As Israel continues to pound the Gaza Strip, and factions within the beleaguered territory retaliate as best they can, there are many myths and stereotypes dominating mainstream media coverage, and many conversations.

Here are a few of the most common misunderstandings:

Myth: Hamas started the round of fighting that led to Israel’s “Operation Pillar of Defense.”

Fact:  This myth represents a common error in mainstream – and even much progressive – media coverage. The “truth” all depends on when you start the timeline.  What is clear is that while both Israel and resistance groups in Gaza bear responsibility for keeping the warfare going, Israel is more often the precipitator.

In an analysis that has received very little attention by Western audiences, Nancy Kanwisher (the Walter A. Rosenblith Professor of Cognitive Neuroscience at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology) asks, “As Israel and Palestine suffer a hideous new spasm of terror, misery and mayhem, it is important to ask how this situation came about…How did the (last) ceasefire unravel?” 

President Barak Obama and the mainstream media in the United States and Israel place the blame squarely on Hamas. It is true that a barrage of Palestinian rockets have been fired into Israel, and that ending this rocket fire is the stated goal of the current Israeli invasion of Gaza. However, this simplistic summary leaves out crucial facts. Consider this chain of events, which followed a “lull” of sorts over the previous couple of weeks: (The details of what took place during these days vary somewhat from one media outlet to another. However, the broad strokes are the same.)

·      Nov. 4: Israel killed a mentally ill Palestinian walking near the Israeli-imposed “no-go zone” inside the Gaza Strip — an event that triggered a rocket from Gaza into southern Israel, which did not cause any deaths or injuries.

·      Nov. 8: Four Israeli military tanks and a bulldozer entered Gaza, fatally shooting a 13-year-old boy who had been playing soccer by his family’s house.

·      Nov. 10: In retaliation, two rockets were fired from Gaza into southern Israel, and an anti-tank missile injured four soldiers, when it hit an Israeli army jeep that had crossed over into the territory.  Meanwhile, the Palestinian Center for Human Rights reported the killing of five more Palestinians, four of whom were civilians – including two soccer players age 16 and 17 and two young men (18 and 19) who ran to the scene. Forty-nine others were wounded, including 10 children.

·      Nov. 11: Amid talks of a truce, six more Palestinians (all but one were civilians) were wounded and another was killed by both air strikes and troops on the ground.

·      Nov. 12: With Israeli air strikes continuing, two rockets from Gaza hit Israel.

·      Nov. 13: After two mid-afternoon air strikes, news services announced a truce had been agreed-upon.

·      Nov. 14: Israel ignored the nascent truce and assassinated Hamas military chief Ahmad al-Jabari. (It is questionable whether Israeli officials ever really wanted a truce. As Phyllis Bennis from the Institute for Policy Studies wrote in The Nation: “Earlier this year, on the third anniversary of the Gaza assault of 2008/9, Israeli Army Chief of Staff Lt. Gen. Benny Gantz told Army Radio that Israel will need to attack Gaza again soon, to restore what he called its power of ‘deterrence.’ He said the assault must be ‘swift and painful,’ concluding, ‘we will act when the conditions are right.’ Perhaps this was his chosen moment.”)

A fact not known by most Americans, who see Jabari as merely a leader of “terrorists,” is that Israeli activist Gershon Baskin confirmed that Jabari was engaged in peace settlement negotiations with Israel. In fact, he was due to send Hamas’ version of a draft agreement to Baskin on the Wednesday evening before he was killed. It’s worth asking: Did Israel intend to torpedo those efforts?

The rest of the story is tragic history. Jabari’s killing triggered Operation Pillar of Defense, and it continues to unfold.

“It is overwhelmingly Israel that kills first after a pause in the conflict,” writes Kanwisher, who analyzed the entire timeline of killings between Palestinians and Israelis from September 2000 to October 2008, to determine if there was a historical pattern. “Seventy-nine percent of all conflict pauses (during the study period) were interrupted when Israel killed a Palestinian, while only 8% were interrupted by Palestinian attacks (the remaining 13% were interrupted by both sides on the same day). In addition, we found that this pattern — in which Israel is more likely than Palestine to kill first after a conflict pause — becomes more pronounced for longer (ceasefires). Indeed, of the 25 periods of nonviolence lasting longer than a week, Israel unilaterally interrupted 24, or 96%, and it unilaterally interrupted 100% of the 14 periods of nonviolence lasting longer than nine days.”

One of the lessons from these data, she writes, is, “If Israel wants to reduce rocket fire from Gaza, it should cherish and preserve the peace when it starts to break out, not be the first to kill.”

Myth: Israel is killing militant “targets.”

Fact: The victims are humans, not “targets.” They have names, families, stories worth telling.

At the close of Nov. 19, Euro-Mid Observer for Human Rights reported that 110 Palestinians had been killed, including 25 children, 14 senior citizens and 12 women. Seventy-two percent were civilians, with no active involvement in the resistance. Another 891 Palestinians (including 277 children, 164 women and 62 seniors) had been wounded.

[In contrast, various Israeli sources report a total of 664 rockets from Gaza have hit southern Israel. Three Israeli civilians have been killed and a reported 10 civilians and four soldiers have been injured.]

