Julie Bessler No. 6 (Khalili)

Laleh Khalili gives an interesting account in her chapter “Invisible Prisoners, Proxy-Run Prisons.” She talks about the role of proxies in not only the Israeli invasion of Lebanon in the 1980s, but also in the counterterrorism operations of the United States during its “War on Terror.” A recurring theme is present in most of the articles we have read, and that is the issue of visibility. In this scenario, “zones of invisibility” are created. Black sites are established around the world, where detainees are held and tortured without a warrant for arrest or a trail. This type of detention is ideal when secret services wish to perform in a way that would be considered illegal in prisons monitored by the ICRC, for example. Rendition also fits this mold of invisibility, where prisoners are sent to countries with little to no oversight on the treatment of detainees. Khalili quotes Robert Baer: “If you want a serious interrogation, you send a prisoner to Jordan. If you want them to be tortured, you send them to Syria. If you want someone to disappear- never to see them again- you send them to Egypt.”

What I think is the most fascinating part of her argument is the way she intertwines the themes of gender and race. To Khalili, the use of proxies are useful not only because it blurs accountability and legal jurisdiction, but also because is reinforces a certain “civilizational hierarchies in which the proxies’ brutality reinforced the humane superiority of their patrons.” It makes sense when one looks at the blatant racist rhetoric during the Bush administration at the height of the “War on Terror.” The Middle East and Middle Easterners only understood brutality and hated Westerners for their “freedom.” Khalili recounts that the Rafi Malka, head of Shin Bet’s Operational Branch, stated, “Lebanon gave us Lebanonization...In order to stay sane and stay alive, you had to do things that were unacceptable.” Ben-Gurion called for the “fight against the spirit of the Levant,” which will only corrupt societies to the level of Arab countries. I think that this idea is a product of 19th century colonialism, where the Middle East, Africa and Asia were occupied in the name of civilization. Imperialist powers, whether they were in occupied lands for natural resources or not, played a direct hand in the daily lives of the populace because it was the “white man’s burden” to lead the path towards Westernization. Imperialism was blatantly racist, as is the War on Terror and the efforts of the US and other coalition forces to reestablish order in Afghanistan and Iraq after ravaging it.

Gender is also used to separate the status of the proxy from the occupying forces. It is weaponized to prove that the conquered populations become owned, and therefore feminine. I think this was a very interesting topic to bring up in this article. Khalili quotes a commander in Iraq, who states, “When are these people going to discover their manhood and stand and fight with us to save their city.” Through classes and readings, the idea of imperial conquest has always been considered “masculine,” while the occupied populations are considered “feminine.” Look at the British occupation of Egypt- the idea of the occupied population/country was blatantly gendered. This was evident through political cartoons about the colonization of Egypt, where more often than not, the reoccurring two subjects in the cartoon were 1) the very masculine/handsome British general manhandling the 2) tied-up oversexed/exposed woman who was to represent Egypt. I can’t also help but think about the role of NGOs in the Middle East when the subject of gender comes up. I read an article in my “Women in Islam” class last year, where the role of NGOs can also be seen as a product of Western imperialist thought. Many of these NGOs strive to “liberate” women, in Afghanistan for example, and show them that unveiling is the only way to move towards equality and ameliorate their situation. Yet, accounts from Afghani women themselves show that their veil is the LEAST of their worries. They live everyday trying to put food on the table and to educate their children. Instead of trying to instill this “feminism” on a suffering population, why not teach sustainable farming? Why not give women the tools to take the lead in educating their children if they cannot afford schools? The need for a more culturally sensitive approach to populations around the world is more than necessary after decades of injustice.