Friday, 26 June 2009

Prisoners Shackled, and Hidden Away


Prisoners Shackled, and Hidden Away
By Mel Frykberg

RAMALLAH, Jun 25 (IPS) - The Public Committee Against Torture in Israel has accused the Israeli security forces of deliberately shackling Palestinian prisoners in a painful and dangerous manner, amounting to a form of torture.

The report, 'Shackling as a Form of Torture and Abuse', based on the evidence of over 500 prisoners, was released in advance of the UN International Day in Support of Torture Victims Friday, Jun. 26.

It follows a report published in May by the UN Committee Against Torture that had criticised the continued mistreatment of Palestinian prisoners by Israel.

The UN report also condemned Israel's refusal to allow access to a secret detention centre known only as 'Facility 1391'.

The report by the Public Committee Against Torture in Israel (PCATI) states that Israel's various security agencies, chiefly the Israeli Defence Forces (IDF) and the General Security Services (GSS), also known as the Israeli Security Agency (ISA), shackle Palestinian prisoners against accepted international standards.

The shackling is not done for restraining purposes or for preventing a detainee from escaping or endangering themselves, says PCATI.

"The shackling is done for invalid and irrelevant reasons, which include causing pain and suffering, punishment, intimidation, and illegally eliciting information and confessions, in violation of domestic law, High Court of Justice rulings and international law," says the report.

Some of those shackled have suffered permanent damage to their limbs – and human rights groups say shackling is only one of the routine forms of torture meted out to Palestinian prisoners.

Israeli rights group B'tselem in its 2007 report 'Absolute Prohibition, The Torture and Ill-Treatment of Palestinian Detainees' asked, "Does the State of Israel respect the absolute prohibition against torture and ill-treatment? The answer to this question would seem to be no.

"In recent years, Israel has officially admitted several times that in 'ticking- bomb' cases, the interrogators of the ISA employ 'exceptional' methods of questioning, including 'physical pressure'."

Together with other rights groups, PCATI successfully petitioned the Israeli High Court of Justice in 1999 asking that certain forms of physical abuse be outlawed. These included abusive shackling, severe beatings and shaking, covering prisoners' heads with hoods coated with excreta, extreme changes of temperature, and painful binding to chairs, amongst others methods.

An exception was made in the case of "ticking-bombs" such as potential suicide bombers. "The problem, however, is that the interrogators are given a lot of leeway as to their interpretation of what constitutes a ticking-bomb," said PCATI's Yohav Loef.

"The courts tend to accept the interpretation of the interrogators, and their application of the exception to the rule of when force can be used, over that of Palestinian detainees," Loef told IPS.

Wassam Ahmed from the Al-Haq human rights organisation agrees with Loef. "Torture and abuse of Palestinians by both the arresting Israeli soldiers and the interrogating officers is rife.

"Actually the Israeli courts have rubber-stamped the abuse of these detainees by leaving such a wide margin for interpretation of the 'ticking-bomb' rule. It is the regular exception swallowing the rule," Ahmed told IPS.

"Any investigations into alleged abuse of the prisoners is carried out by the security services themselves, hardly an independent inquiry," added Ahmed.

Prior's to PCATI's 1999 court petition, the 1987 Landau Commission was appointed to examine ISA interrogation methods. A two-part report was released several months later, but only the first part was made public. "They obviously had something to hide. The bottom line was that various methods of 'physical pressure' were permitted," Loef told IPS.

Meanwhile, in early May the UN Committee Against Torture held hearings in Geneva to review Israel's compliance with the Convention Against Torture (CAT). Ten independent experts from the committee said they found credible submissions from Israeli groups that Palestinian detainees are systematically tortured despite the banning of such practices by the Israeli Supreme Court in 1999.

The committee also criticised Israel's refusal to allow the Red Cross access to the secret 'Facility 1391', dubbed Israel's "secret Guantanamo Bay".

Facility 1391, a largely underground bunker reportedly some 100 km north of Jerusalem, is used to interrogate non-Palestinian Muslims and Arab prisoners from neighbouring countries.

Top Hizbullah officials, who were kidnapped during the eighties from Lebanon by the Israeli military, were held in this facility for years, as were Lebanese prisoners from the 2006 Israel-Lebanon war.

The interrogation methods carried out by the IDF in 1391 are allegedly far harsher than those carried out by the ISA in Palestinian detention centres.

The facility was accidentally discovered in 2002 by Israeli rights group Hamoked as it attempted to trace two missing Palestinian detainees from the West Bank after their families had reported them missing. Due to overcrowding at facilities where Palestinians are normally held, the two had been sent to Facility 1391.

It had remained a secret up until 2002 because the families of Arabs from surrounding countries are not able to trace family members to the same degree that Palestinians can use the Red Cross to find family members in other facilities.

Israel has refused to identify the exact location of 1391, and denied to the UN committee that any prisoners are currently being held there. (END/2009)

Dennis Ross Officially Nominated as Barack Obama's Assistant


Link

26/06/2009 The White House Thursday named veteran Middle East envoy Dennis Ross to a key job overseeing policy in a vast region encompassing the Middle East, the Gulf, Afghanistan, Pakistan and South Asia.

Ross's move from a low profile job in the State Department to the White House had been the subject of intense speculation in Washington's rumor-heavy foreign policy community.

The former Clinton administration pointman on Israeli-Palestinian talks will serve as special assistant to the president to oversee a region encompassing the Middle East, the Gulf, Afghanistan, Pakistan and South Asia.

The White House said he would work with senior officials on some of the most testing US foreign policy challenges, including Iran and Iraq, but denied his new role would conflict with existing US special envoys.

"What the president has done is simply add to a very strong national security team with Dennis ... given the list of countries that they'll be plenty busy," White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said. "I don't think that anybody should, though, believe that this will conflict or supersede the important work that special envoys are doing on the ground in many of these places."

Ross had been serving as a special advisor for the Gulf and southwest Asia at the State Department. He was the head of policy planning at the State Department during the presidency of George H. W. Bush, and the long-time diplomat also served as a senior-level Obama advisor during the 2008 White House race.

Who Killed Neda Soltani?

link

By Eric Verlo
NOT MY TRIBE
- 6/22/2009



neda soltaniThe video footage is shocking. An attractive young womanwatching the demonstrations in Tehran is struck by a sniper’s bullet and dies before several video cameras. The tragedy is projected unto Facebook and Youtube, with advocates hoping it will galvanize (American) public support for the brave reform movement in Iran. News accounts blame “Basij snipers” on the rooftops. Other protesters have been killed in confrontations with Iranian riot police, without the benefit of video witnesses, much like two million Iraqis, Afghans, Pakistanis et al. Poor 27-year-old bystander Neda Soltani stood at the quite improbable convergence of bullet and camera –correction– cameras. I don’t have to suggest the scene was staged; whether or not the triggerman was an American is immaterial.

Think about just the improbability of your seeing this video. When was the last time the mainstream press has circulated a snuff film? The average person is embarrassed to watch a person die. It’s exploitive. Even when America was fixated on beheaded hostages, our television gatekeepers refused to broadcast the footage. Many horrific war killing moments have found their way unto Youtube, which antiwar activists could only hope would find wider distribution, if only to bring home the inhumanity of our soldiers’ deeds. It never happens.

