MOST DISTURBING

Posted on October 13, 2009 by Nahida Exiled Palestinian

Most Disturbing

 

 

Recently, in my letter About Anti
Semitism http://tinyurl.com/yz4ggpo
, I mentioned that I
came across very disturbing publications. They are articles and statements by
Rabbis, imbued with a racism so sordid, that it reminds of the gloomy dark-ages
from which mankind had been distancing itself in past centuries.

 

I was left in a state of shock and
disbelief, and as I searched a little more, what I discovered and read, was
swelling from bad to worse, leaving me physically sick, nauseated and in an
utter state of disgust, shivering for days.

 

This may be difficult to read, but
please make the effort to look into it

“There
are two different and distinct entities: the human being, and the Jew who
is part of G-d”

..

“We
are a G-dly people, we have G-dly souls. Our place is in Heaven, in fact higher
than Heaven because Heaven is also a created place, and we are a part of G-d”

…

“The world wants leadership and who are they going to
look to for moral leadership if not the Jews?”

….

“We are to treat other Jews as Divine beings, because
that’s what they are”

(quotes by Rabbi Manis Friedman)

Please, see the
complete post with extended quotes in pdf attachment in the Web-page below


Filed under: Articles | Leave a comment »

Is Anti-Zionism Anti-Semitism?

Posted on October 9, 2009 by Nahida Exiled Palestinian

Is Anti-Zionism Anti-Semitism?

http://lawrenceofcyberia.blogs.com/news/2008/07/is-anti-zionism-anti-semitism.html

From: Lawrence of Cyberia Blog

I wrote the following as a comment on a post of the same name at My Left Wing.
I’m reproducing it here because it is also a suitable response to
readers who email from time to time with questions along the lines of
"How can criticizing a Jewish state not be anti-semitic?"*:

I think this post misses the point entirely about
why people can be anti-Zionist but not anti-semitic. And it misses the
point because you start off from a strawman argument. Specifically this
misrepresentation of why people might be opposed to Zionism:

What anti-Zionism says is that despite
this, despite the millions dead, it was a moral abomination for Jewish
people to gather in their traditional home for purposes of
self-defense, and self-determination. In other words, after one-third
of the entire Jewish population was wiped off the planet for reasons of
"race," the Jews are racists for organizing in their own defense.

I’m sure there are anti-semites who are anti-Zionist, but the logic
that you’ve ascribe to anti-Zionism as a whole is fallacious. That’s
not what anti-Zionism says. It’s what YOU say in order to put words
into the mouths of anti-Zionists so that you can make your argument.
You’re not really writing about why anti-Zionism is anti-semitic.
You’re writing about how, from the perspective of someone who accepts
the principles of Zionism, regards Zionism as the normative way of
looking at Israeli-Palestinian relations (and I would say this is the
dominant paradigm is American discourse on Israel), and has really put
no time or energy into considering whether there might be logical,
rational, non-hateful reasons for opposing political Zionism as it has
played out in the creation and history of the state of Israel, then
anti-Zionism can be made to look like anti-semitism.

But to do that you’ve had to gloss over the the key point –
the same key point that Zionism has always glossed over: the fact that
Palestine had a pre-existing population, 95% of whom (at the time of
the first aliyah) happened to be not Jewish, but Muslim and Christian.
You imply that the terrible things that Israel has done to the
Palestinians are due to bad decisions by various Israeli governments,
but that’s not true. Palestinians have to be expelled, excluded or at
least disenfranchised if you are to create a Jewish state in Palestine,
because they happen to form the natural majority there. Expelling
hundreds of thousands of them in 1948, and denying equality today to
those who remain and whose high birth-rate once again is making them
the majority even without the return of the refugees, is simply what
you have to do if you are to create a "Jewish and democratic state" in
a land where most people happen not to be Jewish.

You ignore this point, and suggest that what people are
objecting to is the Jewishness of the people who created Israel, when
really there is another logical explanation. Perhaps what people are
objecting to is the creation of a self-identified sectarian state that
is designed to be a home for one group of people, in a land where
another – majority – people already lives, and where that new state can
be created only through the dispossession and displacement of the
preexisting population. Can you really not imagine that people might
object to Zionism because they do not believe that the right of one
group to create a Jewish state in Palestine overrides the right of
another group not to be expelled or disenfranchised? Or that this
opposition is not based on the Jewishness of one of the parties
involved, but on the underlying morality of expelling one group from
their homes to create a new home for another group? From this
perspective, the Jewishness of one of the parties is incidental: it
would not be more acceptable if the people involved were creating a
Hindu, Buddhist or Martian state in Palestine. The opposition is not
about Jewishness, it is essentially about whether a Palestinian is an
equal human being to anyone else. It is an affirmation that despite
what that early champion of Zionism, Lord Balfour, claimed,
Palestinians are not "700,000 negroes whose views we do not intend to
consult on this matter"**, but are fully equal human beings whose right
not to be forcibly dispossessed is in no way inferior to the right of
Zionism to create a "Jewish and democratic state" that by its very
definition cannot give full equality to Palestine’s non-Jewish majority
without ceasing to exist.

(And to use the argument that this displacement of the
Palestinians can be justified by the Holocaust is, from a Palestinian,
Arab, Muslim or other non-Zionist perspective, not a mitigating factor.
It is actually an aggravating factor. Because not only are Palestinians
"negroes" whose rights can be ignored whenever they conflict with
Zionism, but they can now be ignored because of the Nazi genocide of
European Jewry, for which the Palestinians were not themselves
responsible. This is a double whammy of inequality).

If it
helps diffuse some of the rancor that dogs discussion of the I/P
conflict, think of it this way. Most people in the world were opposed
to white rule in South Africa. They weren’t opposed because they were
"anti-White". When the international community had to decide whether
Afrikaners had a right to national self-determination in South Africa,
where Afrikaner dominance could be established only by the
dispossession, displacement and oppression of the existing indigenous
majority and maintained only through the apartheid system of
government, it decided overwhelmingly that South Africa had no right to
exist as a "white and democratic" state. Outside of the immediate
coterie of Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher, it was self-evident
that the right of one ethnic group to exclusive self-determination did
not outweigh the right of everybody else to equality. The Afrikaners’
self-determination had to be achieved within the context of their South
African nationality, which they share with fellow South Africans of all
races and religions. It would have been absurd to suggest that
anti-apartheid campaigners acted as they did because they were
prejudiced against Afrikaners and therefore opposed to the principle of
self-determination for Afrikaners. Collectively, they were motivated
not by animosity toward Afrikaners, but by the belief that – in a land
where other people live too – exclusive self-determination for one
group impinges unacceptably on the rights of all the others. The
absence of any suggestion that this might be a similar motivation for
people who oppose Zionism, rather than the Jewishness of the people who
benefit from it – is a huge omission.

As for your point that there have historically been prominent
Zionists (you mention Martin Buber) who favored a cooperative
relationship with the Palestinians – well that’s certainly true. But
Martin Buber was not a dominant founding father of the Jewish state. So
what does it matter in practice that some individual Zionists were
genuinely tolerant of Palestinians, respectful of their rights and
troubled (as Buber was) about the morality of creating a Palestinian
population in exile in order to solve the plight of a Jewish population
in exile, if theirs was not the outlook that predominated on the
ground? The dominant founding fathers of the Jewish state were people
like Herzl and Ben Gurion, whose dominant brand of Zionism was based on
the premise that the Palestinian population could be "spirited away
across the border", that the Arab majority had to be reduced to no more
than 15% of the population and saw nothing wrong with the "transfer"
out of Palestine of the existing population. I’m not sure how relevant
it is to cite examples of less exclusivist Zionists when the Zionism of
the real world is one that created (and maintains) a Jewish majority in
Israel by the forced exclusion of a large part of the non-Jewish
population.

In fact I think that referring to the existence of
Zionists who had problems with a Zionism that relied on transfer to
create a more ethnically-homogeneous state, actually undermines the
argument that people who oppose Zionism as it exists on the ground do
so because they don’t like Jewish people. It relies on a faulty logic
that says the only possible vehicle of Jewish nationalism and
self-determination is the Ben Gurion kind of Zionism that created the
current state of Israel, and that as this is the only possible
expression of Jewish self-determination then people who criticize it
must do so out of anti-semitism. But the Zionism of Martin Buber for
example, or cultural Zionists like Ahad Ha’am and then Judah Magnes, or
modern post-Zionists like Avrum Burg, shows that Zionism at the point
of a gun is not the only possible expression of Jewish nationalism; and
that even among some Jewish Zionists there was always an understanding
that realizing Jewish self-determination by creating a "Jewish state"
in Palestine raised legitimate moral (and practical) concerns, which
led them to try to think of ways that Jewish self-determination and
nationalism might be realized without requiring the expulsion or
destruction of the existing people and culture in Palestine.

Overall, I would say the problem is that the old one-liner,
"Earthquake in Peru: is it good for the Jews?", is meant to be a joke,
but you treat it as if it is the baseline for how everybody is allowed
to think of Zionism. You have no right to assume that if people oppose
anything that involves Jewish people it must be because their
anti-semitism is showing through. Yet in the way you have
(mis)represented the motivations of anti-Zionists, you did just that.
You don’t consider that there can be perfectly legitimate opposition to
Zionism from both Jews and non-Jews that arises not from anti-semitism
– not from anything to do with Jewishness at all – but from the belief
that it is problematic to create a state for one group of people in a
land that already has a people and a culture, which will have to be
destroyed to create a Jewish state there. This destruction is not, as
you suggest, the result of some bad decisions by successive Israeli
governments, its is simply the only way to create a Jewish state in
Palestine. I disagree fundamentally with Benny Morris, but when he
identified the central issue of the conflict as the need to break
(Palestinian) eggs so that you can make the (Israeli) omelet he was at
least being honest enough to say out loud the unpalatable reality that
most people who speak about I/P issues from a Zionist POV simply
ignore: the Palestinians refused and still refuse to give their consent
to a project that requires they take the part of the eggs in someone
else’s omelet.

