Unembedded: Two Decades of Maverick War Reporting

by Scott Taylor (Douglas & McIntyre,374 pages, $34.95 hardcover)

This review originally appeared in The Record February 28, 2009.

In early September 2002, journalists flocked to New York City to cover the first anniversary commemoration of the 9/11 attack on the World Trade Center. Following the road less travelled, Scott Taylor headed for Baghdad on a hunch, "that Bush might use the first anniversary of September 11, 2001, to send a message to Saddam."
The hunch proved wrong, but was typical of Taylor's unorthodox approach. In an era of "embedded" journalists who accompany troops with command approval, his style is more Raoul Duke than "Crusty" Blatchford.

The life journey that led Taylor to become publisher of Ottawa-based Esprit de Corps magazine has been no less unusual than his seat-of-the-pants reporting style.
In 1980 he was a student at the Ontario College of Art, playing drums in a punk band called The Offenders and anticipating a career as a graphic artist.

"When this scenario fully hit home," he writes, "I packed a small bag and headed straight to the nearest armed forces recruiting centre."

In 1988, on leaving the forces, Taylor established Esprit de Corps as "an inflight magazine for the Canadian air force" as it shuttled troops to Germany and across Canada. The Department of National Defence had complete control of the contents and prepublication approval rights. The magazine was heavy on illustrations, light on editorial content and relied on advertising revenue from companies seeking to promote products to service personnel.

Over the next eight years, Esprit de Corps shook off that editorial oversight and evolved into a beast that many commanders and bureaucrats wished they had never unleashed. Stories about crime and corruption in the highest ranks of the forces, coupled with issues titled "Sex in the Service" and "Scapegoat," established its reputation as the bette noir of the military brass and its publisher as the "voice of the grunt."

Taylor unconditionally supports the troops, but never hesitates to question the mission and machinations of desk jockeys, bureaucrats and politicians in Ottawa.
As the magazine evolved, he was also developing his unorthodox style of unembedded war reporting, predicated on a simple maxim: fly, drive or hitch a ride, but always "march to the sound of the guns."

Over the last 20 years, this approach has seen him make dozens of trips to the Balkans, Iraq and Afghanistan. It has also given him the opportunity to frequently report from territory untouched by pool journalists and the mainstream media.
His book describes the 1993 Battle of the Medak Pocket, which involved Canadian troops in a shooting war with Croatian troops determined to eliminate the Serbian presence in the Krajina, an ethnic Serbian enclave in southern Croatia.
It was Canada's largest and most costly engagement since the Korean War and Taylor was the lone Canadian journalist there.

Discussing the Afghan conflict, Taylor recounts interviews with General Abdul Rashid Dostum, a key figure in the Northern Alliance during the war against the Taliban; with Mullah Abdul Salam Zaeef, the Taliban government's last official spokesperson; and with Amrullah Saleh, head of the Afghan National Directorate of Security. In Iraq he interviewed Kurd and Turkmen leaders as well as sharing dinner and an off-the-record (at the time) discussion with Saddam Hussein's Minister of Defence, before the second Gulf War.

Taylor has paid a price for his courage and independent reportage. In September 2004, he was the unwilling guest of Ansar-al-Sunnah and others in Iraq. He was held five days, tortured and threatened with death, all of which is dispassionately described.

Throughout the book, Taylor resists the black and white morality plays often seen in the mainstream media. He refuses to present complex issues in terms of good guys and bad guys. A compelling read, Unembedded also offers nuanced explanations of both the history and multifarious aspects of the many conflicts he has covered.

Orwell in Afghanistan

George Orwell deplored obstufication, lack of clarity and language that serves to obscure not illuminate.

By way of illustration he took this famous verse from Ecclesiastes--“I returned and saw under the sun, that the race is not to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, neither yet bread to the wise, nor yet riches to men of understanding, nor yet favour to men of skill; but time and chance happeneth to them all”--and rendered it as, “Objective considerations of contemporary phenomena compel the conclusion that success or failure in competitive activities exhibits no tendency to be commensurate with innate capacity, but that a considerable element of the unpredictable must invariably be taken into account.”

