyon.”

8. Tunay na representation ng mga  OFWs sa OWWA Board.

“Kontrolado ng gobyerno ang OWWA trust funds. Nabubura na ang pagiging quasi-government institution na ang ibig sabihin, OFWs dapat ang may pinaka-say sa takbo ng OWWA. Appointees ng DOLE ang mga nas-board. Palamuti lang ang sinasabing dapat may representative hindi lang mula sa management kundi sa labor, sea-based at women sectors sa OWWA Board.”

Pro-OFW charter ng OWWA

Para kay Villanueva, dapat maging higit na aware ang mga OFWs sa nangyayari sa OWWA at kung paano ginagamit ang pondo nito. Aniya, dapat ilaan ang pondo ng OWWA para sa kagalingan ng mga OFWs – sa kanilang health and legal needs, welfare development, at pagpapaganda ng mga serbisyo sa mga tanggapan ng OWWA para rin sa mga kliyente na OFW.

“Kaya nga pinanawagan ng mga OFW sa Pilipinas, sa Hong Kong at ibang dako pa ng mundo na ibasura ang Omnibus Policies ng OWWA. Dapat palitan na ito ng isang mas-maka-migranteng charter na nagre-reflect ng tunay na interes ng mga OFW,” aniya.

Hindi rin nagkulang ang grupo ni Villanueva na magprovide ng mga alternatives sa mga patarakan ng OWWA.

Una daw, dapat ang sa employer sinisingil ang membership fee sa OWWA. “Ang sinumang mapapatunayang ipinakarga sa OFW ang bayad sa membership fee ay dapat patawan ng karampatang parusa,” ani Villanueva.

Dapat din daw na gawing lifetime o pang-habambuhay ang membership. “Pwedeng i-revoke ng OFW ang kanyang membership  kung gusto niyang makuha ang kanyang membership fee, kasama na rin ang naging interes nito,” paliwanag pa niya.

Habol din nina Villanueva na gawing mas masaklaw ang benefits and welfare services ng OWWA para sa OFWs at sa mga pamilya nila.

“Karaniwang dinudugo ang mga OFW sa pagke-claim ng mga serbisyo at benepisyo. Malala ang red tape, at kulang na kulang ang mga tauhan ng OWWA na maayos, mahinahon at maka-taong humaharap sa mga OFW na namomoblema. Welfare  services dapat ang focus ng OWWA,”giit pa niya.

Samantala,  isa ring panawagan ng UNIFIL kasama ng iba pang migrant groups sa ilalim ng Migrante International na baguhin ang kumposisyon ng OWWA Board of Trustees.

Anila, ang mga sumusunod ang mga dapat ilagay sa board: chairperson ng Committee on Labor sa senado at kongreso; isang representative mula sa Commission on Audit (COA); party-list representatuve ng overseas workers; party-list representatives ng labor at ng kababaihan; at dalawang seabased at apat na land-based na OFW representatives na ihahalal sa pamamagitan ng overseas   absentee voting.

“Dapat tanggalin na sa board ang mga secretary ng departments of finance, budget and management; ang undersecretary of labor and employment at ang mga appointive sectoral positions,” ani Villanueva.

Para naman daw maipakita ang hati sa responsibilidad ng gobyerno sa pangangalaga sa OFW, ang kalahati ng taunang budget ng OWWA ay dapat na kunin mula sa taunang General Appropriations Funds o national budget ng gobyerno.”

         Sa huling pagsusuri, walang problema kung may maraming sinisingil sa mga OFW kung bumabalik naman ito sa kanila sa porma ng maayos at maasahang serbisyo. Hangga’t hindi nasasagot ang mga tanong tungkol sa pondo ng OWWA, at hangga’t hindi gumaganda ang serbisyo nito para sa mga OFW, palaging marami ang mga tulad ni Delia na galit sa malalaking singil at bayarin.

There are days when I just want to scream and lop other people’s heads. I am a perfectionist (when it comes to my own work) and I work fast. I try not to demand the same standards from other people, but holy heck, sometimes I am. Just. Pissed. Off. when they’re slow and yet they keep complaining about this and that.

Anyways. Must not expect the same standards from other people.

An old boyfriend used to chide me about my former habit of getting annoyed when other people don’t submit on time; or when they fail totally to meet deadlines by at least week.

"They can’t write as quick as you. It’s not a crime."

Okay, okay. Aaaaaargh. I am so used to writing under pressure that I am capable of writing a full-length feature article in an hour (provided that I’ve done all the research and have all the interviews). In congress, I used to write privileged speeches within 30 minutes - three page, single-spaced speeches. My fingers would be flying all over the keyboard and in my overactive imagination, they’d send up sparks.

When I was a child of around six or seven, I was brought to the doctor because I kept getting headaches. The doctor said that my brain worked too fast (and so I talked too fast and I wrote too fast and I felt about things too deeply and I thought about things to much) and I. Should. Slow.Down.
So my parents tried to get me to take swimming lessons. And encouraged me to run. And to generally stay outdoors and not spend too much time reading or moping in my room with my dolls (whom I dressed in my own clothes; or for whom I tried to sew clothes nevermind that my stitches were crooked and I pricked my fingers so many times they looked like pincushions).

Now, well, gad. I still write fast and I still think fast and I still feel much too deeply about things and when I get upset it’s fucking hell.

I am so glad I don’t have work tomorrow and I can spend some time outside and get some sun and some air and hopefully some perspective. On this particular day I am taking no blame and I am admitting no shame I am fucking blaming other people. Like my friend Elias used to tell me and Novaleeh — the world owes me a favor and hell if I’m not going to collect.

Hell is often other people.

Anyways.

If I felt really perverse, I will just wait for payday (the beginning of every month), cash in my check and get the heck out of Hong Kong. But then that would mean leaving this paper in the lurch and it would be so sayang for the mass movement here, for UNIFIL and the Kasamas because this paper is almost as good as Pinoy Weekly almost but but not quite but good enough I think because I am certainly not ashamed of it and I for a change can now admit that I am a little proud of myself writing and doing the lay-out and editing and generally not freaking out with all the people I work with when I think they can certainly up the ante on the quality of their work.

So there.

I just need to hit the beach and soak up some sun but of course not the UV rays and I am going to need a hat and sunblock and a towel big enough to lie on and I won’t swim because I don’t feel like swimming I just want to stare at the ocean and see it change color from blue to green to blue again and the way the sunlight hits the water is so beautiful because there are little sparkles and I will breathe deeply and maybe, hopefully, I. Will. Feel. Less. Pissed. Off. 

It’s hell trying to be myself and an activist with certain beliefs and principles and values and yes, dare I say, morals at the same time. Sometimes the Ina who is just Me and the Ina who’s supposed to be, well, an activist are at loggerheads with each other.

