SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Israel to U.S. : Now Deal with Syria and Iran -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Ed Huang who wrote (5427)7/10/2004 7:02:51 AM
From: Crimson Ghost  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 22250
 
Exit Neo-Conservatives, Enter Neo-Liberals

By Mark Green with Wendy Campbell

7/8/04

Israel’s Democratic Operatives in the U.S. are Preparing to Pick Up and Run with the Bush War and Occupation

Prepare for a continuation of pro-war policies if Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry is elected in November. Please recall that candidate Kerry—a renowned liberal even by Massachusetts’ standards—voted nevertheless in favor of Bush’s pre-emptive war on Iraq. In addition, Kerry’s recent critiques of the Bush administration’s war policies focus primarily on strategic failures and human rights fiascoes that haunt Team Bush. So what does the Democratic presidential hopeful have to say about there being no Iraqi weapons of mass destruction or any demonstrable connection between Saddam Hussein and either 911 or Al Queda? Virtually nothing.

Further, Kerry expresses no interest in fundamentally reassessing the policies that have brought America to this precipice in the first place; additionally, he’s offered absolutely no commitment to end the discredited, multi-billion dollar invasion and occupation of Iraq. Kerry is a Company Man, willing to do it the Company Way. Like Bush, he’s committed to imposing upon the world an American Empire. In Iraq, the Democratic hopeful intends to “internationalize” the occupation, boost troop numbers (and benefits), and “destroy the terrorists”. Maybe it’s all just a clever strategy: Kerry plans to use his wooden persona and stale ideas to literally BORE the electorate into submission. No wonder America has the lowest voter turnout in the democratic world.

Even more loathsome, in a recent policy paper Candidate Kerry supported Ariel Sharon’s policies of Jewish colonization in the West Bank, de facto ethnic cleansing there, and the internationally reviled Israeli method of territorial expansion through conquest and subjugation. The Kerry candidacy therefore represents an insidious political merger. Seldom before have two candidates’ ‘stark similarities’ been so pronounced. On the question of U.S. aggression in the Middle East, the Democrats and Republicans have colluded to provide America with a ‘one party’ doctrine. Its overriding goal is simple: advance Israel’s most extreme political agendas at whatever cost.

So in the event of a Kerry victory, watch for the emergence of a new political animal: the ‘neo-liberal’.

Whereas the Kennedy wing of the Democratic Party has, at least since Viet Nam, produced predictable sound-bites about “unjust wars” etc., the insatiable demands for regional domination by Israel will inevitably require still more U.S.-subsidized incursions into the Middle East—this time with a Democratic Stamp of Approval. Why? --Because when it comes to Israel, the Democrats (like the modern Republican party) are simply unable to say “No” to the Jewish State.

Please recall that throughout the Clinton presidency the crippling sanctions imposed on Iraq are credited with killing more Iraqis than the Iraq wars of Bush Sr. and Jr. combined! According to the U.N., some 500,000 Iraqi woman and children died in the 1990’s as a direct result of U.S. sanctions. Clinton’s former Sec. Of State Madeline Albright affirmed on CBS’s “Sixty Minutes” that the extraordinary suffering in Iraq under American sanctions “was worth it.” Don’t expect a reduction of these Iron Fist policies if Democrat John Kerry is elected.

ISRAELI PROWESS

Zionist donors and activists (not to mention party bosses and a disproportionate number of candidates) basically comprise the new Democratic establishment. On the Republican side we’ve seen the emergence of Christian Zionists who, while lacking the political savvy and strategic thinking of their Jewish counterparts, compensate for this deficit by sheer numbers. It’s the Israeli-Americans however who run the show. Upon victory, watch Kerry and his phalanx of Zionist political colleagues (including Tom Lantos, Carl Levin, Diane Einstein, Henry Wax man, Ilene Ros-Lehtinen, Charles Schumer, Barbara Boxer, Nita Lowey, Joe Lieberman, and others) morph into ‘neo-Liberals”: pro-choice, anti-tobacco, pro-affirmative action, pro-gay, pro-women’s ‘rights’—and doggedly ‘anti-terror’ (pro-war) in the Middle East.