In Afghanistan support for the Karzai government is falling. Resentment against foreign troops and the 'collateral' damage—read killing of civilians—that follows from their increasing reliance on air power and artillery is growing. In an attempt to minimize and rationalize this situation the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF), NATO and the Canadian military are resorting to every trick in the book and breaking all of the rules Orwell outlined in 'Politics and the English Language'.

Consider this peripatetic offering from Commander Paula Rowe, Spokesperson for Task Force Helmand. She needed 55 words to say we blame the victims:

The enemy chooses to fight from within local communities, using houses and compounds as firing points and deliberately putting local people in harm’s way. In this case, it was the enemy who began the attacks and the enemy who we hold ultimately responsible for the death of a local man and injury to two others.

In print, with an apology thrown in, it took a mere 52 words (and a typo) to repeat the same thing:

ISAF regrets any injuries caused to civilians. ISAF soldiers are trained to take steps to minimize civilian casualties, whilst at the same time taking appropriate action to protect them selves when threatened. The insurgents however, choose to engage with ISAF within populated areas clearly placing the local Afghan communities at extreme risk of injury.

These comments bear frightening similarities to those made by Israel during their recent assault on Gaza. And to comments heard on playgrounds around the world--'He started it', 'he hit me first', and 'I'm sorry but...'

Often even the media join in these games. The Times of London announces today that President Karzai will be overriding the Afghan Election Commission and not waiting until August to hold the election. Instead it will be held on April 21, less than two months away and a month before Karzai is to step down as president.

This change ensures that Karzai will campaign as the incumbent controlling the security apparatus, the police, and finances. The northern and mountainous regions of Afghanistan that offer little support for Karzai will be snowbound reducing voter turnout. The 'snap' election will also make it impossible for meaningful international monitoring of the election to be organized.

The Times describes the change in soccer terms as if it were merely polite parliamentary shenanigans: An attempt to "wrongfoot his opponents.” It is a bald rigging of the election and, in the language of another English institution, the bookie, 'a royal screwing of the punters'.

Mardi Gras in Afghanistan

Mardi Gras is the culmination of forty days of excess and celebration. Its the doppelganger of Lent a last hurrah before the discipline and deprivation of the forty-six days before Easter. Mardi Gras translates as 'Fat Tuesday' and is fondly known in southern Ontario as 'Pancake' Tuesday as many Christians give up eggs, and in this neck of the woods in days goneby, maple syrup, to symbolize their willingness to share in the sufferings of Christ. In Latin climes it is commonly called Carnival, which literally translates as 'farewell to flesh'.

This year the 'farewell to flesh' theme had a decidedly evil undercurrent. Seven shootings, none yet fatal, occurred on the celebratory 'farewell to flesh' according to the Times-Picayune:

The two most seriously injured victims underwent surgery for stomach wounds, said Officer Janssen Valencia, though he didn't know the men's conditions. The others were listed in stable condition Tuesday night with injuries not considered life-threatening.
The five others suffered less serious wounds, according to police and EMS. They include a 20-month-old boy with a graze wound to the back; a 17-year-old girl shot in the thigh; a 50-year-old woman shot in the elbow; a 15-year-old boy with a graze wound to his back and a 30-year-old man with a graze wound to the thigh.
Dr. Jim Parry, 41, a surgeon at a gathering of doctors near the shooting site, ran over to tend to one man who he said had been shot in the abdomen. Paramedics arrived and took over for the Air Force reservist.
"I'm off to Afghanistan this summer. Damn, this is more dangerous than Afghanistan," Parry said.

Unfortunately, Air Force reservist Dr Jim Parry is wrong, Mardis Gras was much more dangerous in Afghanistan.