The western press is running with this story because it demonizes the apparently naked inhumanity of Islam. Muslims stone women, hang gays, look: the bastards shoot their own people arbitrarily. Curiously our media doesn’t

neda salehi agha soltanThe Neda Soltani snuff footage hit internet shores prepackaged with a smiling mug, and a name that translated means “the voice.” Could a casting director have picked a better title character to represent Iran’s repressed? The western press is even poised to outdo the Muslims in indignant piety, already lauding Neda as a martyr, whom we are informed should launch a thousand Shiite funeral processions. Western pundits compare Neda to the first Shiite martyr, the grandson of Mohammed himself.

Of course, also showing excessive Islamic sensitivity, western reporters readily dismiss the vanishing of Neda’s body, to the Muslim tradition of hasty burials. For the record, in case you missed it, Neda dies onscreen from an apparent gunshot. We do not see the bullet strike, nor now can anyone habeas corpus.

If the scenario was acted entirely, given the success with which the girl’s face is being made into an icon, young Neda’s life is probably as utterly expendable now as already depicted. You think you’re mourning Neda now, imagine her fate if this is a hoax.

OR the gunman could just as well have been a US black-op hit-man who had his eye on the videographers approaching innocent Neda. The US military has long admitted that special forces are already operating in Iran. If the Iranian forces are shooting civilian protesters, what’s the harm of helping them out where there’s a camera ready?

When we’re not meant to see it, the soldiers shoot the cameramen too.

It could be the work of Moussavi henchmen, who are our henchmen.

The Green Revolution, or TwitterTM Revolution, rebranded a “Social Media Revolution,” is a fabrication of the US pro-democracy agents working to destabilize Iran. They are hard at work in Cuba, in Venezuela, in Bolivia, and everywhere regimes threaten US globalization by enslavement. Remember the Orange Revolution? Any movement that is color-coded is the work of organizers reading US how-to manuals or attending OTPOR training seminars.

Where are the international voices decrying election fraud in Iran? No one other than the US and its stooges is asserting that populist leader Ahmadinejad did not win by a landslide. Only Iran’s urban middle class has taken to the streets of Tehran. And to protest what? Their minority standing in Iran?

The reformists in Iran are protesting democracy, not the failure of democracy. They are protesting Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s hard line against irreligious western economic and colonial policies which traditionally benefit the secular urban elite. “Pro-Democracy” is neoliberal for pro-capitalist plunder.


See: Shah’s Son Backs Iranian Protesters.

Like the “dissidents” of Cuba, the Green greenback-seekers are marching on the CIA’s dime, and being meted the fate of foreign provocateurs. I have no doubt the majority are idealists and are well-intended, but like the Kurds who rose against Saddam Hussein, the US has set them up for slaughter, the sooner to motivate western support for military aggression against their evil regime.

Our media pundits point out that the protest banners are written in English, a sign that the Iranians are desperate to appeal to American viewers. They dismiss Iranian accusations of the demonstrations being US-backed as pure paranoia, and ignore the most simple explanation behind the English slogans, and the websites and networks amplifying the message to English speakers: these materials are being crafted by USAID advisers. This is a propaganda campaign aimed at Western ears, to call for regime change in Iran.

Neda’s Theme is tried and true: Jessica Lynch, Roxana Saberi, Euna Lee and Laura Ling, Neda Salehi Agha Soltan. Onward Christian Soldiers.

Neda Agha Soltan iranian martyr victim of US sniperThe American public won’t believe another fiction about Kuwaiti babies dumped from incubators, or of Belgian children impaled on the bayonets of the evil Hun. So Madison Avenue has upped the amperage. Today’s television armchair adjudicators have to see innocent young women snuffed on film before our eyes. Provided to us by a press too otherwise prurient to show us the mass of death we deal everyday.

The Iranians in the streets, and poor pretty Neda, are being sacrificed by heartless US strategists. I doubt even an errant Iranian bullet can match the American military for cruelty.




Labels: ,

An alternative reading



An alternative reading

Azmi Bishara examines the causes and ramifications of post-election unrest in Iran




