Monday, January 29, 2007
Guilford College Assault: Faris Khader, Omar Awartani, and Osama Sabbah, three international students from Palestine, who were allegedly lynched by as many as fifteen members of Guilford College's Football team, five of whom are charged with ethnic intimidation and assault, have predictably been lynched again, mainly in comments sections of blogs and in the media; however, despite the lynch mob's second wave and the college administration's failure to at least suspend the assailants pending expulsion hearings, some clear reporting and comments are evident.
Luke McIntire, Greensboro blogger and media studies student, comments beautifully on the football players' parents' attempts to pin this on the eighteen year olds from Ramallah and Jerusalem, one of whom looked very slight on a Fox News' video:
"Not only does the story have legs, it's running its ass off. I really didn't expect the 'those three kids attacked the at least five and possibly 15 football players' defense. I'm interested to see how that plays out."
According to the student newspaper, The Guilforidan, "Bryan resident Peter Deng, a sophomore, said that the aggressors called the Palestinian students 'dirty terrorists' and 'sand n***ers.' 'A fight is a fight, but this was a jump,' said sophomore Dan Jimenez, who witnessed the altercation."
The Guilfordian also reported that brass knuckles were confiscated by a resident assistant on duty the night of the attack.
Joe Killan, who has extensively reported for Greensboro's News-Record commented on Greensboro journalist Ed Cone's Blog: "Those who have gone on record, both to us, Yes Weekly! and The Guilfordian, have described a group beating of Palestinian students and not the other way around. As far as I know no one who witnessed the attack and saw the Palestinian students either start it or do much of anything but be overpowered and beaten has gone on record with anyone." He also commented "The primary reason given to me by witnesses who won't go on the record is fear of retaliation."
One sophomore, Matt Hill Comer, at the University of North Carolina, Greensboro, is not afraid to speak out about Michael Six, one of the accused, who was so earnestly defended by his mother on Fox News . Comer, a former classmate of Six's at R.J. Reynolds High School writes:
"course… I’m not really all that surprised that Michael Six was involved. Who knows… I learned a lot about not jumping to conclusions with the Duke case, but I do know this: Six was one of the WORST when it came to the harassment I got when we were in high school together. Although he never touched me, physically, his words toward me were enough to let me know that he didn’t like me and didn’t want me anywhere near him and that if I did come near him, I probably wouldn’t be safe.
"There’s one outstanding instance that stands out in my mind (right before I got my truck and was allowed to drive to school): I remember that he would stand in one spot after school everyday, a place I’d have to pass to get to the bus on time before they left the lot. He’d just stand there and when I’d pass spew out horrible obscenities and slurs. I asked him to stop numerous times; I eventually took it to Mr. Elrod, our principal. After that, Six never said anything to me again."
Would that Six had learned not to pick on vulnerable people. Comer is gay; Arwatani, Sabbah, and Khader, members of an ethnic group, not only oppressed, but vilified. North Carolina State's student newspaper, The Technician reports "Nusaybah Ismail, a freshman in sports management, said Awartani, who came from Palestine to study at N.C. State, spoke to her after the incident.'He was with his friends in a courtyard at Guilford,' Ismail said. '[Guilford] football players just came up to them and started beating them up, calling them names. According to Ismail, the football players yelled things like 'go back to your land.' 'It was just a hate crime,' she said."
A hate crime and and assault clearly put in focus by a comment on the Chronicle of Higher Education Blog:
"Assault is not a lesson to be learned in college. What’s with this approach that seems to be popular on college campuses now to treat assault, sexual assault, and rape as teachable moments instead of the criminal acts they really are. If it were a group of Palestinian students assaulting a few white students, you can bet that they would have been expelled already."
To get a clear picture for what contributes to some Americans' hateful attitudes toward Arabs, watch this short Jackie Salloum video, Planet of the Arabs, based on Jack Shaheen's book, Reel Bad Arabs: How Hollywood Vilifies a People.
Luke McIntire, Greensboro blogger and media studies student, comments beautifully on the football players' parents' attempts to pin this on the eighteen year olds from Ramallah and Jerusalem, one of whom looked very slight on a Fox News' video:
"Not only does the story have legs, it's running its ass off. I really didn't expect the 'those three kids attacked the at least five and possibly 15 football players' defense. I'm interested to see how that plays out."
According to the student newspaper, The Guilforidan, "Bryan resident Peter Deng, a sophomore, said that the aggressors called the Palestinian students 'dirty terrorists' and 'sand n***ers.' 'A fight is a fight, but this was a jump,' said sophomore Dan Jimenez, who witnessed the altercation."
The Guilfordian also reported that brass knuckles were confiscated by a resident assistant on duty the night of the attack.
Joe Killan, who has extensively reported for Greensboro's News-Record commented on Greensboro journalist Ed Cone's Blog: "Those who have gone on record, both to us, Yes Weekly! and The Guilfordian, have described a group beating of Palestinian students and not the other way around. As far as I know no one who witnessed the attack and saw the Palestinian students either start it or do much of anything but be overpowered and beaten has gone on record with anyone." He also commented "The primary reason given to me by witnesses who won't go on the record is fear of retaliation."