You are talking about Zionism in the partial, one-sided way
we are used to hearing it discussed in U.S. discourse. It is only about
Jewishness and anti-Semitism, in which Palestinians have a walk-on
"humanitarian" part (when you make your obligatory nod to their
suffering, which you attribute to bad government decisions). What is
completely missing from your discussion of Zionism is any sense that
the Palestinian people are equal players in this scenario, whose
individual human rights and collective national rights are as deserving
of respect as anybody else’s, and who might just have a right to
self-determination that does not involve having created in their midst
and against their will an ethnic/religious-based state that by its very
nature requires their own majority status to be diminished or denied.
By glossing over what political Zionism did and does – and absolutely
had to do – in order to create and maintain a "Jewish and democratic
state" in a land where the natural majority was (and is) not Jewish,
you are simply finding a more wordy way of treating Palestine as "a
land without a people for a people without a land".

* Yes, I know my email response time is awful and the backlog in my inbox is atrocious. Tell me about it.

** Hence the title of the earlier post in which I identified Palestinian equal rights as the key issue in the I/P conflict: Palestinians Are Nobody’s Negroes.

Filed under: Articles | Leave a comment »

About anti Semitism

Posted on October 4, 2009 by Nahida Exiled Palestinian

This letter was my
response to a Jewish friend (supporter of Palestine), who got upset upon hearing severe criticism,
disdain and sarcasm against “israel” and “israelis”

 He felt that people as they criticise “israel” should not forget the “humanity” of “israelis”,
he also felt that this was a typical behaviour of anti Semitism which caused
him to feel angry and frightened

 ************************************

 About anti Semitism

 

Talking about anti-Semitism,
and the accusation of anti-Semitism, is to many people a very sensitive issue, nevertheless,
I feel the need to highlight some points:

As a Palestinian and as
a Muslim, with first hand experience of racism, whether here in UK or in
occupied Palestine, I do understand what it means to be subjugated to it; thus,
I deeply empathise with those who suffer from the menace of racism and
discrimination, those who are abused verbally, physically, emotionally, or
otherwise for no other reason than the fact that they are “different”

And I also do understand
the awful feeling and dreadful sensation of being subjugated to subtle racist
looks or remarks, only felt by you and not the people around you

However, I do see a
huge difference between a racist remark directed at a person or a group for
their beliefs, race, or whatever that which makes them different, and between a
snarl, a sneer or sarcasm against an occupying criminal entity called
“israel” and its people for their CRIMES

One must not fail to
distinguish between the rage and fury caused by watching helplessly for decades
the grim unstoppable crimes go unpunished year after year, and the racist blind
hatred that might still exist among a tiny minority who, by nature, would be
hating anything and anyone who is different anyway

Furthermore, this occupying
entity called “israel” (a word that I myself detest to even pronounce
and generally avoid to use) is not a theoretical being, nor does it operate in
a vacuum; it’s neither an abstract concept nor a conjectural void

It’s an entity run by
PEOPLE

PEOPLE who make decisions,

PEOPLE who elect politicians

PEOPLE who ALL
serve in a barbaric army

PEOPLE who foster
racist beliefs, attitudes and actions

PEOPLE who invaded
others’ land, dispossessed them, and forcibly occupied it

PEOPLE who imprison
children and shoot babies hearts

PEOPLE who destroy
world heritage

PEOPLE who steal water,
land, sea and sky

PEOPLE who kill hope, life,
beauty and smiles

PEOPLE who build their
colonies on the blood and ruins of another people

It is an entity of
PEOPLE, 94% of whom voted for the attack on Gaza

It is an entity of
PEOPLE, 71% of whom want U.S. to strike Iran

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/860903.html

It is an entity of
PEOPLE who violated ALL neighbouring countries

It is an entity of
PEOPLE who live on a STOLEN land for over six decades, with no signs of
shame, remorse, awakening of conscience, or willingness to neither admit nor
right the wrongs they’ve committed

Every normal person
with some compassion, would make a grimace of disgust and revulsion when
hearing about such an entity or such a people who commit such
despicable horrors

Now, I find it
difficult to be persuaded that such a reaction to such horrific crimes -when
hearing the name “israel” or “israeli”- is an act of racism (anti-Semitism)


On another note; we –
Palestinians- do not have any responsibility whatsoever for the crime of the holocaust,
nor do we carry the burden of European racism against Jewish people

 Furthermore, I do not see a difference between
any kind of racism including racism directed against Jewish people known as
anti-Semitism. If we accept racism against Jewish people as being different,
then it implies that we accept the racist absurdity of “Jewish exceptionalism”.
Racism is racism, many causes same consequences

 Thus, I do not see the suffering of  Jewish people (horrible as it was) as a unique
kind of suffering which must be revered and viewed as essentially and
fundamentally different from other human suffering; the same way that I do not
see our suffering as Palestinians as unique or different from any other

 Questions come
pounding:

Why is it that we –Palestinians-
are constantly reminded of the horrors of the holocaust, when we had nothing to
do with it?

Why is it that we
Palestinians, are to suffer the same fate as the victims of the holocaust by
the hands of those who brag worldwide to act for “never again”?

Why would the UN want
to enforce the study of the history of the oppressors and occupiers -holocaust-
upon children languishing in refugee camps –who themselves along with their
parents, and grand parents were victims of ethnic cleansing, planed and
executed by those whom they are supposed to feel sympathy with?

Why is it that we are
persistently bogged down by the fixation on anti-Semitism, while for sixty
years (a century rather), we are the ones who are relentlessly suffering
from a most vile evil racism (ethnic cleansing gradually becoming a form of
“final solution”) perpetrated by a whole population of racist zionists?

(with all honesty, I
must tell you that some times I imagine it would’ve been easier and less
painful to us to be gassed and killed immediately rather than this policy of
excruciating slow death that we have been going through for over a century)

How could the world
keep asking us to recognise the “humanity” of a settler, who comes with his
wife and children armed to his teeth, and at gun point evicts a Palestinian
family, throws their entire belongings out, and moves in?

What kind of “humanity”
is this?

And most importantly, why
is it that we are continuously been asked to feel compassion towards our
tormenters who relentlessly murder and humiliate us, who attempt to annihilate
us and our history and why, to what purpose, are we asked to feel their “humanity”,
while their knife still piercing deep in our hearts?

Finally, I cannot speak
on behalf of all the Palestinians, but as for myself, I must admit, the recent
Gaza events was the last straw that broke the camel’s back; before that, I used
to think that there is hope, those PEOPLE would wake up to their “humanity” one
day, and regret the evil that they’ve done, unfortunately, the more I see of
them, the more I realise that this hope and dream was an illusion

Over the past few
years, I have been reading and debating with many of those “soft” zionists in
the so called “peace camps”, all I found is an extremely arrogant groups of
people, who are incapable of recognising, admitting, or willing to rectify the
crimes they’ve done.

 They are only interested in “peace” to protect
their interests and to further secure their grip hold on the stolen land

Moreover, very
recently, and by sheer accident, I stumbled across some honorific information
that reveals the severity of decay of morality and lack of humanity amongst those
RACIST zionists – whose ideological bigotry and chauvinism surpasses
all other- that left me in a state of shock for days; crying, shaking,
suffocating with palpitations and suffering from severe panic attacks. I hope
and pray that I would be one day soon, able to write about the awful reality
that caused so much anguish, distress, shocked my very foundation and
traumatized my essence

   Undoubtedly, the world community should
leave it to the victims to decide how to deal with those criminals in the
future. Only the victims can investigate the fragile alleys of forgiveness or
punishment. The victims should have the last say irrespective of what their
judgment might be, they should not be vilified, indicted or moralized with, for
they have suffered more than enough

The emergence of forgiveness
and reconciliation requires certain conditions:

1)    
Stopping the crime

2)    
admitting of guilt

3)    
 asking for pardon

4)    
 and rectifying the wrong

None of these
conditions are ever considered as an option amongst that mighty sick racist
society

As for me, I have no
authority to talk in the name of all Palestinians, but I can state with all
honesty, I DO NOT wish the zionist murderers, those of whom were directly or
indirectly involved in massacres, theft of land, subjugation and oppression, to
remain in Palestine after its liberation from the occupier.  –except of
course for the very few good people amongst them, as no soul should carry the
liability of another- I do not wish the invader, occupier and criminal racists
to stay in Palestine, the land that they incessantly raped, destroyed and
disfigured, nor do I desire them to be my neighbours

They have shown no
respect, no appreciation, and no love to this land or to her people

They do not deserve to
live there

But these are only my own
feelings, and I know that the decision is not mine.

More on anti Semitism

There
are some more points that I would like to draw attention to:

1)
“israel” calls itself a Jewish state,
and claims to be acting for all Jewish people, by Jewish people.  It is
still enjoying the moral
and financial support of the majority of Jewish communities world wide.
The absence of a huge uproar of denunciation and disassociation by the majority of world Jewry,
makes it hard for people not to blame zionist  Jews who live outside occupied
Palestine for their guilt of complicity, active alliance or passive complacency by either silence or
aiding and sustaining the criminals 

 2) “israel”
still enjoys the protection of the “Security Council” with its US vetoes on any
UN resolution sanctioning “israel’s” endless list of ongoing crimes and
infractions of international law, and the "israeli" criminals still roam with
impunity, free from prosecution by any jurisdiction . This intolerable
situation inevitably foments further rage and fury against the double standard
and special treatment granted to the Jewish state

3)
The excessive use of the term “anti Semitism”:

a)
by zionist Jews, accusing all non zionist

b)
by soft zionists Jews, accusing anti zionists Jews

c)
by anti zionists Jews, accusing fellow anti zionists Jews and also non Jews of anti-Semitism
as soon as they dare to examine Judaism with critical eye, criticising some
aspects of it, some beliefs, attitudes or behaviours

 All this has participated in creating a sense
of repression of freedom of expression, and undoubtedly also a sense of being subjected
to what feels like intimidation and thought control

 It has also diluted the meaning of the word Anti-Semitism, making it practically devoid of any signification. It is now used ad nauseam, ad absurdum, reduced to a simple rhetorical trick, slapped in the face of anything and anyone,
as soon as there is the slightest inspection of facts. The word has
lost its
effectiveness to expose a form of racism, i am afraid. The more we hear
it used inappropriately,  the more indifference its  further future
usage will raise. Worse, it may even -God forbid- contribute to a form
of blow-back   …the story of the boy who cried wolf is only
too familiar

So,
a sincere advice from a heart that cares, to all my Jewish friends who are
really interested in preventing the re-emergence of  real “anti Semitism”, and to those “israelis”
with some humanity left; I would say:

1)
Instead of wasting time searching for the "humanity" within
"israeli" criminals,  focus your energy on fighting and revealing
“israeli” crimes and exposing its inhumanity

2)
Disassociate your selves completely from such an entity and proclaim
this annulment loud and clear

3)
Let go of the idea that anti Semitism is a “special” case of racism; treat all
racism with the same degree of unambiguous condemnation

4)
Try to look at the situation from the standpoint of non Jewish people, who will
not accept or understand the insistence on the uniqueness of the Jewish
suffering, whereas the world has seen since the end of WW2 the massacres of
millions and millions of non Jews.  The world is inflamed by hatred
against Muslims, not against Jews.