Iran does not just have an authoritarian system of government, it has a totalitarian one. It is powerful, highly centralised, with sophisticated administrative and control systems, and it applies an ideology that claims to have answers for everything and that seeks to permeate all aspects of life. Instead of a political party and youth organisations, it relies on mass organisations, such as the Basij, that blend security with ideology and even with the benefit of broad sectors of the populace. It also depends on a broad and well-organised network of mullahs and on a politicised security agency and Revolutionary Guard. However, it differs from other totalitarian systems in two definitive ways.
Firstly, no other totalitarian system has incorporated such a high degree constitutionally codified democratic competition in the ruling order and in its ideology. Political competition is systematised in the form of regularly held elections in which rivals espouse different platforms within the framework of the agreed upon rules of the game, just as do political parties within capitalist frameworks. The difference between Democrats and Republicans in the US is not much greater than that between reformists and conservatives in Iran. Of course, these trends in Iran are not actual political parties, but then neither are the Republicans and Democrats, at least not in the conventional European sense. They are more in the nature of electoral leagues.
The second difference between Iranian totalitarianism and other totalitarian systems is that the official ideology that permeates institutions of government, the public sphere and the educational and other formative systems as the primary definer of identity and shaper of moral and ethical conduct is a real religion embraced by the vast majority of the people. It is not an atheist or secular religion, such as is officially espoused in communist or fascist systems and which is only believed by a clique of apparatchiks whose faith quickly becomes a form of vested interest and is rarely passed on to their children. In Iran a religious doctrine is the state ideology, the clerical hierarchy defines and anchors the state hierarchy, and the lower echelons of the clergy are the intermediaries between the people and the ruling ideology.
These important distinctions are what give the Iranian system a dynamism and vitality that did not exist in Europe's communist or fascist totalitarian systems, even though this system emerged in an "oriental" society that was less technologically advanced than the European ones and coalesced outside the context of European modernism and modernisation that the other systems drew on.
China's ruling party, even in its most open and relaxed phase, sanctions far less political diversity than we have seen in Iran, not only in the form of systematised political rivalries but also in the form of sometimes brutal criticism of the regime, the president and the government. Such tolerance of political diversity was also unheard of in the former Soviet Union and in other totalitarian systems. Looking at Iran from the perspective of its degree of democratic competition, tolerance of criticism and peaceful rotation of authority in accordance with set rules, it is much closer to the pluralistic democracies in the West than to a dictatorial regime. On the other hand, its imposition of an all encompassing ideology, and its attempt to use this to control all aspects of people's public and personal lives, sets it radically apart from Western societies where people's personal lives are regulated through the permeation of market mechanisms into the private individual realm and the permeation of the media into family life. There is an imposed ideology in the US, often referred to as the "American way of life," but it leaves broad scope for the private sphere and individual freedoms, including the freedom of religion, even if it strongly influences this sphere through consumer market mechanisms and the media, which sometimes pose challenges to individual freedom. There is no point here in bringing up the scope of individual or democratic freedoms in Arab authoritarian regimes, dynastic and nepotistic systems incapable of producing either a totalitarian or democratic order, apart from to note the malicious glee some Arabs are displaying in response to events in Iran rather than examining what is happening in their own countries which, one would think, they might suppose more important.
The reformist uprising has arisen within the framework of the Iranian establishment and the accepted rules and principles of the Islamic Republic. The criticisms levelled at the regime on the part of a broad swath of youth who have joined the reformists, especially those from middle class backgrounds who are more in contact with the rest of the world, are reminiscent of the grievances aired by the young in Eastern Europe, who held that their regimes deprived them of their individual and personal freedoms, the freedom to choose their way of life and the Western consumer lifestyle. Of course, as usual, some of these claims are true, others are spread by Western media and some stem from general discontent and a search for new meaning in the modes of political expression.
While not dismissing or belittling such criticism, it is important to bear in mind that these people are not the majority of young people but rather the majority of young people from a particular class. Iran is not a socialist system: there are distinct class gaps, as well as strong intersections between wealth and power, between power and position in the clerical hierarchy, and between wealth and position in the clerical hierarchy (with instances of convergence of power, position and wealth in one and the same person). Differing intersections work to create diverse political and intellectual trends and moods. Most of the youth from the poor sectors of society support Ahmadinejad, just as the poor support Chavez in Venezuela. Remember that Ahmadinejad's in 2005 was a protest vote, mostly on the part of the young, against corrupt conservatives, not just against the reformists. Remember, too, that some reformists are people of principle, fighters for their beliefs, whether or not they took part in the revolution, whereas others in the reformist camp are combining their defence of freedoms with the defence of corruption. (The Arab world abounds in people who combine the defence of economic privileges with the defence of civil liberties. They make up the class of neo-liberals that is distinguished by being neither liberal nor democratic).
The mood among those who think that their votes carry more weight qualitatively than the numerically greater votes of the poor, and who may actually believe that they represent the majority because they form the majority in their own parts of town even if they are the minority in the country, has an arrogant, classist edge. Obviously, it is not a very democratic attitude because as sincerely leftist as it may appear, its liberalness is offset by its underlying elitism. We have met this mood on many occasions. Out of sympathy for the young involved in protest politics some intellectuals (I refer to myself, here, at least) have softened in their duty towards the young. Several years ago in a certain Arab capital, tens of thousands of young people took to the streets chanting slogans for democracy and against sectarianism, at which point intellectual gurus lured them into cheering militia leaders, sectarian chiefs and war criminals as though they were cultural heroes because they were "with us" and "against them". Soon the kids were swept up into racist outpourings against other sects as they all recoiled into their own sectarian mind- sets, in spite of the jeans, the long hair, headbands, and all the other trappings of open-minded progressives that attracted newspapers run by middle aged editors nostalgic for their own student activist days. The intellectual must keep a critical distance if he is to perform his duty towards the young and encourage them towards critical liberationist outlooks and open their eyes to prejudice, myth, illusion and other reactionary traps.
If you want to criticise the electoral system in Iran you should look first at the Guardian Council and the numerous conditions it insists candidates must meet in order to ensure their commitment to the principles of the Islamic Republic. You should also consider the constitutional amendments of 1989 which abolished the position of prime minister and gave his powers to the president, only to transfer presidential powers to the supreme guide, who thus combined temporal powers with spiritual and juridical authority, a metamorphosis of the concept of clerical rule. Now that is a subject to submit to the critical lens and it merits criticism. But this is not where the candidates were coming from. All the political parties, leaders and forces that entered the elections accepted, or claimed to accept, the ground rules. And it is foolish to leap from criticising the ground rules to claiming that the last elections were rigged, unlike the nine presidential elections that preceded it.
Since the 2005 elections the Iranian reform movement has grown weaker and more fragmented, not stronger. The results it obtained came as a surprise to those who know Iran. How could it have resurfaced from the ashes so powerfully after its disintegration in the Khatami era and the repression of its remnants in the universities and elsewhere afterwards? Certainly the recent elections put it back on the map, though not as it once stood, but rather as an ally of a broad spectrum of conservatives. The expectations regarding the power of the reform trend were not founded upon public opinion polls, they were created by the Western and non-Western media opposed to Ahmadinejad, who has ruffled so many feathers at international conferences and diplomatic salons. Ahmadinejad's populist rhetoric has come as a boon to racist Western policies towards the Arabs, Muslims and easterners in general. The certificate of exoneration he has handed Europe for the holocaust is catastrophic in every sense. But Ahmadinejad has also shocked the West with a set of correct principles that challenge the colonialist legacy and that are rarely uttered now that everyone has been tamed to the axioms of Western racist arrogance.
Ahmadinejad is less a representative of Iranian conservatives than a rebel against them from within their own establishment. He has lashed out against them, including corrupt clergy, using the principles of the Islamic revolution as his weapons. He is a conservative of the fundamentalist stripe and wants to restore the revolution to its youthful vigour and gleam. He probably reminds Mousavi of his own youth. This is why his populist rhetoric is more powerful than the reformists' rhetoric. He harks back to Khomeini, and his personal austerity appeals to the broad masses of the poor. He distributes oil revenues among the poor and reaches out to them as a way to compensate for the failure of his economic policies, and his personal probity makes up for his failure to seriously fight corruption. His foreign policies succeeded in reviving national pride by making Iran a central player in the international arena after Iran's international weight had taken a plunge when Khatami (a true reformist) had begun to soften towards the West.
There were no supporters of any Arab regime or any fundamentalist movement in the Arab world among the protesters who took to the streets in Tehran. Therefore, the thrill that overcame some of our Arab brothers had less to do with political ideology than with a kind of malicious glee. The possible alternatives in Iran are:
- A financially corrupt ruling elite, epitomised by Rafsanjani, that is more pragmatic in international affairs and against which Ahmadinejad rebelled in the last elections.
- A reformist-conservative alliance within the framework of the ruling establishment under which corrupt conservatives would rely on such figures as Mousavi and Khatami in order to regain popularity and weaken the hold of the supreme guide. This alliance would be more pragmatic in its foreign relations, head towards dialogue with the new US administration, and strike up an accommodation with the West in exchange for international recognition of the Islamic Republic and its regional role. (Incidentally, for the purpose of the alliance, the conservatives would concede to some of the reformists' demands, but as is the rule in the storm-tossed seas of transitional periods in revolutionary orders, this will prove an ephemeral phase after which the reformists will once again lose the initiative).
- The third alternative I will call metaphorically the "Western" one. The overthrow of the entire order, along the lines of what happened in Eastern Europe, is what broad segments of the illegal opposition inside Iran and abroad are praying for. For the young men and women from well-to-do north Tehran this alternative has been packaged as liberal civil rights, consumerist lifestyle, freedom in how to act and dress, and other such notions that attract young people, that even attracted the sons and daughters of the apparatchiks in Russia and Eastern Europe. The majority of middle and upper class youth did not so much vote for Mousavi as they voted against Ahmadinejad. Still, in Iran, this third alternative will have to pass through the second one first. Unlike the communist regimes the regime in Iran will not collapse in one go.
The Iranian regime will survive the current crisis using the instruments mentioned earlier. However, it will have to address an important question. Will it heed the lessons from this experience, seize the reform banners from the corrupt and ally with the reformist left against the pseudo reformist right? Or will it rely on repression alone, justifying this on the grounds of Western meddling? The last option is a recipe for future and, perhaps, more intense and tragic turmoil.