The New York Times reports that four American personnel and an Afghan civilian were killed by an IED yesterday:

A roadside bomb killed four United States troops in southern Afghanistan on Tuesday, the United States military said. An Afghan civilian working with the Americans also died. The troops were patrolling with Afghan forces when their vehicle struck a bomb Tuesday afternoon. The four deaths were the most this year for a single attack against international forces in the country.

Meanwhile the Associated Press reports numerous other deaths on Tuesday, February 24:

Afghan soldiers killed 18 militants targeting a poppy eradication force in the country's volatile south, officials said Wednesday. Two soldiers were also killed in the battle ... and two foreign soldiers were wounded in the exchange.
A remote control bomb planted on a motorcycle exploded Wednesday in Kandahar City as a convoy of soldiers. Two Afghan bystanders were killed, and eight people — including five soldiers — were wounded.
Afghan and coalition forces killed 10 militants in Uruzgan province on Tuesday. A "precision" airstrike was called in, killing most of the militants.

Finally, the Canadian Press announced the death yesterday of four-year-old Juma Gul. On Monday she was wounded outside the village of Salehan in the Panjwaii district west of Kandahar along with her twelve-year-old brother and a thirteen-year-old friend. It seems the children were killed by an unexploded round left in the field after Canadian troops conducted ranging and show-of-force exercises outside the village on Sunday. Yesterday, the Canadian forces refused to comment on the incident pending the outcome of an investigation. (More on this story as it develops.)

So you see Dr. Parry, Mardi Gras in New Orleans is not as dangerous as it is in Afghanistan where 'farewell to flesh' has a horribly literal meaning.

Republicans Suck and Blow, or is it Blow and Suck

With Obama’s election I feared for the future of my two favourite newsthingies, in left field Jon Stewart and on the right Stephen Colbert.

Thankfully, Republicans, like Governor Bobby Jindall of Louisiana (he of the blowing) and Governor Mark ‘Sucking’ Sanford of South Carolina seem hell bent on keeping these boys employed and recession proof, with the wind at their backs.

At the National Governors’ Association Conference they bitterly attacked taking money from a Democratic President as they held out there hands. Apparently, the boys favoured Jon’s advice that Democrat dollars could be spent even if they weren’t worth as much as Republican dollars.

“We will recommend that the legislature take the road money,” a mere 3 billion and change, said ‘Blowing‘ Bobby. “Being against it doesn’t preclude taking the money,” slavered Governor ’Sucking’ Sanford. As Jon Stewart opined, being against gay rights doesn’t preclude getting in line when the guy in the cowboy hat is offering blowjobs; that would be elitist.

The Governors’ concern is really an issue of family values you see. There concern is the debt that might be passed on to their constituents’ children. Well boys, I’ve got news for you, Democrat dollars may not be as good as Republican dollars but Republican debt is as real as Democrat debt.

The multi-billion dollar cost of the war in Iraq, that incidentally meant the Louisiana National Guard were unavailable after Katrina; banking deregulation; and tax cuts lie at the root of the current economic maelstrom. While Democrat dollars may fuel a recovery its Republican debt that caused it. Try as you might gentleman you just can’t suck and blow at the same time.

So what was Stephen celebrating yesterday. Why Stephen Colbert Prayer Day of course. According to Master Media International, evangelicals across USAmerica were united in prayer for Stephen yesterday to infuse his decisions with a strong moral element.. They were even joined by Stephen himself in his lucky prayer hat and his patented prayer hands as he chanted “Jesus Number One!” and petitioned the Lord for superpowers and washboard lats.

While Pinko Jon insists we’re poor, Colbert counters that we are not poor in spirit (or lucky prayer hats and patented prayer hands).

Whew, for a minute I thought we might be threatened by sucking and blowing Republicans.

Winning the Afghan border

A variation of this article first appeared in The Guelph Mercury December 31, 2008.

Kandahar province, adjacent to the border with Pakistan, is the Canadian Forces' area of operations in Afghanistan. Consequently, understanding the history of this border and its implications for the Canadian Forces is imperative.