In the photo above, Jihad Misharawi, a BBC Arabic journalist who lives in Gaza, carries the body of his 11-month old son, Omar, through al-Shifa hospital in Gaza City. A round of Israeli missile fire hit Misharawi’s four-room home in Gaza, killing his son. Misharawi’s sister-in-law was also killed, and his brother wounded. He told his manager at BBC that when the missiles hit, there was no fighting in his residential neighborhood.

The killing of Misharawi’s son received so much attention because he works for a major Western news outlet, and his agony was captured so graphically on film. However, there are many other stories that are not being told. With one of the youngest populations in the world, over half of Gaza’s 1.7 million residents are aged under 18.

Salon columnist Glenn Greenwald observed: “Virtually every time the U.S. [or Israel] fires a missile and ends the lives of Muslims, American media outlets dutifully trumpet in headlines that the dead were ‘militants’ – even though those media outlets literally do not have the slightest idea of who was actually killed. They simply cite always-unnamed ‘officials’ claiming that the dead were ‘militants.’ It’s the most obvious and inexcusable form of rank propaganda: media outlets continuously propagating a vital claim without having the slightest idea if it’s true.”

In the words of one Gazan Palestinian, on Facebook: We are not numbers, we are humans! We have names, we have families, we have kids, we have emotions, we have feelings …. Every life has a story … Just like you and just like any human being! We are not fucking news and death reports!! We are not Fucking Numbers!! We are HUMAN SOULS.

Myth: Israel protects civilians by airdropping leaflets warning residents of Gaza to avoid locations and individuals affiliated with Hamas. 

Fact: In the last five days, Israel has bombed an estimated 1,643 sites in an area that is just 140 square miles – about twice the size of Washington DC. Hamas is the party that runs the local government. The question must be asked: Just where are the people supposed to hide? 

Myth: Retaliation by Palestinians is either terrorism or just plain stupidity. The former is the common belief of advocates of Zionism, and the latter is a frequent concern (albeit not often expressed openly) among liberal supporters of Palestinian rights.

Fact: The right to self-defense (most often through “retaliation”) is enshrined in international law and was America’s own first response after it was attacked on Sept. 11, 2001. Why was it ethical for the U.S., but not for Palestinians?

As one young Gazan wrote on Facebook: “When you see your family killed by Israeli soldiers in front of your eyes and you see your house demolished in front of you, you feel so angry that you want to fight back. But once you fight back, you are called a terrorist and the aggressor becomes the victim who has the right of defense.”

Catherine Charratt, a PhD candidate in international politics at the UK’s Aberystwyth University, recently wrote on Mondoweiss:

According to the Geneva Conventions, a people under occupation have the legal right to resist their occupation; Article 1 (4) of Protocol 1 stresses that force may be used to pursue the right of self-determination.

(However,) according to Western news media, all resistance fighters in Palestine are illegitimate militants, while Israel — as a Western-favored state — is allowed to target and assassinate Hamas government and military officials… So, Palestinian military and political leaders can be legitimately targeted but they are not allowed to legitimately retaliate.

Since returning from Pakistan, a number of “armchair critics” have questioned the delegation’s motivations and effectiveness. This is my response, first published on OpenDemocracy.

I am one of the 31 Americans from CODEPINK who journeyed to Pakistan to shine a spotlight on U.S. drone attacks that are killing hundreds of innocent civilians along with “militants.” That trip also touched off a mini firestorm when Meredith Tax published on OpenDemocracy an article headlined “Code Pink, the Taliban and Malala Yousafzai” – a stinging critique in which she took the organization to task for what she called the “idiocy of the U.S. peace movement’s one-sided approach to solidarity.”

As Rebecca Johnson eloquently stated in her own response, Tax set up “a false dichotomy – opposing the drones vs. supporting women’s rights.” (Shortly after the CODEPINK delegation joined a convoy to South Waziristan, “ground zero” of U.S. drone strikes, 14-year-old Malala was shot by a member of a Taliban faction, reportedly to punish her for speaking out against the group’s efforts to stop girls from going to school.)

However, there are two broader issues that explain our focus on drones that were not fully explored by Johnson or others. The first is the very nature of “citizen diplomacy.” I first began traveling with CODEPINK on delegations such as this in March 2009, when I entered the Gaza Strip. Like most of the other delegates, both then and last month in Pakistan, this trip was not just a one-time “disaster tour” (about which I once wrote with concern). I have returned to seven times since then, working to better understand the impact of U.S. foreign policy so I could educate and motivate others back home, while helping many young people in Gaza obtain a broader audience for their views.

CODEPINK will do the same in Pakistan; already the organization has hired a local country coordinator to help determine how to appropriately extend its activism there, largely through consulting with groups on the ground as Tax and Johnson recommended. We have a long-standing commitment to Palestinians; the organization is making the same commitment to Pakistanis.

As an activist and citizen diplomat in Gaza I often face the same choice that confronted us in Pakistan. In addition to the oppression of a military occupation (featuring Israeli drones, funded at least in part by the United States) Palestinians are frequently victimized by both their own government and fundamentalist fringe groups – just as are Pakistanis. The “standard operating procedure” for activists such as myself is to stand in solidarity with local residents as they work to change their government and other aspects of their society, but to limit our leadership to targeting the actions of our own country.

