From: Abu Zahrin Abu Bakar <abuzahrinabubakar@yahoo.com>
Date: Sun, Feb 28, 2010 at 1:25 PM
Subject: [bangla-vision] Palestine Think Tank
To: bangla-vision@yahoogroups.com
Palestine Think Tank |
- Veritas in Harvard: No, Just Double Standards, Injustice, and Fear
- Tim King – Mainstream Media Questions Inaccuracies in 9/11 Story
- Zahir Ebrahim – Dr. Aafia Siddiqui and Justice in the Service of Empire
- "UM-D Student government approves divestment resolution"
- Tzipi Livni: "the ONLY targets are Military targets" A Video by Shadi Nassar
- Samira Quraishy – Why are we surprised that Mossad used fake passports?
- Ibrahim Hewitt – The Observer, Israel and the language of war
- Khalid Amayreh – No light ahead
- Ramzy Baroud – Challenging History: Why the Oppressed Must Tell Their Own Story
| Veritas in Harvard: No, Just Double Standards, Injustice, and Fear Posted: 27 Feb 2010 01:12 AM PST "Right and wrong are the same in Palestine as anywhere else. What is peculiar about the Palestine conflict is that the world has listened to the party that has committed the offence and has turned a deaf ear to the victims." "Israel may have the right to put others on trial, but certainly no one has the right to put the Jewish people and the State of Israel on trial." "Well, it's a trick, we always use it. When from Europe somebody is criticizing Israel then we bring up the holocaust. When in this country US) people are criticizing Israel then they are anti-Semitic. And the organization (Israel Lobby) is very strong and has lot of money. And the ties between Israel and American Jewish establishment are very strong – and they are strong in this country as you know. And they have power which is ok."
Dear Madame President Faust; I must strenuously and in the strongest terms possible protest the silence and inaction of Harvard University toward the outrageous, inhumane, offensive, even racist eugenic proposal that Dr. Martin Kramer, a Visiting Scholar at Harvard made during his speech at the Israeli Herzliya Conference on January 31, 2010. In that speech Dr. Kramer implored the West to stop its Pro Natal services to the already besieged and starving Gaza Palestinian pregnant mothers and infants as a method of controlling the rapid birth rate in Gaza as a matter of political and social policy. To him such control will naturally lead to a decrease in the radicalization of Palestinian youth which he calls "superfluous men" as well as relieve the "demographic threat" to Israel's Jewish identity. How racist is the term "superfluous men" to describe young Palestinian men who are constant fodder for Israeli soldier's bullets, missiles, and tank shells (as soldiers themselves have told "Break the Silence" group of former IDF Soldiers) as unnecessary and wasteful human beings. Dr. Kramer's eugenic proposal not to provide Pro Natal care, which I take he means Pre and Post Natal care, is tantamount to genocide of fetuses and infants. Pregnant mothers would not receive the preventive care, regular OB exams, nutritional guidance (such as providing Folic Acid and Vitamins given their already malnourished state), appropriate vaccines or a healthy medically supervised delivery in hospitals, which all are damaged by Israel's assault on Gaza in 2008-2009. Infants would not receive the necessary medical care, or intensive care if necessary (difficult given the lack of electricity, oxygen, or antibiotics in Gaza), regular immunizations, nutritional guidance, or regular Pediatric checkups. Dr. Kramer shouldn't worry about a Palestinian population explosion; Israel's militarily with our tax dollars and weapons is determined not to leave any Palestinian child behind. His proposal meets the accepted definition of eugenics, passive euthanasia, and genocide and no amount of spin cover up, rationalization, justification, taken out of context lies; nor the canard of Freedom of Speech that's available to Pro Israelite hate mongers to the exclusion of Pro Justice proponents for Palestinians and peace in the Holy Land. In addition to Israel's three year physical devastating siege of Gaza, Dr. Kramer is proposing another physical and medical siege, this time of a Palestinian woman's womb that would ultimately result in a secondary ethnic cleansing of Palestinians that has continued unabated since 1947. In Harvard as elsewhere, Academic Freedom and Free Speech means never having to say Israel is wrong, or that Israel defies all divine and human laws, or that Israel's occupation and theft of Palestinian land is illegal and immoral, and Israel's wars upon a captive population under its control is tantamount to "war crimes, nor that the Israel Lobby dominates the formulation of our foreign policy in the Middle East and the Islamic world. To them it's Baghdad, next stop is Iran. No politician, academic institution, or American citizen dare have an honest public discourse on our self destructive relationship with Israel. Even the Pentagon's Defense Science Board confirmed that the Muslim world doesn't hate our freedoms but hates our blind policy of supporting Israel. In describing freedom of speech the famous Danish philosopher Soren Kierkegaard wrote: "People demand freedom of speech as a compensation for the freedom of thought which they seldom use." Contrary to Dr. Kramer's assertion and his defense by WCFIA controlling or preventing a population's birth right and rate meets the definition of Genocide according to the First Geneva Convention Against Genocide which states: "This convention bans acts committed with the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religion group…imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group". Dr. Kramer need not worry that Gaza's children are growing up healthy, safe, able to go to school, eat right, receive medical care, play, or even visit family, given Israel's persistent military attacks, invasions, and total blockade of Gaza. During the unprovoked onslaught on Gaza a year ago Israel killed hundreds of infants and children. That is why the Goldstone report accusing Israel of committing war crimes never appeared in TV news or most of our print media. Neither will the media report on Dr. Kramer's speech or the angst of many Americans who find it abhorrent and offensive. While Israel destroys the lives of current Palestinian children, Dr. Kramer seeks to ensure the end of future Palestinian children. In fact Palestinian children are living breathing beings who often serve as fodder and target practice for Israel's soldiers. (Guardian, Nov. 24, 2004: "Israeli Officer: I was right to shoot 13 year old child") Chris Hedges, the famed journalist, author, and war correspondent who was also a Neimen Fellow at Harvard and served for years as MidEast Bureau Chief for the New York Times horrifically captured the plight of Palestinian children in Gaza in a Harper Magazine article titled, "A Gaza Diary", October 2001.