One sophomore, Matt Hill Comer, at the University of North Carolina, Greensboro, is not afraid to speak out about Michael Six, one of the accused, who was so earnestly defended by his mother on Fox News . Comer, a former classmate of Six's at R.J. Reynolds High School writes:
"course… I’m not really all that surprised that Michael Six was involved. Who knows… I learned a lot about not jumping to conclusions with the Duke case, but I do know this: Six was one of the WORST when it came to the harassment I got when we were in high school together. Although he never touched me, physically, his words toward me were enough to let me know that he didn’t like me and didn’t want me anywhere near him and that if I did come near him, I probably wouldn’t be safe.
"There’s one outstanding instance that stands out in my mind (right before I got my truck and was allowed to drive to school): I remember that he would stand in one spot after school everyday, a place I’d have to pass to get to the bus on time before they left the lot. He’d just stand there and when I’d pass spew out horrible obscenities and slurs. I asked him to stop numerous times; I eventually took it to Mr. Elrod, our principal. After that, Six never said anything to me again."
Would that Six had learned not to pick on vulnerable people. Comer is gay; Arwatani, Sabbah, and Khader, members of an ethnic group, not only oppressed, but vilified. North Carolina State's student newspaper, The Technician reports "Nusaybah Ismail, a freshman in sports management, said Awartani, who came from Palestine to study at N.C. State, spoke to her after the incident.'He was with his friends in a courtyard at Guilford,' Ismail said. '[Guilford] football players just came up to them and started beating them up, calling them names. According to Ismail, the football players yelled things like 'go back to your land.' 'It was just a hate crime,' she said."
A hate crime and and assault clearly put in focus by a comment on the Chronicle of Higher Education Blog:
"Assault is not a lesson to be learned in college. What’s with this approach that seems to be popular on college campuses now to treat assault, sexual assault, and rape as teachable moments instead of the criminal acts they really are. If it were a group of Palestinian students assaulting a few white students, you can bet that they would have been expelled already."
To get a clear picture for what contributes to some Americans' hateful attitudes toward Arabs, watch this short Jackie Salloum video, Planet of the Arabs, based on Jack Shaheen's book, Reel Bad Arabs: How Hollywood Vilifies a People.
Labels: Neocolonialism
Sunday, January 28, 2007
terrorist
palestinian palestinian palestinian palestinian
Friday, January 26, 2007
suppose it is inevitable that Elie Wiesel turns up in the New York Daily News reminding everyone of the Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's "murderous regime."Wiesel, the icon of what Norman Finkelstein calls the "Holocaust Industry," starts off in his typically "holier-than-thou" fashion in his lead sentence:"Those among us who thought that the victory of allied democracies in 1945 would mark the end of hate and state-sponsored racism were naive."Wiesel is anything but naive. Daniel McGowan of Dayr Yassin Remembered in a letter to Pastor James Gerling wrote the following about Wiesel:"He knows from personal experience that on April 9, 1948 Arab civilians, including women and children, were murdered in cold blood in the village of Deir Yassin on the west side of Jerusalem by Jewish terrorists known as the Irgun and the Stern Gang. Wiesel worked for the Irgun, not as a fighter, but as a journalist and knows the details of this infamous (but not the only nor the largest) massacre of Arabs by Jews. And while he piously demands public apologies for atrocities committed against Jews (for example in 1946 at Kielce, Poland), he has never been able to apologize for the atrocities committed by his own employer."Wiesel, or "one of the world's leading moral voices," according to the Daily News ( a solid education in English literature with thorough grounding on the theme of "appearance versus reality" has served as a buffer to withstand the pretentions of Wiesel and other apologists for a certified "racist" and "murderous" regime) attributes a lot of words to Ahmadinejad, but none of them are in quotes, and even if they were, since he doesn't read Farsi, his pronouncements are of little merit other than as base propaganda to further the "clash of civilizations" myth in order to serve a proven "racist" and "murderous" regime.In fact, Jonathan Steele and Juan Cole have made a good case that Ahmadinejad doesn't call for the destruction of Israel, which actually would seemingly make him less offensive to naive Mr. Wiesel than say a whole host of anti-Zionist Jews and many, myself included, whose goal is the destruction of Israel as a Jews preferred and privileged state; i.e, a state for all its citizens, and a state that respects international law and the inalienable rights of the ethnically cleansed Palestinians to return to their homes. Nothing murderous or hateful about that, but Wiesel's denial of this inalienable right is facilitating ethnic cleansing, which he, of all people, should know is a war crime.Wiesel is counting on "naive" Americans to equate the destruction of Israel as a Jews preferred and privileged state with some sort of obscenity. Hardly. What is the obscenity is the real destruction wrought by Zionism on the true heirs of the land for over one hundred years now, culminating in the ethnic cleansing in 1948 of seventy-five percent of Palestinians on what is today Israel. And the real horrors of Zionism continue unabated and facilitated by shills like Wiesel to whom the New York Daily News provide space for their odious black propaganda.How many kids did Ahmadinejad injure while they were sitting in their classroom this month, Mr. Wiesel? How many kindergarten teachers did Ahmadinejad kill while they were holding their toddlers on their lap? How many kids did Ahmadinejad kill in this week? How many cabinet ministers did Ahmadinejad bring into a courtroom in chains inside a wooden cage? How much land did Ahmadinejad steal this week, Mr. Wiesel? How many extended families did Ahmadinejad wipe out this summer, Mr. Moral Compass? How many ten-year old kids did Ahmadinejad kill this weekend? How many poor people in refugee camps is Ahmadinejad bombing? For how many amputees is Ahmadinejad responsible? How many villages did Ahmadinejad wipe out? How many refugees did Ahmadinejad create? How many houses did Ahmadinejad demolish? How many olive trees did Ahmadinejad uproot and then sell? How much gold did Ahmadinejad's soldiers rip off from houses they broke into? How many wells has Ahmadinejad poisoned? How many cluster bombs and landmines has Ahmadinejad set down? What chemical weapons has Ahmadinejad used on civilians? How many people does Ahmadinejad refuse the right to return to their homes to be buried? Does Ahmadinejad prevent people who fall in love from living together if they're not the right religion? Does Ahmadinejad deny native born Iranians the right to live with their spouse and children in Iran? Did Ahmadinejad's lobby lead America into a war which has destroyed Iraq, destroyed American lives, and destroyed hundreds of thousands of Iraqi lives?Israel has more than proven itself "racist" and "murderous" from the beginning of Zionism's little social engineering project in Palestine. Wiesel defends it while writing Ahmadinejad should be "persona-non-grata" and "turned away everywhere." I say Wiesel the hypocrite needs a strong dose of his own medicine.
