Avatar has become a pop culture nexus for Palestinian rights activists.  The film portrays the struggle between a heartless interstellar corporation and the Na’vi, lithe and luminescent aliens indigenous to a planet rich in the lucrative mineral “unobtanium.” The Na’vi live atop a rich deposit of this shimmering ore, so the corporation and its thugs want to remove them, by any means necessary. For activists, the film is an apt analogy to Israel’s annexation of Palestinian territory. So what do these idealistic youth do? Dress up like the aliens.

The protestors appeared in Bil’in, a Palestinian town cut in half by the Wall (whatever adjective, security or Apartheid, no one on either side disagrees that the structure is a wall) and Sheikh Jarrah, a neighborhood in East Jerusalem which Israeli settlers have laid claim to and from which Israeli authorities have evicted Palestinians.

When I was in Bil’in in April 2009, the buzzword on the banners was “Occupation Flu,” play to the now-almost-forgotten H1N1 craze. Demonstrators gathered every Friday after prayer to confront Israeli soldiers who meet Palestinians’ stones with tear gas and flash-bang bombs. I was there to write a story, here, which explains more about this weekly protest.

A protestor shields his nose and eyes from the effects of tear gas.

The most striking aspect of this re-appropriation of a distinctly American, Avatar meme, is the irony. And right across the barbed-wire fence opposite from Bil’in are Israeli soldiers whose weapons supplied by American taxpayers. So, as Joseph Nye would explain, that’s an example of U.S. “hard power.”. Then, on the other side, the Palestinians to score by appropriating imagery siphoned with sophistication from the mighty currents of American “soft power.”

Vietnamese artist Dinh Q. Lê has opened a new exhibit called Elegies at P·P·O·W.  It serves as a prelude to Lê’s exhibition in June at the Museum of Modern Art, entitled The Farmers and The Helicoptors.

P·P·O·W features works based on the United States’ troubled exit from the Vietnam war, specifically the jettisoning of helicopters from the overcrowded decks of aircraft carriers evacuating military and diplomatic personnel.

Yesterday, Barack Obama announced to West Pointers, as well as the rest of the world, that 30,000 more American soldiers will be fighting in Afghanistan by Summer 2010. Instead of another Obama photo, the Washington Post’s front page featured a shot of the West Point cadets listening to their Commander in Chief, and looking worried.

Obama’s decision comes amid debate amongst the chattering classes about what to do in Afghanistan. Even Thomas Friedman, who still supports American involvement in Afghanistan, expresses skepticism concerning the wisdom of continued U.S. presence. On the other side, Stephen M. Walt, a professor of International Affairs at Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government, wrote an editorial in the latest issue of Washington Report on Middle East Affairs about how the U.S. should abandon a failing campaign he deems pointless anyway. “U.S. victory in Afghanistan won’t put an end to al-Qaeda,” Walt writes. “And if the outcome in Afghanistan has little effect n the threat al-Qaeda poses, there is little reason to squander more American blood and treasure there.”

Al-Qaeda isn’t the reason the U.S. should stay in Afghanistan, the Afghans are. The United States can’t ethically occupy and destroy large parts of a country and then leave it to humanitarian NGO’s, like the UN, to clean up the tragic mess. Moreover, Mr. Walt’s solution to curbing al-Qaeda’s influence in the country involves “cruise missiles and armed drones,” technologies that have so far had hit or miss success in, well, not killing civilians. Basically, what Mr. Walt advocates is resetting Afghanistan’s broken bones excruciatingly slowly and fomenting resentment of America’s very existence, not just resistance against its military occupation. If the plan in Afghanistan in the first place was preventing terrorist attacks on U.S. soil, winning the hearts and minds of young, impressionable men, then incinerating their grandmothers isn’t the way to go.

But what makes more boots on the ground a better choice than just lobbing missiles on occasion? Obama’s commitment of 30,000 more soldiers means that America’s presence there have the aid of 60,000 more eyes and ears, and along with each pair a human conscience and intuition, not an exorbitantly priced guidance system some contractor cheated the Pentagon into purchasing.

But this means hundreds, if not thousands, more Americans will meet gruesome deaths or injury at the hands of the insurgency. That said, the American death toll will probably never surpass the number of Afghan civilians who have already faced similar horrible fates, like the 35 refugees who perished on November 11th (Armistice Day, ironically enough) when a U.S. air strike mistook their vehicle for an enemy target.

The United States needs to stay in Afghanistan to ensure that the destruction we’ve wrought on the country wasn’t for naught. Cutting and running isn’t an option. And even if defeating the Taliban doesn’t make American soil safer, as Mr. Walt suggests, it might be able to improve the lives of Afghans through agricultural development and funding for education, which is what will make sure the Taliban, if they’re ever decisively ousted, don’t regroup and return to power. More than that, the only way to finally defang the Taliban for the sake of the Afghans is to enter into negotiations with them, if only to split the organization into Taliban who will talk and who won’t. This is the tactic Gen. David Petraeus employed in Iraq in 2007 to break the back of the Sunni insurgency. While no policy of occupation in Afghanistan or Iraq will result in national liberation, there are methods of mitigating the intensity of internecine violence.