Sometimes I just want to tell everyone who pisses me off to just get the fuck away and don’t you dare speak to me. Stuff your stupid freaking views and horrible little opinions and beliefs down your wretched throat.

But I don’t. So instead I write all these letters all these manifestos explaining why I am offended and why I think the other person is a jackass (of course I don’t actually write that they’re jackasses but still) and I admit my faults if I have any and I can eat humble pie without choking but I do not keep my anger and frustration bottled up because I simply can’t it will give me headaches and migraines and I will not be able to eat and sleep properly and I can’t even eat and sleep properly the way I am already so hence this rant.

There. I feel much better.

———-

I am currently reading Jonathan Safran Foer’s ‘Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close’ and I am again being eaten up by envy. It’s so alive and incredibly funny and extremely interesting in the sense that the book is written from the point of view of a precocious 9-year old who lost his dad in 9/11. When Oskar Schell (the little boy) is upset he says ‘I bruised myself again’ and when he’s sad he says "I had heavy boots about it.’

How apt.  To be hurt is to bruise, and to feel weighted down by feelings of sadness or anger or disappointment whether over one’s self or because of other people is, well, to feel like one is walking around in lead-encased footwear.

———-

I’ve argued with my closest friend here Raymond so often about Israel and Palestine and Lebanon that we had to call to a truce and promised to avoid the topic because it’s too bloody. He’s pro-Palestine, but he has some things to say about Hezbollah and Syria and how the leaders of the liberation movements against Zionism failed (according to him) to strengthen their own countries first and the fighting capability of their respective people that etc etc so well, white flag waving in the breeze.

So there. Am reading the books of a young Jewish author (he’s my age) and he writes about Jewish traditions and the impact of the Holocaust and diaspora on  the Jewish people etc etc but now, here, now in present time it’s his people who are making refugees of hundreds of thousands of Lebanese, destroying another civilization and setting back another country and people some minimum 50 years back.

How’s that bruising yourself? How’s that for wearing heavy boots?

I wonder if Jonathan will ever write about Palestine and how Israel and the US connived to steal the land from the other Middle Eastern people and established Israel.

Or what Israel is now doing to Lebanon.

Anyways.

————————

One in five Lebanese is now a refugee

By Ferry Biedermann in Sidon

Published: July 25 2006 03:00 | Last updated: July 25 2006 03:00

The old Lebanese port city of Sidon is bursting at the seams with refugees from the Israeli onslaught against Hizbollah in the south.

           Schools, public buildings and private apartments are filled to capacity. Next will be the mosques, a miracle of sectarian goodwill as the local Sunni mufti has agreed to open the places of prayer to the overwhelmingly Shia refugees.

           Mayor Abdul Rahman Bizri has set up a command centre at city hall to deal with the human tide that threatens to overwhelm his city. Sidon now hosts 40,000 refugees from the south, he says. It is the highest concentration outside the capital Beirut and a relatively much heavier burden on the population of 100,000.

           "I don’t get depressed until late at night before I go to sleep. Then I have time to think that maybe another 4,000 or 5,000 people will come," says Mr Bizri. Hisbig worry is an Israeli assault on the city of Tyre, further south, where 10,000 refugees have congregated. Sidon is 43km south ofBeirut and halfway between Tyre and Beirut.

           At least half a million people, about a fifth of the population, have been displaced by the violence. South Lebanon and the southern suburbs of Beirut have been hit the heaviest in the 13 days of fighting.

           Most of the displaced complain about being targeted as civilians but some reveal that there were fighters in their villages. During the weekend another surge of refugees fled the south, heeding Israeli warnings to get out of the way of the fighting and adding to the strain on resources.

           The humanitarian situation has been made worse by an Israeli sea and air blockade and the targeting of roads and bridges that hinder the distribution of aid, both to the refugees and to the people who have stayed behind.

           The UN has now established a humanitarian corridor to Beirut and hopes to get Israeli agreement for convoys further into the country later this week, said relief co-ordinator Jan Egeland in Beirut. He launched an emergency appeal for $150m for Lebanon, "to meet the needs of some 800,000 people over the next three months".

           The main highway between Sidon and Beirut was made impassable by missile damage on the first day of hostilities. A car ride that used to take 20 minutes on the modern coastal highway now takes almost two hours along winding mountain roads.

           Food is not a big problem for now but there are looming shortages of medicines for chronic illnesses and hospitals are starting to get worried about primary care drugs such as painkillers and antibiotics while they have to care for an influx of wounded from the south.

The refugees who make it to Sidon are exhausted by the long and stressful journey. Their stories are often similar and tell of days of Israeli shelling, shortages of water and food, power outages and cut phone lines.

           The village of Aytaroun, right up against the border with Israel, has set up an office in Sidon city hall to help families reunite and co-ordinate relief. Of its 5,600 population, 4,100 have left. At least two families, one of 10 people, were killed when their houses were hit by shelling.

           Haidar Mawassi, a farmer from Aytaroun, says that he, his wife and his eight children had to walk for kilometres on end to flee the village and they saw death and destruction, including "corpses", on their way out. But it was worth it because "for the last four days we could only give the children one dry biscuit a day."

           Many also recount how they were first told by Israel to leave, only to be hit by Israeli shelling on the road to safety.

           But one Shia woman who left the village of Srifa, where at least 10 people were killed in air raids last week, says that she and many other people were angry with Hizbollah’s tactics. "The Israelis had spies and the moment a Hizbollah fighter would enter a house, it would get hit. They also hit a school where Hizbollah had made a base."

           From a nearby hilltop, Hizbollah fired rockets at Israel. "Of course that is not good. I lost my house," she says.

Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2006

Funny how I had to go to Hong Kong to discover the work of E. Annie Proulx. Reading her work is like receiving gifts, every page is a testament to honest-to-goodness brilliant writing, unpretentious, unalloyed and real.

So far I’ve read two of her novels, The Shipping News, and Postcards; and two of her collections, Heartsongs, and Close Range: Wyoming Stories which included Brokeback Mountain.I bought all of her books from Flow, my favorite (second-hand) book store.

I didn’t even to watch Brokeback (the hype was too much. I wanted to read the story first), and now that I’ve read the short story it was based on, I guess I can see it and make a fair assessment about the film (my husband liked it. We actually spent 15 minutes discussing it over the phone).
Anyways, back to singing praises to Ms. Proulx’ work.

Her characters are ordinary, working class people. Miners and potato farmers; drifters,  migrant workers, small store owners in Middle Western America. She traces the history of these ordinary people with respect and she depicts them and their problems, struggles and occasional small triumphs with honesty. There is harshness and purity in her description, and between narratives of physical context (she can describe a turbulent sea as if she was the first to ever see such a body of water in torment; or the dryness of the desert and the landscape of mountains and forests like she created them all) she slips in the monumental tragedies that befall the common man and his family like a sudden knife to the gut.