Madame President, imagine the outrage in Harvard and among worldwide Jewish groups if a Harvard Muslim Professor suggested that limiting Jewish births in the U.S. will lead to a dramatic decline in their political, financial, and media clout thereby ending their stranglehold on U.S. foreign policy and its blind support of the rogue state of Israel. How long before you, Madame President, the Board of Trustees, Deans, Faculty, the ADL, AIPAC, ZOA, JDL, JINSA, WINEP, and the mainstream media would be calling for his Anti-Semitic head not just to be fired, even with tenure. Madame, you'd be the first to initiate the firing of such a person who'll be blacklisted never again to find academic employment in this country. Such is the power of Pro Israelite's wrath. Again, I am under no illusion that you or Harvard's Board of Trustees would even consider the slightest reprimand against Dr. Kramer for his most offensive call to limit the freedom for Palestinians to procreate lest their population growth translates into future political violence, an argument used effectively for years by Apartheid South Africa. Dr. Kramer enjoys the protection of rich philanthropic donors to Harvard, Jewish colleagues and superiors, Jewish organizations, and a supportive media. But, in the larger scheme of education which is the foundation of any civilization is Harvard's mission and responsibility to its students, community, and the world; to teach the truth on any subject or at least present both sides of an argument, to stand up for the principles of freedom and equality for all, for justice, for world peace, constructive dialogue, respect for human life and human rights, respect for the law and due process; or is Harvard akin to all institutions in our capitalistic money corrupted society where special interest groups with money and power determine the content of our education and the extent of our freedoms.. If so, who will speak for and advocate for the voiceless, the invisible poor, the homeless and the oppressed? This is the issue and challenge for our times. Will we lend an ear and voice for those who have no money to endow chairs, hold no high positions in the government, think tanks, banking and financial institutions, the media and the entertainment industry? Have we all lost our souls for the expediency and reward of the moment at the expense of others and our future? Given that our nation's future demographics will result in today's minorities becoming tomorrow's majorities, should we adopt Dr. Kramer's proposal and limit by any means necessary the procreation of our Hispanic, African American and Asian populations? How will such a future majority impact our relationship with Israel and the power of the Israel Lobby upon our foreign policy? If Harvard remains silent regarding Dr. Kramer's speech, as I expect it will, perhaps we should recall Elie Wiesel's hypocritical statement: "Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented." The famous Harvard graduate John Kennedy once said: "The great enemy of truth is very often not the lie, deliberate, contrived and dishonest; but the myth, persistent, persuasive and realistic" How tragic that in Harvard there is no longer a commitment to Veritas or Justice. Fear and the maintenance of the status quo have become the corruptive regressive tools of an outstanding institution denying its bright young minds the dream of a brighter, safer, and peaceful future for this fragile planet. With all due respect to you, the Board of Trustees, Faculty and students of our beloved Harvard, I remain.
Dr. Kramer was also former editor of the Middle East Quarterly a publication of the Middle East Forum founded by Daniel Pipes founder of campuswatch.org which "monitors" universities and scholars who teach Middle East Studies. lest they, God forbid, describe Israel in its true historical colors. http://www.martinkramer.org/sandbox/2010/02/wcfia-at-harvard-accusations-are-baseless/ http://www.wcfia.harvard.edu/ From the Electronic Intafada website which brought the issue to the attention of WCFIA at Harvard: "In her initial response to a query from the Electronic Intifada regarding Dr. Kramer's speech, Professor Beth Simmons, the director of WCFIA, wrote, "I agree with your assessment of the appalling nature of these [Kramer's] statements," but added, "the WCFIA does not have a policy of censoring or censuring our affiliates on the basis of their opinions." Simmons also stated, "I very much hope you bring these [Kramer's] words to the attention of others affiliated with the WCFIA, Harvard and the broader community, where I hope they will garner their just reaction." She encouraged individuals to make their concerns known to Professor Stephen Rosen, who is in charge of the National Security Studies Program of which Kramer is a fellow. Naturally and as expected the Directors of WCFIA reversed their assessment from "appalling" to defending the "appalling" speech. http://www.michaelheart.com/songforgaza.htm http://vodpod.com/watch/122002-the-israel-lobby-the-influence-of-aipac-on-us-foreign-policy http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H88gVDrIlPs http://quicksilverscreen.com/watch?video=34545 http://www.bintjbeil.com/articles/en/011001_hedges.html * Mohamed Khodr M.D., M.P.H. is a political activist who frequently writes on the plight of Palestinians living under the brutal occupation of Israel, U.S. Foreign Policy, Islam, and Arab politics. |
| Tim King – Mainstream Media Questions Inaccuracies in 9/11 Story Posted: 27 Feb 2010 12:54 AM PST By Tim King* (Salem-News.com) The Washington Times publishes story questioning official account.  Newly released photos of New York on September 11, 2001 by the NY Police Association The mainstream press is showing interest in a taboo, however glaring subject; the inconsistencies in the Bush White House 9/11 account. As The Washington Post reports today, "A lingering technical question about the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks still haunts some, and it has political implications: How did 200,000 tons of steel disintegrate and drop in 11 seconds? A thousand architects and engineers want to know, and are calling on Congress to order a new investigation into the destruction of the Twin Towers and Building 7 at the World Trade Center." The problems with the official federal stories are endless and according to some of the world's top minds, the suggested account is impossible[1]. When we first began to write about these seemingly pressing questions, our Web Designer Matt Lintz caught the U.S. Air Force attempting to hack into Salem-News.com[2]. One person who has never let the matter fade away is Richard Gage. He's a San Francisco architect and founder of the nonprofit Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth. Gage told The Washington Times, "In order to bring down this kind of mass in such a short period of time, the material must have been artificially, exploded outwards." The federal government wants you to believe that fires brought the buildings to the ground, yet in all recorded history, no fire has ever toppled a skyscraper. They burn to the framework but they don't fall down.
Even when you get past that, perhaps finding ways to justify the impossible "official" circumstances, how on earth could any logical explanation account for Building 7? This is curious, I would suggest that half of all living Americans still don't realize that a third building also came down that day, and it wasn't hit by an airplane. But it did contain a lot of records that certain members of the financial industry didn't miss. Then there are the billions of dollars in missing gold evacuated just before Building 7 pancaked to the ground. The words of Gage are reflected all over the nation in universities and engineering firms. The Trade Tower buildings were specifically designed to withstand the impact of a jet liner, specifically. Jet fuel is similar to diesel and it doesn't burn very hot. Firefighters, talking on radios, talked about how the aircraft crash fire in one building were going to easily be extinguisher by a few firefighters. One of our writers, Jeff Gates, suggested that the only country that benefited from the ensuing wars is Israel.