Using variations on the ‘war on terror’ theme, watch the Dems follow the neo-conservative path towards relentless pursuit of Israel’s foes as they simultaneously forgive all Zionist sins; from ‘ethnic cleansing’ to Israel’s relentless meddling and espionage against friend and foe alike. As the election draws near, watch as even the pretense of evenhandedness towards the Arab world atrophies beneath the iron resolve of the “special relationship”.

In their cultural-political effectiveness, Israel’s countless boosters are without peer. Despite the headlines and innuendo, the oil politics of the Bush-Cheney-Haliburton clique are a mere shadow of organized Zionism’s unparalleled prowess in America’s political marketplace. Indeed, the Politics of Oil always yield before Zionist preeminence. A case in point:

the Yom Kippur war of 1973. When Israel faced defeat before the united armies of Egypt and Syria, Sec. Of State Henry Kissinger ordered America armaments flown into the Israel-occupied Sinai Peninsula, giving Israel a pivotal advantage against her Arab foes. The ensuing Arab outrage produced the great oil embargo of 1973, sending the U.S. into a debilitating recession for the better part of a decade. To this day, the vast majority of Americans make no connection between America’s partisan, pro-Israel role during that historic Middle East war, and the price surge of oil and long lines at gas stations which followed. The political details (and lessons) of that event have simply slipped into an Orwellian ‘memory hole’ by the pro-Zionist managers of American Political Memory; otherwise, voters might understand the risks and costs associated with the sacred ‘special relationship’.

In fact, America’s War on Terror is actually camouflage for our nation’s war on Israel’s enemies. That’s why the terror attack of 911 morphed so easily into a ready-made pretext for Zionized America to decimate Israel’s most intractable foe. Iraq’s ‘liberation’ turned into a military rout followed by an open-ended occupation. But now, Democracy can wait; the current buzzword is “security”. In the meantime, American brutality has been exposed and everyday Iraqis are in greater pain and turmoil now than even under Saddam Hussein. The winner? Israeli hard-liners, many of who are pushing for the construction of an oil pipeline from Iraq directly to Haifa, Israel. In the meantime, Iraq’s new, handpicked regime can enjoy discussing these and other matters of state with America’s latest Ambassador to Iraq, John Negroponte, who is Jewish and therefore eligible for Israeli citizenship.

America’s media culture is similarly corrupted, extending well beyond incessant Holocaust imagery or covering up the connection between Arab terrorism and unconditional U.S. aid to Israel. Consider, for instance, how major news media often accord greater coverage to the death of one Israeli soldier than a cop murdered on an American street. Similarly, American media seldom takes seriously the thousands of Iraqi or Palestinian civilians who have been, or are being, maimed and killed by allied and Israeli forces. That America’s “liberation” of Iraq is now opposed overwhelming by the very people we were recently claiming to “liberate” is barely considered news. The Big Picture, we are told, concerns stopping the irrational, fundamentalist, terrorist bogeyman, bringing ‘democracy’ to the Arab world, or freeing Muslim women from the chains of religious fundamentalism. But when the bombs drop, who really benefits? Once again it’s our ‘plucky, democratic ally’ who has managed to drag the world’s only superpower into its perpetual, ethnic-based war against its besieged regional enemies.

While the implications of this phenomenon are increasingly understood, they are still only whispered about, since a candid critique of Zionist power in America remains our greatest taboo. Better that the New York TIMES run another “major story” about the economic disparities between African Americans and whites than it ever investigate the dark implications of entrenched Zionist advocacy at the highest spheres of American life. Where’s the call for affirmative action now?

Another telling example of America’s acquiescence towards Israeli resolve can be seen in the question of how and when the Zionist state acquired nuclear capabilities, today estimated to be between 200 to 400 warheads. How do Israel’s weapons of mass destruction affect Arab security, or global security? Or is nobody interested? One thing is clear: the very rumor that an Arab country intends to seek strategic parity with the Jewish state is enough to launch a dozen U.S. battleships.