Are the Jews planning more genocide in the Lebanon?

Link
Posted: 2009/06/26
From: MNN


The NNA described the Israeli military setup as `unusual military activities,` while the Israeli air force carried out several flights over Al-Arqoub village, Hasbaya, Marjeyoun, West Bekaa and Ialim al-Toufah in southern Lebanon

BEIRUT, June 25 (Xinhua) -- The Israeli army has set new military buildup along its border with Lebanon Thursday, amid intensified air force flights over Lebanese territories, the official national News agency (NNA) reported.

Merkava tanks and armored vehicles were deployed along the wired fence separating occupied Shebaa Farms from Lebanese territories, the report said.


The NNA described the Israeli military setup as "unusual military activities," while the Israeli air force carried out several flights over Al-Arqoub village, Hasbaya, Marjeyoun, West Bekaa and Ialim al-Toufah in southern Lebanon.

Israel fought a 34-day devastating war with the Lebanese Shiite armed group Hezbollah in July 2006.

Lebanon is still in a state of war with Israel. However, an Israeli army delegation has proposed to a Lebanese military delegation Wednesday during a meeting sponsored by UN interim forces in Lebanon (UNIFIL), direct political bilateral talks between the government of Lebanon and Israel, according to a report by local As-Safir daily Thursday.

The Lebanese side replied that the Lebanese government instructions were limited to discuss the implementation of UN Resolution 1701.

Resolution 1701 ended the Israeli-Hezbollah war in 2006, and set restrictions on both sides to cease all acts of hostility. #

Haaretz: Shalit Transfer to Egypt Imminent as Part of US Initiative


Link

26/06/2009 Captured Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit will be transferred to Egypt within a few days as part of a swap deal with Hamas, Haaretz quoted European diplomatic sources as saying Thursday. The move is part of a new United States initiative that includes Egyptian and Syrian efforts with Hamas, internal Palestinian reconciliation and Israel's opening of the Gaza crossings.

According to the Israeli daily, a reliable European source said this Egyptian-brokered agreement was reached two days ago. A Palestinian source confirmed the report last night but officials in Tel Aviv denied any knowledge of it.

The idea to transfer Shalit to Egypt in exchange for the release of Palestinian women, teens, cabinet ministers and parliamentarians being held in Israeli prisons was raised about a year ago during a visit by former U.S. president Jimmy Carter to Damascus, occupied Jerusalem and Gaza. Apparently Carter raised it again on his visit earlier this month, during which he met Noam Shalit, Gilad's father.

According to the plan Shalit will be entrusted to Egyptian intelligence, and his parents will be allowed to visit him. He will be returned to Israel after an agreement is reached regarding the list of Hamas detainees to be released that was previously submitted to the cabinet.

The European source said Shalit's transfer to Egypt was the first stage of the Egyptian-brokered agreement hammered out between Fatah, Hamas and other Palestinian factions, in coordination with the U.S. and with Syria's support.

The deal would put the Gaza Strip under the leadership of a joint committee subordinate to Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas.
On Tuesday Palestinian news agency Maan quoted Egyptian sources as saying that Shalit was to be transferred from the Gaza Strip into Egypt within hours, a report that Israeli sources denied.

Shalit was captured on June 25, 2006 by group of Palestinian factions.

Israel this week freed Palestinian Legislative Council Speaker and Hamas member Aziz Dweik after three years in prison.

Hamas politburo chief Khaled Meshal said yesterday he welcomes U.S. President Barack Obama's new approach to the Middle East, but is waiting to see action.
Meshal said the only way for Israel to win Shalit's release is by striking "a full deal," and not "the way of obduracy" which he claims was characteristic of Olmert.
********************************
"Mashaal reasserted Hamas’ commitment to free Palestinian prisoners languishing in Zionist jails, detention camps and dungeons.He pointed out that there were as many as 12, 000 Palestinian prisoners detained in Zionist custody, including 400 children, the youngest of whom is Yousuf al Zeq, who is only 15 months’ old.“What is preventing a prisoner swap deal from seeing the light is Israeli intransigence. Otherwise, we are willing to carry out a serious deal that would release our prisoners from Zionist jails.”

Mazin Qumsiyeh - A Tale of Two Trains

Link

By Guest Post • Jun 25th, 2009 at 20:38 • Category: Analysis, Israel, Newswire, Palestine, Religion, Somoud: Arab Voices of Resistance, Zionism

In this my first week back in North America, I was reminded that there are two Americas: a decent caring one and one of delusion.

This is as if there are two trains heading to different destinations. The hypocrisy train has big PR budgets, has a huge lobby that managed to get most of the politicians in its pocket and speaks of constant threats to poor Israel (and "democracy"). Its agents in the media like Wolf Blitzer (who used to be a Zionist lobbyist before he became a CNN anchor) push openly for confrontation with Iran after they pushed for confrontation with Iraq. They now interview protestors in Iran who are opposed to the government but will not present the other side. The same cabal refuses to even interview one Palestinian protestor fighting a far more repressive apartheid government of Israel. That is the train that has many starry-eyed passengers, a train that uses double standards and contorted logic to justify ethnic cleansing and distracts attention from other realities with lies and new conflicts. This is the train whose willing and unwilling soldier passengers marshal on the path of destruction thinking they have no choice.

Subservient/obedient academics on panels in Toronto in the last three days at the conference on mapping models for the future in Israel/Palestine provided excellent examples. Many stated things like this (some with blinking eyes, others apparently sincerely believing this stuff): that refugees have no right to return to their homes and lands, that religion makes a nationality, that Jews are unique and special, that the victims need to assure those who robbed them of their lands that they are safe and guilt free, that if you advocate for equality and justice then you are an anti-semite (or anti-peace at best), that if you are for a one-state solution then you are advocating endless conflicts, that if you speak for boycotts and won't collaborate with apartheid elites then you are hateful, and much more. What is bizarre is that some of those folks are considered the moderates (there were protestors passing out flyers with even worse attitudes). These people recline onto their train chairs ignoring mountains of evidence and mountains of experiences of failure in the past. They lack self-introspection and are unable or unwilling to question where their train is heading even as the warning signs of the approaching cliff are everywhere.

The other train is finally beginning to get its engine revved up and voices of conductors are beginning to speak truth to the powers that be. They invite deluded passengers from the other train to find out what is going on and some do switch trains but others hurl insults. In the conference at York, voices were heard from both trains. (Read abstracts for the talks). On the subject of Palestine, it cannot be any clearer despite the valiant attempts by defenders of Zionism to hide it: you are either with morality and justice or you are with apartheid, ethnic cleansing and oppression. In the conference at York, the best speech I heard was by George Bisharat which I hope I can share with you soon. In the meantime, perhaps a taste of the thinking is George's article "Maximizing Rights: The One State Solution to the Palestinian-Israeli Conflict"

The question that kept coming to my mind is, "why can't we live together?" Why do some believe in "solutions" based on segregation and ghettos in the guise of endless peace process industry which may lead to "two states".