Enforcing that thought, our writer Maidhc Ó Cathail wrote, "The day after 9/11, Benjamin Netanyahu let slip that the deaths of almost 3,000 Americans was 'very good' for Israel. In particular, the mass murder was very good for an emerging sector of the Israeli economy. In Laboratory for a Fortressed World, Naomi Klein detailed the post-9/11 "explosion of Israel's homeland security sector."[4] Another Salem-News.com writer, Dr. Alan Sabrosky, wrote about the connection between 9/11 and Israel in the article, Treason, Betrayal and Deceit: The Road to 9/11 and Beyond, "Second, only two intelligence agencies had the expertise, assets, access and political protection to execute 9/11 in the air and on the ground: our CIA and Israel's Mossad. Only one had the incentive, using the 'who benefits' principle: Mossad."[5] The answers remain tangled up. Many Americans believe questioning the government over this is unpatriotic, then they turn around and burn effigies of Obama at tea bagger parties. I say it is highly unpatriotic and even disingenuous, to not question facts about the integrity of this nation. I won't even start on Shanksville and the Pentagon; those stories are packed with more holes and in your face inconsistencies than there is time for in this report, but I have written about the Pentagon in particular, at great length[6]. The tragedy of September 11th 2001 is so far reaching that we could never truly describe it. The event was the reasoning to launch two very costly, ongoing wars. The very notion of Arab terrorists selecting the day that is synonymous with emergency response in the U.S. is as hard to believe as the "terrorists" passports recovered so conveniently on the sidewalks in New York that day. The Washington Times cites how Gage, a member of the American Institute of Architects, managed to persuade more than a thousand of his peers to sign a new petition requesting a formal inquiry. "The official Federal Emergency Management [Agency] and National Institute of Standards and Technology reports provide insufficient, contradictory and fraudulent accounts of the circumstances of the towers' destruction. We are therefore calling for a grand jury investigation of NIST officials." Gage says technical issues surrounding the collapse of the towers have prompted years of debate, rebuttal and ridicule. The article cites how he is particularly disturbed by the fall of the 47-story skyscraper, Building 7. This engineer says, like the other two buildings, tower 7 fell in "pure free-fall acceleration." He also talked about how more than a hundred first-responders observed flashes and explosions during the fall of the towers. Even more disturbing evidence Gage says, are "multi-ton steel sections ejected laterally 600 ft. at 60 mph". He also talked about the "mid-air pulverization of 90,000 tons of concrete & metal decking." Firefighters and Trade Tower employees en mass reported explosions before the buildings came down. They also talked about building closures in the weeks preceding 9/11, and men carrying large amounts of equipment into the elevator shafts. Most experts agree that the buildings could only have come down the way they did if they were imploded. Experts who perform this type of work, common in places like Las Vegas, at least before the nation's economic downturn, place the main explosives in the elevator shafts, but also in many other strategic locations in a building's structure. If you watch the World Trade Towers fall in slow motion, it is easy to observe what appear to be a series of planned explosions, running essentially the length of each building. Gage says evidence of "advanced explosive nano-thermitic composite material" was found in the World Trade Center dust. Of course Rudy Gulliani, mayor of New York at the time, had all of the building evidence shipped away from the state almost immediately. There is a long list of federal investigators who say they were not allowed to do their jobs or complete the investigation. Tie this to the revelations in 9/11 Commissioner John Farmer's book: "The Ground Truth: The Story Behind America's Defense on 9/11″, where the author builds the inescapably convincing case that the official version is almost entirely untrue, according to our writer Gordon Duff, and you just might be lifting a corner of the dirtiest rug that ever was used to suppress truth[7]. Gage says the group's petition at ae911truth.org is already on its way to members of Congress. He Told The Washington Times, "Government officials will be notified that 'Misprision of Treason,' U.S. Code 18 (Sec. 2382), is a serious federal offense, which requires those with evidence of treason to act." "The implications are enormous and may have profound impact on the forthcoming Khalid Shaikh Mohammed trial." For me, the biggest story here is that a mainstream member of the press published this article, I am amazed and encouraged. It is hard to suggest that we have perhaps been had in the biggest and worst way possible, but honesty is the only thing that matters. Israeli Espionage – Part 1 of 4 Israeli Espionage – Part 2 of 4 Israeli Espionage – Part 3 of 4 Israeli Espionage – Part 4 of 4 Also, this video from CoreofCorruption.com which was released just over a year ago, details the information regarding four alleged "art students" who had free access to the Trade Towers, including construction passes, in the immediate weeks preceding 9/11:
References: [1] Apr-07-2006 : Huge Contradictions in Official Theories on 9/11 Crash at Pentagon – Tim King Salem-News.com [2] Apr-16-2006: U.S. Air Force Hackers Caught in Their Tracks by Salem-News.com – Tim King Salem-News.com [3]Oct-20-2009: How Israel Wages Game Theory Warfare – Jeff Gates Salem-News.com [4] Jan-20-2010: The Merchants of Fear: Israel's Profiting from Homeland Insecurity – Maidhc Ó Cathail Sabbah.biz [5] Sep-10-2009: Treason, Betrayal and Deceit: The Road to 9/11 and Beyond – Alan Sabrosky Sabbah.biz [6] Mar-21-2006: What Really Hit The Pentagon? – Tim King Salem-News.com [7] Sep-11-2009: The 9/11 Commission Rejects own Report as Based on Government Lies – Gordon Duff Salem-News.com * Tim King is a former U.S. Marine with twenty years of experience on the west coast as a television news producer, photojournalist, reporter and assignment editor. In addition to his role as a war correspondent, this Los Angeles native serves as Salem-News.com's Executive News Editor. Tim spent the winter of 2006/07 covering the war in Afghanistan, and he was in Iraq over the summer of 2008, reporting from the war while embedded with both the U.S. Army and the Marines. Tim holds numerous awards for reporting, photography, writing and editing, including the Oregon AP Award for Spot News Photographer of the Year (2004), first place Electronic Media Award in Spot News, Las Vegas, (1998), Oregon AP Cooperation Award (1991); and several others including the 2005 Red Cross Good Neighborhood Award for reporting. Serving the community in very real terms, Salem-News.com is the nation's only truly independent high traffic news Website. You can send Tim an email at this address: newsroom@salem-news.com Source: Salem-news.com |
| Zahir Ebrahim – Dr. Aafia Siddiqui and Justice in the Service of Empire Posted: 27 Feb 2010 12:35 AM PST
Saturday, February 13, 2010 | Updated February 26, 2010 Turned down by all newspapers, from the New York Times to Pakistan's Dawn and Daily Times. Yvonne Ridley's anguished opinion 'Truth about US justice' has appeared worldwide including in the Pakistani press. Ms. Ridley bemoans the travesty of justice in the US court's pronouncement of its guilty verdict on the frail, tortured daughter of Pakistan, Dr. Aafia Siddiqui. The veteran journalist is perhaps unaware of the import of the following revealing words of a US Supreme Court justice which were uttered in 1951: To those who would paralyze our Government in the face of impending threat by encasing it in a semantic strait-jacket, we must reply that all concepts are relative. … we are not prepared to lay down a rule of criminal conduct against others which we would not be willing to have invoked against us. Indeed, if there is one monumental statement made at Nuremberg, it was possibly this: … the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole. In other words, Justice Robert H. Jackson averred that all the destruction of civilian cities from Dresden, Hamburg, … to Tokyo in Allied fire-bombings which deliberately killed millions of innocent civilians, was not culpable crimes against humanity because its sin and criminality was absorbed by the Supreme International Crime of the first aggression! Culpability for all the evil that follows is always solely apportioned by victors to the account of the first aggressor (the one who is defeated). Even the aggressor's pretext for its first invasion of Poland as its own preemptive self-defense against terrorism (the Gleiwitz terrorist incident aka Operation Canned Goods), was outright