5)
With love in my heart, with sincere and and pure feelings, I would appeal to
you to look inwards and search for reasons, as to why  you
feel that the world should accept racism against you as somehow worse or
different, and as to why you feel that your suffering is unique and
unlike others’ , because this is not how the world sees it. All suffering has
the same value to those who go through it, and all racism has the same
consequences and must be ostracized with the same ferociousness

6)
Those of us who are involved in the support of Palestinian cause are inevitably
going to be accused of anti Semitism, that does not make us in any shape or
form anti-Semites, for we know very well that we are not; hence, false labels,
and bogus allegations should not frighten or deter us, distract us or hinder
our determination of doing what we think is right

7)
And finally, please, do not freak out when people point out to certain aspects of
Judaism and the Jewish culture that they might not like or find incompatible
with humanity, equality, or fairness, after all this has always been accepted by other religions, belief-systems and cultures, and this is what freedom of thought and freedom of
speech are all about, people have the right to look at different ideologies, scrutinize
them, criticise them and sieve out what appears to be hindering the human moral
development, as long as all this is done in a non offensive manner, without
slander or abuse, but rather in a respectful, academic, genuine and
good-intentional search for truth

PS:

I know that what I have said might appear too
strong, unfamiliar, or painful to hear, but I can only speak of what’s in my
heart, as I believe that only through openness and honesty that trust can be
built

We have a saying in Arabic; “sadeequka man sadaqak,
wassaddaqak”  

صديقك من صدَقك و صدّقك

“Your true friend is that who is honest
with you and who believes you”

Arabic word for honesty: sidq

And for friend: sadeeq

Both friend and honesty share the
same root: sa-da-qa= told the truth

 

My love as always

nahida

*****************************************************

 

Filed under: Articles | 2 Comments »

A letter to God

Posted on July 31, 2009 by Nahida Exiled Palestinian

 يا ودود 

Ya Wadoud

Dear Most Loving

Here I am

Wandering in the wilderness

Cold… soaking… frightened… lonely… lost

Dripping pain and sorrow

 tears

Arriving

Knocking at your door

Humbly kneeling down

Hands upraised

Face hidden with tears

 64935_522196417800751_96155374_n

Requesting of Your generosity

Appealing of Your kindness

Pleading of Your mercy

 0001 heart

Dear Most Loving

Shroud me with Your bliss

Wrap me up with Your pleasure

Shower me with Your blessings

13174_10151506518853185_303632852_n 

Make no desire in my heart

Greater than being with You

01x 

No aspiration dearer

Than the bounty of Your love

20 

Dear Most Loving

Make me a mouthpiece of Your truth

A fingerprint of Your creativity

An ambassador of Your reality

 21805_304751982966997_1424667661_n

Make me a pathway of Your certainty

 A sign of Your authenticity

A whisper of Your inspiration

223294_373456346063713_715101148_n - Copy 

Make me a fountain of kindness

A lantern of guidance

A waterfall of honesty

A cascade of delight

248573_157627061045001_2057044465_n 

 Make me a footstep

Leading to Your splendour

 0000000000000000000012

Make me a pail

Pouring out love

Watching all content

  resizer_php

Make me a lamp

Glowing with tenderness and warmth

Until none is lost in darkness or despair

 76388_469324609796275_1165470094_n

Make me a cloud

Full of goodness

Raining joy

Planting affection

Flowering passion

Blooming compassion

Fruiting closeness

Picking intimacy

Feeding ecstasy and reunion

32 

Watching all fulfilled

Living whole… serene and satisfied

 307943_421199861296164_628711211_n

Dear Most Loving

It’s only through knowing You

Can distressed hearts

Find tranquillity and peace

541283_357856574297160_2071921429_n 

The wise have said:

“ if you love a thing so much, it will reveal its secrets to you”

 60551_446904885365968_749946672_n

Dear Most Loving

Here I am

An empty vessel

Lift me… Fill me… Use me

As You wish

My will is nothing

But Yours

 51

Dear Most Loving

I am walking towards you

Your promise is true

Come running towards me

 Hold me… embrace me

I am all Yours

66496_404416822965105_667287495_n

Filed under: soul songs | 2 Comments »

The Israel Project’s Secret Hasbara Handbook Exposed

Posted on July 15, 2009 by Nahida Exiled Palestinian

The Israel Project’s Secret Hasbara Handbook Exposed

http://informationclearinghouse.info/article23044.htm

By: Richard Silverstein

July 13, 2009 "FDL" — 
Imagine
for a moment you’re a general about to embark on a decisive military
campaign and your intelligence service secures a copy of your
opponent’s entire campaign strategy. You open it and you see his battle
plans laid out before you, key forces, weaponry, lines of attack,
points of weaknesses, etc. You suddenly understand just how weak his
forces are and precisely how to mercilessly attack and eviscerate him.
The plan makes you understand that his forces are largely based on
artifice and sham. It gives you confidence that you are entirely on the
right course and tells you how to stay on that course. Victory is
assured, your enemy’s defeat certain.

Douglas Bloomfield and Newsweek have done pretty close to that against the Israel lobby. Specifically, they’ve exposed a secret hasbara handbook written for The Israel Project by star Republican marketer, Frank Luntz.

The oddly-named Global Language Dictionary
(pdf) is a veritable goldmine of arguments, strategy, tactics. At 116
pages, it’s not for the faint of heart. But anyone who wants to get
inside the head of the Israel lobby must read this document. I know my
enthusiasm will mark me as a real I-P wonk, but this is the real deal
and worth spending some time parsing and deconstructing.

The
first thing to say is that the entire document is a pathetic piece of
propaganda. While it ostensibly is addressed to TIP’s leaders and
advises them how to shape a pro-Israel message when they lobby
Congress, the media and other critical power brokers, the entire thing
reeks of desperation and a lost cause.

It
goes without saying that the arguments offered are not only devoid of
truth, they’re devoid of rigor or credibility. There is literally no
substance to the claims offered on Israel’s behalf. It’s an empty
exercise in every sense of the word. Reading this makes you realize
that the entire Israel lobby edifice is a house of cards.

Perhaps
I’m letting my shock at the shabbiness of the Dictionary get the better
of me and overstating the case it reveals against the Lobby. After all,
any political network that exists for six decades and achieves as much
as this one has doesn’t topple overnight. But I’ll just have to let you
be the judge.

One aspect of this I find extraordinary and entirely dubious is the choice of the Republican campaign pollster Frank Luntz
to write this report. This indicates, as I’ve always maintained, that
the Lobby is totally tone deaf to the political environment. We have a
democratic president and two Houses of Congress under Democratic
control for the first time in a few decades. Pragmatic liberalism is
ascendant. Neo-conservatism and Bushian Republicanism are in retreat.
And who does TIP chose to make the case for Israel? A right-wing
Republican spinmeister. Remarkable. But one thing I must say is that
this is a good sign for our side. If our opponents are as wooden as
they appear, then they will topple themselves without needing much help
from us. The first chapter, 25 Rules for Effective Communication opens with:

The
first step to winning trust and friends for Israel is showing that you
care about peace for BOTH Israelis and Palestinians and, in particular,
a better future for every child. Indeed, the sequence of your
conversation is critical and you must start with empathy for BOTH sides
first. Open your conversation with strong proven messages such as:

“Israel
is committed to a better future for everyone – Israelis and
Palestinians alike. Israel wants the pain and suffering to end, and is
committed to working with the Palestinians toward a peaceful,
diplomatic solution where both sides can have a better future. Let this
be a time of hope and opportunity for both the Israeli and the
Palestinian people.”

The
first thing we learn is that this passage, as with everything else
printed in the handbook, is empty meaningless drivel. It’s a perfect
example of political three-card monty in which there appears to be a
card which isn’t there at all. It’s all a sham. There is no substance.
The rhetoric here is even worse than that offered by spokespeople like
Mark Regev on behalf of the Israeli government.

In
the following passage, we can see that Luntz has lifted shamelessly
lifted arguments from MEMRI and former Mossad officer, Itamar Marcus’
Palestine Media Watch. Others before me have demolished these tawdry
arguments, but it’s instructive to read the lies and distortions that
TIP instructs its representatives to parrot. Throughout, the document
drips noblesse oblige and fake concern for Palestinian children:

“As
a matter of principle, we believe that it is a basic right of children
to be raised without hate. We ask the Palestinian leadership to end the
culture of hate in Palestinian schools, 300 of which are named for
suicide bombers. Palestinian leaders should take textbooks out of
classrooms that show maps of the Middle East without Israel and that
glorify terrorism.”

As a matter
of principle, children should not be raised to want to kill others or
themselves. Yet, day after day, Palestinian leadership pushes a culture
of hate that encourages even small children to become suicide bombers.

Iran-backed
Hamas’s public television in Gaza uses Sesame Street–type programming
to glorify suicide bombers. As a matter of principle, no child should
be abused in such a way. Palestinian children deserve better.”

As
a matter of principle I believe that no child (Israeli or Palestinian)
should be raised in fear that their mother, father, sister, brother,
grandmother or grandfather could be killed for no other reason than
they happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time and a
frightened, trigger hungry 18 year army recruit decides to make an
example of them.