She pays tribute to the ordinary, and reveals that underneath ordinariness, with compassion and faithful attention to detail and nuances of expression and dialect, there is so much more to each and every person. She doesn’t romanticize anything, is often blunt and to the point especially when it comes to stating social realities of poverty, hunger, discrimination. The way she delves into the horrors of the human heart and its conflicts with the truths upheld by the cruel world and its homophobic, racist, sexist and elitist biases is also very surgical. She cuts with her words, and to bleed is to be redeemed.

Imagine if she were political! Aaaaaargh! The way she decribes the plight of Mexican migrant workers, or mine workers, or the small cattle farmers before the coming of the big meat monopolies and their barbed-wire fences is so moving in a way that refuses to be saccharine or blatantly sympathetic.

She is, at this point, my favorite author.

——————–

The following is wikepedia’s entry on Proulx:

Edna Annie Proulx (pronounced /pru/) (born August 22, 1935) is an American (with Quebec origins) journalist and author. Her second novel, The Shipping News (1993), won the Pulitzer Prize for Fiction and the National Book Award for fiction in 1994. Her short story "Brokeback Mountain" was adapted as an Academy Award, BAFTA and Golden Globe Award-winning major motion picture released in 2005. Brokeback Mountain received massive critical acclaim and went on to be nominated for a leading 8 Academy Awards, taking home 3 of them. She won the PEN/Faulkner Award for Fiction for her first novel, Postcards. She has written most of her stories and books simply as Annie Proulx, but has also carried the name E. Annie Proulx.

Personal Life and Writing

She was born in Norwich, Connecticut and graduated from Deering High School in Portland, Maine. She then attended Colby College "for a short period in the 1950s." She later returned to school, studying at the University of Vermont from 1966 to 1969, and graduated cum laude and Phi Beta Kappa with a Bachelor of Arts in History in 1969. She got her Master of Arts from Sir George Williams University in Montreal, Quebec in 1973 and pursued, but did not complete, her Ph.D. Starting as a journalist, she did not begin writing fiction until she was in her fifties. Subsequently, she held NEA and Guggenheim fellowships.

A few years after receiving much attention for The Shipping News, she had the following comment on her celebrity status: "It’s not good for one’s view of human nature, that’s for sure. You begin to see, when invitations are coming from festivals and colleges to come read (for an hour for a hefty sum of money), that the institutions are head-hunting for trophy writers. Most don’t particularly care about your writing or what you’re trying to say. You’re there as a human object, one that has won a prize. It gives you a very odd, meat-rack kind of sensation." [1]

In 1997, Proulx was awarded the Dos Passos Prize. Proulx has twice won the O. Henry Prize for the year’s best short story. In 1998, she won for "Brokeback Mountain," which had appeared in The New Yorker on October 13, 1997. (The story has since become an award-winning 2005 movie, directed by Ang Lee.) Proulx won again the following year for "The Mud Below," which appeared in The New Yorker June 22 and 29, 1999. Both appear in her 1999 collection of short stories, Close Range: Wyoming Stories. The lead story in this collection, entitled "The Half-Skinned Steer," was selected by novelist John Updike for inclusion in "The Best American Short Stories of the Century" published in 1999.

Proulx’s most famous critic is BR Myers, who attacked the writer extensively in his A Reader’s Manifesto. Myers claimed that Proulx is purposely incoherent and allusive. He sees her as part of a problematic trend in American literature in which writers are praised simply because their prose is so difficult to understand. Countercritics, for instance, The Complete Review have complained that Myers has unfairly assumed that Proulx has a canonical status which she in fact does not enjoy.

Proulx lived for more than 30 years in Vermont, was married three times, and has three sons and a daughter (named Jon, Gillis, Morgan and Muffy). At age 70, she moved to Arvada, Wyoming, where she writes novels.

Criticism of Academy Awards

After the film adaptation of Brokeback Mountain lost the best picture Oscar to Crash at the 2006 Academy Awards, Proulx published a screed in the British newspaper The Guardian in which she lambasted the awards show. Among other complaints, Proulx pondered whether Philip Seymour Hoffman’s portrayal of writer Truman Capote, though "brilliant," was in fact little more than "mimicry." She wrote that the Academy members were a "dim LA crowd" and exhibited "insufferable self-importance" when they did not select the film based on her short story as Best Picture. Proulx also referred to Crash as "Trash" and likened the evening to "a small-town talent-show night." She suggested that the awards attempted to be safely "controversial," but were by implication homophobic for not honoring Brokeback Mountain, which had won most major awards (including the Golden Globe for best drama) in the lead-up to the Oscars. She also suggested that Scientology influenced the decision.

Twice in her piece, Proulx referred to the Academy voters and show audience as "heffalumps," an insult that left some readers puzzled. Because the elephant is the mascot of the Republican Party, she may have been suggesting that Academy voters evinced right-wing bias when deciding which motion picture should win Best Picture. Given that Oscar host Jon Stewart joked that one could not see so many glittering stars in one place without making a donation to the Democratic Party, that presumably would come as a surprise to the Academy and its membership. More likely, she was drawing a social/cultural parallel between the Academy and the slow, reticent and cowardly creature from A.A. Milne’s Winnie the Pooh stories.

She also called the performance of the Oscar-winning song "It’s Hard Out Here for a Pimp" a "violent" and "atrocious act."

The machine persecutes the young: it locks them up, tortures them, kills them.They are the living proof of its impotence. It expels them: it sells them, human flesh, cheap labor, abroad.

The sterile machine hates everything that grows and moves. It is only able to mutiply the jails and the cemeteries. I can produce nothing but prisoners and cadavers, spies and police, beggars and exiles.

To be young is a crime. Reality commits it each day, at dawn; and so does history, which is each morning born anew.

And so reality and history are banned.

- Eduardo Galeano

————-

The issue of the worsening situation in Lebanon has also exploded here at the office. There’s now a pro-Israel camp and a pro-Lebanon camp. It’s frustrating the way some people don’t really know the roots of conflict in the Middle East from a historical and political perspective, yet they can take a stand on this, mainly that Lebanon is wrong for taking two hostages, and that it’s perfectly understandable that Israel should launch a preemptive strike.
My ears still burn.
Anyways, despite the twisted views, I am glad at least that people are talking about this issue, and that there is worry for the loss of civilian life (Israeli or Lebanese, and ouf OFWs!).
———–
It’s a war of maps. And demarcations. And boundaries.
Yet it has escalated and become a war of religion. And faith. And differences in understanding of how one defend one’s faith and one’s nation.
It’s pure tragedy, how these wars start.
My mind hurts just thinking about the enormity of it all. ‘Why can’t we just get along?’ I used to ask this as a child. I remember my father saying, ‘Because people have different wants and desires. Some are selfish and want more than they need; others are too giving or too weak to protest; and then thee are others who will stand up and fight.’
Really, my dad said that. I was nine or ten and he was explaining to me about Palestine. I grew up listening to my father explaining to me Israeli atrocities against Palestinians. He was a fan of Yasser Arafat.
Bombs fall from the sky like poisoned rain, and like exploding flowers the walls crumble, architecture and art destroyed. Lives mean so very little, and cold numbers stand for what used to be living, laughing and loving human beings are tallied up on some board.
As for the OFWs and other foreigners fleeing Lebanon, what help can be given them? The Philippine government is resistant to the idea of releasing the necessary funds to evacuate all Filipinos from Lebanon.
” Leave them to their own luck or misfortune, and may others help them since we cannot.” Gloria. Your name is an anathema.
———