rejected at Nuremberg as merely the self-inflicted inside-job to synthesize a Machiavellian pretext for extending German Lebensraum. As Hitler had put it to his Generals in Bavaria: [I will] give a propagandist reason for starting the war [and don't] mind whether it was plausible or not. The victor will not be asked afterward whether he told the truth or not. In starting and waging a war it is not the right that matters, but victory. Justice Robert Jackson unequivocally affirmed that the Nazi quest for full spectrum dominance of Europe was illegal by international law, under any pretext: The intellectual bankruptcy and moral perversion of the Nazi regime might have been no concern of international law had it not been utilized to goosestep the Herrenvolk across international frontiers. It is not their thoughts, it is their overt acts which we charge to be crimes. And in order to ensure that these legal words of immense import were never re-semanticized for imperial mobilizations by future 'ubermensch' Reichs, but rather, that these concepts remained inviolably encas[ed] in a semantic strait-jacket, the very definition for the word 'aggressor' was ab initio proposed by Justice Robert Jackson as a state which first initiates: invasion of its armed forces, with or without a declaration of war, of the territory of another State. … If certain acts of violation of treaties are crimes, they are crimes whether the United States does them or whether Germany does them, and we are not prepared to lay down a rule of criminal conduct against others which we would not be willing to have invoked against us. That is quite an objective measure in international law for ascertaining who is the most guilty aggressor party, and who to fry first for crimes against peace, for monumental crimes against humanity. So, even if Dr. Aafia Siddiqui is actually guilty as charged; is indeed the heinous mastermind of Al-Qaeeda (a Hegelian Dialectic which is examined elsewhere); or even if she was merely a dupe recruited by the Talibans/Al-Qaeeda as their waterboy (just as the CIA recruited Muslims from around the world to fight as the lauded Mujahideen against the USSR with proclamations of god is on your side); by the same yardstick as was used to hang the Nazis while awarding medals of bravery to the Allies who killed millions of innocent civilians in the defense of Europe against the aggressor, all the evil which has followed from the terrorist acts of an individual in aiding and abetting the militant-response against the invasion forces in Afghanistan is similarly legally subsumed by the monumental acts of state terrorism! The superpower's utilization of the 911 terrorist incident to goosestep the Herrenvolk across international frontiers is little different from the Nazis'. Therefore, in any fair justice system interested in bringing real criminals closer to their day of accounting, before Dr. Aafia can be charged for her criminal conduct of responding to the invading forces in Afghanistan by her frail physical might, the leaders of the 'free world' and their financial supermasters seeking their own Lebensraum must be put on trial for their supreme international crime … [of] goosestep[ing] the Herrenvolk across international frontiers.! To anyone with even half a brain, but one which is not entirely uncongenial to reflection, it must have been rather obvious from day-one that in the light of public revelations of the egregious circumstances of Dr. Aafia's bizarre capture and the subsequent orchestration of her show trial (instead of simply assassinating the accused if she was such a diabolical threat to mankind), any justice administered to Dr. Aafia Siddiqui would only be comparable to the proclamation of the Queen of Hearts in Alice in Wonderland: off with her head. It must also have been apparent to those inclined to perusing statecraft rather than watching television or reading newspapers for their knowledge of current affairs, that the show trial of Aafia Siddiqui was designed primarily to serve an agenda of the state. Namely, one of calculatingly exercising the high degree of doctrinal motivation, intellectual commitment, and patriotic gratification deemed necessary for a sustained exercise abroad of genuinely imperial power. A careful reading of Zbigniew Brzezinski's The Grand Chessboard makes the political science and the various mantras behind imperial mobilization abundantly clear. Therefore, at least for these abnormal people who actually try to comprehend the forces which drive terrorism, both the pirate's as well as the emperor's, there is nothing surprising in the guilty verdict, nor in the conduct of the servile Pakistani rulers leading up to the verdict, and nor in the utterances of the US Ambassador to Pakistan, Ann Patterson. To have expected anything else after all the careful preparations that went into enacting this puppetshow, the show trial and its attendant media demonization of Dr. Aafia, only betrays immense naivetè of the inner-workings of empire. In my view, the prima facie 'Truth about US justice' is that justice is in the service of empire, as it always has been! The madam Ambassador of the United States to Pakistan has only executed the core purpose of her diplomatic post rather faithfully in the service of her empire. Justice in these times, like everything else, including science, politics, history, literature, cinema, news (which is often indistinguishable from cinema), and of course political-science, is continually put in the diabolical service of empire. The only veritable truths are the imperial proclamations of the white man - from who did 911 to Global War on Terror to Global Warming to Global Epidemics to Global Financial Collapse to Global Governance. These history-constructions by incremental faits accomplis are the sine qua non for one-world government and cannot be constrained in any moral or legal semantic strait-jacket. It's not like the beleaguered Pakistanis don't know it - we even have the East India Company's achievements to guide us - but apparently, we, the 'Untermensch', never quite seem to learn its lessons. And that's really the only pernicious secret of the enduring hidden strength of the golem behind all its guns and butter offerings to its victims before slaughtering them. The veritable strength of its 'Samson locks': our own price! The former Director of the ISI, Brig. Tirmazi, narrated the following about us Pakistanis in his 1996 book Profiles of Intelligence: '… It would be fair to ask what we [the ISI] did to counter the US machinations? Well we did not, and could not do any thing beyond reporting to the highest authority in the country. There are reasons for our inaction: One, neither the ISI nor the IB is designed or equipped to counter the machinations of a Super Power. Two, an important factor is our own price. A lot has been said and written by some of our American friends about the price of a Pakistani. Dr. Andrew V. Corry, US Counsel General at Lahore, once said, Price of a Pakistani oscillates between a free trip to the US and a bottle of whisky. He may not be too far wrong. We did observe some highly placed Pakistanis selling their conscience, prestige, dignity and self-respect for a small price.' (page 45, emphasis added) That evergreen description however has not captured the grotesque reality of the English-enabled 'intellectual Negroes' flourishing in Pakistan today. Their �price� is not measured in such pecuniary terms. Read its full examination here: http://print-humanbeingsfirst.blogspot.com/2010/02/what-is-intellectual-negro.html Given this tortuous backdrop of modernity, the point of the unsubtle resignation request made by the courageous Ms. Ridley to show some moral backbone among the errand boys and girls of empire, even as it is merely being rhetorical, is entirely meaningless even in its rhetoric for two reasons: 1) it is a moral request in a global governance system which is beyond good and evil, one which brazenly asserts hegemony is as old as mankind, and which puts morality itself directly in the service of empire; and 2) given that the highest-order-bit of the systemic disease among the 'untermensch' has apparently already been apportioned as our national destiny! Crises are defining moments for nations, and for a people. Some rise to it. Others fall before it. Pakistan as a nation has evidently decided the latter course of action - and this is palpably apparent from the statements of Pakistan's own Ambassador to Washington: 'Foreign relations are not discussed in poetry, … Saddam Husain's last speech was also full of poetry but it could not save him or his nation', and that 'relationships between nations are based on ground realities'. Read its full deconstruction here: http://print-humanbeingsfirst.blogspot.com/2009/11/bringing-back-thelost-zen-to-pakistan.html While it is true that most in Pakistan are very upset by what has befallen Dr. Aafia Siddiqui as yet another victim of