Labels: Neocolonialism
It’s a headline that speaks volumes: “U.S. Presidential Hopefuls Campaigning in Israel.” Not in the Granite State, New Hampshire, but Israel. “Three Presidential hopefuls appeared in Israel or spoke through a satellite link this week at the Herzliya Conference in an effort to show their support for Israel,” reports Arutz Sheva. As should be expected, the “campaign” issue is Iran, not American domestic politics, basically an irrelevancy.
“Former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney called for more severe sanctions on Iran and added that a military strike should be considered” and John McCain, the Manchurian candidate for AIPAC, “said through a satellite link that he backs ties between Israel and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO)” and declared a “friendly democracy under siege should be closer partners to the world’s most successful security alliance,” never mind, back when I was in grade school, NATO revolved around Article V of the North Atlantic Treaty, stating “that an armed attack against one or more [parties] in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all.” But then, when you think about it, since the rulers of Israel are of European stock, it very well may make sense this “democracy”—that is, a “democracy” jus sanguinis, i.e., for Jews only—join NATO.
As should be expected, John Edwards demonstrated the classical conflicts of a Democrat, wanting to please all, but coming down decidedly on the side of the Likudites. “Democrat John Edwards of North Carolina called for tougher sanctions but also backed dialogue with Tehran. ‘I support being tough, but I think it’s a mistake strategically and ideologically not to engage them on this issue,’ he explained.” In short, Mr. Edwards desires to talk with the Iranians before bombing them, whereas the neocons simply want to bomb them without the necessity of “dialogue,” that is dictating terms in Israel’s favor.
Meanwhile, as America’s political candidates kiss the Zionist hem, Israel is working overtime on the Bomb Iran master plan. “Israel is launching a campaign to isolate Iran economically and to soften up world opinion for the option of a military strike aimed at crippling or delaying Tehran’s uranium enrichment program,” reports the Guardian, predictably emphasizing the neocon fantasy that feverish Iranian scientists are working around the clock underground on the Shia Nuke to be used in some fantastic and suicidal Armageddon scenario against Israel, never mind both the CIA and the IAEA have determined there is no evidence of such nefarious atomic building behavior.
In addition to the standard round of arm twisting of corporations into not doing business with Iran, “President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is to be pursued in international courts for calling the Holocaust a myth, and saying Israel should be wiped off the map. The case will be launched under the 1948 UN convention on the prevention and punishment of the crime of genocide, which outlaws ‘direct and public incitement to genocide,’” an absurdity, to say the least, as declaring the Holocaust is a myth is hardly the same as rounding people up and feeding them into gas chambers and ovens.
But then, of course, in certain parts of the world, for instance in Germany, where Ernst Zündel wastes away in prison, disagreeing with the official historical orthodoxy—in other words, daring the exercise free speech, the natural right of every human on the planet—is a punishable crime. As for Ahmadinejad declaring Israel should be “wiped off the map,” this is an easily demonstrated and particularly vile ruse dreamed up by the Middle East Media Research Institute, a Zionist disinfo operation run by Yigal Carmon, an Israeli who worked for the IDF/Intelligence Branch from 1968 to 1988. MEMRI deliberately mistranslated Ahmadinejad and now supposedly respectable newspapers such as the Guardian are rehashing the propaganda as verified truth.
Finally, as the cardboard cut-out presidential wannabes trek to Israel for acceptance, bending over backwards to parrot the Likudnik line on Iran, we turn to Ilan Pappe, an Israeli-born professor at Haifa University. Pappe was recently interviewed by Today’s Zaman, a Turkish web site. Going after Iran, Pappe insists, has nothing to do with nukes. Instead, it has everything to do with the Zionist project, i.e., the task of dispossessing Palestinians of their land and inflicting privation upon them.