Questions and Answers on Hostilities Between Israel and Hezbollah

(Beirut, July 17, 2006) – On July 12, Hezbollah launched an attack on Israeli positions on the Israeli side of the Lebanese border, killing three Israeli soldiers and capturing two. In response, Israel launched air and artillery attacks against targets throughout Lebanon, including Beirut’s international airport, bridges and highways, and Hezbollah offices. It also instituted an air, sea, and land blockade. According to media reports at the time of writing, Israeli attacks have killed at least 110 civilians and wounded more than 235 in Lebanon. Hezbollah forces have launched more than 800 rockets across the border into northern Israel, as far south as Tiberias (35km/22 miles south of the border), killing 12 civilians and injuring more than 100.

The following questions and answers set out some of the legal rules governing the various actions taken by Israel and Hezbollah to date in this recent conflict. Human Rights Watch sets out these rules before it has been able to conduct extensive on-the-ground investigation. The purpose is to provide analytic guidance for those who are examining the fighting as well as for the parties to the conflict and those with the capacity to influence them. 

This Q & A addresses only the rules of international humanitarian law, known as jus in bello, which govern the way each party to the armed conflict must conduct itself in the course of the hostilities. It does not address whether Hezbollah was justified in attacking Israel, whether Israel was justified in attacking Lebanon for the conduct of Hezbollah, or other matters concerning the legitimacy of resorting to war. In accordance with its institutional mandate, Human Rights Watch maintains a position of strict neutrality on these issues of jus ad bellum because we find it the best way to promote our primary goal of encouraging both sides in the course of the conflict to respect international humanitarian law. 

What international humanitarian law applies to the current conflict between Israel and Hezbollah? 

The current armed conflict between Hezbollah and Israel is governed by international treaty as well as the rules of customary international humanitarian law. The treaty, specifically, common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions of 1949 to which Israel is a party, sets forth minimum standards for all parties to a conflict between a state party such as Israel and a non-state party such as Hezbollah. The customary rules are based on established state practice, and bind all parties to an armed conflict, whether state actors or non-state armed groups. 

International humanitarian law is designed mainly to protect civilians and other noncombatants from the hazards of armed conflict. Among the customary rules, parties that engage in hostilities must distinguish at all times between combatants and noncombatants. As discussed below, warring parties are required to take all feasible precautions to minimize harm to civilians and civilian objects and to refrain from attacks that would disproportionately harm the civilian population or fail to discriminate between combatants and civilians. 

Common Article 3 provides a number of fundamental protections for noncombatants, which include those who are no longer taking part in hostilities, such as captured combatants, and those who have surrendered or are unable to fight because of wounds or illness. The article prohibits violence against these noncombatants – particularly murder, cruel treatment and torture – as well as outrages against their personal dignity and degrading or humiliating treatment. It also prohibits the taking of hostages and “the passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions” if basic judicial guarantees have not been observed. 

Israel has asserted on several occasions since hostilities began on July 12 that it considers itself to be responding to the actions of the sovereign state of Lebanon, not just Hezbollah. If Israel considers itself to be at war with another sovereign state – that is, if it considers itself involved in an interstate conflict – then it must accept being bound by the full scope of the Geneva Conventions with their far more extensive rules, not simply those of common Article 3. To the extent that Lebanese forces were to join the hostilities, they, too, would be bound by the full Geneva Conventions, to which Lebanon is also a party. However, this Q & A limits itself to the more focused requirements of customary law and common Article 3, since they have greatest relevance to the conflict as it so far has been waged. 

What is Hezbollah’s status in relation to the conflict? 

Hezbollah is an organized political Islamist group based in Lebanon, with a military arm and a civilian arm, and is represented in the Lebanese parliament and government. As such a group, and as a party to the conflict with Israel, it is bound to conduct hostilities in compliance with customary international humanitarian law and common Article 3, which as stated above applies to conflicts that are not interstate but between a state and a non-state actor. As is explicitly stated in common Article 3, and made clear by the commentaries of the International Committee of the Red Cross, the application of the provisions of common Article 3, as well as customary international law, to Hezbollah does not affect its legal status. 

Was Hezbollah’s capture of Israeli soldiers lawful? 

The targeting and capture of enemy soldiers is allowed under international humanitarian law. However captured combatants must in all circumstances be treated humanely. 

Hezbollah leader Hassan Nassrallah has stated that the captured soldiers will be used to negotiate the release of Palestinian, Lebanese and other Arab prisoners from Israel. The use of captives who are no longer involved in the conflict for this purpose constitutes hostage-taking. Hostage-taking as part of an armed conflict is strictly forbidden under international law, by both common Article 3 and customary international law, and is a war crime. 

Which targets are Israel and Hezbollah entitled to attack under international humanitarian law? 

Two fundamental tenets of international humanitarian law are those of “civilian immunity” and the principle of “distinction.” They impose a duty to distinguish at all times in the conduct of hostilities between combatants and civilians, and to target only the former. It is forbidden in any circumstance to direct attacks against civilians; indeed, as noted, to do so intentionally amounts to a war crime. 

It is also generally forbidden to direct attacks against what are called “civilian objects,” such as homes and apartments, places of worship, hospitals, schools, or cultural monuments, unless they are being used for military purposes. Military objects that are legitimately subject to attack are those that make an “effective” contribution to military action and whose destruction, capture or neutralization offers a “definite military advantage.” Where there is doubt about the nature of an object, it must be presumed to be civilian. 

The mere fact that an object has civilian uses does not necessarily render it immune from attack. It, too, can be targeted if it makes an “effective” contribution to the enemy’s military activities and its destruction, capture or neutralization offers a “definite military advantage” to the attacking side. However, such “dual use” objects might also be protected by the principle of proportionality, described below. 

Even when a target is serving a military purpose, precautions must always be taken to protect civilians. 

Is Hezbollah’s firing of rockets into Israel lawful under international humanitarian law? 