As
for maps, before Frank Luntz or Itamar Marcus make their specious
claims about Palestinian textbooks, I’d like them to show me a single
Israeli textbook that features a map of Palestine. You will certainly
find Judea and Samaria. But will you find any acknowledgment of the
millions of Palestinians who live in the Territories?

Further,
the arguments are entirely dated. Suicide bombings were a serious
phenomenon in years past. But Palestinian militants have largely
abandoned this tactic, at least in part due to its unpopularity among
average Palestinians. You certainly wouldn’t know this from Frank
Luntz’s agitprop. It’s like he’s living in a time warp and its still
the first Intifada (circa 2000).

Clearly
differentiate between the Palestinian people and Hamas. There is an
immediate and clear distinction between the empathy Americans feel for
the Palestinians and the scorn they direct at Palestinian leadership.
Hamas is a terrorist organization – Americans get that already. But if
it sounds like you are attacking the Palestinian people (even though they elected Hamas) rather than their leadership, you will lose public support.

Another
characteristic of the Dictionary is the dubious distinctions it draws,
as in this example. There is no way to distinguish between the
Palestinian people and their leadership. In effect, the passage
concedes the illogic of its argument with this phrase: "even though
they elected Hamas." Of course they elected Hamas. That’s precisely the
point. They had an election and chose who they wanted to represent
them. So for the lobby to say they sympathize with Palestinians, but
not with the leaders they chose is an empty statement.

Yet another example of noblesse oblige (and it’s entirely dubious to claim that these words "work"):


WORDS THAT WORK

We
know that the Palestinians deserve leaders who will care about the well
being of their people, and who do not simply take hundreds of millions
of dollars in assistance from America and Europe, put them in Swiss
bank accounts, and use them to support terror instead of peace. The
Palestinians need books, not bombs. They want roads, not rockets.”

Clearly
passages like this are designed to score debate points but are entirely
devoid of accuracy. The claims of embezzlement, of course, go back to
the days when Yasir Arafat ran things and tolerated rampant Fatah
corruption. But Arafat has been dead for lo these many years. Someone
ought to roll over and tell Tchaichovsky and Frank Luntz the news.

As
for Palestinians wanting roads, they do. They’d like some of those
wonderful Israeli bypass roads that run directly through former
Palestinian farmland and whisk settlers from their settlement homes to
their jobs inside Israel proper. The same apartheid roads which are
off-limits to Palestinians.

One thing you’ve got to give Luntz, he’s not above stealing ideas from anyone, even Israeli peace activists (see italics):


MORE WORDS THAT WORK

“The obstacles on the road to a peaceful and prosperous Middle East are many. Israel recognizes that peace is made with one’s adversaries, not with one’s friends. But
peace can only be made with adversaries who want to make peace with
you. Terrorist organizations like Iran-backed Hezbollah, Hamas, and
Islamic Jihad are, by definition, opposed to peaceful co-existence, and
determined to prevent reconciliation. I ask you, how do you negotiate
with those who want you dead?”

There
is an amazing insularity in the arguments presented here, with
absolutely no conception that Palestinians feel precisely the same
emotions as Israelis. In other words, they too ask how and why they
should negotiate with a state of Israel that would just as soon kill
them as live with them in peace.

More obliviousness, with no awareness of the dark irony of this statement:

“We
may disagree about politics…But there is one fundamental principle
that all peoples from all parts of the globe will agree on: civilized
people do not target innocent women and children for death.”

Do
I hear any concern here for the "innocent women and children" of Gaza
who were slaughtered in their hundreds during the Gaza war? No, of
course not.

Of course, there is unintentionally comic discourse:


Don’t pretend that Israel is without mistakes or fault.
It’s not true and no one believes it. Pretending Israel is free from
errors does not pass the smell test. It will only make your listeners
question the veracity of everything else you say.

Admit
Israel make mistakes. Don’t specify them. Change the subject as quickly
as possible and hope no one notices what you’ve just conceded. And then
point out how much more guilty the Palestinians are than the Israelis
for the conflict.

Use humility.
“I know that in trying to defend its children and citizens from
terrorists that Israel has accidentally hurt innocent people. I know
it, and I’m sorry for it. But what can Israel do to defend itself? If
America had given up land for peace – and that land had been used for
launching rockets at America, what would America do?

Use
fake humility. Pretend that Israel is the U.S. and that there has been
no Occupation and no injustice perpetrated against Palestinians.
Pretend their lands have not been stolen. Pretend they have not been
turned into refugees in the hundreds of thousands. Pretend that Israel
has a right to expect Palestinians to behave like Canadians or
Mexicans, who have not had a border dispute with the U.S. in 150 years.

Here
is more fakery in the guise of concern. And note the conflation of
American Jews with Israelis as if we are them (a little identity
confusion?):


WORDS THAT WORK

“Are Israelis perfect? No. Do we make mistakes? Yes. But we want a better future, and we are working towards it.

And
we want Palestinians to have a better future as well. They deserve a
government that will eliminate the terror not only because it will make
my children safer—but also because it will make their children more
prosperous. When the terror ends, Israel will no longer need to have
challenging checkpoints to inspect goods and people. When the terror
ends we will no longer need a security fence.”

There is virtually no terror on the West Bank, yet 500 checkpoints remain there. Why? Tell me why, Mr. Luntz.

If there is a money quote in this document that reveals that the lobby is now running scared it is this:

We’re at a time in history when Jews in general (and Israelis in particular) are no longer perceived as the persecuted people. In fact, among American and European audiences—sophisticated, educated, opinionated, non-Jewish audiences—Israelis are often seen as the occupiers and the aggressors.
With that kind of baggage, it is critical that messages from the
pro-Israel spokespeople not come across as supercilious or
condescending.

More unintended irony:


WORDS THAT DON’T WORK

“We are prepared to allow them to build……”

If the Palestinians are to be seen as a trusted partner on the path to peace, they must not be subordinated, in perception or in practice, by the Israelis.

What is the Occupation if not "subordination" personified??

Here’s right back at ya, buddy:


WORDS THAT DO WORK

“Achieving
peaceful relationships requires the leadership…of both sides. And so
we ask the Palestinians … Stop using the language of incitement. Stop
using the language of violence. Stop using the language of threats. You
won’t achieve peace if your military leadership talks about war. You
won’t achieve peace if people talk about pushing others to the sea or
to the desert.”

Israel’s
military and political leaders speak the language of violence,
incitement and war virtually every day. No acknowledgment of that, of
course, by Luntz. As for "pushing Jews into the sea," I haven’t read a
real live Palestinian resident of the Occupied Territories make such a
statement in several decades. So this argument is circa 1970 or so.
Nice try though, Frank.

“Israelis know what it is like to live their lives with the daily threat of terrorism.

As do Palestinians.


Remind people – again and again – that Israel wants peace. Reason One: If Americans see no hope for peace—if they only see a continuation of a 2,000-year-long episode of “Family Feud”—Americans will not want their government to spend tax dollars or their President’s clout on helping Israel.

Bingo.
Here Luntz inadvertently speaks the truth. Israel wants peace in the
same vague way that a 13 year-old girl may want to be whoever the teen
idol of the moment happens to be. Israel has no plan. No means of
getting to peace. So to say that Israel wants peace is, once again,
meaningless. And the fear lurking in the hearts of the lobby is that
some day Israel will be exposed and Americans will abandon it because
they will come to understand that whatever Israel may claim it wants,
there will never be peace under terms acceptable to Israel. That will
be a day of reckoning that the lobby wants to avoid at all costs.

Filed under: Articles | Leave a comment »

The Hasbara Booklet: Just lie.

Posted on July 15, 2009 by Nahida Exiled Palestinian

The Hasbara Booklet: Just lie.

http://palestinethinktank.com/2009/07/15/the-hasbara-booklet-just-lie/

By Guest Post • Jul 15th, 2009 at 7:17 • Category: Analysis, Counter-terrorism, No thanks!, Education, Hasbara Deconstruction Site, Israel, Newswire, Palestine, Religion, Zionism

WRITTEN BY IBRAHIM IBN YUSUF
(photo from The Israel Project Photo Contest)
The Israel Project’s 2009 Global Language Dictionary
is a Hasbara booklet written by a Dr. Frank Luntz that adds on to a
rich but unsuccessful literature existing in the field. Why
unsuccessful? Let’s quote from the author’s introduction:

I wrote my first Language
Dictionary for The Israel Project in 2003. Since that time, Israel has
had three Prime Ministers, several stalled peace initiatives, found
itself the victim of attack from its northern and southern borders, and
has suffered greatly in the court of public opinion.

Memo to him: the problem is not with his previous booklets, it’s with Israel.

Anyway, here’s the full text (CLICK ON FULL SCREEN TO ENLARGE, THEN ON CLOSE TO RETURN TO THIS BLOG):

The Israel Project’s 2009 Global Language Dictionary –

I see favorably the publication of these hasbara materials inasmuch
as they prove that Zionists don’t actually believe that the world’s
negative view of Israel has anything to do with irrational antisemitism
(otherwise they wouldn’t waste their time trying to convince anyone).
Other than that, I expect them to be professionally made and factually
accurate. So that I did two searches on subjects the "hasbarization" of
which I was curious about.

First, I typed in LOYALTY OATH on the search box. I was surprised to
find no result. Mr. Liberman’s initiative that Israeli Arabs should
take a loyalty oath or be stripped of their citizenship is something an
Israel advocate would be asked about, but this booklet offers no
recipee to fend the questioner off.

Next, I typed in SETTLEMENTS. I did get a full chapter devoted to
them. After listing a few somewhat dated arguments, on p. 63 we get the
formula that summarizes it all:

WORDS THAT WORK
Israel does not talk about dismantling Arab settlements within Israel.
In a democratic society, Jews and Arabs should be able to live
side-by-side in peace. Nobody ever says Israeli territory has to be
free from Arabs. One should ask the Palestinian leadership why they
always demand land that is free from Jews.