“Israel has its own plan for imposing its will and this is in Palestine,” Pappe told Ali Cimen. “It wishes unilaterally to annex large parts of the areas it occupied in 1967 and to imprison the Palestinians in small Bantustans and by that destroy the Palestine will and aspirations. Only two movements, Hezbollah and Hamas, and only two states, Syria and Iran, oppose this scheme. Israel sees the present American administration and mood as providing a rare window of opportunity to use its military might for destroying the only forces willing to resist its policies in Palestine.”
Naturally, come the election next year, with the American election selectees all lined up neatly in a row like rubber ducks with their Likudnik endorsements in hand, we will hear nothing of this long planned ethnic cleansing campaign, although we will assuredly hear about the threat of Iran, determined to cobble together a nuclear bomb or two and take out Israel in one last suicidal gasp.
Of course, come the election, large areas of Iran may be already smoldering under a dreadful radioactive pall cast by “mini-nukes,” as only a blind, deaf, and dumb person—or one tuned in incessantly to Fox News—is unable to hear the alarm bells screaming, drawing closer from the distance, foretelling a terrible calamity right around the corner.
“Former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney called for more severe sanctions on Iran and added that a military strike should be considered” and John McCain, the Manchurian candidate for AIPAC, “said through a satellite link that he backs ties between Israel and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO)” and declared a “friendly democracy under siege should be closer partners to the world’s most successful security alliance,” never mind, back when I was in grade school, NATO revolved around Article V of the North Atlantic Treaty, stating “that an armed attack against one or more [parties] in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all.” But then, when you think about it, since the rulers of Israel are of European stock, it very well may make sense this “democracy”—that is, a “democracy” jus sanguinis, i.e., for Jews only—join NATO.
As should be expected, John Edwards demonstrated the classical conflicts of a Democrat, wanting to please all, but coming down decidedly on the side of the Likudites. “Democrat John Edwards of North Carolina called for tougher sanctions but also backed dialogue with Tehran. ‘I support being tough, but I think it’s a mistake strategically and ideologically not to engage them on this issue,’ he explained.” In short, Mr. Edwards desires to talk with the Iranians before bombing them, whereas the neocons simply want to bomb them without the necessity of “dialogue,” that is dictating terms in Israel’s favor.
Meanwhile, as America’s political candidates kiss the Zionist hem, Israel is working overtime on the Bomb Iran master plan. “Israel is launching a campaign to isolate Iran economically and to soften up world opinion for the option of a military strike aimed at crippling or delaying Tehran’s uranium enrichment program,” reports the Guardian, predictably emphasizing the neocon fantasy that feverish Iranian scientists are working around the clock underground on the Shia Nuke to be used in some fantastic and suicidal Armageddon scenario against Israel, never mind both the CIA and the IAEA have determined there is no evidence of such nefarious atomic building behavior.
In addition to the standard round of arm twisting of corporations into not doing business with Iran, “President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is to be pursued in international courts for calling the Holocaust a myth, and saying Israel should be wiped off the map. The case will be launched under the 1948 UN convention on the prevention and punishment of the crime of genocide, which outlaws ‘direct and public incitement to genocide,’” an absurdity, to say the least, as declaring the Holocaust is a myth is hardly the same as rounding people up and feeding them into gas chambers and ovens.
But then, of course, in certain parts of the world, for instance in Germany, where Ernst Zündel wastes away in prison, disagreeing with the official historical orthodoxy—in other words, daring the exercise free speech, the natural right of every human on the planet—is a punishable crime. As for Ahmadinejad declaring Israel should be “wiped off the map,” this is an easily demonstrated and particularly vile ruse dreamed up by the Middle East Media Research Institute, a Zionist disinfo operation run by Yigal Carmon, an Israeli who worked for the IDF/Intelligence Branch from 1968 to 1988. MEMRI deliberately mistranslated Ahmadinejad and now supposedly respectable newspapers such as the Guardian are rehashing the propaganda as verified truth.
Finally, as the cardboard cut-out presidential wannabes trek to Israel for acceptance, bending over backwards to parrot the Likudnik line on Iran, we turn to Ilan Pappe, an Israeli-born professor at Haifa University. Pappe was recently interviewed by Today’s Zaman, a Turkish web site. Going after Iran, Pappe insists, has nothing to do with nukes. Instead, it has everything to do with the Zionist project, i.e., the task of dispossessing Palestinians of their land and inflicting privation upon them.
“Israel has its own plan for imposing its will and this is in Palestine,” Pappe told Ali Cimen. “It wishes unilaterally to annex large parts of the areas it occupied in 1967 and to imprison the Palestinians in small Bantustans and by that destroy the Palestine will and aspirations. Only two movements, Hezbollah and Hamas, and only two states, Syria and Iran, oppose this scheme. Israel sees the present American administration and mood as providing a rare window of opportunity to use its military might for destroying the only forces willing to resist its policies in Palestine.”
Naturally, come the election next year, with the American election selectees all lined up neatly in a row like rubber ducks with their Likudnik endorsements in hand, we will hear nothing of this long planned ethnic cleansing campaign, although we will assuredly hear about the threat of Iran, determined to cobble together a nuclear bomb or two and take out Israel in one last suicidal gasp.
Of course, come the election, large areas of Iran may be already smoldering under a dreadful radioactive pall cast by “mini-nukes,” as only a blind, deaf, and dumb person—or one tuned in incessantly to Fox News—is unable to hear the alarm bells screaming, drawing closer from the distance, foretelling a terrible calamity right around the corner.
