Stars and Stripes in Dover

The United States has a curious policy of censorship governing the arrival of coffins at Dover Air Force Base. The coffins, carrying the casualties of war, arrive at the base in Deleware, wrapped in American flags, before being escorted home. Since 1991, all press coverage of their arrival has been officially banned.

Proponents of the ban argue that it protects the privacy of soldiers' families. But the ban, as the New York Times notes, was effected not out of concern for these families, but for political reasons:

In 1989, the TV networks showed a split screen of President George H. W. Bush in jocular banter with reporters on one side while on the other, the first American casualties from Panama were returning to Dover. A veteran himself, Mr. Bush was deeply embarrassed at the juxtaposition and asked the networks to warn the White House when they intended to use split screens again. They declined. At the next opportunity, in February 1991, during the first gulf war, the Pentagon banned photos of returning coffins.

However, without images of coffins arriving in Dover, public opinion still turned against the Iraq war, while remaining strongly in favor of adding 17,000 more troops to the war in Afghanistan before fall. It seems that whether the coffins arrive in secret or not has little to do with public support for a war. But keeping them secret is shameful. If these soldiers are dying for causes that American citizens support, their deaths should not be covered up. With some provisions for a family's discretion, media coverage should be allowed; it can be conducted respectfully, without a papparazzi-like importunity.

UPDATE:

That was much easier than expected.

Rhetoric of Dangerous Proportions

Disproportionate.

It’s a word used to describe Israel’s consistent use of overwhelming and inappropriate force against its enemies – be they Hamas to the South, Fatah to the East, or Hezbollah to the North. It’s a buzz word in a conflict which has had more than its fair share of worn and tired phrases. It’s also a war crime according to the 1977 Geneva Protocol (which Israel still refuses to sign). It’s a word that’s become so common, so ubiquitous, so omnipotent over recent weeks, months and even years that you barely even notice it now.

But we should have noticed this past Sunday. Ears should have pricked across the capitals of Europe, all around the marble lobbies of Washington and throughout the headquarters of the UN, as that word left the lips of none other than the Ehud Olmert. Sure, I doubt it’s the first time he’s used the word in public, but I’m fairly confident it’s the first time he’s used it in this context, and with such ominous connotations too. For this time, the word “disproportionate” was not uttered as part of a unrepentant rebuttal of Israel’s critics, its was not followed by list of inane excuses for the lopsided casualty statistics, it was not pronounced with the usual distaste, not accompanied by the usual inferences of victimization. No, this time the word “disproportionate” was a threat.

Let’s put it in context. Israel recently announced a unilateral cease-fire – closely followed by Hamas – after a 22 day siege of the Gaza Strip which, in attempting to weaken the ‘terrorist’ organisation, caused the deaths of over 1,300 Palestinians (412 of whom were children and 110 of whom were women). After a tense couple of weeks of ‘peace’ – which have seen sporadic attacks by both sides – Ehud Olmert, the Israeli Prime Minister emerged from a cabinet meeting – attended by his two potential successors in the coming election – to state that “We[the Israeli government]’ve said that if there is rocket fire against the south of the country, there will be a severe and disproportionate Israeli response to the fire on the citizens of Israel and its security forces”. How very reassuring.

Of course, the fact that their Prime Minister still needs to address concerns over the threat of Hamas rockets should demonstrate to the Israeli people that a military “response” akin to the one on which they recently embarked – no matter how “severe and disproportionate” – will not put an end to their countries problems with Gaza. Israel has spent the last 30 years flirting with occupation in Gaza, with the only noticeable change being the resolutely violent stance of Hamas replacing the more conciliatory stance of Fatah in 2006. Meanwhile, it goes without saying that Gazans will be aware of the danger of this precedent in Israeli rhetoric. The inhabitants of that overcrowded and profoundly impoverished stretch of land need only look around them – be it at the rubble of their houses and schools or at the graves of their neighbours or loved ones – to know how serious a threat they are facing.

However, we also have cause for concern. Despite the seemingly endless criticism, calls for “restraint” and expressions of “concern” by our leaders during the recent siege, Israel still has the temerity to appropriate the word “disproportionate” – a term used by the likes of the Jimmy Carter, Nicolas Sarkozy and Ban Ki Moon to condemn the inappropriateness of Israel’s actions in Gaza – as a threat. Words, it seems, have had little effect. Our disapproval has been neutralized, even normalized, in Israeli rhetoric. “Disproportionate” aggression is no more a crime, it seems, than it is a tactical deterent to Israel’s enemies, and a punishment for those unfortunate enough to be stuck in the refugee camps of Gaza under an oppressive Hamas regime. So, once again, our leaders stay silent as Israel takes another step, nudges the boundary a little further, away from international legality, and we add one more point to that seemingly endless list of ways we’ve failed the Palestinian people.