Haifa Zangana

To those who describe the act of killing American soldiers as brutal, we say: was the treatment and rape of men, women and children in Abu Ghraib humane?

In his 1947 work “The Plague,” the French philosopher Albert Camus, who fought in the ranks of the resistance against the Nazi occupation and the puppet French Vichy government, offered us a new definition of heroism: when ordinary people undertake extraordinary acts out of a feeling of moral responsibility.

With this definition, heroism was now possible by everyone, not just by the elite in society. From this viewpoint, we can understand the position of a young Iraqi male, Ibrahim Alqarghouli, who on Tuesday was sentenced to death by hanging for killing three American soldiers in 2006, an incident described as ‘brutal’ according to a statement released by the occupying U.S. forces last Tuesday and reproduced by Arab and world news agencies.

The source of all news published on the death penalty ruling was the occupying American army. For this reason, the killings were described as ‘terrorist’ one moment, and ‘brutal’ the next. Rather, Ibrahim participated in a military operation against enemy soldiers from the 101st Airborne Division who were in the course of a reconnaissance mission in Alyousefiya, in Babel province of southwest Baghdad on June 16th, 2006. A spokesman for the American enemy commented: “the witnesses that gave testimony in this case did not speak in court. Everybody feels that the court’s decision is a step in the right direction… and it’s very satisfying that the court’s vision is clear.”

What this spokesman, evidently satisfied by the performance of the Iraqi court and the ruling expected of it, failed to mention was that Ibrahim Alqarghouli, in opposing the brutal occupation forces and its mercenaries, undertook a heroic act motivated by his feeling of moral responsibility. He strove for justice, an act that is incumbent on the Iraqi judiciary if only it was truly independent. In order words, the Iraqi judiciary should have tried the occupying soldiers of the 101st brigade who undertook one of the most morally base acts: the gang rape of a young girl, Abeer Qasim Hamza, followed by torching her in order to cover up evidence of their crime, in addition to the killing of her five-year old sister Hadeel, following the murder of her parents, also committed by the Americans. In order to cover up the crime, the spokesman for the occupation forces released a statement in which he accused “terrorist rebels” of the acts.

The position of the Iraqi government was that of see no evil, hear no evil and speak no evil, turning a willful blind eye to these crimes. In marked opposition, popular opinion was outraged by the enemy occupier’s wanton violence against the dignity and honor of the people and the killing of innocents. None of these criminals were presented before the Iraqi judiciary since the occupation forces and their mercenaries enjoy impunity in the eyes of Iraqi law. This is precisely the disaster that Iraqis will continue to suffer for coming generations if the long-binding Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) is signed with the U.S. government.

For this reason, it was only natural that in light of the arrogance and wanton destruction of the occupation and its continued crimes in the absence of [sovereign] Iraqi law and judiciary, the resisting population seeks refuge in local organizations to resist the enemy in whatever way deemed fitting. The target was enemy soldiers, in particular the unit who raped this young girl Abeer. Where was the crime in that? Where was the Iraqi judiciary that day? Why didn’t the [Iraqi] Criminal Court sentence these men to death by hanging?

To those who describe the act of killing American soldiers as brutal, we say: was the treatment and rape of men, women and children in Abu Ghraib humane? Was the Haditha massacre, in which 24 people were killed, including women, children and a disabled Sheikh, a humane slaughter? What about the killing of 17 Iraqi civilians at the hands of the private security company Blackwater on September 16th, 2007: did any Iraqi court sentence them to death? And what of the butchery of 22 Iraqis during their detention in Basra by British forces? It later became clear from the examination of the corpses that they were subjected to terrible torture, including having their eyes and genitals removed, a manner described by the British lawyer Phil Shayner as “the worst acts perpetrated by the British army in a century.”

Do not say that there are ongoing trials in the U.S. and the U.K. against these killers. In Britain, 21 soldiers and officers stood before a military tribunal on murder charges, yet only one of them was sentenced following his admission. The same situation repeated itself over many cases brought before the courts in the U.S., knowing that these cases represent the tip of the iceberg of exposed incidents. Why then was Ibrahim Alqarghouli sentenced to death? Because he participated in an operation against occupation forces and captured two enemy forces. Is resisting the occupation not a legitimate and legal duty according to all norms and international laws, including U.N. resolutions and U.S. and U.K. law?

The only way for the Iraqi citizen to get his dignity and self-esteem back is to get rid of this barbaric occupation and by resisting it with all means possible. If we wanted to limit violations of the law, crimes and human as well as limit violence in accordance with the maxim ‘an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth’, half the world would be blind and the other half would be toothless. The only solution is a government that truly represents its people and a judiciary that strives for justice for all, without exception. This will not happen so long as this kleptocratic Iraqi government deals with its citizens in a disciplinary fashion, while leaving the criminals and killers of the occupation forces and mercenaries to do as they please.

Ibrahim Alqarghouli is a common Iraqi citizen being confronted by two crimes: first, the occupation of his homeland and second, the rape of a fellow Iraqi sister. How could he not revolt and resist? This is the question that Iraqi judges in the criminal court need to ponder if they are to enjoy any integrity or self-respect or respect for the law.

There still remains thirty days to correct this decision. The opportunity is still at hand for us as individuals and organizations within Iraq, the Arab and Islamic worlds and beyond to raise our voices and to demand Ibrahim’s release.

The resistance fighter Albert Camus’ insistence in his symbolic story about a city falling victim to a plague epidemic upon positing individual moral responsibility amongst everyday collective decision making is of special importance to our current situation. Iraq lives in the shadow of an occupation, under clouds of lost truth, silence and capitulation. This is the point that Camus makes repeatedly in his story, fearful that it might be lost on the reader: “when you witness suffering at the hands of a plague, you would have to be mad, blind or a coward to accept it.”

¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤

Ms. Zangana is an Iraqi writer.

Translated By Namir Shabibi

Edited by Louis Standish

Source: http://watchingamerica.com/News/11893/how-could-you-not-resist-when-your-country-is-occupied-and-your-sister-is-being-raped/