Labels: Neocolonialism
Tuesday, January 23, 2007
Turkey and Israel, unusual allies
Dink had been prosecuted for his views on the massacres of Armenians by Ottoman Turks in 1915, which he called genocide... He was given a suspended six-month jail sentence, under "Article 301", last year for "insulting Turkishness". [rest of article]In the Western World, and now promulgated by the UN, it is a crime to deny the existence of the Nazi holocaust, particularly when it comes to the question of Jews killed under Hitler. Yet in Turkey, the strongest Israeli ally in the Middle East, partners in economic and military development, the Turkish government policy is to deny and bury the Turkish genocide of 2 million Armenians between 1915-1923.Does every American learn about the Armenian Holocaust like they do
about the Nazi holocaust? Most will not have even heard of Armenia, let alone the massacre of 2 million men women and children with photographs that are indistinguishable from the crimes committed during the Third Reich. You would think that Israel with its Holocaust Industry of all nations would distance itself from a country who has not only DENIED ITS ROLE IN THE ARMENIAN GENOCIDE, but MADE IT A CRIME TO MENTION THE ARMENIAN GENOCIDE France tried to make a law of denying the Armenian Holocaust... strangely Dink fought against that law...
Dink had been prosecuted for his views on the massacres of Armenians by Ottoman Turks in 1915, which he called genocide... He was given a suspended six-month jail sentence, under "Article 301", last year for "insulting Turkishness". [rest of article]In the Western World, and now promulgated by the UN, it is a crime to deny the existence of the Nazi holocaust, particularly when it comes to the question of Jews killed under Hitler. Yet in Turkey, the strongest Israeli ally in the Middle East, partners in economic and military development, the Turkish government policy is to deny and bury the Turkish genocide of 2 million Armenians between 1915-1923.Does every American learn about the Armenian Holocaust like they do
about the Nazi holocaust? Most will not have even heard of Armenia, let alone the massacre of 2 million men women and children with photographs that are indistinguishable from the crimes committed during the Third Reich. You would think that Israel with its Holocaust Industry of all nations would distance itself from a country who has not only DENIED ITS ROLE IN THE ARMENIAN GENOCIDE, but MADE IT A CRIME TO MENTION THE ARMENIAN GENOCIDE France tried to make a law of denying the Armenian Holocaust... strangely Dink fought against that law...
Labels: Unusual Allies
Sunday, January 21, 2007
An exchange Worthy of posting:
Right after all the heart aches and the pain that was 1982 one of my friends managed to find me in Tunisia. He told me that he had arranged for me to see my mother in Kuwait, which was wonderful and that led me to come to the US full of pain, hatred, and agony. As I went to the INS to get my self protected (as they say), I looked up and there were a picture of MLK with the following paragraph written on it: “I refuse to accept the view that mankind is so tragically bound to the starless midnight of racism and war, that the bright daybreak of peace and brotherhood can never become a reality”.
I came to the realization that we are not all bad (humans that is) but looking at all that’s come out of the occupied territories, the reaction when Sharon relocated the settlers (with 1 million for every family to pay for the ease of the suffering from the Bush regime) and the comments I read on Jewish sites, I’m getting to lose that faith and be a dooms day advocate, the burning question: is there any hope for peace or what was taken by the sword would only be returned by the sword?
Now Amal would you be the modern MLK and give me hope for peace or is it all a lost cause?
Are they so full of hatred that the light of peace can’t shine through? I have always hoped that the younger generation will be out of all that madness and be able to bring hope, but the young haters are the ones that do it all, so what is one to do, hope for peace or just look to avenge?
10:14 PM, January 19, 2007
Amal A said...
Hi Philistini,
You sound like you're full of sad stories!
Is there hope? Will things change and justice and peace reign instead of racism and hatred?
We all want to believe that.It's darkest before the dawn, right? I'm not as certain of things as I used to be in my more idealistic days, when I was "sure" of so many things and people. As we get older, we know less, it seems!
I can't give up hope, Remy! It's my first name! (lucky I wasn't called Majzara like that poor girl in Gaza). And I have a child. I may not cook everyday for him, but I can't give up hope. Too damn risky.
Right after all the heart aches and the pain that was 1982 one of my friends managed to find me in Tunisia. He told me that he had arranged for me to see my mother in Kuwait, which was wonderful and that led me to come to the US full of pain, hatred, and agony. As I went to the INS to get my self protected (as they say), I looked up and there were a picture of MLK with the following paragraph written on it: “I refuse to accept the view that mankind is so tragically bound to the starless midnight of racism and war, that the bright daybreak of peace and brotherhood can never become a reality”.
I came to the realization that we are not all bad (humans that is) but looking at all that’s come out of the occupied territories, the reaction when Sharon relocated the settlers (with 1 million for every family to pay for the ease of the suffering from the Bush regime) and the comments I read on Jewish sites, I’m getting to lose that faith and be a dooms day advocate, the burning question: is there any hope for peace or what was taken by the sword would only be returned by the sword?
Now Amal would you be the modern MLK and give me hope for peace or is it all a lost cause?