Throughout the 19th century the British tried to annex the Afghan plain to British Imperial India -- the Raj. When repeated diplomatic missions were rebuffed and military incursions defeated, the British settled for an independent Afghanistan as a buffer between the Raj and Russia.

Sir Mortimer Durand, foreign secretary of the colonial government of India, was the architect of the border of the new state and the Raj. Consequently the southern and eastern borders of Afghanistan are commonly referred to as the Durand line.

The Durand line was predicated on colonial concerns and bisected the traditional lands of the Pashto, the majority ethnic group in southwestern Afghanistan and eastern Pakistan.

The Pashto nation remains divided today. There are approximately 10 million Pashto living in Pakistan and six million in Afghanistan. Many of the Pashto in Pakistan are Afghan refugees who fled the Soviet invasion in the 1980s and have remained.

Despite the ostensible border, social, cultural and commercial ties among the Pashto have endured.

The Durand line has led a tenuous life. Legally, it was never ratified by a Loya Jirga (grand assembly) or any other Afghan assembly. Its only claim to legitimacy was the signature of Abdur Rahman Khan, the man Britain had declared ruler of Afghanistan.

A multi-ethnic and tribal society, it is open to question how many residents of the newly created state accepted his appointment and authority.

In 1949, a Loya Jirga declared it recognized "neither the imaginary Durand nor any similar line." Further, it was established by a treaty that was limited to 100 years duration.

Signed in 1893 it expired in 1993 and has never been renewed by any Afghan government in the interim. Any de jure legitimacy it may have had ended 15 years ago.

In de facto terms it is a porous border that has been violated by combatants repeatedly since its establishment. In the first half of the 20th century insurgents used sanctuaries in Afghanistan for attacks into the northwest frontier province of the Raj. Following the independence of India and the establishment of Pakistan in 1947, cross-border attacks continued against the new state. In 1949, Pakistan responded by bombing a village inside Afghanistan.

After the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in 1979 both the Central Intelligence Agency and the Pakistani Intelligence Service (ISI) encouraged the mujahedeen to establish bases in Pakistan to support operations against the Soviet forces.

There is nothing new in the current insurgents' use of bases in Pakistan to attack Canadian troops operating in Kandahar province. American and International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) troops in the neighbouring border provinces are confronted with the same problem.

"A resilient insurgency" has developed in southern and eastern Afghanistan, according to a Pentagon report released June 27, based on "the insurgent sanctuary within the Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA) of Pakistan."

The current situation does not bode well for the Canadian Forces committed to Kandahar.

Writing in The China and Eurasia Forum Quarterly in 2008, Michael Mihalka noted, "Any counter-insurgency has great difficulty succeeding, especially in the long run, if the insurgents have a reasonably secure cross-border sanctuary."

The Pakistani government is loath to increase activity in the FATA, fearing the insurgents will turn their attention to Pakistani cities.

Further, the insurgents continue to enjoy a close relationship with the Pakistani Intelligence Service. A solution to the problem is unlikely to come from the Pakistanis.

The Canadian government is reluctant to even acknowledge the problem. A June 10 government news release entitled, "Government of Canada sets future course for engagement in Afghanistan," was silent on the border issue.

The Department of National Defence website has a page dedicated to border issues. It states that Canada will facilitate dialogue between Afghanistan and Pakistan at the governmental level and in the field, train Afghan border officers and provide infrastructure and equipment to Afghan border patrols.

These initiatives alone will not stop the infiltration of insurgents into Kandahar.

The simplest solution would be attacks against the insurgents' bases in Pakistan. This is an option U.S. president-elect Barack Obama raised during the presidential election campaign.

The United States and the Afghan National Army have already adopted a policy of entering Pakistan in "hot pursuit" and when insurgents are supported by fire from within Pakistan.

Politically, however, this is a dead end. It will destabilize the Pakistani government, increase tension between the Afghan and Pakistani governments and enrage the Pashto.

The most efficacious solution is increased border security.