JUST WONDERING

What happened to all those righteous, New York Liberals who engineered the Civil Rights movement throughout the American South and who later became so committed to ending ‘Apartheid’ (segregation) in South Africa? Apparently, ethno-religious separation remains divinely kosher when it’s served up in Israel. These ignoble double standards are now accepted tenets of our ‘received’ political wisdom. But what is it that keeps Americans looking the other way? It may be the engineered fear of being labeled anti-Semitic for criticizing the Zionist State. Whatever its cause, the time to demand a re-examination of unconditional U.S. support for Israel has arrived.

Speaking of ‘fear’, consider these contemporary American customs: while it’s acceptable to discuss the “Jewish vote” in mainstream media, real Jewish influence comes not from their miniscule numbers (Jews allegedly comprise no more than 3% of the U.S. electorate) but from Jewish wealth, solidarity, determination and position. This extraordinary phenomenon (unless it’s being debunked) is altogether off limits for analysis. Expect CBS (or NBC-ABC-CNN-FOX) to run another “white supremacists meet in Idaho” segment, or air a story about the Vatican’s ‘failure to speak out” during The Holocaust, long before this disturbing political fact is ever even acknowledged.

Among our governing elites, this Judeo-centric worldview is so prevalent that the failure to pledge unconditional allegiance to Israel virtually assures political oblivion. Recall what happened to Democratic presidential hopeful Howard Dean when he expressed a desire for more “even-handedness” and balance in U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East: his candidacy almost immediately imploded. House Democrats Jim Moran, Cynthia McKinney, Earl Hilliard and others have all paid a similarly heavy price for arousing the wrath of the pro-Israel lobby. Republicans, too, face similar pressures. Former Congressman Paul Findlay (R-IL)—another causality of the Israeli lobby—has written extensively on this subject. And remember that Bush Sr.—who was viewed by many in the Jewish community as “hostile to Israel”—failed in his bid for reelection in 1992, in no small part due to the tireless efforts of the ‘Israel First’ crowd. Hyper-Zionist, neo-conservative Bush Jr. has learned his lesson well.

Insiders claim that in today’s highly managed political party apparatus, party bosses customarily weed out candidates for elected office by the time they reach the level of a ‘county commissioner’ if their commitment to Israel is suspect. Israel’s unique policy of flying in elected American officials for all-expense-paid junkets to the Jewish State is just one way that they indoctrinate our representatives and gauge their Zionist bona fides. In the words of former Congressman Findlay, “the Israelis never sleep”.

Whatever your politics, the discriminatory basis of Zionism is simply an unworkable add-on to the American ideals of equal treatment before the law, a ‘color-blind’ democracy, and the separation of church (synagogue) and state. By contrast, ethnic and religious discrimination are essential to Zionism.

Witness American values being stood on their head as President Bush asserts—in contravention to UN resolutions, world opinion and international law—that Palestinian refugees must give up their right to return to the land of their birth. With an election looming, the Leader of the Free World now declares that Israel may keep virtually all the Palestinian territory it has captured through deception and war. This sanctioned expropriation repudiates the initiatives of every preceding U.S. Administration. Indeed, Bush’s “pre-emptive” war on Iraq may yet be viewed as lacking sufficient legal justification and could provoke the convening of a Constitutional Convention so abuses of this magnitude may be prevented from recurring.

MYTHS ENDURE BECAUSE THE MEDIA LET THEM

If America is being targeted because terrorists are “jealous of our freedoms” as Bush and his speechwriters claim, why then don’t terrorists attack other Western democracies like Canada, New Zealand, Sweden or Japan? Significantly, Presidential fabrications like this are often overlooked, even by leading commentators. Are these media ‘watchdogs’ willing to let themselves be deceived for the right cause? Ideological bias from both left and right is an acknowledged media fact, and it undermines journalistic credibility. But what about the bias that would subordinate American interests before Israel’s? Why should it be of no interest that so many American editors, publishers, producers and opinion-makers (Thomas Friedman, Mort Zuckerman, Charles Krauthammer Marty Peretz, David Frum, and Bill Safire, to name a just a few) qualify for Israeli citizenship? After all, interests between nations inevitably diverge. Shouldn’t these privileged tastemakers concede—and we consumers of news be informed—that many pundits they might suffer from an (undisclosed) conflict of interest? In American media and journalism, the percentage of opinion-makers who are eligible for Israeli citizenship is unparalleled. How that affects the content of our news is incalculable, but profound.