imperial mobilization - only one among the millions in Iraq, Afghanistan, Palestine, Pakistan's Tribal-Belt, all along the 'arc of crisis' in the global zone of percolating violence, etc. - the handful who did publicly protest this latest visitation of empire's justice upon a frail tortured woman in a nation of almost 200 million, did so only symbolically. And many an English-enabled 'house Negro' only expressed faith in empire's Justice. The English language Pakistani press is full of their editorials which span the gamut of intellectual servitude from heaping scorn on any public expression of empathy with the victim, to outright blaming the victim. And this combined show of moral bravado despite the fact that Dr. Aafia has become the inextricable symbol of the summation of all the abhorrent injustices purveyed upon women in wars - from rape to rape - and no mere words can ever capture her indescribable agony! Yet, most Pakistanis among the 'field Negroes' daring to express a modicum of moral outrage only displayed our fine moral tenor from the comforts of our living room. Just as we did when Iraqi women were being raped, tortured, and disappeared in the service of empire not too long ago. Then we returned back to our daily grind. Symbols of morality, like talismans, are no match for hard orchestrated events of imperial mobilization. And especially when arsonists are running all the fire brigades in a nation where its masses are more closely tied to their daily bread than to matters of state or national survival. The apathetic public well understands that many more arsonists eagerly await in the wings to take the place of their predecessors. The masses are well aware that the Pakistani elite, the ever patriotic praetorian guards, and their coterie of miserable sycophants have already learnt that while one's abject service to empire can sometimes be hazardous to one's existential wellness, it also routinely calls for new faces in many a chief's seat and presents the fabulous opportunity to loot and plunder anew in the name of patriotism. Therefore, Ms. Yvonne Ridley's impassioned moral hint to the distinguished American Ambassador to Pakistan: 'She should then pick up the phone to the US president and tell him to release Aafia and return Pakistan's most loved, respected and famous daughter and reunite her with the two children who are still missing. Then she should re-read her letter of August 16, 2008 and write another … one of resignation.', will only deprive madam Ambassador of a well-earned livelihood and comfortable retirement for no fault of her own. She merely faithfully discharged her service contract to her own empire. And it will do nothing for Pakistan either, for we, as a nation, are serving exactly the same interests. When these aren't even our own! I humbly recommend instead that madam American Ambassador be the next in line to be awarded the glorious Freedom Medal by the White House. President Obama has already received his Nobel Peace Prize. Zahir Ebrahim Project Humanbeingsfirst.org Author of: The Pakistan Decapitation Papers Source URL: http://print-humanbeingsfirst.blogspot.com/2010/02/draafia-justice-inthe-service-of-empire.html Source PDF: http://humanbeingsfirst.files.wordpress.com/2010/02/draafia-justice-inthe-service-of-empire-feb132010b.pdf Source DOC: http://humanbeingsfirst.files.wordpress.com/2010/02/draafia-justice-inthe-service-of-empire-feb132010b.doc The author, an ordinary researcher and writer on contemporary geopolitics, a minor justice activist, grew up in Pakistan, studied EECS at MIT, engineered for a while in high-tech Silicon Valley (patents here), and retired early to pursue other responsible interests. His maiden 2003 book was rejected by six publishers and can be read on the web at http://PrisonersoftheCave.org. He may be reached at http://Humanbeingsfirst.org. Verbatim reproduction license at http://www.humanbeingsfirst.org#Copyright. Zahir Ebrahim | Project Humanbeingsfirst.org |
| "UM-D Student government approves divestment resolution" Posted: 27 Feb 2010 12:15 AM PST
 Yusif Barakat, who was displaced from his Palestinian home as a child after Israel was established in the 1940s, speaks at a U-M Dearborn event Tuesday about a recent visit to Gaza, currently under siege by the Israeli military. As Barakat spoke, Student Government members in an adjacent room voted to pass a resolution calling for investigation into University investments in companies that support ongoing occupation of the Palestinian territories. WRITTEN BY Khalil AlHajal
The University of Michigan—Dearborn's student government body passed a resolution on Tuesday calling for investigation into ethical implications of University investments in companies that do business in Israel. The body passed similar resolutions calling for divestment from the Israeli occupation in 2005 and 2006, but failed to do so again over the last few years, meeting opposition from members who said the wider student population didn't know enough about the issue, and that a divestment effort could be perceived as anti-Semitic. Speaker of the student Senate Rashid Baydoun said student groups like the Arab Student Union and Students for Socially Responsible Investing with the help of community groups like Jewish Voice for Peace made a special effort this year to hold a series of informative events advocating for divestment. "We had people who opposed it last year that voted on it yesterday," Baydoun said. The resolution cites several U.N. resolutions, the Fourth Geneva Convention and a University of Michigan Regent policy that states "If the Regents shall determine that a particular issue involves serious moral or ethical questions which are of concern to many members of the University community, an advisory committee consisting of members of the University Senate, students, administration and alumni will be appointed to gather information and formulate recommendations for the Regents' consideration. The resolution calls for the formation of such an advisory committee. "Any University investments in entities contributing to human rights violations by either Israelis or Palestinians is inappropriate," the document states, naming several companies in which it says the University is known to have millions in investments, including Boeing, Lockheed Martin and General Dynamics. "… on behalf of the students at the University of Michigan-Dearborn, we will urge this committee to recommend immediate divestment from companies that are directly involved in the ongoing illegal occupation, because we deem these investments to be profoundly unethical and in direct conflict with the mission of this University," the resolution reads. Baydoun said student government and several student groups plan to follow through with the effort by gathering petition signatures to present to the Board of Regents. He said the movement has gained support from several faculty members. Philosophy professor David Skrbina, who has encouraged the effort and advised the students, said passage of the resolution was an impressive and meaningful achievement. "This is an important accomplishment, given how few student bodies around the country have been able to pass a definitive statement on the injustices in Israel/Palestine," he said. "This reaffirms the student resolutions from 2005 and 2006, with a focus on the practical next step, which is to form an investigatory committee. Skrbina said a campus divestment petition currently has 1,500 student signatures and 120 faculty signatures. "There will be requests for follow-up meetings with Chancellor Dan Little, and the U-M Regents in Ann Arbor, to discuss how to proceed," he said. Similar efforts on the university's Ann Arbor campus have not been successful, facing fierce opposition stemming from perceptions of anti-Semitism. http://www.arabamericannews.com/news/index.php?mod=article&cat=Community&article=2902 |
| Tzipi Livni: "the ONLY targets are Military targets" A Video by Shadi Nassar Posted: 26 Feb 2010 11:56 PM PST A truly outstanding video by Shadi Nassar that shows clips of Tzipi Livni and others, during the Israeli wanton destruction of Gaza known as "Operation Cast Lead". Her words contradict the actions of her government and army. |