In Gaza, that has meant speaking out in every creative way we can against U.S. funding, votes in the UN, etc. that enable the Israeli occupation. We have demonstrated outside the White House, the State Department and Congress, as well as in Tel Aviv. When it comes to the actions of Hamas and other Palestinian factions, however, we stand back and are simply present in solidarity as the people attempt to resolve conflicts that can at times seem as intractable and violent as Pakistanis’ struggle with the Taliban. When, for instance, Palestinians across Gaza flooded the streets on March 15, 2011, to call for an end to the internal conflict tearing their society apart from within, I (and other international activists) was there. A year later, when youth seemed defeated after being beaten into submission by their own government, I wrote about it. But we did not help organize, and were not in the front lines.

Likewise, when the news of Malala’s shooting took Pakistan by storm at the end of our stay, we immediately considered traveling to visit her family in Swat, and were told it would be impossible to get access to the region so quickly. We contributed $1,000 to the school she attended, which is run by her father, and found a first-rate hospital in the United States ready to take Malala at no charge. We participated in two demonstrations in her support and against the extremist actions of the Taliban organized by several of Pakistan’s feminist groups—one at the Press Club in Islamabad and the other at the National Assembly. We issued a news release decrying all forms of terrorism, including the group claiming responsibility for Malala’s shooting. However, we did not take the lead, and did not feel it was appropriate to do so. (Neither, by the way, did our friends in Pakistan, who did not want the response to be seen as being pushed by Westerners.)

There is yet another reason for the focus of CODEPINK on drone attacks. This is a rapidly proliferating technology that has implications far into the future and well beyond Pakistan – as well as on the United States’ ability to provide for its own citizens.

The Washington Post reported on Oct. 18 that the CIA is now urging the U.S. administration to approve a significant expansion of its fleet of armed drones, a move that would extend the spy service’s decade-long transformation into a paramilitary force.

The proposal by CIA Director David H. Petraeus would bolster the agency’s ability to sustain its campaigns of lethal strikes in Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia and be able, if directed, to shift aircraft to perceived threats in regions like North Africa. While the Taliban is an extremist influence ravaging Pakistan and Afghanistan, drones are a menace that promises to have much broader reach.

The Pentagon and the CIA already have acquired more 800 killer drones. Each of those drones costs an estimated $20 million, and each Hellfire missile they carry costs another $68,000. From a very self-interested, pragmatic point of view, those are funds spent on killing that could – and should – be spent on creating jobs and providing healthcare at home. With a major budget fight looming after the presidential election, CODEPINK is advocating major cuts to the bloated Pentagon budget so that we can save essential social services and invest in a green economy.

CODEPINK has learned over its years of activism that to get the attention of a jaded media and electorate, we must often be willing take actions that others consider risky and provocative. We infiltrate closed meetings, we show up at hearings with banners and wearing pink feather boas, and we travel where others will not tread. (A mother of one of our delegates offered to reimburse her airfare and help pay for college if she would stay home!) In the case of Pakistan, we are not aligned with Imran Khan’s PTI party, but yes, we were willing to join a specific event he organized to highlight the drones, because he is the only local politician willing to take them on. The results from this collaboration around a common issue – facilitated by the simultaneous release of the Stanford University report documenting civilian deaths from drone attacks – generated an unprecedented level of U.S. media coverage about drones, which we would not have gotten if we had merely demonstrated at home.

One evening in Pakistan, we gathered with about 100 Pakistani women and exchanged views. At one point, we all held hands and repeated, in English and Urdu, “We will not raise our children to kill another mother’s child.” We must consider what the proliferation of drones as instruments of warfare means to human society. These are instruments that separate killers from their victims, making it increasingly easy to talk about “collateral damage” rather than women, children and men who are struggling to make a living.

If we do not speak out now in an attempt to force our legislators and the public to confront the long-term consequences of remote-control killing, it will be too late – with long-lasting implications for humankind.

After a horrifically interminable 48 hours of traveling, I am at home, and looking back at my trip to Pakistan with a bit more distance and perspective. If there is a unifying theme as my thoughts crystallize it is this: There is always more than one narrative, and it is incumbent upon us to seek them out as we travel.  As a journalist and an activist, I see my challenge as to always remain in the listening mode – taking a stand, yes – because “balance” can be the enemy of justice – but also remaining ready and able to adjust to the true realities on the ground.

Competing narratives: Malala and the Taliban

The global media coverage of the shooting of Malala Yousufzai continues to expand and attract major players of all stripes, including Madonna, who stripped down at a Los Angeles concert to expose a “Malala” tattoo on her back.  Unfortunately, almost from the very beginning, various parties have either sought to avoid the broader challenges highlighted by the crime against her or to use it to shove a competing narrative off the public agenda.

In my last blog post, I noted the false choice that seemed to be emerging amidst all the outpouring of grief (and a certain amount of hoopla) surrounding the shooting of Malala: In other words, stop the U.S. drone attacks or the Taliban.  Since then, that debate has now come front and center, along with a growing suspicion among sectors of the public of everyone involved.  Two narratives. Two agendas. Both have merit, but instead of the parties working together for mutual good, an epic battle is shaping up.