As a party to the armed conflict, Hezbollah has a legal duty to protect the life, health and safety of civilians and other non-combatants. The targeting of military installations and other military objectives is permitted but Hezbollah must take all feasible precautions to avoid civilian harm and is prohibited from targeting civilians, launching indiscriminate attacks, or attacking military objects if the anticipated harm to civilians and other noncombatants will be disproportionate to the expected military advantage. Hezbollah’s commanders must choose the means of attack that can be directed at military targets and will minimize incidental harm to civilians. If the weapons used are so inaccurate that they cannot be directed at military targets without imposing a substantial risk of civilian harm, then they should not be deployed. Deliberately attacking civilians is in all circumstances prohibited and a war crime. 

While Human Rights Watch has not yet conducted a field examination to determine whether any of these attacks aimed to target a military object, preliminary information suggests that rockets fired by Hezbollah may be so inaccurate as to be incapable of being targeted, but are rather used to target a generalized area. As Human Rights Watch said in a 1997 report on Lebanon and Israel, “Katyushas are inaccurate weapons with an indiscriminate effect when fired into areas where civilians are concentrated. The use of such weapons in this manner is a blatant violation of international humanitarian law.” That is, their use in civilian areas violates the prohibition on indiscriminate attacks and would be a war crime. Customary international law prohibits such bombardment near or in any area containing a concentration of civilians, even if there are believed to be military objectives in the area. 

Does international humanitarian law permit Israel to bomb the Beirut airport? 

Airports in certain circumstances may be dual-use targets, in that they might be used both for military purposes such as military re-supply and to provide transport and provisions for the civilian population. However, as primarily a civilian object, the Beirut airport can become a military objective only if it is in fact providing an “effective” contribution to the enemy’s military activities and its destruction or neutralization provides “a definite military advantage.” Its status as a legitimate military objective would exist only for such time as it meets the foregoing criteria. International humanitarian law requires everything feasible to be done to verify that targets are in fact military objectives. Even if they are, the impact on civilians must be carefully weighed under the principle of proportionality against the military advantage served; all ways of minimizing the impact on civilians must be considered; and attacks should not be undertaken if the civilian harm outweighs the definite military advantage, or if a similar military advantage could be secured with less civilian harm. 

According to an Israel Defense Forces (IDF) statement, the justification for targeting the Beirut airport is that it “constitutes a station for the transport of arms and infrastructure used by Hezbollah” and as such “represents a serious threat.” It has also been suggested that the airport could be used to transport the captured Israeli soldiers out of the area. However, these justifications are at best debatable. Israel has not claimed that the transport of arms was current or underway. It is thus unclear why Israel could not have waited to see whether such supply operations actually began and only then targeted either particular flights or, if necessary, the airport at that time. Instead, Israel has attacked Beirut airport on a number of occasions, without any publicly available evidence that it has been used for any recent transport of arms or troops. As for the possible use of the airport to transport the captured Israeli soldiers out of Lebanon, the military advantage of destroying the airport is negligible in comparison with the civilian cost, given the many alternative routes out of Lebanon along its long border with Syria. On the other hand, the civilian cost of targeting the airport is high, since it impedes the ability of civilians in Lebanon to escape the fighting or those who remain to receive provisions. 

The real, unstated reason for Israel’s attack on the airport may be precisely to impose a cost on Lebanese civilians to encourage them to press their government to rein in Hezbollah. Leaving aside the question of whether the Lebanese government is militarily capable of reining in Hezbollah, it is illegal under international humanitarian law, as noted below, to use military force to squeeze the civilian population, to enhance its suffering, or to undermine its morale, regardless of the ultimate purpose. Under these circumstances, the attack on the Beirut airport does not appear to have been legitimate under the standards of international humanitarian law. 

Is Israel entitled to target Lebanese infrastructure such as roads, bridges, and power stations? 

Like airports, roads and bridges may be dual-use targets if actually used for military purposes. Even then, the same rule applies requiring the parties to the conflict to weigh carefully the impact on civilians against the military advantage served; they must consider all ways of minimizing the impact on civilians; and they should not undertake attacks if the civilian harm outweighs the definite military advantage. Human Rights Watch has not yet done the field research that would enable the organization to assess the legitimacy of Israeli attacks on Lebanese roads and bridges, but among the factors to be considered are whether the destruction of particular roads or bridges serve in fact to impede military transport in light of readily alternative routes – that is, whether the infrastructure attacked is making an “effective” contribution to Hezbollah’s military action and its destruction offers a “definite military advantage” – or whether its destruction seems aimed more at inconveniencing the civilian population and even preventing it from fleeing the fighting and seeking safety. 

As for electrical facilities supplying the civilian population, they almost never are legitimate military targets. On the one hand, they might be considered dual-use targets, given that both civilians and armies use electricity. On the other hand, the harm to civilians is often enormous, affecting refrigeration, sanitation, hospitals, and other necessities of modern life; in urban society, electricity is arguably “indispensable to the survival of the civilian population,” meaning that it can be attacked only in extremely narrow circumstances. Meanwhile, the military effect of targeting electrical facilities serving the civilian population often can be achieved in more focused ways, such as by attacking military facilities themselves or the portion of an electrical grid directly serving a military facility. Although final judgment must await a more detailed on-the-ground investigation, Israel faces a very high burden to justify these attacks. 

Is Israel entitled to use military force against the Lebanese population to encourage it to press its government to stop Hezbollah’s attacks and rescue Israel’s soldiers? 

Lawful attacks are only those where the targets by their “nature, location, purpose or use make an effective contribution to military action” and whose total or partial destruction, capture or neutralization, in the circumstances ruling at the time, offers “a definite military advantage.” As noted, attacks directed at civilian morale do not meet this test since civilians, by definition, are not contributing to military action. Indeed, attacks on civilian morale are inimical to the very purpose of international humanitarian law of protecting civilians. Military attacks on civilian morale undoubtedly can exert pressure on a government to pursue a particular course of action, but under international humanitarian law that is an inappropriate use of military force. Indeed, the logic of attacking civilian morale opens the door to deliberately attacking civilians and civilian objects themselves – in short, to terrorism. In addition, international humanitarian law explicitly prohibits attacks of which the primary purpose is to intimidate or instill terror in the civilian population. 

International humanitarian law would not prohibit attacks on Lebanese government military forces as a way of pressing the government to rein in Hezbollah, but in making that point, Human Rights Watch takes no position on whether the Lebanese government is capable of reining in Hezbollah or whether it would be an appropriate use of force under jus ad bellum standards to target the Lebanese government. 

Is Israel entitled to bomb the Hezbollah leader’s house and office? 

International law allows the targeting of military commanders in the course of armed conflict, provided that such attacks otherwise comply with the laws that protect civilians. Normally, political leaders, as civilians, would not be legitimate targets of attack. The only exception to this rule is if their role, as commander of troops, or their direct participation in military hostilities renders them effectively combatants. Civilians lose their protected status when they are engaged in hostilities. 