| Samira Quraishy – Why are we surprised that Mossad used fake passports? Posted: 26 Feb 2010 03:39 AM PST  The aspect of the Al-Mabhouh assassination that is attracting most attention is the issue of forged passports. Today's Jewish Chronicle carries a short commentary on the tendency of Israeli security services to "borrow" passports, highlighting two methods by which this could have been done. The first is apparently innocuous, whereby as part of the normal migration procedures any "Oleh" wishing to make the "aliyah" (migration to Israel) parts willingly with his or her identification documents, which can and usually are circulated. The anonymous JC commentator suggests that a more surreptitious method was used for holders of foreign passports who would be approached directly by the security services. This approach is "widely known among new and old immigrants to Israel" according to one man who described how he was approached for his passport while spending a gap year in Israel 40 years ago:"We were 18 and on a kibbutz. When your madrich (youth leader) says 'can I borrow your passport?' you do not ask any questions. Mine came back with a Romanian stamp on it. This happened to 30 people. As far as I know Israel was bribing the Romanian regime for olim [plural of Oleh] and people needed a non-Romanian passport to get out of the country." The rather blasé commentary reveals that far from being astonished that their identities had been stolen – probably by Mossad – the British citizens with dual nationality living in Israel could have had a reasonable idea that their identities might have been taken for use in such a way. The fact that this practice is "widely known" has serious implications for governments such as ours and the protection of citizens' identities, as well as security concerns. Not only does this Israeli practice show contempt and disregard for other countries – including its supposed allies – it also endangers the security of its own nationals. When Mossad attempted to assassinate Hamas leader Khalid Mishal in 1997, its operatives used Canadian passports. The two had to take refuge in the Israeli embassy in Amman. It transpired that two Canadian Jews living in Israel had been approached and asked if their passport details could be "borrowed" by one of Israel's security services, a process that has been described as "emotional blackmail" and a test of their "loyalty to Israel" by journalist Paul McGeough.1 According to McGeough, the Canadian authorities were left highly embarrassed and "vulnerable" after the apparent collaboration between Canadian and Israeli security services was made public. A former Israeli ambassador to Canada said, "The Canadian authorities knew… that passports were being used by Mossad… it was known to people at the embassy and they essentially turned a blind eye to it."2 This begs the question whether or not the British government or British security services are themselves aware that Mossad agents have been using British passports and to what extent, if any, they have been involved in the whole Al-Mabhouh affair. Moreover, if it had been, for instance, a Pakistani passport that had been so easily passed around the ISI3 and then used for clandestine operations, would we be seeing the same rather limp response from the international community? Meanwhile, two leading legal experts have commented on the affair to MEMO:  "We must draw distinctions between domestic and international law. On the domestic front- each state will have criminal penalties for the misuse of its passports. In the UK the Identity Cards Act 2006 specifies criminal penalties for the misuse of passports, forging passports etc. Someone who has 'allowed' their passports to be used in such a way, could be charged with aiding and abetting offences under the 2006 Act. This is a very serious matter and the courts will look at the purpose of the use of the false documents in terms of measuring the seriousness. For example if the documents were used for seeking work, it would be seen as a much less serious case compared to fraud. In this case, we are looking at murder. The government could look at the steps Margaret Thatcher took following the apparent use of British passports where she closed down Mossad operations in the UK in the 1980s. This is much more serious given that Israel had given diplomatic assurances that this would not happen again and is certainly an aggravating factor that the government would have to take into account."
The falsification of passports and identity theft are serious criminal offences under British law. No doubt they are too under Israeli law. Falsification of a British passport by a member of the Israeli intelligence services is therefore more than just a clear breach of diplomatic relations. Moreover, there would be serious implications were it to transpire that the British government was aware that falsified travel documents were being used by Mossad as has been suggested by one British security source. What are the steps the governments of these foreign passport-holders should do in light of these revelations?
The respective governments should:
What steps should be taken to prevent this from happening in the future? If the Israeli government fails to comply with any of the requests made of them, the government could expel the Israeli ambassador from the country, break off diplomatic ties and/or impose sanctions which could deter future occurrences. Sarah McSherry,
1Paul McGeough, 'Kill Khalid: The failed Mossad assassination of Khalid Mishal and the Rise of Hamas' (Quartet Books, 2009) pp 221-223 2Ibid 3Pakistani Intelligence Agency |
| Ibrahim Hewitt – The Observer, Israel and the language of war Posted: 26 Feb 2010 03:17 AM PST
A leader writer in the Observer newspaper ("Israel can accelerate peace by exercising restraint" http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/feb/21/observer-editorial-israel-palestine , 21 February) really must be taken to task over the language that was used in the column. In seeking to analyse the Israel-Palestine situation the writer slipped into the sort of terminology that serves to highlight the difficulties of discussing this issue in a non-partisan fashion. Being particular about the terminology used is not mere semantics, for it can and does reveal an underlying mindset. Nowhere is the old saying "one man's terrorist is another's freedom fighter" more accurately applied than in discussions about the conflict in the Holy Land. The Observer claims that "Israel and the Palestinians are in a state of perpetual war", so it is surely unreasonable and inaccurate for the writer to refer subsequently in the same article to Palestinian "terrorists". Wars have combatants on opposing sides but the post-9/11 American-led narrative – with the "war on terror" – has blurred the distinction to the extent that it is now acceptable – indeed, de rigueur – to refer to anyone struggling against Western hegemony as a terrorist. It is surprising that a newspaper like the Observer has fallen for this deception. It is equally surprising that the conflict between the Israeli occupiers and the occupied Palestinians is actually described as a "perpetual war", implying that this is a conventional confrontation between two sides each having some degree of equivalence in terms of military capabilities; it isn't and they don't. Israel is a nuclear state with an army equipped with the most up-to-date technology imaginable. The Palestinians are a largely civilian population; even a future Palestinian state will, if Israel has its way (which it no doubt will), be forbidden from having its own army beyond lightly-armed "security" forces whose task is and will remain, according to the Oslo accords, to uphold the security of Israel first and foremost. Resistance against military occupation is, of course, entirely legitimate, and yet the Observer refers to such resistance as "terrorism", following the Sharon doctrine in its entirety. For it was Ariel Sharon who in an act of opportunism said in the wake of 9/11: "Now the American people know what we [in Israel] have been going through." Say something loud enough and long enough and people will begin to believe it, and most sections of the media play their role to perfection. "The surest way to accelerate a peace is for Israel to break free of the self-defeating cycle of using extreme force as the preferred form of self-defence," claims the Observer. Here is the crux of the matter: Israel occupies a land and when the people therein resist the occupation, Israel is using "self-defence". Thus is justification applied to the apartheid Wall cutting across and through Palestinian land; the check-points, the curfews, the passes, the blockade, the house demolitions, the dispossession, the assassinations: all are part of Israel's "self-defence". The original sin of occupation is overlooked or forgotten, it has become "facts on the ground", one of those obscene phrases which, like "collateral damage", make a mockery of international law and basic justice. Even if Israel was to "break free of the self-defeating cycle of using extreme force" as the Observer claims, why would that place any "obligations on Israel's neighbours to normalise relations"? Why would any self-respecting state want to normalise relations with an "occupying power in disputed territory"? The state of Israel does indeed have "the levers to effect changes on the ground that would instantly move a resolution to the conflict closer". It could end that occupation and remove the grounds for resistance, placing "obligations on Israel's neighbours to normalise relations" with a degree of moral and legal