Now for a brief comment on Iran. IMHO, the first thing the US has to do is demonstrate convincingly (and not via a pathetic speech in Cairo) that the West will act fairly to challenge oppression wherever it occurs. To demonstrate that convincingly, we must start with our 'allies' especially Israel (and Egypt and Saudi Arabia). The US could change the dynamic in Iran in two months if it gives Israel two months to comply with all relevant United Nations resolutions including withdrawal from the occupied territories and allowing the refugees to return to their homes and lands. The US government does have that power to do this (see Eisenhower's strong stance in 1956 as an example). That message of real change would indeed change the political landscape in the Middle East. The US should then meet with ALL political forces in the Middle East (Israel, Hamas, and Hizballah included) to chart a new future in that part of the world that is based on justice. That will unleash the enormous economic potential of an integrated, liberated Middle East in which people of various religions (Judaism, Christianity, Islam, etc.) can build a more equitable future.

The hypocracy train thinks it is heading to a destination of subservient masses of Muslims under a dominance of Zionism using western proxy armies (they saw Iraq and Afghanistan as first stations and now have Iran in the cross hairs). But it actually will lead to the same destination as the second train (just with far more bloodshed and a far longer, more tortuous road). Those in the peace movement are being confused by propaganda. They are being told that the Iraq invasion was imperialist (without clarifying that Zionism now sits at tables of power if not at the throne of imperialism). Facts about who pushed for the war on Iraq and is pushing for conflict in and on Iran are being suppressed diligently. Instead of fighting for democracy here in the US where AIPAC and other special interests rule the show, many are being distracted with things they have no understanding of.

How many have been to Iran and really know what is going on in that country of 60+ million? How many know that not one Iranian lost his home and land in the last 30 years of this (admittedly not a nice) government rule? How many know that 7 million of the 10 million Palestinians in the world are refugees or displaced people (all thanks to "Western" support of Zionism or more accurately, Zionism's hold on Western countries). How many know the real history of the "Western Wars" (World War I and II) let alone the eastern ones (the history of US and British destructive meddling in Iran and Iraq beginning with the 1919-1920 occupations through the engineered toppling of any democratic governments to install people like the Shah and Saddam Hussein). That is what makes the Western Media (managed by special interests and with Zionists in key positions) focus on Iran as a "threat". As one US ex Secretary of State said "you tell me Israel is our only friend in the region, I tell you that before Israel we had no enemies in the region". Before Israel indeed, we had no radical Islamic movements and the population in the Middle East was moving towards modernity (just look at old Egyptian movies as one of millions of examples). Of course we cannot blame Israel for everything. The people need to take responsibility. As individuals we have a choice. But I have already rambled on too much and let us leave that for another email.

On to more events in the US. I'll be in Pittsburgh for the next three days. For those of you in Boston area, here is an event you can attend:

We are pleased to invite you to this Cambridge presentation, which will be followed by a Q&A session.

Wednesday, July 1st, 7 pm
Senior Center, 806 Mass Ave, Central Sq
Cambridge, Massachusetts

Mazin Qumsiyeh is here from Palestine on a month-long North American tour. "Israeli colonization of Palestine: why it matters to the US and the world"

Free, open, accessible, to be videotaped.

Note that we can allow in only the first 120 people; others will have to be turned away, unfortunately. Report from the ground: After we will move to Andala's: 286 Franklin St, Central Square, Cambridge. Andala's is a short walk from the Senior Center.

Mazin Qumsiyeh, PhD
A bedouin in cyberspace, a villager at home
http://qumsiyeh.org/

http://axisoflogic.com/artman/publish/Article_56146.shtml


or


Tagged as: , , , ,



Guest Post is the author as indicated in the tagline. He/she (or the source that is indicated within the post) reserves the rights to the material published.
Email this author All posts by Guest Post

Video: Nahr al-Bared "Two Years Under Siege"

Video: Nahr al-Bared "Two Years Under Siege"
a-films, Electronic Lebanon, 25 June 2009



Two years after it was destroyed in the wake of fighting between the Lebanese army and a militant group, the fate of the Palestinian refugee camp, Nahr al-Bared remains unclear. Reconstruction of the official camp may start soon, but so far this has been delayed as the Lebanese army keeps a tight grip on the camp. Several checkpoints, barbed wire and military posts cut Nahr al-Bared off from its surroundings, making it difficult for the camp's residents and visitors to come and go as they wish.

Nahr al-Bared refugee camp used to be a thriving marketplace in the northern Lebanese region of Akkar; about half of the consumers were Lebanese. After it declared victory of the Fatah al-Islam militant group, the Lebanese army held complete control over the camp. Homes and businesses were looted, smashed and burnt. The camp's once flourishing economy was physically eliminated. آ

Today, about half the camp's population has returned to an area adjacent to the camp. Hundreds of businesses have re-opened, but economic recovery is severely hampered by the tight siege imposed by the Lebanese army. Some camp residents have come to believe that the war's actual target wasn't Fatah al-Islam, but Nahr al-Bared's economic life.

In this 10-minute film, the co-owner of an ice cream factory, the president of the local traders committee and the imam of the al-Quds Mosque, all Palestinian refugees, speak about the siege and its economic consequences.

a-films is an anarchist film collective currently focusing its work on the destroyed Nahr al-Bared refugee camp in northern Lebanon. Through workshops, the group aims to promote film-making as a tool for political struggles. The above video is available for downloading in high quality and translated into multiple languages at the a-films website.

PALESTINIAN VIOLENCE OVERSTATED, JEWISH VIOLENCE UNDERSTATED: TIME TO CHANGE STORY

Link

By Ira Chernus

Following an Israeli missile strike, a Palestinian man attempts to douse flames from a fuel tank. (Photo: Xinhua / AP)

Following an Israeli missile strike, a Palestinian man attempts to douse flames from a fuel tank. (Photo: Xinhua / AP)on the Middle East conflict - and got a big surprise. In September 2008, 69% of Americans called themselves pro-Israel. Now, it's only 49%. In September, the same 69% wanted the U.S. to side with Israel; now, only 44%.


The Israel Project hired pollster Stanley Greenberg to test American opinion

How to explain this dramatic shift? Greenberg himself suggested the answer years ago when he pointed out that, in politics, “a narrative is the key to everything.” Last year the old narrative about the Middle East conflict was still dominant: Israel is an innocent victim, doing only what it must do to defend itself against the Palestinians. Today, that narrative is beginning to lose its grip on Americans.

Well, to be more precise, the first part of the old narrative is eroding. Nearly half the American public seems unsure that Israel is still the good guy in the Middle East showdown. But the popular image of the Palestinians as the violent bad guy is apparently as potent as ever. The number of Americans who say they support Palestine remains unchanged from last September, a mere 7%. And only 5% want the U.S. government to take such a position.

Those numbers reflect the narrative that President Obama recited in Cairo on June 4th. He chided the Israelis for a few things they are doing wrong – like expanding settlements and blockading Gaza. To the other side, though, his message was far blunter: “Palestinians must abandon violence.” Of Israeli violence he said not a word.

The president’s speech implicitly sanctioned the most up-to-date tale that dominates the American mass media and public opinion today: The Israelis ought to be reined in a bit, but it’s hard to criticize them too much because, hey, what would you do if you had suicide bombers and rockets coming at you all the time?