Are they so full of hatred that the light of peace can’t shine through? I have always hoped that the younger generation will be out of all that madness and be able to bring hope, but the young haters are the ones that do it all, so what is one to do, hope for peace or just look to avenge?
10:14 PM, January 19, 2007
Amal A said...
Hi Philistini,
You sound like you're full of sad stories!
Is there hope? Will things change and justice and peace reign instead of racism and hatred?
We all want to believe that.It's darkest before the dawn, right? I'm not as certain of things as I used to be in my more idealistic days, when I was "sure" of so many things and people. As we get older, we know less, it seems!
I can't give up hope, Remy! It's my first name! (lucky I wasn't called Majzara like that poor girl in Gaza). And I have a child. I may not cook everyday for him, but I can't give up hope. Too damn risky.
Labels: An exchang Worthy of Posting (thank you Amal)
Friday, January 19, 2007
The Pentagon has announced rules for the trials of alleged terrorist suspects held at Guantanamo Bay that allow hearsay evidence and testimony extracted through coercion, including torture, in cases that could result in the death penalty. The use of "evidence obtained by torture" after Dec. 30, 2005, is prohibited under the rules, but judges can allow evidence extracted through torture committed before that date if they deem it reliable. The rules were included in a 238-page trial manual that accompanies the law passed by Congress this fall to re-establish the military commissions originally authorized by President George W. Bush to pursue the presumed terrorist prisoners."
Thursday, January 18, 2007
One asks if christianZionists and Jews are really 'Friends?'
From Challenging Christian Zionism blog:
Friends?
Israeli-American journalist and former Israeli communications director , Zev Chafets, has just written a book (A Match Made in Heaven) detailing the reasons why the evangelical-Israeli alliance is a good one. The evangelicals in question are actually not evangelicals per se, but rather the fundamentalist right wing of the evangelical camp - people like John Hagee and Pat Robertson and other in your face radio and TV evangelist types. These, claim Chafets, are Israel's best friends.
His argument, highlighted in a recent online Times article is that the "unconditional love and approval" of fundamentalist American Christians is what Israel needs more than anything else in a time of heightened tensions with neighboring states. The reticence of some in the Jewish community to embrace such support given a questionable theology which posits massive Jewish slaughter in a bloody End Times scenario among other less savory beliefs is unfounded according to Chafets. Such beliefs can easily be ignored in the face of unconditional support. They are "red herrings".
What needs to be questioned is whether or not "unconditional support" defines true friendship. It certainly doesn't define normal friendships. True friends challenge each other's behavior when such behavior is destructive. Apartheid era South African politicians sought "unconditional support" for their racist policies. They wanted friends who endorsed their prejudice. But their true friends turned out to be those who resisted, forcing them to face up to the moral bankruptcy of their policies. Fundamentalist Christians support the more extreme expansionist policies of the Israeli government. They applaud the Wall even as it divides communities and brutalizes relationships. They call for the theft of more Palestinian land for settlements. They encourage the very policies which add fuel to the flames of Palestinian resentment. A friend who says "do what you like" to an alcoholic on a binge is no friend at all. Fundamentalist Christians who say "do what you like" to Israel are no friends either.
Israel certainly needs friends as do their Palestinian neighbors. But what they need are not those who give them a blank check but those who will help them find a way out of the morass, challenging what needs challenging, supporting what needs supporting. What they need are friends who will seek their best interests. . .
From Challenging Christian Zionism blog:
Friends?
Israeli-American journalist and former Israeli communications director , Zev Chafets, has just written a book (A Match Made in Heaven) detailing the reasons why the evangelical-Israeli alliance is a good one. The evangelicals in question are actually not evangelicals per se, but rather the fundamentalist right wing of the evangelical camp - people like John Hagee and Pat Robertson and other in your face radio and TV evangelist types. These, claim Chafets, are Israel's best friends.
His argument, highlighted in a recent online Times article is that the "unconditional love and approval" of fundamentalist American Christians is what Israel needs more than anything else in a time of heightened tensions with neighboring states. The reticence of some in the Jewish community to embrace such support given a questionable theology which posits massive Jewish slaughter in a bloody End Times scenario among other less savory beliefs is unfounded according to Chafets. Such beliefs can easily be ignored in the face of unconditional support. They are "red herrings".
What needs to be questioned is whether or not "unconditional support" defines true friendship. It certainly doesn't define normal friendships. True friends challenge each other's behavior when such behavior is destructive. Apartheid era South African politicians sought "unconditional support" for their racist policies. They wanted friends who endorsed their prejudice. But their true friends turned out to be those who resisted, forcing them to face up to the moral bankruptcy of their policies. Fundamentalist Christians support the more extreme expansionist policies of the Israeli government. They applaud the Wall even as it divides communities and brutalizes relationships. They call for the theft of more Palestinian land for settlements. They encourage the very policies which add fuel to the flames of Palestinian resentment. A friend who says "do what you like" to an alcoholic on a binge is no friend at all. Fundamentalist Christians who say "do what you like" to Israel are no friends either.
Israel certainly needs friends as do their Palestinian neighbors. But what they need are not those who give them a blank check but those who will help them find a way out of the morass, challenging what needs challenging, supporting what needs supporting. What they need are friends who will seek their best interests. . .