Indeed, it took over a year for most Americans to become aware that the war on Iraq was based on false intelligence, misleading claims and phony allegations. Hussein’s purported link to Al Queda and his non-existent WMD’s may have been part of an Israeli-American plan to wage war on Iraq and intimidate any nation that threatens the Zionist State. Yet Kerry’s criticisms of Bush’s unnecessary war are cautious and narrowly focused. Recent statements reveal that Kerry’s commitment to Israeli “security” may exceed even The President’s. Following the revelations of U.S. misconduct at Iraq’s Abu Ghraib prison, Candidate Kerry called for the largely symbolic resignation of one U.S. official, Sec. of Defense Rumsfeld. Fundamental American war policies however get an unhesitant Thumbs Up from Kerry, who now supports Israel’s “separation fence” (called the Apartheid Wall by many) without condition.

Now that the Neo-conservative Bush regime is coming under fire for its military blunders and misdeeds, it may soon be time for the Zionists to adopt Plan B. If the Bush war fails, the Israeli torch will simply pass to Zionist Liberal Democrat John Kerry. On this extraordinary issue, filmmaker Michael Moore and others prefer to look the other way. Unfortunately, career politicians and other media bosses may be correct in betting that the American people are indeed dumb enough not to detect Israeli fingerprints on unethical American conduct throughout in the Middle East. Pity the poor Palestinians under Israeli occupation, and pity the poor, unwitting American people as they underwrite this political boondoggle. The corrosive impact that these crypto-Zionist policies are having on our nation’s reputation will be felt for generations. Notwithstanding the forced ‘democratization’ of Iraq, our children may well inherit a more dangerous world.

In the meantime, our Zionized media (including Moore’s “Fahrenheit 9/11) are having a field day deconstructing the Bush Administration and its expendable cast of NeoCon warriors. No problem. Whatever the election results, our governing establishment will produce an administration that eagerly sympathizes with all Israeli aspirations. Other than that, the political parties and their carefully chosen hacks are free to squabble about gun control, health care, gay marriage, tobacco regulation, whatever. The only Sacred Cow in American politics today is the Zionist State. Today the sacrificial lambs are Palestine and Iraq; tomorrow they could be Syria, Iran or Saudi Arabia. Bringing “freedom” to foreign lands is an endless struggle.

And while you’re at it, please keep your eye on House Resolution 4230, the ‘Global Anti-Semitism Awareness Act’. This Orwellian bill, concocted by Israeli-American leaders in the U.S. Congress, proposes to combat anti-Semitism anywhere and everywhere in the world! Feeling warm and safer now?

So be prepared for the morphing of the neo-cons into the neo-liberals into the everyday, everywhere cheerleaders for Israel. Watch for more totalitarian schemes served up in slick, idealistic packaging that use phrases like: “protecting Muslim women”, “advancing the cause of democracy” and of course, “combating terror”.

What’s a voter to do? Demand actual reform. Choosing the ‘lesser of two evils’ doesn’t solve the embedded Israeli conundrum. It’s time to withhold support of the two major parties (since they’ve become hopelessly corrupted) and take alternative action. Speak out. Expose the unpleasant truths about Zionism. Also: choose the candidate who most resolutely rejects the Israelization of America. Even the longest journey begins with one step.

# # #

Mark Green and Wendy Campbell are California-based filmmakers and media activists. Ms. Campbell’s website is www.exposingisraeliapartheid.com  <http://www.exposingisraeliapartheid.com/>  where you can order powerful videos including Mark Green’s “Myth, Terrorism and Taboo”.