According to the International Committee of the Red Cross, direct participation in hostilities means “acts of war which by their nature and purpose are likely to cause actual harm to the personnel and equipment of enemy armed forces” and includes acts of defense. Thus, Hezbollah political leaders who are effectively commanding belligerent forces would be legitimate targets. This conclusion does not apply to all Hezbollah leaders and in particular to those who could not be said to hold such command responsibilities or to be directly participating in hostilities. 

In principle, it is permitted to target the location where a combatant resides or works. However, as with any attack on an otherwise legitimate military target, the attacking force must refrain from attack if it would disproportionately harm the civilian population or be launched in a way that fails to discriminate between combatants and civilians. 

Can Israel attack neighborhoods that house Hezbollah leaders or offices? And what are Hezbollah’s obligations regarding the use of civilian areas for military activities? 

Where the targeting of a combatant takes place in an urban area, all parties must be aware of their obligations to protect the civilian population, as the bombing of urban areas significantly increases the risks to the civilian population. International humanitarian law obliges all belligerents to avoid harm to civilians or civilian objects. 

The defending party – in the case of Beirut, Hezbollah – must take all necessary precautions to protect civilians against the dangers resulting from armed hostilities, and must never use the presence of civilians to shield themselves from attack. That requires positioning its military assets, troops, and commanders as much as possible outside of populated areas. The use of human shields is a war crime. 

In calculating the legality of an attack on premises where a Hezbollah combatant is present, Israel must take the risk to civilians into account. It is not relieved from this obligation on the grounds that it considers Hezbollah responsible for having located legitimate military targets within or near populated areas or that Hezbollah may be using the civilian population as a shield. Even in situations of Hezbollah’s illegal location of military targets, or shielding, Israel must refrain from launching any attack that may be expected to cause excessive civilian loss in comparison to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated. That is, a violation by Hezbollah in this regard does not justify Israeli forces ignoring the civilian consequences of a planned attack. The intentional launch of an attack in an area without regard to the civilian consequences or in the knowledge that the harm to civilians would be disproportionately high compared to any definite military benefit to be achieved would be a serious violation of international humanitarian law and a war crime. 

In any event, the presence of a Hezbollah commander or military facility in a populated area never justifies attacking the area as such rather than the particular military target. It is a prohibited indiscriminate attack, and a war crime, to treat an entire area as a military target instead of attacking the particular military facilities or personnel within that area. 

Can Israel attack Hezbollah radio and television stations? 

Military attacks on broadcast facilities used for military communications are legitimate under international humanitarian law, but such attacks on civilian television or radio stations are prohibited if they are designed primarily to undermine civilian morale or to psychologically harass the civilian population. Civilian television and radio stations are legitimate targets only if they meet the criteria for a legitimate military objective, that is, if they are used in a way that makes an “effective contribution to military action” and their destruction in the circumstances ruling at the time offers “a definite military advantage.” Specifically, Hezbollah-operated civilian broadcast facilities could become military targets if, for example, they are used to send military messages or otherwise concretely to advance Hezbollah’s armed campaign against Israel. However, civilian broadcasting facilities are not rendered legitimate military targets simply because they spout pro-Hezbollah or anti-Israel propaganda. For the same reason that it is unlawful to attack civilian morale, it is unlawful to attack facilities that merely shape civilian opinion; neither directly contributes to military operations. That Lebanese civilian opinion might influence how the Lebanese government responds to Hezbollah is not a sufficiently direct contribution to military action to render the media used to influence that opinion a legitimate military target. Rather, broadcasts should be met with competing broadcasts, propaganda with propaganda. 

Should stations become legitimate military objectives because of their use to transmit military communications, the principle of proportionality in attack must still be respected. This means that Israeli military planners and commanders should verify at all times that the risks to the civilian population in undertaking any such attack do not outweigh the anticipated military benefit. Special precautions should be taken in relation to buildings located in urban areas. Advance warning of an attack must be given whenever possible. 

The IDF have dropped leaflets in parts of Lebanon warning residents to evacuate – is this an appropriate precaution? 

International humanitarian law requires that if there is any risk to civilians in an attack, an effective warning be given where “circumstances permit.” Leaflet drops are one way to provide that warning. However, in some cases the IDF are reported to have dropped leaflets giving residents only two hours to evacuate. It is unclear how long Israel waited after the expiration of this two-hour period to launch an attack in these areas. Whether this length of notice is effective is a matter for factual evaluation from the ground, which Human Rights Watch is not yet in a position to undertake. An assessment will have to take into account the difficulties in movement caused by Israel’s bombing of some transportation infrastructure such as bridges. In any event, the giving of such warnings does not absolve the attacking party, in this case Israel, from its obligations not to target civilian objects and not to carry out attacks that fail to discriminate between combatants and civilians, or that would have a disproportionate impact on civilians. 

Examples of other precautions that parties should take to minimize civilian casualties include selecting a time of day for attack when the fewest civilians would be expected in the area; attacking a legitimate military target that is mobile when it is away from civilian areas; selecting weaponry and a method of attack that, if it misses its intended target, is least likely to harm nearby civilians; and refraining altogether from an attack even against a legitimate military target if the anticipated civilian harm will be disproportionately high – that is, “an attack which may be expected to cause incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians, damage to civilian objects, or a combination thereof, which would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated.” 

Is Israel’s blockade of Lebanon legitimate? 

Israel has targeted the country’s only international airport, imposed a naval blockade, attacked ports, and bombed road links out of the country. Blockades as a tool of war are legitimate under international humanitarian law; however, their imposition is still subject to the principle of military necessity and proportionality. 

First, the blockade must not have as its primary purpose to intimidate, harass or starve the civilian population. Such actions are proscribed by international humanitarian law, which prohibits armed forces from deliberately causing the civilian population to suffer hunger, particularly by depriving it of its sources of food or supplies. 

Second, insofar as Israel attempts to justify the blockade on the grounds of restricting the re-supply of the Hezbollah military, that legitimate purpose must be weighed against the costs to the civilian population. Those costs can also shift over time, as shortages of necessities intensify. Even if a blockade were assumed lawful at the outset, it could become unlawful if mounting civilian costs became too high and outweighed the direct military advantage. In those circumstances – for example, if food or medical supplies ran low – Israel would be obliged to permit free passage of material that is essential for civilians and to protect humanitarian personnel delivering those supplies.

I am bushed. But because it’s been a productive day, I don’t mind being exhausted (my finger tips are crying bloody heck).

Israel has begun sending ground troops to Lebanon. Oh hell.

Reading the latest posts about the escalating situation in Lebanon make my stomach churn. For people who are not genuinely aware of how the problems in the Middle East started way back after World war II, it’s insane that this latest, very blatant and open outbreak of hostilities started over two Israeli hostages. Now the bullets are flying by the thousands and bridges, buildings and museums and hospitals and schools and houses are being levelled to the ground by bombs falling from the sky.