The Palestinian thinker Edward Saeed had keen insight when he distanced himself from the Palestine Liberation Organization under the leadership of Abu Ammar and embarked on criticizing the Oslo and Madrid agreements and what they produced.
The Oslo and Madrid agreements, similar to Camp David, represent the retreating line in the Arab Palestinian cause. The great fault of those agreements is that they depended on promises more than the dependence on genuine references. They have also reclined on dividing an issue of destiny and postponed the comprehensive and just solution to a third stage, whereas the Israeli Shylock did not commit himself or implement the first stage of the agreement.
The Palestinian elections at the beginning of 2006 exposed many things; among them is the truthfulness of the American administrations intention of democratization of the Middle East region. When Hamas won the Palestinian elections in a free and decent way, acknowledged by America and Europe, they began to put batons in the wheels of Hamas’s movement and brand it with terror and then imposed a killing blockade against the Palestinian people, preventing salaries, medicines and life.
The American tyranny has forced the entire world to literally commit to blockading the Palestinians and the Arab regimes at the forefront of those committed to the blockade and leaving for Israel the freedom of killing the Palestinians through repeated invasions, assassinations and sustainable war. Egypt has practiced eye-catching pressures on the Palestinians to accept the Israeli and American dictates. The more dangerous is that the leadership of Abu Mazin’s Fatah that reluctantly accepted the result of the elections has, since the first day, begun refusing a government of national unity. Hamas leadership also provided that with its ambiguous slogans and inaccurate distinguishing between armed struggle and legitimate right and terrorist acts aimed at civilians, unstudied and random acts. Thus everything has mixed with everything.
The Palestinian cause is passing the most dangerous stages. The internal conflict is pivoting around the authority. Hamas wants to keep the main ministries, without estimating the danger of the blockade and suffering of the people who are exposed to a war of annihilation and ethnic cleansing as well as uprooting their existence and identity and national soil. Ideological blindness and belief of political right hides from it the real sight of the people’s suffering and torture. Fatah leadership on the other hand leans on legitimacy of the Palestinian Liberation Organization and maybe it benefited by feeling strength by virtue of the external pressure on Hamas. Fatah leadership also demands for the major ministries not just lift the blockade, but also invest its control on those ministries in imposing its reading of peace with Israel and to continue to offer the almost free concessions in return for futile peace promises. So the power conflict in the besieged country exposes people to killing and their land to dismemberment and effacement of identity, a matter seriously dangerous and damaging. The Arab stance, which supports the authority, the American and European stance, siding with Israel and antagonistic to the Palestinian national hopes, also contribute to increase the rage of the sedition fire among the Palestinian leadership.
Undoubtedly, the illusions with which Olmert waves about peace and showing elasticity for other certain objectives pushed the Palestinian conflict to its farthest extent. The Israeli state, which assassinates life in Palestine, displaces the sons of the Palestinian people and builds the apartheid wall, cannot accept the retreat to the borders of June 5 or the return of the Palestinian refugees or the establishment of a Palestinian state with full sovereignty.
The indicators of the danger of the internal fratricide have become clear in their features. There are now the states of security disorder reaching the extent of killing children, repeated kidnappings, every now and then armed confrontations and the exchanged language of deeming each other as traitors and infidels are collectively images of the current catastrophic state. The only beneficiary is the Israeli enemy that promises with crumblings as a price for the fighting of Palestinian brothers.
The dilemma is that the reasonable parties and the voice of reason is steadily getting weaker with the increase and rising of the voice of sedition, distribution of accusations and arbitration to force for solving issues of dispute where force is not needed. When the dispute is focused on sharing the imaginary power shackle with occupation and killed by blockades, logic is lost and opportunists are able to jump to the front to push back the forces of more moderate reasonableness.
The victory of Hamas in the Parliamentary elections was a punishment for the leadership of Fatah that was drowned in corruption and ran after illusions in which both the occupation and the American ally participated, in addition to some Arab regimes. But victorious Hamas did not read the message well and has not realized the danger of the blockade against the Palestinian people and depth of the suffering of people facing war and starvation and erosion of hope. Hamas accepted the establishment of the Palestinian state within the borders of June 1967 and accepted a long truce with Israel and its address was in harmony with the address of Fatah. The power struggle was naked from any ideological or political cover. The dispute over power can be solved in agreement on a government of national unity guaranteeing a balance decision-making and to allow lifting the blockade against the people who have been suffering tragedies of war for more than half a century and are deprived of bread, medicine, security and peace.
What is more important in building a state of national unity is the agreement on common denominations, determination of forms and ways of struggle, beginning with words and ending with the use of weapons and confrontation with colonization alleging the historical right to possess land.
Since the beginning of the Aqsa Intifada, Hamas worked for the militarization of the second intifada, but it has shown disinterest in the democratic and peaceful struggle. It has mixed, or rather did not distinguish between, the rightful and legitimate armed struggle and the rejected terrorism which affects civilians. It has tried to give this bloody conflict a religious dimension leading in the end to confirm the Zionist and American claims that the conflict is religious. As a result this decision weakened international sympathy with the Palestinian right to sovereignty, independence and to build their national entity.