One of the parties caught in the crosshairs is the charismatic politician Imran Khan, who hopes to become Pakistan’s next prime minister in 2013 – in part based on a  campaign against the U.S. drone attacks that regularly kill civilians as well as “militants” in the border regions of his country. Although Khan has clearly come out against the shooting, he has disappointed many by avoiding any direct criticism of the Taliban faction that has reportedly claimed credit for the crime. He fears, Kahn has said, for the safety of his party’s workers in the region.

Fahd Husain, host of “Tonight with Fahd” on Pakistan’s Waqt News, eloquently expressed his feeling of betrayal at this weak response:

You are the fountain from which your followers drink their political nectar. They parrot you (often nauseatingly on social media), they regurgitate your arguments and they peddle your logic. Your party leadership pushes your line on TV and defends your rationale on public forums.

In the last week or so, they have fallen flat on their faces. The reason: your ideas are not fully fleshed out.

Is it so because, a) Pakistani Taliban are our people, who are misguided and can be reformed? b) They have killed forty thousand other Pakistanis because we are fighting America’s war and so they do, err… kind of, have a point? c) If the drones would stop, they would stop attacking Malalas and Kainats and Shazias, and stop dynamiting girls’ schools and stop demanding their version of the Sharia for the entire Pakistani society? Or Mr Khan, is it what you have said in your Economist interview, that if you condemn them who will protect your party workers from them?

The last one has left me at a loss of words. Are you saying, Mr Khan, that you will not condemn them, not out of conviction and power of logic, but because of – horror of horrors – fear?

I can be fearful. Your supporters can be fearful. Even your detractors can be fearful. But none of us, Mr Khan, are claiming the leadership of this country; a bold and courageous leadership, I may add.

Make no mistake, sir. This fight against extremism is an existential one. Think it through. Your words matter. Your ideas matter. Your thoughts matter. People believe you. And they want to believe in you. Do not let them down like you have the past week.

You may ask, why am I addressing this to you and not the others. It’s actually pretty simple: I don’t have many expectations from others. The politico-religious leaders are a write-off when it comes to this issue. They are muddled, befuddled, Extremist-Lites. Pakistanis have seen through them. The other politicians sway with the wind and lack spine. They are the reason this country is where it is. The armed forces created these extremists in the first place, and perhaps they will now atone for their sins by going after them.

But you, Mr Khan, claim to be the ‘Great Big Hope’. I, for one, hope that you are. God knows, we need hope. But hope is not a plan of action. Clear-headed thinking, leading to clear-headed action, is. Which is why, if you are confused, so are we.

Meanwhile, there is a parallel rumbling, noted today in an article in the New York Times on the “Malala Moment,” from individuals who are no longer hiding their suspicion that the Taliban might not have been the real mastermind behind the shooting. This op-ed by Dr. Shahida Wizaratin the Frontier Post is representative:

“It is  intriguing to note that after the attack on Malala Yousafzai, the casualties from drone attacks increased to 18 and 27 the day before and yesterday respectively. This precious loss of life and the crimes against humanity committed by the US against these innocents is now not drawing any attention in the international media…

It needs to be remembered that… the US will try to accelerate the killings of innocent Pakistanis both through drone attacks and by orchestrating Malala-type incidents, designed to draw attention to the seriousness of the threats from the ‘militants’ (and justify attacks against them). The hidden agenda behind the do-more admonitions is to accelerate the pace towards the predictions of the CIA report, Global Trends in 2015, which state that KPK and Balochistan (territories on the border with Afghanistan) will not be in the control of the government of Pakistan by the year 2015.”

I must confess that I am one of those individuals who believes that Americans have not been told the full story of what happened on 9/11 and why, and thus I cannot rule out Wizarat’s speculations. We may not ever know the truth. What I do know is that both the shooting of Malala (who thankfully is now reported to be standing with assistance) and the innocents killed by drones (who rarely if ever get anywhere near the publicity accorded this 14-year-old girl) are tragic, and whatever role the U.S. plays in these crimes – directly or indirectly — must end. It is time to stop treating these troubled countries like pieces in an imperialist chess game.

Postscript: One of the saddest outcomes of the latest events has been the decision by Khan’s party, PTI, to cancel a rally outside the UN next week.  “Unfortunately,” wrote Dr. Arif Alvi, PTI General Secretary, “the attack on Malala, which is very condemnable itself, has taken the anti-terror war in a different direction.” Khan’s convoy into the drone-ravaged KPK region and the participation of the Codepink delegation had generated unprecedented U.S. media analysis of American drone policy. Taking the debate to the streets outside of the UN would have kept the heat on.  One does have to ask the question, “Who is really profiting from the crime against Malala?”

Meanwhile, this news item appeared in the Washington Post on Oct. 18:

The CIA is urging the White House to approve a significant expansion of the agency’s fleet of armed drones, a move that would extend the spy service’s decade-long transformation into a paramilitary force, U.S. officials said.

The proposal by CIA Director David H. Petraeus would bolster the agency’s ability to sustain its campaigns of lethal strikes in Pakistan and Yemen and be able, if directed, to shift aircraft to emerging al-Qaeda threats in North Africa or other trouble spots, officials said.