Note the terminology shift currently under way. Just like a few
years ago the Jewish immigrants to Israel were suddenly turned into
refugees, and voilà, the
Palestinian refugees were wiped out from the debate, because they
cancelled out with the Jewish refugees, the Arab towns of Israel are
now being termed settlements, and voilà,
there’s no injustice at all: Jewish settlements in the West Bank cancel
out with Arab settlements in Israel. I denounce the Israeli checkpoints
between Jericho and Ramallah, but why do I say nothing about the
checkpoints set up by Arab falafel vendors on the roads of Tel Aviv?

That aside, the Words That Work include something that is not
terminological at all, but which is simply a bare-faced lie, namely
that the Palestinian leadership "always demand land that is free from
Jews."

Up to a very recent time, no one talked about Jews remaining in the
West Bank under a two-state solution. Everyone understood that Israeli
Jews are deeply and unabashedly racist,
and, in order to avoid living under Arab rule, they would be prepared
to accept the unthinkable: higher taxes in Israel proper. Only very
recently has the Hasbara community begun to claim the human right not
to be uprooted from where you went to grab someone else’s land in the
first place. So that the Palestinian leadership had had nothing to say
on the issue, because it was not a subject of debate.

Until now. But on Saturday, 4 July 2009, at the Aspen Institute’s
Aspen Ideas Festival, in, of all places, Aspen, Colorado, Palestinian
primer minister Saleem Fayyad was for the first time ever asked about
his views on the subject. His answer:

“In fact the kind of state that we want to have, that we
aspire to have, is one that would definitely espouse high values of
tolerance, co-existence, mutual respect and deference to all cultures,
religions. No discrimination whatsoever, on any basis whatsoever.

“Jews to the extent they choose to stay and live in the state of
Palestine will enjoy those rights and certainly will not enjoy any less
rights than Israeli Arabs enjoy now in the state of Israel.”

The Zionists went immediately ballistic. They took to the cyberspace
to say, zillions of times "if you believe this I have a bridge in
Brooklyn to sell to you." Others were more straightforward:

don’t listen to them! DO NOT BELIEVE THEM!! the arabs
are very capable of lying and then making life miserable for the
Israelis. and than it might be too late..and they can make horrible
laws too. they have ruled Jews before.

Why were they so furious? Because finally Fayyad had learned the
Israeli technique of making offers that the other side can’t take, so
as to appear as very generous when the offer is actually meaningless.

But the Israel Project’s 2009 Global Language Dictionary chose to ignore this Palestinian display of smartness, and instead instructed the Hasbara gang to lie about it.

Not that the Hasbara gang didn’t know that lying is the approach to take when apologizing for Israel, mind you.

Filed under: Articles | Leave a comment »

Thinking Outside of the Secular Box

Posted on July 12, 2009 by Nahida Exiled Palestinian

The Left and Islam

Thinking Outside of the Secular Box

By GILAD ATZMON

http://counterpunch.org/atzmon07102009.html


“Religion
is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world,
and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people.”

— Karl Marx 1843

Before
I launch into a disclosure of liberal and leftist delusional treatment
of religions, Islam and Palestine in particular, I would like to share
with you a bad racist joke. Beware; you may not want to share this
short tale with your feminist friends.

An
American female activist who visited Afghanistan in the late 1990s was
devastated to find out that women were marching 15 ft behind their men.
She soon learned from her local translator that this was due to some
religious guidelines that ruled [this is the way we show] respect for
the ‘head of the family’. Once back in America the devastated
activist launched campaigns after campaigns for women’s rights in
Afghanistan. As it happened, the same devoted activist visited Kabul
last month. This time she was amazed to find a totally different
reality. Women were actually marching 30 ft ahead of their husbands.
The activist was quick to report to her headquarters in America: “The
Women rights revolution is a great success here in Afghanistan. While
in the past it was the man who marched in the front, now it is the
women who takes the lead.” Her Afghani translator, who overheard her
report, took the activist aside and advised her that her interpretation
was totally wrong. “The women” he said,  “are walking in front because
of the landmines.…”

As
tragic as it may sound to some, we are not as free as we believe
ourselves to be.  We are not exactly the author of most of our thoughts
and realizations. Our human conditions are imposed on us; we are a
product of our culture, language ideological indoctrination and in many
cases, victims of our intellectual laziness. Like the semi-fictional
American female activist above, in most cases we are trapped within our
preconceived ideas and that stops us from seeing things for what they
really are. Accordingly, we tend to interpret and in most cases
misinterpret remote cultures employing our own value system and moral
code.

This
tendency has some grave consequences. For some reason ‘we’ (the
Westerners) tend to believe that ‘our’ technological superiority
together with our beloved ‘enlightenment’ equips us with a ‘rational
secularist anthropocentric, absolutist ethical system’ of the very
highest moral stand.

The Lib-Left

In
the West we can detect two ideological components that compete for our
hearts and minds; Both claim to know what is ‘wrong’ and who is
‘right’. The Liberal would insist on praising individual liberty and
civil equality; the Leftist would tend to believe to possess a ‘social
scientific’ tool helping to identify who is ‘progressive’ and who is 
‘reactionary’.

As
things stand, it is these two modernist secularist precepts that act as
our Western political ethical guard. But in fact, they have achieved
the opposite.  Each ideology in its own peculiar way has led us to a
state of moral blindness. It is these two so-called ‘humanist’ calls,
that either consciously prepare the ground for criminal
interventionalist colonial wars (the Liberal), or failed to oppose them
while employing wrong ideologies and faulty arguments (the Left).

Both
Liberal and Left, in their apparent banal Western forms suggest that
secularism is the answer for the world’s ailments. Without a doubt,
Western secularism may be a remedy for some Western social malaise.
However, Western Liberal and Left ideologies, in most cases, fail to
understand that secularism is in itself a natural outcome of Christian
culture, i.e., a direct product of Christian tradition and openness
towards an independent civic existence. In the West, the spiritual and
the civil sphere are largely separated .
It is this very division that enabled the rise of secularity and the
discourse of rationality. It is this very division that also led to the
birth of a secular ethical value system in the spirit of enlightenment
and modernism. 

But
this very division led also to the rise of some blunt forms of
fundamental-secularism that matured into crude anti religious
worldviews that are no different from bigotry. It is actually that
very misleading fundamental secularism that brought the West to a total
dismissal of a billion human beings out there just because they wear
the wrong scarf or happen to believe in something we fail to grasp.  

Progressive vs Regressive

Islam
and Judaism, unlike Christianity, are tribally orientated belief
systems. Rather than ‘enlightened individualism’ it is actually the
survival of the extended family that is at the core interest of those
two belief systems. The Taliban that is regarded by most Westerners as
the ultimate possible darkest political setting, is simply not
concerned at all with issues to do with personal liberties or personal
rights. It is the safety of the tribe together with the maintenance of
family values in the light of the Qur’an  that stands at its core.
Rabbinical Judaism is not different at all. It is basically there to
preserve the Jewish tribe by maintaining Judaism as a ‘way of life’.   

In
both Islam and Judaism there is hardly a separation between the
spiritual and the civil. Both religions stand as systems that provide
thorough answers in terms of spiritual, civil, cultural and day to day
matters. Jewish enlightenment (Haskalah) was largely a process of
Jewish assimilation through secularization and emancipation, and
spawning various modern forms of Jewish identities, Zionism included.
Yet Enlightenment values of universalism have never been incorporated
into the body of Jewish orthodoxy. Like in the case of Rabbinical
Judaism, that is totally foreign to the spirit of Enlightenment, Islam
is largely estranged to those values of Euro centric Modernism and
rationality. If anything, due to the interpretation of the Scriptures
(hermeneutic), both Islam and Judaism are actually closer to the spirit
of post modernity.  

Neither
the Left ideology nor Liberalism engage intellectually or politically
with these two religions. This fact is disastrous, for the biggest
current threat to world peace is posed by the Israeli-Arab conflict; a
conflict rapidly becoming a war between a Jewish expansionist state and
Islamic resistance. And yet, both the Liberal and the Left ideologies
are lacking the necessary theoretical means to understand the
complexities of Islam and Judaism.

The
Liberal would dismiss Islam as sinister for its take on human rights
and women in particular. The Left would fall into the trap of
denouncing religion in general as ‘reactionary’. Maybe without
realizing it, both Lib and Left are falling here into a clear
supremacist argument. Since both Islam and Judaism are more than just
religions, they convey a ‘way of life’ and stand as a totally thorough
answer to questions regarding being in the world, the Western Lib-Left
are at  danger of a complete dismissal of a large chunk of humanity.

I
have recently accused a genuine Leftist and good activist of being an
Islamophobe for blaming Hamas for being ‘reactionary’. The activist,
who is evidently a true supporter of Palestinian resistance was quick
to defend himself claiming that it wasn’t only ‘Islamism’  that he
didn’t like, he actually equally hated Christianity and Judaism. For
some reason he was sure that hating every religion equally was a proper
humanist qualification. Accordingly, the fact that an Islamophobe is
also a Judeophobe and Christiano-phobe is not necessarily a sign of a
humanist commitment. I kept challenging that good man; he then argued
that it was actually Islamism (i.e., political Islam) which he didn’t
approve of. I challenged him again and brought to his attention the
fact that in Islam there is no real separation between the spiritual
and the political. The notion of political Islam (Islamism) may as well
be a Western delusional reading of Islam. I pointed out that Political
Islam, and even the rare implementation of ‘armed jihad’, are merely
Islam in practice. Sadly enough, this was more or less the end of the
discussion. The Palestinian solidarity campaigner found it too
difficult to cope with the Islamic unity of body and soul. The Left in
general is doomed to fail here unless it elaborates by means of
listening to the organic Islamic bond between the ‘material’ and the so
called ‘opium of the masses’. For the Leftist to do so, it is no less
than a major intellectual shift.

Such a shift was suggested recently by Hisham Bustani, an independent Jordanian Marxist, stating:

“The
European left must make a serious critical assessment of this ‘we know
better’ attitude and the ways it tends to deal with popular forces in
the south as ideologically and politically inferior.”