To: Ed Huang who wrote (5427)7/10/2004 4:19:47 PM
From: Thomas M.  Respond to of 22250
 
Looking into the lone dissenting vote, Thomas Buergenthal, he appears to have a history of defending human rights:

ailf.org

But when it comes to Israel's theft of Palestinian land, he doesn't object. The Court wasn't ruling on Israel's right to build a wall. They were ruling on Israel's wall that is being built within the West Bank to annex Palestinian land. So, security of Jews is not the issue. That tells us a little something about Committee on Conscience of the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Council, which he is currently chairing.

Tom



To: Ed Huang who wrote (5427)7/11/2004 9:20:17 AM
From: Pogeu Mahone  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 22250
 
tooo farking bad
Israel says who cares?
and go fark yourself, as they know your habits..
Open secrets
In Pakistan, sex between men is strictly forbidden by law and religion. But even in the most conservative regions, it's also embedded in the society.
By Miranda Kennedy | July 11, 2004

LAHORE -- The first time Aziz, a lean, dark-haired 20-year-old in this bustling cultural capital, had sex with a man, he was a pretty, illiterate boy of 16. A family friend took him to his house, put on a Pakistani-made soft-porn video, and raped him. Now, says Aziz (who gives only his first name), he is "addicted" to sex with men, so he hangs around Lahore's red-light districts, getting paid a few rupees for sex. At night, he goes home to his parents and prays to Allah to forgive him.

In the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, homosexuality is not only illegal, it is a crime punishable by whipping, imprisonment, or even death. But across all classes and social groups, men have sex with men. In villages throughout the country, young boys are often forcibly "taken" by older men, starting a cycle of abuse and revenge that social activists and observers say is the common pattern of homosexual sex in Pakistan. Often these boys move to the cities and become prostitutes. Most people know it happens -- from the police to the wives of the men involved.

In some areas, homosexual sex is even tacitly accepted -- though still officially illegal -- as long as it doesn't threaten traditional marriage. In the Northwest Frontier Province (NWFP), which shares many tribal and cultural links with neighboring Afghanistan, the ethnic Pashtun men who dominate the region are renowned for taking young boys as lovers. No one has been executed for sodomy in Pakistan's recent history, but across the border in Afghanistan, the Taliban (who are also overwhelmingly Pashtun) executed three men for sodomy in 1998 by bulldozing a brick wall over them, burying two of them alive. (The third survived, which meant, according to Taliban law, that he was innocent, so he was taken to a hospital for treatment.)

Among Pakistan's urban elite, there is a growing community of men who identify as gay, some of whom even come out to their friends. Men meet on Internet bulletin boards, or at private pool parties with lots of rented boys and heavy security. But they are a tiny, terrified minority, living in cities such as Lahore, Karachi, or Islamabad, where the cultural elite has carved out a niche for itself. In a country where alcohol is forbidden except to Christians, dancing is banned, and the Koran guides many aspects of criminal law, such men rarely step outside of their protected world. (Because women in Pakistan inhabit, for the most part, a strictly private realm, it is difficult to say with any certainty how common lesbian relationships may be.)

Homosexuals in Pakistan walk a fine line between harsh legal and cultural prohibition and some form of unspoken social acceptance. "Islamic tradition frowns on but acknowledges male-male sex, and this plays a role in permitting clandestine sex so long as it is not allowed to interfere with family life, which is of paramount importance," the San Francisco-based sociologist Stephen O. Murray writes in "Sociolegal Control of Homosexuality: A Multi-Nation Comparison," a collection of scholarly essays published in 1997. Further complicating matters, the most common form of male homosexuality in Pakistan, according to Murray, is pederasty, where an older man entices or coerces (sometimes forcibly) a younger boy into sex.

Among the many obstacles facing men who have sex with men in Pakistan is this close association, in the eyes of many Pakistanis, between homosexuality and exploitation. But they face their own psychological barriers as well. Of the dozens of men interviewed for this article, almost none who admitted to having homosexual sex identified themselves as "gay." (All would give only their first names, which could not be verified, or would speak only anonymously.) Most do not even believe that homosexuality should be legal.