"We need to switch our ideology from winning the war to winning the border," according to Ashley Bonner of The Washington Post. This would limit the insurgents' ability to infiltrate into Afghanistan and to return to their safe havens following operations.

This approach will require more than biennial extensions of Canada's commitment and longer troop rotations; more than NATO allies with limits on the deployment of their military forces and restrictive rules of engagement; and, more than an American government chasing wraiths in Iraq and Iran.

It also requires the Afghan National Army, Afghan police and border guards to increase their operational effectiveness. This is the only practical approach to the border problem. It will require a long-term commitment of larger quantities of men, material and money from NATO and the U.S. as well as Canada to have a chance of being successful.

Ultimately,however, the solution is a new paradigm,a new understanding of the Pashto, the border issue, and the question of Pashtunistan. The Pashto and the Taliban are not synonymous, although they share an aversion to a foreign imposed solution and the presence of foreign troops. As long as the Pashto are divided by the artificial and externally imposed Durand line they will continue to support an insurgency. On the other hand, recognition of their national aspirations, sure to be vigorously opposed by the governments in both Kabul and Islamabad, would drive a wedge between the Taliban and the Pashto.

If the current situation is allowed to persist, Canadian troops will remain committed to a war of attrition that cannot be won and the casualties of 2008 will pale beside the death toll in 2009.

Made in Israel Foreign Policy Puts Canadian Lives at Risk

This article was published on dissidentvoice.org on March 2, 2009

Speaking at an event sponsored by the United Jewish Appeal Federation of Greater Toronto to celebrate the 60th anniversary of the founding of Israel in May, 2008 Prime Minister Stephen Harper described Canada's support for Israel as “unshakable.” Earlier in the day Harper had told the Canadian Jewish Political Action Committee (CJPAC) that anti-Israeli sentiment was “really just a thinly disguised veil for good old fashioned anti-Semitism.” In a statement issued less than a week later marking the same anniversary the PMO noted that, “We count ourselves among Israel’s staunchest friends.”

These pronouncements represent an accurate appraisal of the Tory government's stance since its election in early 2006. With Canada’s recent decision to boycott, along with Israel, the planning for the Durban 2 anti-racism conference Canada has become Israel’s strongest supporter. Even the United Sates does not have the loyalty from Canada that Israel does.
This new policy represents a significant departure from Canada's historic Middle East policy of following a middle path. In the wake of the Suez crisis Lester Pearson, then Canada's Minister of Foreign Affairs won a Nobel Peace Prize for brokering a ceasefire and organizing the first United Nations peacekeeping mission. Since then Canadian peacekeepers have served in the Sinai, Lebanon and the Golan Heights.

Only two month's after the election of Harper in January 2006 shifting policy winds made themselves apparent. In March 2006, Canada was the first state, other than Israel, to cut off aid to the Palestinian Authority after Hamas won the election to the Palestinian legislature. That summer the Canadian government refused to sign a resolution that expressed sympathy for the Lebanese civilians caught up in the Israeli invasion of that country. Harper described the resolution as “a case of political correctness gone mad.”

Not surprisingly, this seismic shift in Canadian policy has become evident during the recent Israeli invasion of Gaza. On January 23, 2008, the United Nations Human Rights Council voted on a statement that expressed concern about Gaza's civilians as a result of “the series of incessant and repeated Israeli military attacks and incursions.” Alone on the 47 member Council, Canada voted against the resolution.

On February 4 the Honourable Lawrence Canon, Minister of Foreign Affairs and the Honourable Bev Oda, Minister of International Cooperation issued a statement that blamed Gazans, and their democratically elected government for the invasion: “Hamas precipitated the recent crisis by its rocket attacks on Israel.”

The day before the frightening practical implications of this unconditional support for Israel were made shockingly clear. Eva Bartlett, a Canadian citizen currently in Gaza reported to the mission in Tel Aviv that she was “being shot at by Israeli soldiers on the other side of the border fence.”