Nevertheless, I should temper this enthusiasm for a bolstering American force with the fact that all of it could just as easily go horribly wrong, depending on the consciences that sit behind and between those 120,000 young eyes and ears. And while I wouldn’t venture to recommend any tactic in particular for the Army and Marine Corps to follow, wanton brutality against civilians and torture will result in America continuing to fail.

Obviously, an escalation of the war, which is what Obama’s move means, is nothing short of tragic. Indeed, some of those West Point cadets in the audience will meet their death because of the President’s decision. With them, countless Afghans will also die. But our withdrawal guarantees the slaughter of those who aided our occupation. Without a government pliant to the West’s will, funding for humanitarian and development efforts will cease, left without any sort of assurance of security from a sovereign authority, Afghan or American. In the scramble for power after a hasty U.S. withdrawal, violent clashes between rival ethnic and religious elements of Afghan society are a virtual certainty. Clearly, any bargain we might make with the present situation in Afghanistan involves some measure of innocent blood being shed in the future. And national liberation might have become an obsolete aspiration, since nationhood today demands the immediate dilution of sovereign power to the indifferent mandates of supranational authority.

More than that, perhaps we all need to temper our expectations for Afghanistan. A mountainous, landlocked country, it is likely Afghanistan will never develop, doomed to remain beholden to the good will of a concerned global citizenry and beleaguered by the ambitions of Empire. A nation building enterprise there is a bit like performing brain surgery on one whose faculties may have already suffered irreparable damage.

Guardian.  Theater of the Oppressed.

New York Times. The Guardian. Art: 21. e-flux.

One Million Bones is a ambitious art intervention designed to raise both awareness of the millions of victims killed as a result of ongoing genocides occurring on our watch. The bones, made from a variety of materials by artists, students, activists and citizens, will flood the National Mall in Washington, DC creating a “visual demand” for a solution to this global issue.

Each bone will be submitted with a $5 donation targeted to beneficiary organizations that work to aid displaced and vulnerable victims of genocide. For information about how to make or submit a bone, visit the “Bones” section of the webpage. They also accept donations without bones.

Photojournalist Nina Berman has recently released Homeland, a book inspired by George Bush’s use of the word shortly after September 11th. “Previously unfamiliar in American speech, the word sounded both sinister and soothing,” she states. Her photography examines what it means to live in this “homeland”, which we simultaneously occupy and define. It examines bizarre yet somehow accepted phenomena like mega-churches with stadium seating, Homeland Security Advisory billboards erected in sleepy suburbs, multi-million dollar terrorist simulation drills and “happy families stepping through the suburbs clutching anti-nuke pills”.

Berman says that aside from being inspired by Bush’s rhetoric, she was also inspired by “the human cost of war”, both on soldiers that grew up thinking war would be “fun” and learned it was quite the opposite as well and on the costs of war at home for the typical American. Her book seeks to show the fantasies of war and how easily it can be glorified in this “homeland”. This exposes one of the central problems in our country – we are too quick to buy into something when it’s packaged so nicely by those in charge and it makes us feel safe. And, once we do that, we automatically “create  a certainty that can be quite consuming, [because] once you buy into something, everything else falls into place”.

To view some of the photos from Homeland, visit Digital Journalist’s photo gallery.

Previous Post: Theater of Homeland Insecurity

Concrete, Steel & Paint, the one hour documentary by Cindy Burnstein and Tony Heriza, follows the struggle of a prison art class to create an outdoor mural in the city of Philadelphia. Originally the project faced resistance from crime victims and victim advocates who questioned its message, but it was able to continue in a partnership with the city’s Mural Arts Program. The struggle and collaborative process resulted in a meaningful mural (for both prisoners and victims) about crime, restoration and healing.

The documentary does not attempt to suggest answers to the complicated issues surrounding incarceration and our nation’s prison system, but by highlighting programs like “Healing Walls” run by the Mural Arts Program, the film emphasizes the need for “dialogue and new approaches to finding justice and reconciliation.”

The Philadelphia premiere of Concrete, Steel & Paint will be at the International House on Thursday July 23, 2009 from 7-9 PM. The premiere features a discussion with the filmmakers, project participants and Howard Zehr (restorative justice pioneer). A reception follows the discussion. Tickets are $10 or whatever you can pay. Email cspfilm@gmail.com for your advanced reservations!!

Previous Post on the Mural Arts Program: Visual Restoration

If you’re looking to brush up on your knowledge of  Iran, New Internationalist has an amazing archive of articles to help put the current protests into context. They also recently ran a story  about seven inspirational Iranian football players who stood in solidarity with protesters at the World Cup qualifier. Even after instructed to take off their green armbands, the players refused. A bold move considering they will have to face a fury of authorities upon their return to Iran. 

Obviously, this created a flood of support for the players and added some needed fuel to the fire that some worried might be burning out. Several beautiful and inspirational messages of support appeared online during the game. “We won. We don’t want the World Cup, we want the honour and dignity that you proved we had”. 

The Boston Globe also has some amazing images of riot and protest in the streets of Iran, which many are calling one of the largest demonstrations in history. Against all the danger, Iranians are standing up to voice their rights. Obviously, this is something that none of us can ignore and that everyone should express solidarity with.