That view is a political winner here. In the latest Pew poll, 62% of Americans say Obama is striking the right balance between Israel and Palestine; of those who disagree, three-quarters want to see him tougher on the Palestinians, not the Israelis. A Rasmussen poll finds even stronger support for a pro-Israel tilt.

There are, however, two things wrong with his narrative. First, though it’s somewhat less one-sided than the story that prevailed during the George W. Bush years, it is far from impartial, which means the U.S. still cannot act as an even-handed broker for peace in the region. Since no one else is available to play that role, it’s hard to see how, under the present circumstances, any version of a peace process can move forward.

The second problem is that the popular narrative just doesn’t happen to match the facts. In reality, unjustified violence is initiated on both sides – and if anyone insists on keeping score, Israel’s violence, official and unofficial, outweighs the violence coming from the Palestinians.

Coming to Grips with Jewish Settler Violence

Israeli violence is often overlooked here because so much of it is done by official order of the state. Americans are quick to side with the man who wears the badge. Even when he lets loose the kind of violence that recently devastated parts of the Gaza Strip, the reigning assumption is that his gun is a force for law and order.

But what about the kind of violence Palestinians are so often accused of, the unauthorized civilian-on-civilian kind – what the experts term “non-state-actor violence” and the rest of us simply call “terrorism”? Though you may not know this, much of it these days is done by Israeli Jews.

“Palestinian civilians bear brunt of settler violence,” Agence France-Presse recently reported: “Nestled amid rolling hills and with an eagle eye’s view to the Mediterranean coast, Nahla Ahmed’s house has all the elements of Eden … if it weren’t for the Molotov cocktail-throwing neighbours. ‘We put bars on the windows after the first attack, three years ago,’ says the 36-year-old mother of four. ‘Now they come each week.’”

The attacks aren’t always with Molotov cocktails; sometimes Jewish settlers throw tear gas canisters, simply spray a Star of David on a wall, or cut down trees owned by Palestinians. In other incidents, settlers have shot and killed a 16-year-old boy, fractured the skull of a 7-year-old girl with a rock, set a dog on a 12-year-old boy, and shot dead an Arab man but let his companion go when he identified himself as Jewish. These are not egregious, isolated cases of mayhem; they’re just a few random examples of what’s happening all too often on the West Bank. To see how depressingly common such violence is, just Google “West Bank settler violence” for yourself.

It’s easy enough to see what the violence looks like too, since a lot of it has been captured on video. And this is just violence against people. The violence against property is far too common to begin to catalog.

Last December, Jewish settlers in Hebron went on a rampage, shooting at Palestinians, setting fire to homes, cars, and olive groves, defacing mosques and graves. Ehud Olmert, Israel’s prime minister at the time, said he was “ashamed” of this “pogrom.”

Yet few such settler crimes are seriously prosecuted by the Israeli authorities. The Israeli rights group Yesh Din has documented this in an extensive report, which, the group carefully notes, is merely one more in a long line of similar reports:

“Since the 1980’s many reports have been published on law enforcement upon Israelis in the Occupied Palestinian Territory. All of the reports … warned against the failure of the authorities to enforce the law effectively upon Israelis … who committed offenses against Palestinian civilians … Yet the problem of attacks against Palestinian people and property by Israelis has only grown worse, becoming a daily occurrence.”

Assessing Hamas Violence

Jewish settlers who commit violence claim just what the Israeli government claims when it directs state-sponsored violence at Palestinian areas: Self-defense – it was nothing but self-defense. And it’s certainly true that there are incidents of individual Palestinians venting their frustration violently. After all, they’ve been living under an arbitrary, demeaning, and sometimes brutal occupation for 42 years.

According to the common Israeli and American narratives, however, the real culprit and chief roadblock to peace is the constant violence – suicide bombings and rocket attacks – planned and carried out by a well-organized political party, Hamas. Again, as it happens, this popular version of events is simply not borne out by the facts.

Consider suicide bombings. In 2003 Israel’s premier newspaper, Ha’aretz, reported that Hamas had decided “to stop terror against Israeli civilians if Israel stops killing Palestinian civilians.” Though it’s not clear that Israel did stop its own killings, Hamas soon halted its devastating suicide attacks. There were two in 2004 and not a single one in the nearly five years since then, according to the Jewish Virtual Library run by the American-Israeli Cooperative Enterprise (a source hardly sympathetic to Hamas).

The same source counts no “major attacks” on Israeli civilians by any Palestinians since 2006. Though there have been other attacks since then, their frequency has dropped dramatically, and none have been carried out by Hamas itself.

Israelis generally know what most Americans still don’t: Suicide bombing, supposedly the trademark of “Palestinian terrorism,” has virtually ceased. As a result, Israel’s chief complaint has switched to Hamas rocket attacks. How can we let them have the West Bank, the argument goes? Look what happened when we pulled all our settlements out of Gaza and got nothing in return but thousands of rockets. That’s why we had no choice but launch our full-scale assault on Gaza in December 2008: to put an end to them.

In fact, though, Hamas rocket attacks had ended in July 2008, when Israel agreed to the ceasefire Hamas had been asking for. That agreement held for four months until Israeli troops killed six Hamas operatives – shortly before Hamas and Fatah were scheduled to create a unified government. It’s a familiar Israeli tactic: block Palestinian unity and then complain of “no partner for peace.”

Hamas was also moved by the plight of its people in Gaza, growing increasingly short of food, medical supplies, and other basic goods due to an ever-tightening Israeli blockade.

Yet all this is lost in the story that most Israelis tell, and most Americans believe, about why Hamas began shooting rockets (which, compared to the massive Israeli onslaught in response, did relatively little damage). Equally lost is Hamas’s return to its moratorium on firing rockets after the recent Gaza war, formally confirmed by the party’s leader, Khaled Meshal, in the New York Times.

Occasional rockets do fly out of Gaza, provoking the usual Israeli demand that Palestinian authorities must prevent every single incident of violence before there can be any talk of peace. That’s something like holding the U.S. government responsible for the recent shooting at the Holocaust Museum in Washington or the 1995 bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City.


A Mirror Image?

Still, the Palestinian governments in both Gaza and the West Bank could do more to control the private violence of their people, just as the Israeli government could do more to control Jewish settler violence. Yet none of these governments act vigorously because they risk alienating a small but significant portion of their political support.

As the Times’s Ethan Bronner recently wrote: “There are striking parallels between the hard-core opponents of a peace deal on each side. They are generally driven by a belief in a law higher than any created by human legislatures; they are exceptionally motivated; and they are very well organized … Many Israeli governments have fallen over the issue.”

For the risk of offending hard-core groups, neither side sees obvious countervailing political gain. While a minority on both sides condemns the violence of its compatriots, the majority seems to accept it as an excessive, unfortunate, but understandable response to provocations initiated by the enemy. So neither Hamas, nor Fatah, nor the Israeli government see any clear advantage in bending over backwards to stop attacks by non-state groups.

What’s more, as Uri Avnery, the grand old man of the Israeli peace movement, explains: “On both sides, the overwhelming majority want an end to the conflict but do not believe that peace is possible – and each side blames the other.” Each side blames the other because so many on each side believe that those who perpetrate the violence represent the entirety of the other side. We could have peace, the universal complaint goes, if only “the Palestinians” or “the Israelis” would stop their violence.