superiority that is missing entirely at present. Anything less and nothing of any significance will happen. The final sentence of the Observer's leader column reveals that the writer has adopted – I shall be generous and say subconsciously a mindset that sees the Palestinians and their rights as the problem, not the Israeli occupation. "The international community must act to give [Israel] the confidence to compromise." With what stretch of the imagination and logic does the ending of an illegal military occupation and colonisation of the occupied land constitute a "compromise"? The international community should be insisting – backed up with sanctions and boycotts if necessary – that Israel fulfils its obligations under international laws and conventions; such obligations cannot and should not be placed on the negotiation table as items for discussion and "compromise". Language is of vital importance when discussing such sensitive issues, so it is important to be accurate. Israel has a well-funded hasbara (propaganda) campaign and, no matter how well-intentioned, by dint of the terminology it uses that particular leader column falls into the hasbara category. There is no excuse for this in a newspaper with the Observer's credentials. TRANSLATED BY CONSUELO CARDOZO for TLAXCALA The Observer, Israel y el lenguaje de la guerra The Observer asegura que "Israel y la gente palestina están en un estado de guerra perpetua", de modo que es irrazonable e impreciso que el escritor se refiera luego en el mismo artículo a los "terroristas" palestinos. Las guerras tienen combatientes a ambos lados pero la narrativa influenciada por sucesos posteriores al 9/11 – con la "guerra al terror" – ha disipado la diferencia, al punto en que ahora es aceptable – de hecho, es de rigor – referirse a cualquiera que luche contra la hegemonía occidental como un terrorista. Es sorprendente que un periódico como The Observer haya caído en este engaño. Es igualmente sorprendente que el conflicto entre los israelíes que ocupan y los palestinos que son objeto de la ocupación se describa en la actualidad como una "guerra perpetua", implicando una confrontación convencional entre dos lados y un cierto grado de equivalencia entre ambos en términos de capacidad militar; ni es lo primero ni hay lo segundo. Israel es un estado nuclear con un ejército equipado con la tecnología más actualizada que se pueda imaginar. La gente palestina es mayormente una población civil; inclusive un futuro estado palestino tendrá prohibido tener su propio ejército, si Israel se sale con la suya (que sin duda lo hará), más allá de las fuerzas de "seguridad" ligeramente armadas cuya tarea es y seguirá siendo, según los acuerdos de Oslo, mantener la seguridad de Israel antes que nada. La resistencia a la ocupación militar es, por supuesto, indiscutiblemente legítima, mas The Observer se refiere a ella como "terrorismo", siguiendo la doctrina Sharon en su integridad pues fue Ariel Sharon quien, en un acto de oportunismo, dijo tras el 9/11: "Ahora la gente americana sabe por lo que hemos estado pasando nosotros [en Israel]." Cuando se dice algo con suficiente énfasis y por suficiente tiempo, la gente comienza a creerlo y muchos sectores de los medios de comunicación desempeñan su papel a la perfección. "La vía más segura para apurar la paz es que Israel se libere del ciclo contraproducente de optar por usar la fuerza extrema para defenderse," asevera The Observer. Aquí está el quid de la cuestión: Israel ocupa tierras y cuando la gente en ellas se resiste a la ocupación, Israel "se defiende". De este modo se justifica el Muro de apartheid que cruza y atraviesa la tierra palestina; los puntos de control, los toques de queda, los pases, el bloqueo, las demoliciones de casas, la desposesión, los asesinatos: todo es parte de lo que hace Israel "en defensa propia". El pecado original de la ocupación se obvia o se olvida, se ha convertido en "un derecho que da la fuerza", una de esas frases obscenas que, cual "daño colateral", se mofan de la ley internacional y de la justicia elemental. Aún si Israel fuera a "liberarse del ciclo contraproducente de optar por usar la fuerza extrema," como afirma The Observer, ¿por qué con ello "obligaría a sus vecinos a normalizar sus relaciones"? ¿Por qué querría algún estado que se respete normalizar relaciones con un "poder que ocupa un territorio en disputa"? El estado de Israel tiene en efecto "los mecanismos para efectuar cambios sobre el terreno que conllevarían una instantánea resolución del conflicto". Podría dar por terminada la ocupación y eliminar las razones de la resistencia, "obligando a sus vecinos a normalizar relaciones" con un grado de superioridad moral y legal totalmente ausente al momento. Cualquier otra cosa que sea menos que esto asegura que nada ocurra que sea de algún modo significativo. La oración final de la columna principal de The Observer revela que el escritor ha adoptado – Seré generoso y diré subconscientemente – una perspectiva que ve a la gente palestina y a sus derechos como un problema y no así a la ocupación israelí. "La comunidad internacional debe actuar para dar [a Israel] la confianza de transigir." ¿Bajo qué concepto y con qué lógica constituye "transigencia" el finalizar una ocupación militar ilegal y la colonización de la tierra ocupada? La comunidad internacional debería estar insistiendo – apoyada en sanciones y en boicot de ser necesario – en que Israel cumpla con sus obligaciones según leyes y convenciones internacionales; dichas obligaciones no pueden ni deben ser puestas en la mesa de negociaciones como elementos a discutir y a "transigir". El lenguaje es de vital importancia cuando se discute problemáticas así de delicadas por lo que es importante ser preciso. Israel tiene una campaña de hasbara (propaganda) bien financiada y, sin importar cuán bien intencionada sea, esa columna en particular, por la terminología que usa, cae dentro de la categoría de hasbara. No hay excusa alguna para esto en un periódico que tiene las credenciales de The Observer. |
| Khalid Amayreh – No light ahead Posted: 26 Feb 2010 02:42 AM PST  Ghassan Khatib While the Palestinian Authority (PA) seems prone to agree to "indirect talks" with Israel without the latter undertaking any meaningful freeze of Jewish settlement expansion in the West Bank, the Israeli government is making only provocations, rendering the resumption — let alone success — of peace talks more unlikely, especially in the near future. Israel lately undertook several measures that Palestinian officials insist reveal Israel's determination to perpetuate its military occupation of Palestinian land and eliminate the possibility of establishing a viable Palestinian state. One of these measures is a decision by Israel Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu last week to add two ancient mosques, the Ibrahimi Mosque in Hebron and the Bilal Ibn Rabah Mosque in Bethlehem, to Israel's so-called heritage list. The two sites are located in the Palestinian heartland, which implies that Israel intends to annex the two shrines, a prospect vehemently rejected by Palestinians. Prior to the Israeli decision, Western officials involved in efforts to revive the peace process indicated that the resumption of talks between Israel and the PA would occur in a few weeks. Tony Blair, the Quartet's envoy to the Middle East peace process, was quoted as saying that "substantial progress" had been made in US efforts to get the two sides to restart stalled talks. PA leader Mahmoud Abbas who has been on an extensive tour in three continents to explain Palestinian grievances to his hosts, has spoken of the consolidation of a Palestinian culture of peace, telling the European Parliament that peace could only be achieved through negotiations, not violence. He seems to have toned down his earlier insistence that the resumption of peace talks with Israel take place only after Israel agrees to freeze settlement expansion. The latest Israeli provocations, however, with regards to the seizure of the two mosques, seem to have poisoned whatever atmosphere of optimism or modicum of goodwill US Envoy to the Middle East George Mitchell may have succeeded in fostering during his latest visit to the region. One Palestinian official intimated that Palestinian consent to resume stalled peace talks with Israel would be purely for show. "If we agreed to resume the talks under the present circumstances, we would be doing so solely to please and appease the Americans who apparently want to make an achievement of some sort, however shallow it may be." Another official, Ghassan Khatib, who heads the Palestinian Government Press Office, voiced a similar view, saying that the resumption of talks with Israel would in no way mean that peace or justice were at hand. Speaking to Al-Ahram Weekly from his office in Ramallah, Khatib said peace talks would be "pointless" if the two sides didn't agree on three central points: a time ceiling to