Palestine

Solidarity
with Palestine is a very good opportunity to review the gravity of the
situation. As it happens, in spite of the murderous Israeli treatment
of the Palestinians, solidarity with Palestinians has yet to become a
mass movement. It may  well never make it as such a movement. Given the
West’s failure to uphold the rights of the oppressed, Palestinians seem
to have learned their lesson, they democratically elected an Islamic
party that promised them resistance.  Interestingly enough, very few
leftists were there to support the Palestinian people and their
democratic choice.

Within
the current template of conditional political solidarity, we are losing
campaigners on each turn of this bumpy road.  The reasons are as
follows.

1.
The Palestinian liberation movement is basically a national liberation
movement. This acknowledgment is where we lose all the
Left cosmopolitans, those who oppose nationalism.

2.
Due to the political rise of Hamas, Palestinian resistance is now
regarded as Islamic resistance.  This is where we are losing the
secularists and rabid atheists who oppose religion, catapulting them to
being PEP (progressive except on Palestine). 

In fact the PEP are divided largely into two groups.

PEP1.
 Those who oppose Hamas for being ‘reactionary’, yet approve Hamas for
their operational success as a Resistance movement. Those activists are
basically waiting for the Palestinians to change their mind and revert
to a secular society. But they are willing to conditionally support the
Palestinians as an oppressed people.

PEP2. 
Those who are against Hamas for being a ‘reactionary’ force; and
dismiss its operational success. These are waiting for the world
revolution. They prefer to let the Palestinians wait for the time
being, as if Gaza were a seashore holiday resort 

With
these rapidly evaporating solidarity forces we are left with a
miniature Palestinian solidarity movement with an embarrassingly
limited (Western) intellectual power and even less positive performance
on the grass roots level. This tragic situation was disclosed recently
by Nadine Rosa-Rosso,
a Brussels-based independent Marxist. She states: "The vast majority of
the Left, including communists, agrees in supporting the people of Gaza
against Israeli aggression, but refuses to support its political
expressions such as Hamas in Palestine and Hezbollah in Lebanon.” This
leads Rossa-Rosso to wonder “why do the Left and far Left mobilize such
small numbers? And indeed, to be clear, are the Left and far Left still
able to mobilize on these issues?”

Where next?

“If
the left’s support for human rights in Palestine is conditional and
dependent on the Palestinians denouncing their religion and ideological
beliefs, cultural heritage, and social traditions and adopting a new
set of beliefs, alien values and social behaviours that matches what
its culture deems acceptable; that means the world is denying them a
most basic human right, the right to think, and to live within a chosen
ethical code.” Nahida Izzat

The
current left discourse of solidarity is futile. It estranges itself
from its subject, it achieves very little and it seems to go
nowhere. If we want to help the Palestinians, the Iraqis and the other
millions of victims of Western imperialism we really must stop for a
second, take a big breath and start again from scratch.

We must learn to listen. Rather than imposing our belief on others we better learn to listen to what others believe in.

Can
we follow Bustani’s and Rossa-Rosso’s suggestions and revise our entire
notion of Islam, its spiritual roots, its structure, its unified
balance between the civil and the spirit, its vision of itself as a
‘way of living’? Whether we can do so  or not is a good question.

Another
option is to reassess our blindness and to encounter humanist issues
from a humanist perspective (as opposed to political). Rather than
loving ourselves through the suffering of others, which is the ultimate
form of self-loving, we better for the first time, exercise the notion
of real empathy. We put ourselves in the place of the other accepting
that we may never fully understand that very other.

Rather
than loving ourselves through the Palestinians and at their expense, we
need to accept Palestinians for what they are and support them for who
they are regardless of our own views on things. This is the only real
form of solidarity. It aims at ethical rather than ideological
conformity. It puts humanity at its very centre. It reflects on Marx’s
deep understanding of religion as the “sigh of the oppressed”. If we
claim to be compassionate about people we better learn to love them for
what they are rather than what we expect them to be.

Gilad Aztmon is a writer and jazz musician living in London. His latest cd is In Loving Memory of America.

Filed under: Links to good articles | Leave a comment »

What can supporters in Europe do for Palestine before the European Parliamentary Elections

Posted on April 11, 2009 by Nahida Exiled Palestinian

 
What can supporters in Europe do for Palestine before the European Parliamentary Elections
 
 
Dear Supporters and Organisation,

Attached is a copy of a Questionnaire and the fact sheet which will accompany it, which we are sending to all candidates in the forthcoming European Parliamentary Elections on Thursday 4th June.

As the EU has enormous power to pressurise Israel into obeying international law and humanitarian laws, it is important that we elect MEPs sympathetic to the rights of the Palestinians and willing to stand up to the Israel.

The EU exports over 200million Euros of arms to Israel and there exists an EU- Israel Association Agreement which gives Israel advantageous access to the EU market and funding. Consequently, the EU is Israel’s biggest importer of goods.

Article 2 of the Agreement states that these relations shall be based on respect for human rights and democratic principles which must guide internal and international policy.

However there is pressure from the Israeli lobby to exclude these human rights obligations in treaties with Israel and to upgrade Israel’s special relations with the EU.

We need to elect MEPs that call for the suspension of EU’s special relationship with the EU and an end to the arms trade with Israel whilst Israel is in breach of human rights.

Please inform your networks and supporters of this questionnaire and of the responses of the candidates which will be sent to you as soon as they analysed.

Peter Reilly
Chair
Liverpool Friends of Palestine

 
 
 
 

Fact Sheet Regarding the EU and Israel from the Peace Group

The EU is Israel‘s biggest importer of goods, and its second biggest exporter. In 2006 the total traded between the EU and Israel amounted to 23.5 BILLION Euros.
The EU-Israel Association Agreement forms the legal basis for this relationship which gives Israel preferential trade terms with EU countries.
Article 2 of the Agreement states that these relations shall be based on respect for human rights and democratic principles which must guide internal and international policy.

The EU is therefore obligated under this Article to suspend the EU-Israel Association Agreement whilst Israel is in breach of human rights.

The Peace Cycle has travelled to the Occupied Palestinian Territories and witnessed first hand the many abuses of human rights by the Israeli Authorities, including:

·        Loss of freedom of movement of the Palestinian people by the placement of checkpoints and earth mounds at strategic locations within the Occupied Territories, making travel between villages and towns often impossible and inhibiting the movement of trade across the territories.

·        Israeli-only roads that prohibit use by Palestinian cars and passengers thereby making their journeys far longer than necessary, and often impossible.

·        Demolition of Palestinian houses by the Israeli authorities resulting in the heartbreaking loss of family homes and possessions, and destroying their sense of security and belonging.

·        Theft of Palestinian land in order to build the separation wall; a barrier deemed illegal by the International Court of Justice, and which has served to further limit freedom of movement and cause loss of trade, resulting in high unemployment and extreme poverty levels.

·        Refugee camps where families have been waiting for sixty years to return to their lost homes or to have compensation addressed.

·        The uprooting of millions of olive trees, a symbol of Palestinian life, to make way for continuous Israeli settlement building on stolen Palestinian lands, despite the settlements having been deemed illegal and even though cessation of this activity is clearly defined in the latest peace initiative at Annapolis.

·        Countless more acts of Israeli aggression towards the Palestinian people, which continue daily, and remain unchallenged on the pretext of security.

What the Peace Cycle has witnessed illustrates the abuses of human rights that at different times over many years have been judged to be illegal by international courts across the world.  Yet the EU does nothing visible to bring Israel to account.  Whilst this abuse goes on, the EU-Israel Association Agreement has allowed trade with Israel to flourish, with the addition of the EU-Israel Action Plan in 2005-2008 that has allowed for even closer partnerships to develop.

We call for an immediate suspension of the EU-Israel Association Agreement and any further trade between Israel and EU Member States in protest against Israel‘s continued violation of human rights of the Palestinian people.

For Further information on the issues, please visit  www.liverpoolfriendsofpalestine.co.uk
 
 
The Questionnaire:
 
 
 
 
 
……………………………………………………..

Filed under: News and politics | Leave a comment »

The Future of Palestine

Posted on January 1, 2009 by Nahida Exiled Palestinian

Future of Palestine

 

We,
the Palestinians, cannot accept any solution that does not address the
MAJOR issues in this lopsided “conflict,” those major issues are:

 

1)       We are equal in our humanity therefore should be treated equally

 

2)      We have been wronged; our rights, our land and our identity have been robbed from us and must be given back

 

3)      Jews
are neither an ethnic group nor a special people, they have no
privilege over us or any other human being, and hence, they cannot
claim ownership of Palestine simply because of their Jewishness

 

How
could the world expect the Palestinians to recognise Israel’s right to
exist as a Jewish state, when in fact that is not only killing the
dream of every Palestinian refugee of returning home, but it also gives
a precedence to a unique situation.

 

It
exempts the Jewish people from being treated like the rest of humanity,
as based on their Jewishness alone, they demand special treatment,
preference, and exemptions from all the laws that bind the rest of
humanity:

 

They demand to take over someone else’s land for a claim that this right is given to them by God

 

They demand to have superiority over another group of people who don’t share their Jewishness

 

They
demand that the world should acknowledge their right to go back 3000
years in time based on a claim that some people who share their faith
in Judaism had lived in Palestine in antiquity, yet they are horrified
that we ask to go back to our homes from which we were driven out 40 or
60 years ago!

 

A cousin of mine, who is Palestinian of course but was working as a teacher in occupied/ stolen Palestine (the zionist entity that some call “israel”)

 

My
cousin was trying to be friendly to a Jewish teacher, so he said to
him: “you know, we are both cousins, we are all children of the same
grandfather, we must find a way of living together in peace”

 

The reply of his colleague was chilling

He
said: “yes indeed we are cousins, but you must remember that you are
the children of Hagar, the slave woman, and we are the children of
Sara, the free woman; therefore, you must realize that you the
Palestinians, will be forever our slaves”

 

This nauseating mentality IS the root of the problem in Palestine:

 

This supremacist attitude

This arrogance

This contempt of the other

This superiority complex

 

 

Firstly:
they justify their attack and occupation of the already inhabited land
of Palestine by a claim of a God-given right made exclusively to the
Jewish people

 

Secondly:
they see themselves superior with the false claims such as being God’s
chosen people or being light unto the nations or of making the desert
bloom

 

Thirdly: they want to preserve a Pure Jewish state at all costs; even if that means dismissing the rights of all others

 

Fourthly:
they, unlike any other nation, are getting away with every violation of
human rights imaginable without ever being held accountable for their
crimes

 

Are we ever going to see a change of attitude within this community?

