14 Commentary
The McGill Daily, Thursday, January 22, 2009
COMMENT
HYDE PARK
Human rights, genocide, Obama must and the children of Hamas push AIDS reform Nadja Popovich
T
he Inauguration is just two days behind us and the next four years are stretched in front of us with all of their hopeful promise still in tact. Everyone is looking to Obama to fix a slew of problems left after a retrospectively dark eight years under the Bush administration. But with the economy teetering on the edge of unparalleled crisis – not to mention the ongoing wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, the new year’s Israeli-Palestinian crisis, the $10-trillion U.S. debt, and the onslaught of climate change – it would be easy to see how so many of those promises of change which were the main rhetoric of Obama’s presidential run, could fall by the wayside. I, however, would like to focus on an issue which seems to be left out of the mainstream dialogue: the ongoing international fight against HIV/AIDS. It may come as a surprise to many, but the role of the U.S. in funding the global HIV/AIDS battle has been hailed as one of the few shining lights of the Bush years, by no less than the New York Times, among others. With the authorization of the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) in 2003, the U.S. committed an unprecedented US $15-billion over five years to fight the HIV/AIDS pandemic internationally. It has been hailed as the largest health initiative directed at a single disease to be initiated by one country – ever. The successes of PEPFAR are many; the program more than doubled the number of people receiving anti-retroviral treatment (ART) in the most hard-hit countries from 2004 to 2008. Yet, it has also faced its fair share of problems and criticisms. PEPFAR has most prominently been accused of being largely morally motivated. Of the US $15-billion allotted in 2003, 20 per cent was outlined to be spent on prevention efforts, one-third of which was earmarked to go toward non-scientifically based “abstinence only” education programs. These sorts of programs have been largely dismissed as unconstructive both in the U.S. and abroad, as they provide a narrow educational lens and leave participants more vulnerable when they do choose to engage in sexual relations at a later time. PEPFAR’s ideological policing of funding has also required agencies to sign an anti-prostitution pledge – requiring an explicit opposition to sex work – before being eligible for funding, leaving one of the most stigmatized and at-risk groups out of a constructive dialogue of prevention and care. PEPFAR has also turned a blind eye to another marginalized community – intravenous drug-users – by not supporting clean-needleexchange programs. Other criticisms levied against
PEPFAR include its initial refusal to use generic drugs, instead requiring FDA-regulated, name-brands despite the high costs associated with them. However, this clause has been reformed to an extent since 2005, making generic ARTs at least partially available. Due to the ideological short-sightedness implicit in PEPFAR’s requirements for gaining program funding, many organizations and governments have chosen to turn their backs to this considerable tool in the fight against HIV/AIDS. For instance, the BBC media outreach program in Tanzania and the Brazilian government, both at odds with the antiprostitution pledge, have refused PEPFAR sponsored funds. While the Bush administration showed positive initiative in its bipartisan and globally oriented proposal of PEPFAR, the mire of moral baggage that comes along with funding only weighs down the full potential such an initiative could offer. PEPFAR funding can no longer be tied to ideology and unproven science. While steps have been taken to remove some specifications from the 2008 PEPFAR reauthorization – such as the exact percentages of money allotted for prevention and abstinence programs – the general atmosphere of moral stringency associated with the Bush administration’s agenda remains. With administration change, however, comes a new opportunity to set PEPFAR funding free from previous moral constraints. Obama’s pledge to “ensure that best practices – not ideology – [sic] drive funding for HIV/ AIDS programs,” is certainly a firm step in that direction. But now, upon officially entering office, Obama must work toward the structural changes that can provide a more comprehensive and wide-reaching access to antiHIV/AIDS funding from the U.S. for all of those countries in need. Now is the time to act on AIDS worldwide; now that gains are already being made, we cannot sit idly by and feel as if our part of the work is finished. Instead, Bush’s initiative must be set for a more expansive course. In hard economic times, it may be easy to say that a reformation of PEPFAR may not be at the top of the agenda, but millions of lives literally depend upon such reforms. Global as well as domestic expansion of anti-HIV/AIDS funding and reforms of existing legislation should be a top priority for the new administration.
For a full outline of the Obama administration’s HIV/AIDS initiative pledges, visit change.gov/ agenda/the_obama_biden_ plan_ to_combat_ global_hiv_aids/. Nadja Popovich is The Daily’s Mind&Body editor. Send your used condoms to mindnbody@mcgilldaily.com.