end the talks; the features and borders of the would-be Palestinian state; and the terms of reference — namely UN resolutions pertaining to the Palestinian issue, including the right of return guaranteed for Palestinian refugees uprooted when Israel was created more than 60 years ago. Asked if he thought that indirect talks would be sufficient to resolve these defining issues, Khatib said that no amount of talks — direct or indirect — would be sufficient. "The problem lies not in holding more talks; the real problem has to do with Israel's refusal to end the occupation." Khatib said the coming weeks and months would either witness more paralysis, which might precipitate violence, or a resumption of peace talks whose predictable failure would bring about the same. "My impression is that there can be no serious peace talks, let alone a peace agreement, with this rightwing [Israeli] government which, instead of facilitating the peace process, is actually poisoning the overall atmosphere by stealing more Palestinian land, seizing mosques and building more settlements." This pessimism is shared by most — if not all — PA and Fatah officials. Ahmed Qurei, a former Palestinian prime minister and parliament speaker, told reporters recently that, "the prospects for a peace agreement with Israel are very dim," and that the "next five years will be very, very difficult." He said Israel was "still unwilling to bring itself to recognise the Palestinian people's right to freedom, independence and human dignity." While some Palestinian leaders, including Ismail Haniyeh, the Gaza-based prime minister, are already calling for a new uprising against Israel as means of exiting the untenable present stalemate, some PA officials are entertaining a French proposal, which still needs to be refined, that would recognise an undefined Palestinian state within 18 months. "We welcome these European declarations, especially those of France, which we consider to have adopted a new attitude amidst the current political stalemate," Nabil Shaath, a prominent PA spokesman, was quoted by the Maan News Agency as saying. However, such a state without defined borders would, many Palestinians and their supporters contend, be a prescription for the liquidation of the Palestinian cause since it would enable Israel — perhaps under a rubric of land swapping — to consolidate its control of East Jerusalem and additional large chunks of the West Bank. The PA has repeatedly said that it would never accept a state with temporary borders. |
| Ramzy Baroud – Challenging History: Why the Oppressed Must Tell Their Own Story Posted: 26 Feb 2010 02:39 AM PST
Professor Zinn dared to challenge the way history was told and written. In fact he went as far as to defy the conventional construction of historical discourses through the pen of victor or of elites who earned the right of narration though their might, power and affluence. This kind of history might be considered accurate insofar as it reflects a self-seeking and self-righteous interpretation of the world by a very small number of people. But it is also highly inaccurate when taking into account the vast majority of peoples everywhere. The oppressor is the one who often articulates his relationship to the oppressed, the colonialist to the colonized, and the slave-master to the slave. The readings of such relationships are fairly predictable. Even valiant histories that most of us embrace and welcome, such as those celebrating the legacy of human rights, equality and freedom left behind by Martin Luther King, Malcolm X and Nelson Mandela still tend to be selective at times. Martin Luther King's vision might have prevailed, but some tend to limit their admiration to his 'I have a dream' speech. The civil rights hero was an ardent anti-war champion as well, but that is often relegated as non-essential history. Malcolm X is often dismissed altogether, despite the fact that his self-assertive words have reached the hearts and minds of millions of black people throughout the United States, and many more millions around the world. His speech was in fact so radical that it could not be 'sanitized' or reinterpreted in any controllable way. Mandela, the freedom fighter, is celebrated with endless accolades by the very foes that branded him a terrorist. Of course, his insistence on his people's rights to armed struggle is not to be discussed. It is too flammable a subject to even mention at a time when anyone who dares wield a gun against the self-designated champions of 'democracy' gets automatically classified a terrorist. Therefore, Zinn's peoples' histories of the United States and of the world have represented a milestone in historical narration. As a Palestinian writer who is fond with such luminaries, I too felt the need to provide an alternative reading of history, in this case, Palestinian history. I envisioned, with much hesitation, a book that serves as a people's history of Palestine. I felt that I have earned the right to present such a possible version of history, being the son of Palestinian refugees, who lost everything and were exiled to live dismal lives in a Gaza refugee camp. I am the descendant of 'peasants' – Fellahin – whose odyssey of pain, struggle, but also heroic resistance is constantly misrepresented, distorted, and at times overlooked altogether. It was the death of my father (while under siege in Gaza) that finally compelled me to translate my yearning into a book. My Father was a Freedom Fighter, Gaza's Untold Story offered a version of Palestinian history was not told by an Israeli narrator – sympathetic or otherwise – and neither was it an elitist account, as often presented by Palestinian writers. The idea was to give a human face to all the statistics, maps and figures. History cannot be classified by good vs. bad, heroes vs. villains, moderates vs. extremists. No matter how wicked, bloody or despicable, history also tends to follow rational patterns, predictable courses. By understanding the rationale behind historical dialectics, one can achieve more than a simple understanding of what took place in the past; it also becomes possible to chart fairly reasonable understanding of what lies ahead. Perhaps one of the worst aspects of today's detached and alienating media is its production of history – and thus characterization of the present – as based on simple terminology. This gives the illusion of being informative, but actually manages to contribute very little to our understanding of the world at large. Such oversimplifications are dangerous because they produce an erroneous understanding of the world, which in turn compels misguided actions. For these reasons, it is incumbent upon us to try to discover alternative meanings and readings of history. To start, we could try offering historical perspectives which try to see the world from the viewpoint of the oppressed – the refugees, the fellahin who have been denied, amongst many rights, the right to tell their own story. This view is not a sentimental one. Far from it. An elitist historical narrative is maybe the dominant one, but it is not always the elites who influence the course of history. History is also shaped by collective movements, actions and popular struggles. By denying this fact, one denies the ability of the collective to affect change. In the case of Palestinians, they are often presented as hapless multitudes, passive victims without a will of their own. This is of course a mistaken perception; the Palestinians' conflict with Israel has lasted this long only because of their unwillingness to accept injustice, and their refusal to submit to oppression. Israel's lethal weapons might have changed the landscape of Gaza and Palestine, but the will of Gazans and Palestinians are what have shaped the landscape of Palestine's history. Touring with My Father was a Freedom Fighter in South Africa, in a recent visit, was a most intense experience. It was in this country that freedom fighters once rose to fight oppression, challenging and eventually defeating Apartheid. My father, the refugee of Gaza has suddenly been accepted unconditionally by a people of a land thousands of miles away. The notion of 'people's history' can be powerful because it extends beyond boundaries, and expands beyond ideologies and prejudices. In that narrative, Palestinians, South Africans, Native Americans and many others find themselves the sons and daughters of one collective history, one oppressive legacy, but also part of an active community of numerous freedom fighters, who dared to challenge and sometimes even change the face of history. South Africa has; Palestine will. |
| You are subscribed to email updates from Palestine Think Tank To stop receiving these emails, you may unsubscribe now. | Email delivery powered by Google |
| Google Inc., 20 West Kinzie, Chicago IL USA 60610 | |
--
Palash Biswas
Pl Read:
http://nandigramunited-banga.blogspot.com/
No comments:
Post a Comment