If approved, the CIA could add as many as 10 drones, the officials said, to an inventory that has ranged between 30 and 35 over the past few years.

The outcome has broad implications for counterterrorism policy and whether the CIA gradually returns to an organization focused mainly on gathering intelligence, or remains a central player in the targeted killing of terrorism suspects abroad.

Competing narratives: Pakistani sovereignty vs. drones

Within the left-leaning groups opposing U.S. drone strikes, a debate is emerging.

In early October, RT (Russia Television) reported that Pakistani Interior Minister Rehman Malik  had urged the U.S. to share drone technology with his country’s government, explaining that Islamabad could put it to better, more legitimate use against terrorism.

“They have given us F-16s, and we haven’t used them against India. Instead, they were used in [the] War against Terror. Now [the] United States should provide drones to Pakistan in order to target militants in areas bordering Afghanistan,” he said. Pakistan, he explained, has no objection to using drones against militants; rather, anti-American hostility is fueled when the United States acts unilaterally as an imperialist power.

Where should we, as anti-war activists who on the one hand oppose imperialistic interference and on the other, remote-controlled murder, stand on this issue?

Within the Codepink delegation, two opposing points of view have emerged. One side was eloquently expressed this way: “I thought one of the issues regarding drones is the impossibility to surrender, have a trial, and protect the basic rights of citizens and soldiers at war.  It does not matter who is steering (a drone – the U.S. or Pakistan).  It is still wrong.”

Others take a more pragmatic, opposing view, adhering narrowly to international law:  “If the Pakistani government is explicitly involved, then I think the question of extrajudicial killing is not so clear. There are areas of Pakistan where the Pakistani state is not exercising total authority and cannot necessarily make arrests and carry out legal functions. I don’t think you could find international law experts who would say that the Pakistani state doesn’t have authority to use force to reestablish its control over its national territory.  That doesn’t make it wonderful, but wonderful and lawful are not the same thing.”

Where do I stand? I believe that returning the power to make and carry out these types of decisions and actions to Pakistani sovereignty is a good and necessary step.  Beyond that, we have no say (other than deciding whether to give or sell drone technology to Pakistan). However, my personal opinion continues to be that drones pre-empt due process and kill innocents no matter who operates them.

Side notes: 1) The news we learned while in Pakistan that the U.S. is expanding its embassy there by 84 acres, while beefing up the barricades around it, does not bode well for any lessening of anti-American sentiment. Does anyone in the State Department even take that into account? 2) There is often talk of providing compensation to the families of drone victims. However, we received a clear message from those with whom we talked: You can’t compensate for loss of life! The only redress is to stop the attacks.

Competing narratives: ‘Oppressed Islamist women’ vs. strength expressed in different ways

One of the most common disconnects I encounter when I visit Gaza, Palestine, as well as other Islamic countries such as Pakistan, is between liberal/leftist Western women and the females they meet who actively practice the dictates of their religion and culture in terms of dress, separation between men and women, etc.

There is this almost automatic assumption on the part of Western women that any female who wears the hijab, stays indoors after 6 p.m. or obeys other practices that are perceived as restricting the freedom of women is oppressed and deserves our pity.  However, I have continually been reminded that many of these women do not feel oppressed, and see our attitudes as just another form of orientalism.

The first such woman to eloquently express this point of view was Sameeha Elwan, a beautiful and highly intelligent teacher from Gaza. In her blog, “Here, I was Born,” she once wrote: “Internationals should really respect cultural differences. I’m from a different culture. If your parents allow you to go out alone after midnight, mine do not. Has this affected me in any way possible? Not in the least. That’s it. Period.”

In Pakistan, where people in the tribal regions practice “purda” – total separation of men and women – my wake-up call came from Shaista Tabussam Khan Sultanpuri, a young woman from South Waziristan who became the first female member of the Islamabad Bar Association, and now is running to be vice president of the group. “Yes, we have our own customs,” she told me with a big smile. “But you know, the women are stronger than the men! 

Shaista is the smiling one on the left

Competing narratives: Dangerous Pakistan vs. a place one chooses for home

Like many participants in the Codepink delegation, many people questioned my decision to travel to Pakistan, fearing that I was endangering my life by merely stepping foot into the country. In fact, the mother of one of our delegates offered to pay her $1,000 (the cost of her airfare) if she agreed to stay home. 

Some of that fear was based on the anti-U.S. sentiment that is indeed widespread within the country – and understandably so.  However, all of the individuals I met were very able and willing to separate Americans from U.S. policy, and were simply thrilled that we cared enough to learn more about their country for ourselves.

There is also the perception that Pakistan as a country is inhabited mostly by “militants” (however one defines that) – a stereotype common to Gaza as well.  For those who harbor this misconception, my prescription is to spend a few days in Lahore with my friend Waqas, who – after spending a year attending high school in the United States – has decided that while he may return to America to earn his master’s degree, he wants to live and work in Pakistan. “Americans live to work,” he explained.  “I want to work to live.”