 

It’s only through a real alteration of the Zionists’ mind-set that a solution could become possible

 

We, the Palestinians, we can compromise, we can negotiate, we can share, we can give much, but ONE thing, and ONE thing only, that we CANNOT negotiate, nor compromise, and that is our HUMANITY

 

We might be able to forgive the zionists, and move on

 

We might be able to share our land even with previous enemies

 

But what we will never be able to do is accept them as our superiors

 

Nor would we welcome them while they are still committing their crimes of murder, theft and oppression

 

Reconciliation is only possible with a revolutionary change of attitude within the Zionist community

 

And that’s is not up to us to do

 

The ball is in their court now, and has always been

 

It’s up to the Jewish people themselves who live in occupied Palestine to work on that change, if they want to spare themselves God’s justice

 

People
can take oppression for so long, but there comes a time when a
threshold is reached, then things could literally change overnight

 

Their might will not protect them then

 

What will, is what they’ve managed to preserve of their humanity

 

As for those who wonder about Hamas:

It would be helpful if you have a look at this scholarly article on Hamas by Khalid Amayreh

 

http://xpis.ps/Uploadarticles/89articles%20Hamas-Debates-the-Future-monograph.pdf

 

As
with regards to violence and attacks on civilians, Hamas is not proud
to kill any innocent person, it has continuously offered cease-fire and
a complete halt of attacks on civilians but that was ALWAYS rejected by
israel

 

Hamas offers to renew cease-fire with Israel

Friday, June 16, 2006

http://edition.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/06/15/hamas.ceasefire/index.html

 

 

Israel rejects Gaza cease-fire offer

Sep 21, 2007

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1189411457380&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

 

 

Ehud Olmert rejects Hamas’ offer of cease-fire in Gaza Strip

23/12/2007

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/937196.html

 

Olmert rejects Hamas cease-fire offer

Tue., December 25, 2007

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/937511.html

 

 

ISRAEL REJECTS HAMAS CEASE-FIRE OFFER AS HUMANITARIAN CRISIS DEEPENS IN GAZA

April 25, 2008

http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/0425/p99s01-duts.html

 

 

Israel rejects Hamas cease-fire offer as humanitarian crisis deepens in Gaza

Fri Apr 25 08

http://news.yahoo.com/s/csm/20080425/wl_csm/odu0425

 

 

Coming to the point of israel’s right to exist as a Jewish state I would say:

 

To
start with; there is no country/ government/ system/ regime on earth
that demands the right to exist and makes that demand “holy” and
unquestionable

 

Yet again, israel,
with its self-proclaimed righteousness and with the virtue of its
special-ness, feels entitled to ask those whom she robbed them of their
homes, of their dignity, and of homeland to recognise her right to
steal and thrive at cost of their genocide and ethnic cleansing!

 

Israel feels no shame in demanding to be recognized as a racist entity (as a Jewish state)

 

Israel
feels no shame in demanding to exist at the expense of hundreds of
annihilated villages, hundreds of thousands of corpses, and millions of
homeless refugees

 

Israel feels no shame in demanding the right to build its nation on the destruction of another

 

Israel
feels no shame in expanding what she acquired by sheer brutality at the
cost of devastated landscapes and ruined ancient alleyways

 

Israel
feels no shame in demanding that the world should adore its glory at
the melody of weeping widows and howling of terrified little ones

 

Hamas and the Jewish state:

 

Our
problem – as Palestinians- is not with the Jewish people nor is it with
Judaism; our problem is with the injustice inflected upon us for almost
a century now.

 

For no crime (except being Palestinians) we were made to be the sacrificial lamb of Europe’s sins, we paid the price for Hitler’s crimes against the Jewish people.

 

Neither
Hamas nor any Palestinian would have any problem getting along with any
ethnic or religious group of people. As Muslims we’ve done that for
centuries. In fact the golden age for the Jewish people was when they
lived under Islamic rule and as they escaped the inquisitions of Europe to find refuge and protection in Muslim lands.

 

But,
we have serious problems with ethnic cleansing, injustice, oppression,
racism, fascism, tyranny, and the claim of superiority of one nation
over another.

 

Unless these issues are justly addressed and resolved, our world would remain in turmoil.

 

Hamas
are constantly been asked to recognize “Israel’s right to exist as a
Jewish state”; but no one seemed bothered with the fact that “Israel”
never recognized “Palestine” or the Palestinians’ right to exist on
their own land. No one seems to be bothered with the fact that “Israel” hasn’t and never had any defined borders that they want us to recognize.

 

But most importantly no one seemed to question the morality and ethical grounds on which “Israel” was founded.

 

Israel
not only has no right to exist as a Jewish state (for the apparent
racism that’s embedded in this definition) but also has no right to
exist as a state and a political system. Period.

 

Reasons:

 

 firstly:

 

The moral and ethical grounds upon which “Israel” was founded are extremely problematic: 

 

a) When the Zionists adopted Palestine as a home land for all the Jewish people they ignored the fact that Palestine had already its own native Palestinian inhabitants, with a very small Jewish minority of 2.5%.

 

b)
The early Jewish refugees did not come with a friendly attitude with
intentions to live in peace with the native Inhabitants of Palestine, but rather with the mentality of colonising and ethnically cleansing of the natives.

 

 

c)
They did not come with olive branches in their hands; rather they came
with tanks and machine guns, they engaged in extensive terror attacks
on the native Palestinians, they were building their armed forces ever
since until it became the fourth most powerful state in the world today.

 

d) The natives were never asked and their opinions were dismissed by those powers who decided to give away Palestine -which the don’t own-

 

e) Israel’s recognition as a state (by the United Nations and the International community) was conditional to Israel abiding by UN resolutions <b>including the right of return</b> of Palestinians; which were never implemented by Israel.

 

 Secondly:

 

The
continuous existence of such a state (as defined by the hegemony of one
particular group “the Jewish” over the rest of its citizens) is
deplorable logically, legally, and morally:

 

a)  Logically unacceptable;

 as by definition “”Israel”
is a Jewish state; in order to maintain its exclusive “Jewishness” it
denies millions of exiled Palestinians their basic human right; namely
the right of return to their homes and their families.

 

b)  Legally unacceptable;

for
the inability of this entity to comply by the conditions laid out by
the international community, and inability to abide by any UN
resolution.

 

c)  Morally unacceptable;

 for
the fact that since its inception over the past 60 years, this entity
managed to prove to the world time and again the decay of its moral
fibre; as it sank deeply in the abyss of wickedness and inhumanity.,
through displaying her acts of terror, cruelty, and ruthlessness with
no shame or remorse.

 

The
continuous existence of such a state is morally questionable; as by
definition “”Israel” is a Jewish state; in order to maintain its
exclusive “Jewishness” it denies millions of exiled Palestinians the
right of return to their homes and their families ignoring their basic
human rights.

 

When Hitler called for a purely Arian state the world got up in arms against such an exclusive racists regime.

 

How
can such a state demand the right be recognized and to be secured when
the very foundation on which it was established are immoral? How such a
state should continue to exist when by its very definition it is
insular, exclusive, aggressive and racist?

 

What
I as a Palestinians would like to see is an all inclusive state of
Palestine, on the whole land of historic Palestine, a state for all its
citizens, where all races, religions living side by side on equal
grounds.

 

A
state with no walls between its peoples; where no one is denied their
basic human rights for their religious or non-religious beliefs, no one
is denied justice for their race; no one is prevented from returning to
their homes on the basis of their ethnicity. If that should mean an end
to a racist exclusive Jewish state so be it.

(by the way the Jewish state is NOT the Jewish people)

 

And if I may speak as a mother, seeing my beloved Palestine divided is like seeing my baby chopped in half!

It
pains me enormously, I would rather accept to share my baby with an
impostor mother, who claims my baby as hers, rather than having him
sliced into two pieces

.

Filed under: Articles | 3 Comments »

“Revoking Israel’s UN Membership.”

Posted on December 18, 2008 by Nahida Exiled Palestinian

"Revoking Israel’s UN Membership."

http://windowintopalestine.blogspot.com/2008/12/revoking-israels-un-membership.html

Excellent article written by two Swedes calling for the revocation of
Israel’s UN Membership. Snorre Lindquist is a Swedish Architect of,
among other things, the House of Culture in front of the Nativity
Church in Bethlehem on the West Bank. — Lasse Wilhelmson is a
commentator on the situation in the Middle East, and is a member of a
local government in Sweden for 23 years, four of which in an executive
position. Lasse Wilhelmson is of Jewish origin and an internet friend.
The other writer’s origin in no known by me but that fact should be
irrelevant.

Ed CorriganStockholm — The
Gaza Strip is now the largest concentration camp in the world. The
situation grows steadily more insufferable for the 1.5 million
Palestinians who live there. Deliveries of food, medicine and fuel are
made difficult or stopped altogether. Child malnutrition is increasing.
Water supplies and drainage have ceased to function. Children die for
lack of healthcare. Tunnels to Egypt, dug by hand, are the only
breathing space. Journalists and diplomats are denied entry. Israel is
planning more military efforts. The Palestinians in Gaza are now to be
starved into surrender and become an Egyptian problem.

The UN
should use the word apartheid in connection with Israel and consider
sanctions with the former South Africa serving as a model. Miguel
dةscoto Brockman, president of the UN General Assembly, conveyed this
message at a meeting on November 24th 2008 with the UN General
Secretary Ban Ki-moon present.

The 1976 Nobel peace prize
laureate, Mairead McGuire from Ireland, recently suggested a popular
movement demanding that the UN revoke Israel’s membership. The
international community now needs to put tangible pressure on Israel in
order to stop its war crimes.