Adam Plotkin
T
he memories are etched in my mind: the unease, the looks of silent terror. The fear was palpable, unconvincingly shielded behind the guise of outward bravado. This is the reality of the city of Sderot, located less than a mile from Gaza, a city that I visited this past summer. Over the past eight years, Sderot has been bombarded by close to 7,000 Qassam rockets that fall indiscriminately on streets, houses, hospitals, and schools. I walked through the streets of Sderot, where every bus stop has been turned into a makeshift bomb shelter. I witnessed a school with overhanging cement reinforcement covering half of the building due to the inability to pay for shelter over the entire structure. When the Code Red sirens sound indicating that residents have 15 seconds to reach a bomb shelter, all of the schoolchildren are forced to leave their studies and run to the side of the building that has been reinforced. These rockets are the work of Hamas, and they are the reason why kindergarten children in Sderot grow up singing songs to remind them to run to the shelter when the sirens sound. While they sing
songs that could potentially save their lives, Gazan children are also taught to sing about killing Jews and Americans. This is why I fail to see how individuals profess to be defending the human rights of Gazans while failing to understand Hamas for what it truly is – a hateful, self-interested, and genocidal terrorist organization. Hamas’ violent rhetoric is evident in the founding principles of its Charter. The Covenant of the Islamic Resistance Movement openly states in its 1988 preface: “Israel will exist and continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it.” It explicitly calls for the genocide of the Jewish people, stating in Article 7: “The Day of Judgement will not come about until Muslims fight the Jews (killing the Jews), when the Jew will hide behind stones and trees. The stones and trees will say O Muslims, O Abdulla, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him.” In Article 8, Hamas’s Slogan proclaims, “Jihad is its path, and death for the sake of Allah is the loftiest of its wishes.” As a result, the lives of civilian men, women, and children are seen as mere instruments in the hands of a murderous regime that would sooner see Palestinian children become “martyrs” than doctors, lawyers, or teachers. They would rather pour funds into Qassam rock-
ets than agriculture, infrastructure, and basic human provisions. Rather than improving their hospitals following Israel’s unilateral withdrawal from Gaza in 2005, Hamas leaders chose to construct an underground lair beneath the Shifa Hospital in Gaza City, Gaza’s largest hospital, built by Israel in order to improve the living conditions of Gaza residents. Terrorism is not Hamas’s last resort, but its primary tactic. The adage goes that democracy ensures that the people get the government they deserve. In the case of the civilian residents of Gaza, I find it difficult to agree. Gazans do not deserve a government that values death above life, one that teaches Palestinian children to hate and kill their neighbours. Both the children of Gaza and of Sderot deserve better. Hamas’s stated goals are clear, including the destruction of Israel and the eradication of the Jewish people. Golda Meir’s words ring true, a rallying cry for Israeli morality: “We can forgive you for killing our children, but we can never forgive you for making us kill your children. We will only have peace when you love your children more than you hate ours.”
Adam Plotkin is a U3 Honours Sociology student. Send your love to adam.plotkin@mail.mcgill.ca.
HYDE PARK
Applying some logic to conflict terminology Gilad Ben-Shach
A
s a math student, I have come to appreciate logical reasoning. Although I realize that the real world is not perfect, I am appalled by the blatant lies and propaganda presented not only in international newspapers, but in our very own Daily, which I expect to be wellresearched and fact-checked. There are no sides to be taken in the current conflict in the Middle East, which should be thought of as conflict-resolution. Instead, there are eight years of rocket attacks by terrorists on innocent civilians, with a delayed military response to protect these citizens. It is time to correct The Daily’s grievous errors, avoiding the use of emotional appeals and words of convoluted meaning. Here we go: First, there is no occupation in Gaza. Period. Israel unilaterally withdrew from Gaza in 2005. In other words, every Israeli civilian and soldier left the Gaza Strip. Therefore, the term “occupation” is a misnomer. Logical conclusion: All references to an occupation of Gaza are lies and misrepresentations.
Second, there is no Israeli siege of Gaza. For those who do not know geography, Gaza is roughly rectangular. Gaza borders Israel on two sides, and the Mediterranean Sea on another. The fourth side of Gaza borders Egypt. So, yes, Israel has imposed a sea-blockade since the beginning of the crisis – which has prevented Iran from shipping weapons – and yes, Israel closed off the land borders, although humanitarian aid still passes through. However, this leaves a fourth side, which Israel does not control. Logical conclusion: Israel is not responsible for any siege. Such claims are, again, lies and misrepresentations. Lastly, the subtitle of the article “Hamas must be talked to” refers to “Israel’s repeated refusal to negotiate openly with the Palestinian authority.” The entire article speaks about Hamas. For those who do not know: Hamas and the Palestinian Authority (PA) are not the same thing. Hamas is a terrorist organization that, after being elected in Gaza in 2006, began a civil war in the Gaza strip killing many Palestinians. For some reason, I don’t recall protests condemning Hamas for killing Palestinians, but then again,
there are no protests when Hamas kills Israelis either. Besides being a terrorist organization, Hamas’s mandate calls for the destruction of Israel; not a friendly stance if Hamas really wants peace. Hamas also uses civilians as human shields, and hoards the humanitarian aid sent in to Gaza by Israel. The PA is a political organization – with strong historical ties to terrorism, but they beefed up their public image through dialogue with Israel and denunciation of Hamas operatives as terrorists – and the PA governs the West Bank. Israel negotiates openly with the PA, and Israel’s relationship with the PA is not the subject of the article. Logical conclusion: the editors either never checked the facts, or, similar to the poor terminology I described earlier, The Daily has published lies and misrepresentations. Many more points should be made. I hope The Daily adopts more rigorous editing procedures, so that the situation is properly portrayed. Gilad Ben-Shach is a U3 Math and Physics student. Send him fun facts about rectangles to gilad.benshach@mail.mcgill.ca.