The tragedy is that, on both sides, those who inflict violence gain little of practical value from it. Indeed the motives that keep the conflict boiling may have little to do with any hope of practical gain from it. When researchers asked nearly 4,000 Israelis and Palestinians what it would take to make peace, few focused on tangible benefits like gaining more land or resources. Most on both sides wanted see “their enemies making symbolic but difficult gestures.” They agreed that they would be willing to make concessions, but only if “the other side agreed to a symbolic sacrifice of one of its sacred values.” The violence done by non-state actors is perversely satisfying, even if ultimately useless, because it’s the most visible way to win little symbolic victories.


A New Narrative

Palestinians can argue, with good reason, that treating the two sides as mirror images creates a false equivalence. After all, one side is the occupier, constantly inflicting symbolic defeats through the use of state-sponsored violence that dwarfs the violence of its private citizens, or sometimes even more powerfully just by using its ability to re-organize the landscape. The other side is the occupied, a people with virtually no tools of state violence to wield even if they want to, struggling every day just to survive. In the U.S. and around the world there is growing pressure to reverse the traditional narrative of these last decades and turn the Israelis into the bad guys.

Given the tiny fraction of Americans who identify as pro-Palestinian, it’s fruitless to think that a majority of us would ever adopt such a reversed narrative – nor would it be very helpful, regardless of the facts. If the Obama administration really intends to be an even-handed broker, forcing the two sides to move towards genuine compromise at the negotiating table, it needs to represent a nation that tells an even-handed story.

Old narratives don’t die out simply because they fail to fit the facts. They die out when a more appealing story comes along. The eroding support for Israeli policies in this country signals a growing appetite for a new, more even-handed narrative, one that says this:

The crucial conflict is not between Israel and Palestine. It’s between peace and violence. Violence comes from both sides. But there’s also the possibility of fostering a strong push for peace on both sides. Here in the U.S., we should urge our government to stop taking sides in the blame game, condemn all the violence – including, for the first time, Israeli violence – and support all forces of peace that exist or arise.

It is hard for many of my fellow Jews to accept the painful truth that we are as capable of violence as the Palestinians, or anyone else. But this new narrative is gaining ground rapidly in the American Jewish community, where groups like J Street and Brit Tzedek v’Shalom are making well-organized efforts to promote it and act upon it.

As non-Jewish Americans become aware of that change, they are likely to feel freer to adopt the even-handed narrative as their own, too. When enough of them do, the political winds in this country will change. Then the White House will feel safe enough to tell Israel, as well as Palestine, to stop both state and non-state violence. That’s a necessary first step for an even-handed broker who hopes to open a path to peace.

Source: www.truthout.org

————

Ira Chernus is Professor of Religious Studies at the University of Colorado at Boulder and author of “Monsters To Destroy: The Neoconservative War on Terror and Sin.” He can be reached at chernus@colorado.edu.

June 25, 2009 Posted by Elias

A Palestine website in Australia

A Palestine website in Australia
http://www.australiansforpalestine.com



A lot has been happening on Palestine in the news and in advocacy and while we are keen to give our supporters and people with an interest in Palestine/Israel issues regular updates and reports on the latest developments, there is really too much to send via email. This is why we have tried to create for you a website that will be a reliable source of information and a “notice-board” of activities. Articles are carefully selected from many media outlets to bring you some of the best available and in some cases we provide our own commentaries.

We are hoping that our website will not only provide you with the latest information on issues concerning Palestine/Israel, but also an overview of the advocacy work that is being done here in Australia. Letters written by supporters to the media with newspaper links are listed daily and educational material produced by Australians for Palestine has been made available for you to download at your own convenience.

See our new Apartheid pamphlet – part of a series currently being developed.

As our website has been recently re-vamped, much of the archived material from our old site has still not been added to the new one, but in due course it will be. In the meantime, we hope that you will find the website a good source of news, commentary and useful information on Palestine from an Australian perspective. Archives and Archives by Category allow you to catch up on anything you may have missed in the past months. More segments are being planned as soon as time permits.

If you wish us to add any activity, article or news item, please write and let us know.

Sonja Karkar

Editor

Australians for Palestine

Below are extracts of some of the articles posted on our website:


JONATHAN COOK: Israeli Firms Accused of Profiting off Holocaust

Families Battle for Assets in Court – “This isn’t Switzerland.”


Nazareth, Israel — Israel’s second largest bank will be forced to defend
itself in court in the coming weeks over claims it is withholding tens of
millions of dollars in “lost” accounts belonging to Jews who died in the
Nazi death camps.

Bank Leumi has denied it holds any such funds despite a parliamentary
committee revealing in 2004 that the bank owes at least $75 million to the families of several thousand Holocaust victims.

Analysts said the bank’s role is only the tip of an iceberg in which Israeli companies and state bodies could be found to have withheld billions of dollars invested by Holocaust victims in the country — dwarfing the high-profile reparations payouts from such European countries as Switzerland. Read more . . .

http://www.australiansforpalestine.com

An open letter to President Obama from Christian
Peacemaker Teams

Dear President Obama,

On Tuesday June 15th, you said of the protests in Iran, “When I see peaceful dissent being suppressed, whenever that takes place, it is of concern to me and it is of concern to the American people.” For the last 13 years, Christian Peacemaker Teams have witnessed the brutal suppression of peaceful dissent here in Palestine. In the city of Hebron and the village of At-Tuwani, CPT supports vibrant Palestinian nonviolent resistance to Israel’s military occupation. Every day, Palestinians hold nonviolent demonstrations and defy curfews and closed military zones. They rebuild demolished homes and work their land despite the threat of arrest and attack. Though their struggle is largely ignored by the media, we find inspiration in the way Palestinians are working for justice and peace. Read more…

http://www.australiansforpalestine.com

NADIA HIJAB: Freedom from Fear

The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is but one element in two important and starkly different speeches delivered in the Middle East this month — by Barack Obama in Egypt on June 4, and by Benjamin Netanyahu in Israel, June 14.

The real story is bigger than that. It’s about the beginning of freedom from fear. To understand the stakes, it helps to remember that the Israeli prime minister was an early fellow traveler of the American neoconservatives.

In 1996 Richard Perle, Douglas Feith and other neocons laid out, in a
strategy paper for Netanyahu, the intellectual foundations for the policies that shaped the Bush years. Read more…

http://www.australiansforpalestine.com

AMIN ABBAS: Palestine is our home

Since Benjamin Netanyahu’s recent trip to Washington to meet Obama, there’s been plenty of discussion over the future of Palestine-Israel. It appears to many that we’re seeing a genuine opportunity for movement on the stalled peace process. Obama is keen on two-states. Netanyahu, under pressure, has mentioned the possibility of a (highly conditional) Palestinian “state”, but is nonetheless content with the Palestinians out of sight behind the Wall. Israelis want Israel for Jewish people everywhere. Read More…

http://www.australiansforpalestine.com

WHY CAN’T NEWSPAPERS FIGURE OUT HOW TO INCORPORATE QUALITY LOCAL BLOGGERS ?