Aziz says he now enjoys sex with other men, but he believes that's only because he isn't able to have sex with women, who are largely inaccessible -- even in red-light districts, where there are many more men than women for rent. And like most Pakistani men who have homosexual sex, Aziz believes it is wrong. "The Verses of the Koran do not allow it," he says. "That's the only thing that matters."

. . .

According to the Koran, when the prophet Lot saw that his people had been engaged in sodomy and debauchery, he said, "Come ye to men, instead of women, lustfully? Ye are indeed a people given to excess." When they refused to repent their sins, Allah destroyed them: "And we rained a rain upon them: and see what was the end of the wicked!"

The lines don't seem to leave much room for interpretation. But Faisal Alam, founder of the Al-Fatiha Foundation, a Washington-based organization for gay and lesbian Muslims, argues that Lot's people were killed not because they had homosexual sex, but because they were forcing sex on each other. That interpretation is unlikely to hold much weight with Pakistan's religious leaders. The matter is not open for debate here -- not among mullahs, academics, or even activists.

Like many Pakistani men who have sex with men, Aziz believes he is plagued by a "satan," or demon, that makes him desire men. Veteran human rights lawyer Hina Jilani, who lives in Lahore and specializes in women's rights cases, says the inconsistent application of Sharia (Islamic law) and Pakistani criminal law has blurred the line between abuse and gay sex, and the emphasis on Islamic values has imbued the very word "homosexuality" with a moral color.

"Here we have two totally different issues: exploited boys and sex workers versus consensual sex," Jilani says. "But the majority of people will think of them as the same. Even people like myself who do understand this issue haven't been able to take it up, except in the context of violence against people on basis of sex orientation."Jilani says there are innumerable cases of young boys -- some sex workers, some not -- charged under Pakistan's sodomy law, even if they have been enticed into sex.

Jilani, who has defended dozens of children accused under the law, says they spend long years in jail awaiting trial; their families are stigmatized and often forced to disown them. In most parts of Pakistan, it's easier to lure a boy into sex than it is to catch a glimpse of a woman's legs. Sometimes it doesn't take more than the promise of a new cricket bat.

A 16-year-old who identifies himself only as Khurram knows all about that. Born in Dina, a small city in central Pakistan, his father died when he was young, and by the time he was 8 he was sent out to support his family. He says his employer sexually assaulted him, and he eventually realized that if he let it happen, he would make more money than he would serving chai. So he moved to the big city. Now he lives beside the bus stand in Rawalpindi, sleeping during the day and emerging at dusk to wait for work. For less than a dollar, he'll let a man have sex with him on a string bed behind a tobacco shop. "I don't like what I do," he says sorrowfully. "I am doing it so my sister can go to school."

. . .

There are no discernible red-light districts in the Northwest Frontier Province. In Peshawar, the provincial capital, women billow through the dusty streets in white "shuttlecock" burkas, named for the netted veil over the face. Many of the city's movie theaters have been shut down, and playing music in local buses is banned.

Ruled by an alliance of six Islamic parties who recently declared Sharia to be supreme over Pakistani national law, the NWFP is one of the most religiously conservative regions of Pakistan. This is the province that helped give rise to the Taliban, and where Al Qaeda leaders -- including Osama bin Laden -- continue to seek refuge, according to the Pakistani government.

Yet this is also the region of Pakistan where homosexuality is most tolerated -- however quietly. Among the Pashtun majority, having a young, attractive boyfriend is a symbol of prestige and wealth for affluent middle-aged men. Indeed, Pashtun men often keep a young boy in their hujra, the male room of the house that the wife rarely enters. The practice is so common that there are various slang terms for the boyfriends in different regional languages: larke (boy), warkai, alec.

According to many people interviewed in Peshawar, there's a strict code of behavior in these relationships. The boy is always the passive partner in sex and has often been coerced into the relationship; he is given food and clothes by his partner, and is in may cases forbidden to leave the relationship or marry. (In theory, the boys could marry when they're grown, but they are generally considered damaged, and end up wandering the streets as outcasts.)