It’s a nightmare even trying to think how a young Lebanese or Palestinian child feels.  How he or she would gaze at the nighttime sky and see nothing but clouds of dust from crumbling buildings that were so recently housed a daycare center or a religious teaching hall. To see dust and inhale fumes from rockets and exhaust from military aircraft. 

I am reminded of Mindanao during the height of the Estrada administration and military’s campaign against the Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF). The seige of Camp Abubakar.  How the children in the refugee camps looked, their beautiful eyes going wide in fear.

The Arroyo government refuses to make a position on the war supposedly for the sake of the three million Filipinos in the Middle East.

Is this smart? I suppose. This is better than Arroyo mouthing off and saying something in support of Israel.

But what about the 30,000 OFWs in Lebanon? Where’s the money for the repatriation?

Dapat saluhin na yun ng funds from the Overseas Workers Welfare Administration.

Pinagbabayad  ang bawat isang OFW ng US$25 para sa OWWA membership. Ang kabuuang halagang naiipon ay tinatawag na OWWA Trust Fund. Latest reports say that the amount is now pegged at P6 bilyon. This figure grows by almost  P1 billion yearly.

Kung may average na 2,500 na OFW ang lumilipad kada araw at nagbayad ng US$25 kada isa, US$62,500 agad ang nadadagdag sa OWWA funds o $1.875 million kada 30 araw. Jeez! That’s a lot of money! So where does Arroyo get off saying that the delay in the rescue of OFWs is because there’s a lack of funds?

Among the accusations of migrant groups like Migrante International against the government and the OWWA is its attempts to play down and escape its responsibility to repatriate OFWS.

Naghuhugas kamay ang OWWA sa Section 6, provision (a) ng Article VIII sa OWWA Omnibus Policies. Sinasabi na ang repatriation ay pangunahing nakasalalay sa OFW mismo, at pangalawa lang sa recruiter.  So in Lebanon, heck, will the OFWs drive or airlift themselves out of Lebanon? Their employers have more than likely secured themselves already.

According to the OWWA Omnibus Policies, eeksena lang ang OWWA sa panahon ng sakuna, epidemya at mga gera, at hindi sa mga sitwasyong personal na OFW. Ang masaklap, kahit nga tuwing may matinding sakuna o gera, hindi agad masaklolohan ng OWWA ang mga OFW. This is what’s happening now. How can the Arroyo government say that it has ‘insufficient resources’ for the rescue and repatriation of all those OFWs?!

—————

This is something I forwarded to my friend Raymond. He reacted in usual Raymond fashion and answered "Yet again I apologize for my countrymen…"

Canada’s Lebanon stand sparks domestic criticism

By Allan DowdTue Jul 18, 4:26 PM ET

The Conservative government was criticized at home on Tuesday for siding too closely with Israel over the fighting in Lebanon, where Canadians have been among the casualties.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper is costing Canada credibility, and preventing it from playing its traditional role of neutral broker in any Middle East peace effort, acting Liberal Party leader Bill Graham said.

"There are greater geopolitical considerations in the region that mean that Canada has to take a balanced approach… Will we be a credible force in the region in the future? That’s a question we must ask ourselves," Graham said.

Graham said that even President Bush, a strong supporter of Israel, has expressed concern the fighting will destabilize Lebanon’s government.

"I have a concern that the prime minister of Canada is out-Bushing Mr. Bush," said Graham, a former Liberal foreign minister, who complained that the Conservatives have ignored the need for diplomatic "nuance" in their public comments.

"Lose the nuance and (you) lose your capacity to help others," Graham said.

Under former Liberal Prime Minister Paul Martin, Canada had moved away from past wholesale criticism of Israel, but Harper’s remarks on the fighting have been seen by commentators at home as striking in their outright support of Israel.

Harper, who defeated Martin in January’s election, has defended Israel’s incursion as "measured" self-defense, and told reporters on Tuesday the world had to confront groups like Hizbollah, which recommend the use of violence to achieve political goals.

"We don’t say they shouldn’t be part of the process. We say be part of a negotiating process. But I think we have to hold ultimately responsible for the violence, people who advocate it and act upon those desires," Harper said in Paris on his way home from the G8 summit in Russia.

Graham’s comments were echoed by Jack Layton, leader of the left-leaning New Democrats, who said Harper had to "immediately correct" the mistake of moving Canadian foreign policy too close to that of Bush.

"Mr Harper has said today in Paris that it’s too early to send an international force to the region. I say to you Mr Harper — it’s never to early to demonstrate the resolve of Canadians to bring peace and stability to those who are suffering," Layton told a news conference in Ottawa.

The Lebanese fighting hit home to many Canadians when a Montreal family visiting relatives died in an Israeli air strike that killed 11 people. There could as many as 50,000 Canadian passport holders, including dual citizens, in Lebanon, an official said.

A Foreign Ministry spokeswoman said Canada has chartered seven vessels and will start evacuating its citizens on Wednesday from Beirut, but the government has been criticized for being slow to react.

The crisis could pose a problem for Harper’s minority government, whose party did not win any seats in Canada’s three main cities — Toronto, Vancouver and Montreal.

Montreal, the largest city in French-speaking Quebec — and home to some 50,000 people of Lebanese decent — could easily become even cooler to Harper’s government, cutting into Conservative hopes for a stronger voter base in the province.

The party made a major breakthrough in Quebec in the last election and has high hopes of winning more seats there in the next vote. But the Quebec media have largely condemned Harper for his stance on Israel’s attacks on Lebanon.

"If the prime minister does not improve his handling of the Middle East crisis, it could become for him … what Hurricane Katrina became for President Bush: the start of a major weakening in public confidence toward the head of government," wrote commentator Andre Pratte in La Presse newspaper.

The entire international community is now focusing on the intensifying conflict between Israel and Lebanon. So far, I haven’t heard or read any statements or reports supporting Israel, but there are countless write-ups condemning its actions.

The US has yet to lay down a black and white stand on the conflict; but given its history of support for Israeli aggression against the Palestinian struggle, no one is waiting with bated breathe for any new announcement. At this juncture, shoul George W. Bush issue yet another one of his idiotic declarations against Lebanon (or any of the countries and liberation movements supporting it), he will only be affirming his reputation as a global war-mongerer.

Israeli atrocities are already well-documented, but Western media controlled by the CIA and Washington have consistently been working overtime to make sure that this endless series of war crimes against Palestianians and Lebanese civilians do not get mainstream coverage. This time around, however, the thinking and progressive media have been quick to release stories and photos of the Beirut bombings and the impact on civilians. The damage to life and property, and the far-reaching repercussions on the struggle to bring peace to the Middle East.

No sympathy for Israel.