Link

6/25/2009 05:39:00 AM Reporter: Editor Publisher Hiyam Noir






A Palestinian View

By Khalid Amayreh


Journalist — Occupied Palestine


It is hard to treat with indifference President Obama's speech in Cairo on 4 June, 2009.The speech itself seemed to represent an ostensible departure from the virulent anti-Islam rhetoric which very much characterized the general discourse of the former Bush administration.

Needless to say, the calumnies and canards concocted by Bush against the world's 1.5 billion Muslims; using the term "Islamofascists" and claiming that Muslims "hate our freedoms" effectively put the United States and Islam on a virtual collision course.

Eventually, this sullen hostility to Islam and Muslims found expression in the genocidal wars of aggression the United States and its allies waged against Muslims, resulting in the invasion, occupation, and the destruction of two sovereign Muslim states.

Hence, it is laudable to see the Obama Administration making a real effort to mend relations with Muslims, and trying to refurbish America's tarnished image throughout the Muslim world.

Nonetheless, Muslims, especially Arabs and Palestinians, should not be carried away by the false euphoria accompanying the speech although arguably balanced — by the American standard — and ostensibly friendly it may be.

Rehtoric Cloaked in the Same Policy


Will the creation of that contemplated Palestine involve full and total Israeli evacuation from the West Bank, including East Jerusalem?

If we put symbolism and matters of style apart, one is left with the inescapable conclusion that Obama did not really come up with any real surprises in terms of actual policies, especially with regard to the Palestinian issue; the main and enduring point of contention between the United States and the Muslim world.

His assertion of the two-state solution is hardly a surprise. George Bush had spoken ad nauseam of his vision of seeing a Palestinian state living side by side with Israel in peace.

Bill Clinton had done the same thing while allowing Israel to keep up building Jewish-only colonies on Palestinian stolen lands.

In his remarks about the Palestinian issue, Obama actually left many questions unanswered as to the nature of the Palestinian state for which he has declared his support and backing.

For example, will the creation of that contemplated state involve full and total Israeli evacuation from the West Bank, including East Jerusalem?

And what would be the fate of the huge Jewish colonies in and around Al-Quds, such as Pisgat Zeev, French Hell, Har Homa, and Maali Adomim — to mention just a few colonies? Would these colonies be dismantled or annexed to Israel?

Indeed, even Israel itself does not really object to the creation of a Palestinian state as long as the Zionist regime has the final say in determining all the characteristics of such a state.

Next week, Israeli Prime Minister Benyamin Netanyahu will deliver a speech in which he is expected to declare his "acceptance" of the two-state solution.

However, Netanyahu is likely to insist that Israel must be in control of that state's "borders", border-crossings, air space, territorial water, underground water, telecommunications channels, and international relations.

Netanyahu will also insist that the prospective state would have to be totally demilitarized and deprived of any right to make treaties with foreign states.

In other words, Netanyahu will propose a state with a form and a name, but without any substance. In fact, it would be an insult to language to call such a deformed brat a state.More to the point, Netanyahu is likely to invoke the mantra of "two states for two peoples".

It suggests that the Zionist state would have the right — at a certain point in the future — to expel its 1.6 million strong Palestinian citizens to the future Palestinian entity on the ground that Israel is an exclusively Jewish state where only Jews could enjoy equal rights as citizens.

Ignoring International Law Obama spoke laconically of Jerusalem becoming a home for the three monotheistic religions. Interestingly, Obama made no mention whatsoever of the rule of international law and its relevance to the Palestinian plight.

This fact alone generates a lot of suspicions and misgivings about the credibility of the president's commitment to pursuing a just and durable resolution of the conflict in Palestine.

According to international law, every centimeter of the West Bank, Gaza Strip, and East Jerusalem is an occupied territory.

This principle was reasserted in 2004 by the International Court of Justice in the Hague in its famous ruling on the Apartheid Wall which Israel erected in the West Bank, as well as by numerous UN resolutions.

Moreover, Obama spoke laconically of Jerusalem becoming a home for the three monotheistic religions. However, he did not say if he was alluding to East Jerusalem or West Jerusalem or both.

If indeed he meant East Jerusalem, then this would be utterly unacceptable to the Palestinian people and their Arab and Muslim brethren all over the world, because Al-Quds Al-Sharif is an occupied territory.

In fact, even the United States itself does not recognize the Israeli annexation of Al-Quds, and has repeatedly refused to transfer its embassy to the Holy City due to its status.

Besides, what about West Jerusalem? Does not Obama realize that Palestinian refugees own more than 90 percent of land in West Jerusalem?

So, one is prompted to ask if Mr. Obama believes that a theft becomes legal and lawful after the passage of 60 years?

Moreover, does Obama really think it is fair to allow Jews to possess property and real estate in East Jerusalem while Palestinians are denied the same right to reclaim their own property, including homes and lands in such West Jerusalem neighborhoods as Al-Malha, Ein Karem, Lifta, Dir Yasin, Beit Mahsir, Deir Aban, and the like?

One of the subjects conspicuously absent from Obama's Cairo speech was the right of return for millions of Palestinian refugees who were brutally uprooted from their ancestral homeland when Israel was created in Palestine in 1948.

Needless to say, the right of return is the soul and heart of the Palestinian issue, and without addressing it justly and sincerely, no possible peace deal can last long and withstand the tests of time.

Condoning Israeli Atrocities


Does or does not the usurped victim have the right, even the duty, to resist her/his attacker? This is why Obama's failure to even mention this fundamental element of the Israeli-Palestinian strife does not augur well for the future and for peace.

Furthermore, Obama called on the Palestinians to abandon violence, saying that "resistance through violence and killing is wrong and does not succeed." Well, should not Mr. Obama have also called on Israel to abandon violence against the Palestinians?

Does not he realize that Palestinian "violence" is in the final analysis a mere "effect" or inevitable reaction to an overwhelming "cause" which is the enduring Israeli occupation?

After all, the occupation itself is the ultimate form of violence and oppression since it deprives its victims of their human rights, freedoms, and dignity. Indeed, the occupation is an act of usurpation.

So, I would most candidly want to ask Mr. Obama the following question: Does or does not the usurped victim have the right, even the duty, to resist her/his attacker?

Finally, in his speech,Obama spoke elaborately of Jewish suffering at the hands of theEuropeans.

Well, as human beings and as Muslims, we do sympathize with Jewish and non-Jewish suffering.

However, showing sympathy and understanding is one thing, but being demanded that we pay the price for this undeniably legitimate suffering is quite another.

It is unfair, unjust, and immoral to demand that the longest-suffering people in modern history, the Palestinians, who have inhabited and toiled the land of Palestine since time immemorial, to be coerced to pay the price for the Nazi atrocities of European Jewry seven decades ago.

________________________________________

Khalid Amayreh is a journalist living in Palestine. He obtained his MA in journalism from the University of Southern Illinois in 1983. Since the 1990s, Mr. Amayreh has been working and writing for several news outlets among which is Aljazeera.net, Al-Ahram Weekly, Islamic Republic News Agency (IRNA), and Middle East International. He can be reached through politics.indepth@iolteam.com




© Copyright reserved 2003 - 2009 PalestineFreeVoice
Intellectual Rights Retained