Her blogpost of the incident continues, “Jordie Elms, the Canadian attaché in the Tel Aviv office, informed us that “Israel has declared the 1 km area along the border to be a ‘closed military zone’” and added that humanitarian and aid workers need to “know the risk of being in a closed area”. Meaning, apparently, that it is OK with Jordie that Israeli soldiers were firing on unarmed civilians.”

Shocked by this statement I contacted the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade. Middle East spokesperson Rodney Moore asked that I put my questions into writing. On February 9 I did so asking for comment on “Canada's position on the IDF declared 'no-go' zone extending 1 kilometre into Gaza” and “allegations made by a Canadian international observer, Eva Bartlett” about contacting the mission while under IDF fire.

Four days later Moore responded with a three-part, diplomatically worded non-answer:

“Canada welcomed the cessation of hostilities between Israel and Hamas. What is needed now is a permanent, sustainable and durable ceasefire, as called for in United Nations Security Council 1860, so that Israel and the Palestinian Authority can return to the peace process.”

“The security situation in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip is very poor and unpredictable due to inter-factional violence and ongoing military operations.”

“In its travel advisory to Canadians, Foreign Affairs and International Trade Canada advises Canadians against all travel to the region surrounding the Gaza Strip due to the risk of rocket and mortar launches, gunfire and of ongoing military activity.”

His response is remarkable for reasons other than its absolute irrelevance to the questions that were submitted. It twice states that risks to civilians and foreign nationals are a result of Palestinian actions―“inter-factional violence” and “rocket and mortar launches”--as well as “military operations” and “military actions.” In the specific circumstances of the Bartlett incident this is categorically untrue.

It also highlights the emasculation of DFAIT. Under Harper's autocratic style, Ministries and their spokespersons have been reduced to parroting the party line as it is delivered from the PMO and issuing meaningless, generic statements to the media. In this case the message is that staunch support” of Israel extends to blaming Hamas and Israel equally for the recent fury in Gaza even to the extent that the safety and security of Canadian citizens be damned and disregarded.

Eva Bartlett supports Palestinians on the firing line

This article was originally published in The Hamilton Spectator February 14, 2009

In a timeless ritual, farmers handpick bunches of parsley and load them into baskets on donkeys and the carts they pull. Suddenly, blasts from high-powered rifles cut through the air, and the Palestinian farmers hit the ground, seeking cover in the slight depressions between the fields.

The incoming fire originates from an Israeli Defence Force (IDF) post on the border between Israel and Gaza. The parsley fields are located less than one kilometre from the border, an area the IDF has declared a No-Go zone, closed to armed and unarmed Palestinians, militants and farmers alike.

But for those who have farmed here, leaving the crop of parsley means abandoning hefty investments and planned income. So they take the risk.

The scene is captured in a You-Tube video called Farming Under Fire. Standing among the farmers, wearing fluorescent yellow vests, with their arms raised, are a group of international observers here to witness the Palestinian situation in the West Bank.

As the sound of gunfire blasts and farmers hit the ground, one vested observer yells on a bullhorn that they are unarmed. The others flinch at each new sound of gunfire.

Among this group is a 30-year-old Canadian woman, Eva Bartlett. She was raised in Fergus, a small town north of Guelph where her mother still lives. Today she has gained some notoriety for her dedication to supporting Palestinian self-determination by acting as a witness to their daily lives.

She writes blogs detailing her views on what she sees in Gaza, sometimes accompanied by vivid photographs. Some are disturbing.

Bartlett has been detained for her actions, and sometimes places her life at risk. Her motivation, she said, is based on human rights and the need to show where she feels rights are being violated.

"We are free people living in a free society, we have the responsibility to be informed about and act to halt/prevent the indiscriminate bombing and violence against Gaza's civilians by the Israeli authorities," Bartlett said in a recent e-mail.

But how does a small town Ontario girl with no connections to Palestine end up becoming a member of the Palestinian-based International Solidarity Movement(ISM) a group described on its website as "a Palestinian-led movement committed to resisting the Israeli occupation of Palestinian land using nonviolent, direct-action methods." Why does she chose to put herself in the line of fire by living half of the past three years in the West Bank and Gaza?