————————

Tuesday, July 18, 2006

Protesters worldwide condemn Israeli onslaughts

Compiled by Daily Star staff

Tens of thousands of protesters took to the streets across the world on Monday in a show of support for the Lebanese and Palestinians in face of Israel’s continuing attacks. In Germany, more than 1,000 Lebanese and Palestinians staged an anti-Israeli protest at Berlin’s Brandenburg Gate on Monday, police said.

A witness said demonstrators were chanting "death to Israel" and "death to Zionists," while some carried placards bearing the image of Hizbullah’s leader, Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah.

Police said around 1,200 people took part in the protest at the German capital’s most famous landmark, not far from a major memorial to the millions of Jews killed in the Holocaust.

On the other side of the world, in Dhaka, Bangladesh, Muslims gathered in protest and chanted slogans denouncing Israel’s attack on Lebanon.

Pakistan also saw demonstrations, at which protesters burned Israeli flags and chanted slogans against ongoing Israeli offensives in both Lebanon and the Occupied Territories.

In the Middle East, thousands of Palestinians rallied in the Gaza Strip and West Bank Monday to express support for Hizbullah and urge Nasrallah to strike Tel Aviv.

Answering a call by the Islamic Jihad faction and a prisoners’ support group for Palestinians held in Israel, 2,000 people marched from Red Crescent headquarters in Gaza City to the Parliament building.

Holding Hizbullah flags and banners of Palestinian factions, women also carried pictures of sons, husbands or parents jailed in Israel.

"Dear Nasrallah, blow up Tel Aviv!" the crowd chanted. "Greetings to Sheikh Nasrallah from Gaza and Ramallah."

"Hassan Nasrallah is the Palestinians’ new hero," a spokesman for one of the prisoners’ groups told the crowd.

One mother said that Nasrallah "is the only one who supports us after God. He will be the supreme leader of the Palestinians!"

At least 2,000 people marched in the West Bank city of Ramallah, shouting warnings to Israeli Defense Minister Amir Peretz. "Hizbullah will defeat you, Nasrallah will defeat you," they cried.

"This aggression is not just against Lebanon and Hizbullah, but against our dignity and our future," Palestinian MP Mustafa Barghouti told the crowd.

Thousands of Syrians also demonstrated in a show of support for Lebanese people. Some carried banners reading "Long live the resistance and down with surrenders!" - Agencies

The puppies in Asiaexpat.com are so freakin’ cute! Gad, I miss my own dogs. Everyday when I talk to my husband, we always end up talking about Poofy and Funny and how they are. This morning, Funny weed in the living room so Kim whisked him out after smacking him on the behind. I don’t  approve of hitting dogs, but Kim is firm that it will drive the point home to Funny.

In any case, I do admit that my dogs are a bit spoiled.

I remember four years ago when I took Poofy to the vet for her shots, the veterinarian gave me an evil look and said that I had a spoiled brat of a dog. Poofy wouldn’t sit still and I refused to hit her to make her calm down. The vet, myself and her assistant had to pin Poofy down on the steel operating table while the vet have Poofy her anti-rabies and vitamin shots (This is a distinct memory because I used up almost all of my political allowance and the pledge my sister Majalla gave me for the shots and the vet consultation. I mostly starved the rest of the month and made sure I went with my family when they went shopping for groceries. I begged to be allowed to put things in the cart).

Lamma is a haven for animals. Biiiiig dogs walk everywhere. Teeny-tiny toy dogs as well (the ones Kim feels like kicking to see if they would simply float off like daffodil fluff and to hear if they would squeal or bark because, he says, they look more like rodents than dogs).

The neighbor’s cat is  a favorite of mine. She’s a black and white cat, fat and sleek, and she’s quite smart. We sometimes have conversations even. I go ‘miaow, ‘ she answers ‘miaow’ back. She lies down on the tile and exposes her underbelly for me to scratch. She wriggles around and swishes her beautiful long tail. Her owners are Chinese, and I hear them talk to her in Cantonese. When I talk to her, it’s in English, so she’s a bilingual cat.

————

I’m worried about the worsening situation between Lebanon and Israel. I’ve long ago stated by position on Palestine and Gaza, so it shouldn’t come as a surprise that I support Lebanon. Israel attacked first, and it’s certain that the tension will escalate even further in the coming days unless it backs down now. Lebanon and the Hezbollah will retaliate, and it will be a severe retaliation. After all, Hezbollah is a legitimate revolutionary and liberation movement that aims to defend Lebanon from Israeli encrouchment on its territory.  I’m just saddened for all the civilians who will be caught in the crossfire.

Aaaargh. I wish there was no need for war, but so long as there are exploiters, there will always be war.

————-

My friend Raymond Letourneau often lectures me about ‘human nature,’ and while we agree on most things politicial, he’s less enthusiastic about the chances of majority of people of the world ‘evolving.’

I accuse him of giving up on humanity and those who struggle for  better way of living for the world’s poor and exploited majority. He just shakes his head, shrugs and says "But it’s true, many people cannot look or see beyond their immediate concerns, and when they do, they cannot sustain the effort.’

We debate on this hotly. I tell him that he’s become too desensitized and frustrated (he knows all about community organizing, etc. First world-activist type who focus on reforms even as he understands that the essential struggle is against imperialism); and all he answers is ‘human nature.’

‘Your human nature!,’ I huff. He doesn’t answer back.

It’s horrible when one gives up on humanity. We might as well lie down and die. Or live in a cave and let everyone rot and die.

How naive am I that I really took to heart all those cartoons I watched back in my youth? Sitting in front of the tv, glued to Saturday Fun Machine over at RPN Channel 9 and ignoring my breakfast…

Watching the Superfriends fly out of the Hall of Justice and battle the Legion of Doom was something quite symbolic for me. I knew that people couldn’t fly or dodge bullets or alter the molecular structure of objects with a wave of their hand or a simple spell; but I believed that evil should be fought, and those who do eveil deeds should be stopped and punished.

There may not be a Superman who can bend metal, a Wonderwoman who can force someone to tell the truth with a magic lasso or a Spiderman who can snoop on people from a far distance with his Amazing Spidersense, but heck, there are so many political activists, human rights activists, environmentalists and religious people who use all their talents and gifts and strength and very lives to enact change in small and big ways.

To help those who need helping. To fight against those who believe in nothing but the accumulation of wealth, power and influence at the expense of the  lives and welfare of millions of others. To create a genuine system where justice is not only a seven-letter word but a living, breathing reality seen and felt and experienced.

Man, haven’t we learned anything from those cartoons? Voltes V, Daimos, Macross? Or what about those tv shows like the A-Team or Equalizer, MacGyver or even Knight Rider?

Millions of people watched those shows. An entire generation of Filipinos! Sheesh. For all the cheesiness and the corniness, I actually learned things from those programs. (Well, it helped a lot that my dad explained things to us while we watched tv. And my sister Majalla always dissected the plots and characters and we talked about them they were real people involved in real situations).

Whoops, gotta go. Work beckons.