Not once, during the past 60
years, has Israel shown any intention of living up to the requirements
stipulated by the UN, in connection with the country’s membership in
1948, namely that the Palestinians who had been evicted from their
homes should be allowed to return at the earliest possible opportunity.
Moreover, Israel holds the hardly flattering world record of ignoring
UN resolutions.

It can be questioned from the aspect of human
rights legislation whether Israel is a legitimate state. Established
practice between states usually requires borders that are legally
maintained and a constitution, neither of which Israel has. These
requirements are also named in the UN resolution (181) Partition Plan
for Palestine, approved by the General Assembly in November 1947. The
plan was accepted by the Zionists Jews in Palestine but rejected for
excellent reasons as unjust by the Arab states. Only decisions made by
the UN Security Council are mandatory. Later on, Israel unilaterally
laid claim to a considerably larger portion of land than that suggested
by the UN.

The eviction of eighty per cent of the Palestinians
who lived west of the 1947 armistice line, and Israel’s refusal to
allow them to return is the human rights argument for expelling Israel
from the UN. Not only has Israel played the Partition Plan false but
has, by its actions, thwarted the grounds – fragile from the start –
for its UN membership.

Israel makes use of various strategies to
achieve its goals, the same goals as for over a hundred years ago: As
few and as well controlled and weakened Palestinians as possible in
areas as small as possible between the Mediterranean and the River
Jordan. And to try and get acceptance worldwide for the theft of land
that is vital to the “state” that calls itself “Jewish and democratic”.
This obviously bears no similarity to a peace process.

Why does
nobody ever comment on the fact that Israel’s prime minister never
misses an opportunity to harp on about how important it is that the
rest of the world and the Palestinians recognise Israel, not as a
democratic country for all its citizens, but as a “Jewish state”?

What
would we have said if South Africa’s Prime Minister, in a similar way,
had demanded recognition of South Africa as a “white and democratic
state”, thus de facto accepting the racist apartheid system that
allowed non-whites to be classified as lesser human beings?

In
the article The end of Zionism, published in the Guardian on September
the 15th 2003 the Jewish dissident and former speaker of Knesset,
Avraham Burg wrote:

“Diaspora Jews for whom Israel is a central
pillar of their identity must pay heed and speak out … We cannot keep a
Palestinian majority under an Israeli boot and at the same time think
ourselves the only democracy in the Middle East. There cannot be
democracy without equal rights for all who live here, Arab as well as
Jew … The prime minister should present the choices forthrightly:
Jewish racism or democracy.”

No support can be found in The UN
recommendation concerning a Jewish and a Palestinian state for unequal
rights for the citizens of each country. Neither is there any
indication as to how a “Jewish” state could become Jewish. There is
support, however, for the intention that demographic conditions should
be held intact at partition. Interpreting into the text an intention
concerning characteristics of a “Jewish state” tailored to the ideology
of Zionism is wholly in contradiction with the text of the resolution.

Even
the Balfour Declaration, which entirely lacks human rights status,
notes that the Jewish national home in Palestine should in no way
encroach upon the rights of the Palestinians. Neither did US President
Truman recognise Israel as a Jewish state. On the contrary, he ruled
out precisely that formulation before making his decision to recognise
Israel.

Thus, the legitimacy of a “Jewish state” so urgently
sought by Israel lacks support in international documents that concern
the building of the state. Israel’s government is, of course, fully
aware of this. Why else would it keep on searching for this recognition?

The
UN should now embark on a boycott of the apartheid state of Israel and,
with the threat of expulsion from the UN, demand that Israel allows the
evicted Palestinian refugees to return in accordance with the UN
resolutions 194 and 3236.

With this done, meaningful peace talks
can proceed and various solutions be reached for co-habitation with
equal rights for all people between the Mediterranean and the River
Jordan. No such solution can be compatible with the preservation of a
Jewish apartheid state.

– Snorre Lindquist is a Swedish
Architect of, among other things, the House of Culture in front of the
Nativity Church in Bethlehem on the West Bank. — Lasse Wilhelmson is a
commentator on the situation in the Middle East, and is a member of a
local government in Sweden for 23 years, four of which in an executive
position

UN’s "Security Council" won’t revoke "israel’s" UN membership

http://palestinian.ning.com/forum/topics/uns-security-council-wont

By Exilem

An article by Snorre Linquist and Lasse Wilhelmson calling for the
Revocation of “israel’s” membership in the UN, has been recently posted
here in PM, by Telma.
http://palestinian.ning.com/forum/topics/revoking-israels-un-member…

Israel’s UN membership should have never happened in the first place,
given that they are in breach with every fundamental charter principles
of the organization. Today’s transnational web of corruption and
coercion does not exclude the UN, its members, and its core. This call
of revocation is therefor merely symbolic, but has the merit to raise
the question, and to arouse the dulled down mindless public opinion. It
is the right thing to do, but it simply "ain’t gonna happen".

a few excerpts of the UN CHARTER
(emphasis mine)

in Article 3, Chapter II, MEMBERSHIP:
" 1. Membership in the United Nations is open to all other peace-loving states
which accept the obligations contained in the present Charter and, in
the judgment of the Organization, are able and willing to carry out
these obligations."

in Article 5:
"A Member of the United Nations against which preventive or enforcement action has been taken by the Security Council may
be suspended from the exercise of the rights and privileges of
membership by the General Assembly upon the recommendation of the
Security Council. The exercise of these rights and privileges may be restored by the Security Council."

in Article 6:
"A Member of the United Nations which has persistently violated the Principles contained in the present Charter may be expelled from the Organization by the General Assembly upon the recommendation of the Security Council. "

in UN SECURITY COUNCIL’s Membership page:
"The Security Council is composed of five permanent members
— China, France, Russian Federation, the United Kingdom and the United States
and ten non-permament members…"
— Burkina Faso, Vietnam, Costa Rica, Lybian AJ, and Croatia. The 2
years term expires for Belgium, Indonesia, Italy, Panama and south
Africa, and will be replaced in January 2009 by Austria, Japan, Mexico
and Turkey

in RULES OF PROCEDURE:
"Each Council member has one vote. … Decisions on substantive matters require nine votes, including the concurring votes of all five permanent members. This is the rule of "great Power unanimity", often referred to as the "veto" power"

in Article 39, Chapter VII: Action with respect to
THREATS and BREACHES TO the PEACE, and ACTS of AGGRESSION
"The Security Council shall determine the existence of any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression and shall make recommendations…"

The governments of USA, France and United Kingdom, that is 3 out of
the 5 permanent members of the "Security Council" (what a misnomer) are
literally political offsprings of the occupying, terrorizing,
war-mongering, aggressing entity called "israel", and will not
engage in "nine votes, including the concurring votes of all five
permanent members" to sanction their zionist owner, to the contrary,
they diligently vote to promote the zionist owner and given this
context, the following short Article 49 has chilling implications.

Article 49
"The Members of the United Nations shall join in affording mutual
assistance in carrying out the measures decided upon by the Security
Council"

The worm is in the can.

We must face the reality, such propositions and reflections about UN
membership of "israel" are necessary, but they do not have the
detonating energy to free us from the growing internment walls
gradually suffocating humanity. The Zionist entity has hijacked the
system and we have the choice: either we create a tangible movement
destined to tear apart every arcane of their biocidal and ubiquitous
power web and we re-install a civilized system, OR we just give up and
offer our unconditional submission to the World Zionist Order
Organization

For me, the latter is not an option.

Filed under: Articles | Leave a comment »

« Previous Page — Next Page »
The unfiltered mind of Vincent

My life with autism

On the Road Again

“Love recognizes no barriers. It jumps hurdles, leaps fences, penetrates walls to arrive at its destination full of hope.” — Maya Angelou

canadiancaucasians

slip-sliding away.....

Poetry for Palestine

Palestine, Poetry, Truth-Seeking,

the fragrance writer

Poetry collection

Work by Rain Alchemist

Dangling Conversations

Shannie Alvarez

A Gentile with a Jewish Heart

Poetry 365

BRAINCHILD

gehadsjourney.wordpress.com

Diary of an Aesthete

Follow the Journey ☩𓀙𓃦☉

Vinoth Ramachandra

Global Justice in the 21st Century

commentary on global issues

James Perloff

formerly refugebooks.com

billziegler1947

Email to ziegler.bill@gmail.com

barbaramckenzie

| truthaholics

Exposing Truth Behind Media Spin

No Time to Think

The words, poems, stories and thoughts of award winning writer and journalist, Nic Outterside

Palestine Momentum

Writers For Palestine

Muslim Words

مدونة عزت غيث

قوانين، مذكرات، مقالات المحامي عزت غيث مكتب المحامي عزت نصر غيث : عمان - جبل الحسين - دوار فراس - عمارة قدورة تلفون 0797900678 - 0788850180

Strings of Soulfulness

The strings of my life’s soulfulness in the beauty of eternity.

مدوّنة مريم

“Each generation must discover its mission, fulfill it or betray it, in relative opacity.”

YA BAKİ ENTEL BAKİ

"İlahi Ente Maksudi ve Rızake Matlubi"

The question of Palestine

Palestine is still the question

gabrielarad06.wordpress.com/

لماذا غزة؟ Why Gaza?

An American searching for answers in the Middle East

Rehmat's World

"There is no compulsion in religion," - Holy Qur'an

hussienclimateleaders

The Climate Crises

PALESTINE FROM MY EYES

Generating a fearless and humanising narrative on Palestine!

UPROOTED PALESTINIANS: SALAM ALQUDS ALAYKUM

Palestinians are at the heart of the conflict in the M.E Palestinians uprooted by force of arms.. Yet faced immense difficulties have survived, kept alive their history and culture, passed keys of family homes in occupied Palestine from one generation to the next.

The Passionate Attachment

America's entanglement with Israel

Talking Virtually To Myself

Occupied Palestine | فلسطين

Blogging 4 Human Rights & Liberation of Palestine! فلسطين

Mystery Worshiper's Blog

Searching for churches where His law is Love and His gospel is Peace

The Slog

FOR RADICAL REALIST FREE-SPEECH REVOLUTION

Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

John's Consciousness

Exploring our "Inner Evolution"

Sami, The Bedouin.

Writing from and for Palestine