The other side of Pakistan

Throughout my stay in Pakistan, I have been noting similarities in the challenges faced by the people in the frontier regions here and in Gaza.  Both populations are under daily threat by foreign drones (U.S. vs. Israel), the movement of both groups is tightly controlled, and both peoples are judged by the world based on internal factions branded as “extremist.”

Whenever I speak about Gaza, invariably I will sooner rather than later be confronted with a question about the violence wrought by Hamas, often to the extent that the sins of the Israeli occupation (a primary motivator of Hamas actions) are brushed to the side.  With Pakistan, it’s the Taliban that most often is raised when I talk or write about the evil of U.S. drone strikes. After all, how else, I am asked (even by some Pakistanis), can we destroy this dreaded terrorist group?

The shooting of 14-year-old Malala Yousafzai in Pakistan’s Swat valley this week brought a rush of emails into my inbox, from acquaintances who knew I was in the country as part of a delegation focused on highlighting the tragic consequences of drones.

Malala won fame in 2009 during Pakistani army operations to crush a Taliban insurgency that had taken hold in the Swat valley, near the Afghan border. At a young age, she campaigned for girls’ right to attend school, and she  wrote an anonymous blog for the BBC about the chaos at the time, including the burning of girls’ schools. She wrote:

“I had a terrible dream yesterday, with military helicopters and the Taliban. I have had such dreams since the launch of the military operation in Swat. My mother made me breakfast and I went off to school. I was afraid going to school because the Taliban had issued an edict banning all girls from attending schools.

Only 11 students attended the class out of 27. The number decreased because of Taleban’s edict. My three friends have shifted to Peshawar, Lahore and Rawalpindi with their families after this edict.

On my way from school to home I heard a man saying ‘I will kill you’. I hastened my pace and after a while I looked back to see if the man was still coming behind me. But to my utter relief he was talking on his mobile and must have been threatening someone else over the phone.”

Her efforts were recognized by Pakistan’s prime minister, who awarded her the country’s first National Peace Award. Malala had also spoken of her desire to one day form her own political party.

But all the publicity reportedly displeased the Pakistani Taliban, which was said to have put her and her family on its “hit list” for backing “the imposition of a secular government” in Swat. And accordingly, the newspapers here in Pakistan reported that the Taliban has claimed credit for shooting Malala in the head while on her way home from school.

On Thursday, it was reported here that doctors in a military hospital in Peshawar had removed the bullet that passed through her head and lodged in her shoulder, and that she had stabilized but was still on a ventilator. She was given a 50-50 chance of recovering.

Much of Pakistan – as well as the rest of the world – erupted in outrage over this brutal crime. And rightly so.  We did not have the chance to meet her, of course, but I heard many stories about Malala’s amazing courage and commitment to promoting the rights of Pakistani girls. (Note that I did hear some concerns that Malala had been pushed to be so “out in front” by her father, a strong advocate of girls’ education and headmaster of her school, as well as by certain NGOs. However, her courage is undeniable.)

The condemnation of Malala’s shooting was universal, but the discussion – often very heated – around it soon took on a false dichotomy: Drones. vs. the Taliban, as if it’s an either-or choice.

On one end of the spectrum are Salima, a Pakistani documentary filmmaker and human rights activist, and her friends.  (I am not using their real first names, at their request, to protect their security.) A small group of women from the CODEPINK delegation met with Salima and a few of her fellow activists, and they didn’t mince any words. The drones, they said, are a “lesser evil” than the Taliban, and they knew of no other way to destroy the extremist movement, which they called a “Stage V cancer” – except maybe a “nuclear bomb.” “The Pakistani army is not able to deal with them,” said Jamila, whose husband was killed by a remote-controlled bomb on his car after he spoke out against the Taliban while running for office in Swat. “The people want them finished!”

(When pressed, the women labeled the use of drones – and the collateral damage they inevitably cause – as “morally wrong.” Likewise, they said they did not want U.S. troops to bring their version of “justice” to the Pakistani people. That is Pakstan’s job. However, it seemed to me that these qualifications were more to appease us, given our public stance against the drones and American troops on Afghan soil. Earlier in our conversation, before we probed further, they stated their belief that drones were more “precise” in their damage than any other weapon, and shared their fear that the United States would abandon the region just as Russia did, clearing the way for the Taliban to return full force in both countries.)

Women protest the Taliban in support of Malala

The women’s viewpoint is understandable. Jamila’s pain is real and her anger justified. Likewise, as an American who is continually disappointed with our own country’s politicians, I shared their frustration when they told us that the hugely popular Imran Khan (head of the PTI party) refused to condemn the Taliban directly for shooting Malala on a newscast the evening before, saying only that a statement was posted on his party’s website. (He explained his seeming lack of backbone as fear of risking the lives of his party’s workers in Waziristan, stronghold of the Taliban.)

“Dialogue with the Taliban doesn’t work. There are no good (members of Taliban). They are all bad,” said Faridah, Samila’s sister. “We want a politician who condemns the Taliban straight out!”

However, these women do not live in the region of Pakistan targeted by U.S. drones, which have left the residents terrified of gathering in groups for even school, weddings or funerals. And after hearing testimony from many drone victims, reading a recent investigative report from Stanford Law School and talking to a female Pakistani lawyer about her thesis on what motivates terrorist recruits, I am convinced that the two (drones and the Taliban) cannot be considered separately. The former “feeds” the latter.