According to Kathleen Bartlett, Eva's mother, a cellist who has played with symphony orchestras throughout North America, her youngest of three has "always been very independent."

On completing high school she spent four months in Ireland. She has taught English in South Korea, trekked through the Annapurna range in Nepal, visited China and Southeast Asia, and spent time in Europe. She said that, having been raised in the security and affluence of Canada, she had "a late awakening to the injustices of the world," and that her "first awareness was poverty in Asian countries."

Her introduction to the situation in Palestine came in 2007 where she spent the eight months in the West Bank. In August 2007 she was detained while protesting an IDF roadblock that lengthened a 10-kilometre trip from the hilltop village of Sara to Nablus into a one-hour plus odyssey.

Bartlett was released two days later, but only on condition that she remain out of the West Bank cities of Bethlehem, Nablus and Ramallah for the next 30 days.

On Christmas Day 2007 she was arrested again, this time in Jerusalem, and deported because her visa had expired.

"I don't recognize Israel's right to dictate who and how long (they) can stay in the occupied West Bank," Bartlett explained.

She returned to the region in the summer of 2008 for a few months. Then personal affairs brought her back to Canada for the fall.

In November 2008, she returned to Gaza aboard the Dignity, a ship operated by the Free Gaza Movement.

Since returning to Gaza, Bartlett has worked on a part-time basis for the ISM and volunteered with the Red Crescent Society, a humanitarian support agency.

She returned as Israeli forces in late December launched a military offensive against Hamas in Gaza "to stop the firing against our civilians in the south," according to one military official.

Foreigners were encouraged to leave, but Bartlett was one of many Canadians who chose to stay, enduring shelling and rocket attacks. She documented her experiences on her blog (ingaza.wordpress.com).

A tentative ceasefire was declared on Jan. 18. The Associated Press reported that the 22-day offensive killed 1,285 Palestinians, more than half of them civilians, according to the Palestinian Center for Human Rights. Thirteen Israelis, including three civilians, were also killed in the fighting.

In a recent posting, Bartlett wrote on her blog about the Palestinian farmers trying to harvest just outside of Gaza, in what is now called the No-Go zone.

She is outraged by what she says is happening here.

In an e-mail for this story Bartlett wrote: "It never ceases to strike me as absolutely ridiculous that we (observers and farmers) must exert so much effort to do what anyone around the world can do in a leisurely way, and with the aid of machinery and irrigation. The farmers here must scuttle and scurry to get their crops picked, if they can, and pay heavy consequences for being on their own land."

Amir Gissin, Consul General of Israel in Toronto, said the No-Go zone is "certainly a problem," but he called the area essential to Israeli security in that it pushes mortar-launching sites back from the border to better protect towns close to the Israel-Gaza border.

He said sporadic rocket and mortar attacks that continue are only "an attempt to destabilize and irritate. And an attempt to prove they (Hamas) have the ability to continue" to launch attacks against Israel.

From Bartlett's view it was a different scene.

She blogged on the incident: "I'm amazed no one was killed today, nor that limbs were not lost, maimed."

Excerpts from Bartlett's blog:

Jan. 4

I see it, as I saw the dead man in the ambulance. And I write it, because everyone must see it, hear of it.

But I cry, too, at the disfigurement of the young corpse, and the knowledge that he is one of so many ... killed in the last week.

The medics have seen ghastly things and urge me to keep it in, keep working. They must, and so I do.

Jan. 5

The stain of blood on the ambulance stretcher pools next to my coat, the medic warning me my coat may be dirtied. What does it matter? The stain doesn't revolt me as it would have, did, one week ago.

Jan. 27

There are many stories. Each account, each murdered individual, each wounded person, each burned-out and broken house, each shattered window trashed kitchen strewn item of clothing bedroom turned upside down bullet and shelling hole in walls offensive Israeli army graffiti ... is important.