Sayed Mudassir Shah, a human rights activist based in Peshawar, believes this goes on in part because of the extreme austerity of the traditional culture. Even after marriage, women are kept separate from men (except at night), and a strict interpretation of Islam discourages sports, music, and TV. Indeed, says Sayed, the practice is deeply embedded in the local culture. "It is so common to take boy lovers, that it is part of our Pashtun folklore," Sayed says. "One story tells of a wife crying to her husband that he has made her jealous, because he is spending so much time in the hujra with his boyfriend. This is folklore, but it is similar in life."

Sex between men is also commonplace in Pakistan's gender-segregated madrassas, or religious schools, where students and mullahs will go for months without setting eyes on a woman. Here, more than anywhere else in Pakistan, the situation resembles that found among prison inmates, where sex is mostly about availability and dominance rather than preference. In many cases, families take their sons to madrassas because they cannot afford to raise them themselves. A researcher with the AIDS Prevention Association of Pakistan (who asked that her name not be used) cited a saying such parents have for the teachers when they bring them their sons: "His flesh is yours, but his bones are ours."

. . .

A spirited, self-confident young man of 25 who lives in Islamabad, the nation's capital, and identifies himself only as Sajat, tells me that he first had sex with a man at a religious school in a central Pakistani village. But unlike most madrassa students and the boys in the red-light districts, Sajat's first sexual encounter with a man was by choice. Now a well-paid government servant in Islamabad, he hoots with laughter when he describes his preference for young, "hot-blooded, fighting soldier men," and happily recounts his regular trawls for boys through Islamabad's parks.

But Sajat's irreverent, openly gay self abruptly disappears when marriage comes up. He admits that he is engaged to a match of his parents' choosing, and will marry in the next two years. "Nature has made females for males, so after I get married, I will stop having sex with men," he intones, as though dutifully.

Indeed, gay men in Pakistan usually succumb to family pressure to marry, and those who are brave or rich enough to refuse to marry live under constant threat. Human rights workers say that the dearth of Pakistani gay-rights or community groups heightens the isolation and fear of those who identify -- and live -- as homosexuals. There are groups working against the spread of AIDS in Pakistan, but their work is often impeded by the cultural disapproval of homosexual sex.

Haji Muhammad Hanif, the general secretary of the AIDS Prevention Association of Pakistan, says that when he talks to male sex workers in the red-light districts of Lahore, he first asks them, "Do you know that gay sex is a heinous crime?" According to Pakistan's official figures, there were only some 2,000 cases of AIDS in Pakistan as of June 2003, but data collection is limited by social taboos. Estimates by the World Health Organization and UNAIDS put the 2002 figure at 78,000.

One bright spot for gay men in Pakistan is the Internet. There are several online bulletin boards that function as city-specific dating sites for gay men. The men who advertise on the sites are generally blunt about what they want: "Masculine Top looking for hot sex in Islamabad," runs a typical listing. One site, Pakistan Gays, tries to be more of a resource, with articles about homosexuality, health advice, and an anonymous question-answer service. There's even an audio version of sections of the Koran available for download, which shows the extent to which gay men in Pakistan hold onto their Muslim identity.

Pakistan Gays was founded two years ago by a middle-class accounting student in Lahore who spoke with me only on the condition of anonymity. He runs the site from Internet cafes so his family won't find out. As of June, the site had signed up 569 Pakistani members. Of those who registered, 302 identified themselves as gay, 241 as bisexual, and the rest as "transgender."

The website's founder is 20, and identifies as gay. He says he is in love with an Indian man he met over the Internet, but he harbors no hope of living in a gay relationship in either Pakistan or India, where homosexuality is also illegal and tolerance of gays is not much greater than in Pakistan. His plan is to refuse his parents' demands that he marry, and emigrate to the West with his Indian lover.

"It is difficult to be homosexual in Pakistan," he says, "because you always fear that if the people around you knew about your sexuality, what bad feelings they would have about you. We think that we are born this way, but still we feel we are doing wrong."

Miranda Kennedy is a journalist based in New Delhi. She reports frequently for National Public Radio from across South Asia.


© Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company