“I interviewed young children from Waziristan and surrounding areas, all under the age of 21, who were being questioned by Pakistani authorities for having links with extremist organizations, including Taliban factions,” explained Anum Abbasi, an associate with the Research Society of International Law (RSIL) in Islamabad. “What became clear from this empirical research (not yet published) is that a primary motivator is the U.S. drone strikes. They breed anger, hatred and desperation.” And most certainly anti-American sentiment. 

In fact, when a group of us met with the Bar Association of Islamabad, we were met with a chorus of “Go, America!!!” No, that was not a cheer. Rather, it meant “get out.” (The shouts were led by a right-wing faction of lawyers, but their sentiments were fairly universal.) Some of these lawyers are so anti-American now that they represent the other end of the spectrum: They suspected the U.S. behind the shooting of Malala, to divert attention away from the drone strikes and cast Muslims in a bad light.

The anti-American backlash caused by the drones was emphasized by Imran Khan in a CNN interview Oct. 10 with Christiane Amanpour.  She grilled Khan about allegations from his opponents that he is “pro-Taliban” because he tries to engage with individuals affiliated with the movement. He responded – I think very convincingly – that a military solution can never work and that people join the Taliban for different reasons. (The same is very true for Hamas.) The “hearts and minds” of those who join out of a sense of survival, or because of anger at the collateral damage from the drones, can be won over, Khan insisted. But first, the drone strikes that serve so effectively as recruiting tools must stop.

Zainab, another Pakistani feminist (whose name has been changed), points out that a number of factors have led to the rise of the Taliban and the corruption of the government of Pakistan – most of them initiated or accelerated by the United States, but off the radar for most Americans, who merely decry the Taliban. They include the nurturing of the “mujahadeen” (which later became the extremists targeting the United States) by the CIA during the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan, the funneling of millions of dollars for those forces through the Pakistani government, the continuing presence of U.S. troops next door (another “recruitment tool”), crushing debt obligations imposed by the International Monetary Fund and a lack of equal emphasis on an enduring truce with India.

“It’s for all these reasons that the United States has replaced India as the chief target of Pakistani animosity,” observes Muhammad Oves Anwar, another associate at Pakistan’s RSIL. “Unfortunately, most people here don’t see international law as ‘real.’ Who can blame them? But we are trying to change that.”

Perhaps the saddest reality upon which most Pakistanis can agree is that the people, particularly the children, are caught in between two evils – U.S. drones and the Taliban they help prop up. 

A child’s drawing from the Swat region of Pakistan shows both the drones up above and the Taliban below.

Is there any hope at all? Anwar says yes, pointing to the lack of support among the population for another military coup (which has happened so frequently in Pakistan’s history) and a growing support for democratic structures and procedures — such as the Foundation for Fundamental Rights, which has brought a lawsuit against the Pakistani government, demanding that it confront the U.S. directly on the drones.

“People are seeing hope in the judiciary,” he said. “I think a real movement has been sparked.”

I also see hope in Imran Khan, as controversial as he is in some sectors, and despite the fact that he is not progressive across the board. When he answered Amanpour’s question about who he would support as the next president of the United States, he said, “I will support anyone who is anti-war. Why can’t we just give peace a chance?”

Corny? Perhaps. But the Americans in my room, and many Pakistanis, thrilled to the words. 

Our road to drone-ravaged Waziristan was a long and winding one, at times frightening, surrealistic and frustrating, but always exhilarating and significant.

It officially began Friday morning, when we joined officials from PTI, the political party of Imran Khan, and Clive Stafford-Smith from the UK’s Reprieve at a press conference at the Marriott in Islamabad. In a clear sign that the media were taking the proposed caravan to South Waziristan seriously, a phalanx of international, American and local media were lined up across the ballroom, clamoring for up-close shots and interviews.

Among the first to speak was Stafford-Smith, who has gained fame for representing many American prisoners on death row as well as for becoming the second lawyer given access to the prisoners of Guantanamo. He noted that 85% of the supposed “militants” held in Guantanamo ended up being acquitted, and the same dynamic is at work in Pakistan, where a recent report estimated that only 2% of the drone victims are high-level terrorists. He told the crowd: “We are going to Waziristan because when you begin to open up the world to inspection, people begin seeing the truth – including the women and children being killed by our drones.”

Clive Stafford-Smith

Imran Khan, the controversial, charismatic leader of PTI, credited Stafford-Smith with the idea for the convoy, and joked, “It took me a while to come to terms with the idea. Even Pakistanis are afraid to go there.” But, he said, “the people of Waziristan convinced me to do it. I was 13 years old when Pakistan won its idependence. I saw the fear on the faces of my parents when the British troops went by and an explosion caused our windows to shake. I can only imagine what must go through the minds of the families of Waziristan when the drones strike. Sadly, our own government is complicit in allowing the United States to terrorize its own people.”

Lauren Booth, sister-in-law to the UK’s former prime minister Tony Blair, was also present, adding, “So many people are worried about the foreigners going on this convoy, fearing for our security. But we should be worried about the ordinary people who live in Waziristan and face danger every day!”

Later that night, we joined the youth movement of PTI for a march and candlelight vigil in a local square, as we prepared for our departure the next day. The enthusiasm and anticipation was contagious. The highlight of the evening for me, however, was the CNN reporter for Islamabad, Reza Sayah, who came right up to us to express his admiration for what we were doing. He is responsible for the extensive coverage given to CodePink’s presence in Pakistan by CNN.

It was clear there was widespread support for the initiative. Except, that is, in the Pakistani government – which issued a statement saying we did not have permission to enter Waziristan, a region that has been closed to foreigners for nearly a decade. The party line, of course, was that it was concerned for our safety. But I think the primary motivator was to limit what we saw and heard, and to take some of the ‘steam’ out of an anti-drone movement it supports in words only.

Despite the saber-rattling, including continuing warnings from our own embassy, we set out the next morning for Tank, a village on the “doorway” of Waziristan. At almost every village along the way, residents lined the street, shouting their support for the caravan’s mission and for Imran Khan. A 263-mile journey took 13 hours to complete.

Photo for CodePink by Katie Falkenberg of 23rd Studios

There were times of tension and unease, however. The massive turnout quickly overwhelmed the PTI’s ability to organize, and our two vans became separated from Kahn and his security detail, leaving us alone in a conservative land that normally never sees foreigners – particularly women. We were instructed to keep our curtains closed in several locations when the flags of fundamentalist groups appeared, and to cover our heads in deference to the culture the rest of the time. Rest stops were allowed only once. None of us minded, although one of our two buses was not air-conditioned and the heat soon became stifling. Riding right along with us the entire way was Richard Leiby, the Washington Post’s reporter in Pakistan. (He laughingly called the experience “a Republican’s idea of hell.”) That kind of attention alone was worth the trip; it is so hard getting the Post’s attention back in DC…

As darkness fell, we finally made it to the compound of one of the local tribes in the vicinity of Tank – a large farm where we were engulfed by hundreds of men for whom we were quite a novelty. The welcome, and chaos, were almost overwhelming. (The women, of course, were nowhere to be seen, although they were clearly doing the cooking.) Anxiety crept in when one of Stafford-Smith’s assistants visited our room to tell us that reports were now reaching the Foundation for Fundamental Rights (our host) that there were “elements” planning to send a camel strapped with explosives into the throng the next day – perhaps targeting us as Americans specifically. With the knowledge that hundreds of thousands of Pakistanis would be converging on the area, and that the military was still vowing to shut the road to prevent anyone from going further, the decision was reluctantly made along with our sponsors to speak at a “pre-rally” that morning, but to do what we could to de-fuse the risk for everyone by keeping our presence as Americans low profile during the height of the frenzy. We would return to Islamabad after the pre-rally. (It felt very real at the time. But we still don’t know if the threat was authentic or made up by the Pakistani government, or even U.S. influences, to discourage us or the PTI.)

Despite this minor set-back, the rally at the farm the next morning did a lot to make up for our disappointment at not making it across the border into Waziristan, so tantalizingly close, and the many people we knew were waiting for us. The compound flooded with people from across the region, and just prior to making our way to the stage, Imran Khan visited us to say a personal thank you. A politician he definitely is (and all that entails, negative as well as positive), but he is for sure a charismatic man! When he talks – in a large setting or small – he has the unique ability of a natural orator to make you feel as if he is directing his comments right at you, with 100% sincerity.

Imran Khan (photo by for CodePink by Katie Falkenberg of 23rd Studios)

As we wound our way out of our room and into the crowd, a chain of men holding hands created a makeshift aisle, and the word “welcome!” was repeated over and over in a chorus so loud it broke over us in waves of reverberating sound. On stage, the chain of hands held the masses back so they did not overwhelm us, but close enough that I could literally feel their energy and warmth. “We want peace! We want peace!”

I began to cry. So do I. So do we all. Let it be so….

Photo for CodePink by Katie Falkenberg of 23rd Studios

* * *

Postscript: Pakistani riot police did indeed show up, and when the crowds pushed over the giant metal containers blocking the way out of Tank, Khan made the call not to take a confrontational stand. The purpose, he said, was to focus attention on the drone attacks, and that had been accomplished. Some of the Pakistani media were skeptical, with the English-language DAWN newspaper questioning whether Khan had perhaps cut a deal on the side, saying, “His lack of criticism of the army seemed to fit oddly with a crowd frequently displaced by military operations.” However, local residents seemed typical of this man: “No one ever comes here. At least he is talking about us, and speaking against drones.”

As Fahd Husain wrote in The Nation: “This wasn’t your typical political stuff – jalsas, corner meetings and press conferences – no, this was heart-pumping, in-your-face, made-for-TV kind of activity that generates hype and discussion for days and weeks.

Drones will keep raining death as per American policy. The Pakistani government will keep on sporting an ambiguous posture as per its policy. The army will keep on engaging the Pentagon and CIA to bargain on drones as per its policy. And Imran Khan will keep blasting everyone as per his policy. Nothing really will change. Except one thing: Political parties will now be under greater pressure to appear bold and go where they normally don’t. As an unstated objective, that’s not a bad achievement for Imran Khan.”