The Parliamentary elections of 2006 have revealed the power of the Hamas movement which is adherent to the political Islam. Moreover the internal political adversaries between the movement of Fatah and Hamas contributed to affirm the charge of terror and the retreat of the Arab popular support for an issue that was at the entire Arab’s central cause. The betting began in international parties and conflicting axis: America, Europe, Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Egypt on the one hand and with Iran and Syria on the other hand.
The tragic thing is that the suffering of the Palestinian people has changed into a field of blind conflict and the Arab-Israeli conflict changed into a Palestinian-Palestinian conflict. Israel appears as the only democratic state capable of controlling the rhythms in the Middle East as a whole. The question is whether Abu Mazin and his team will topple the government of Hamas or the call for early election.
The Oslo and Madrid agreements, similar to Camp David, represent the retreating line in the Arab Palestinian cause. The great fault of those agreements is that they depended on promises more than the dependence on genuine references. They have also reclined on dividing an issue of destiny and postponed the comprehensive and just solution to a third stage, whereas the Israeli Shylock did not commit himself or implement the first stage of the agreement.
The Palestinian elections at the beginning of 2006 exposed many things; among them is the truthfulness of the American administrations intention of democratization of the Middle East region. When Hamas won the Palestinian elections in a free and decent way, acknowledged by America and Europe, they began to put batons in the wheels of Hamas’s movement and brand it with terror and then imposed a killing blockade against the Palestinian people, preventing salaries, medicines and life.
The American tyranny has forced the entire world to literally commit to blockading the Palestinians and the Arab regimes at the forefront of those committed to the blockade and leaving for Israel the freedom of killing the Palestinians through repeated invasions, assassinations and sustainable war. Egypt has practiced eye-catching pressures on the Palestinians to accept the Israeli and American dictates. The more dangerous is that the leadership of Abu Mazin’s Fatah that reluctantly accepted the result of the elections has, since the first day, begun refusing a government of national unity. Hamas leadership also provided that with its ambiguous slogans and inaccurate distinguishing between armed struggle and legitimate right and terrorist acts aimed at civilians, unstudied and random acts. Thus everything has mixed with everything.
The Palestinian cause is passing the most dangerous stages. The internal conflict is pivoting around the authority. Hamas wants to keep the main ministries, without estimating the danger of the blockade and suffering of the people who are exposed to a war of annihilation and ethnic cleansing as well as uprooting their existence and identity and national soil. Ideological blindness and belief of political right hides from it the real sight of the people’s suffering and torture. Fatah leadership on the other hand leans on legitimacy of the Palestinian Liberation Organization and maybe it benefited by feeling strength by virtue of the external pressure on Hamas. Fatah leadership also demands for the major ministries not just lift the blockade, but also invest its control on those ministries in imposing its reading of peace with Israel and to continue to offer the almost free concessions in return for futile peace promises. So the power conflict in the besieged country exposes people to killing and their land to dismemberment and effacement of identity, a matter seriously dangerous and damaging. The Arab stance, which supports the authority, the American and European stance, siding with Israel and antagonistic to the Palestinian national hopes, also contribute to increase the rage of the sedition fire among the Palestinian leadership.
Undoubtedly, the illusions with which Olmert waves about peace and showing elasticity for other certain objectives pushed the Palestinian conflict to its farthest extent. The Israeli state, which assassinates life in Palestine, displaces the sons of the Palestinian people and builds the apartheid wall, cannot accept the retreat to the borders of June 5 or the return of the Palestinian refugees or the establishment of a Palestinian state with full sovereignty.
The indicators of the danger of the internal fratricide have become clear in their features. There are now the states of security disorder reaching the extent of killing children, repeated kidnappings, every now and then armed confrontations and the exchanged language of deeming each other as traitors and infidels are collectively images of the current catastrophic state. The only beneficiary is the Israeli enemy that promises with crumblings as a price for the fighting of Palestinian brothers.
The dilemma is that the reasonable parties and the voice of reason is steadily getting weaker with the increase and rising of the voice of sedition, distribution of accusations and arbitration to force for solving issues of dispute where force is not needed. When the dispute is focused on sharing the imaginary power shackle with occupation and killed by blockades, logic is lost and opportunists are able to jump to the front to push back the forces of more moderate reasonableness.
The victory of Hamas in the Parliamentary elections was a punishment for the leadership of Fatah that was drowned in corruption and ran after illusions in which both the occupation and the American ally participated, in addition to some Arab regimes. But victorious Hamas did not read the message well and has not realized the danger of the blockade against the Palestinian people and depth of the suffering of people facing war and starvation and erosion of hope. Hamas accepted the establishment of the Palestinian state within the borders of June 1967 and accepted a long truce with Israel and its address was in harmony with the address of Fatah. The power struggle was naked from any ideological or political cover. The dispute over power can be solved in agreement on a government of national unity guaranteeing a balance decision-making and to allow lifting the blockade against the people who have been suffering tragedies of war for more than half a century and are deprived of bread, medicine, security and peace.
What is more important in building a state of national unity is the agreement on common denominations, determination of forms and ways of struggle, beginning with words and ending with the use of weapons and confrontation with colonization alleging the historical right to possess land.
Since the beginning of the Aqsa Intifada, Hamas worked for the militarization of the second intifada, but it has shown disinterest in the democratic and peaceful struggle. It has mixed, or rather did not distinguish between, the rightful and legitimate armed struggle and the rejected terrorism which affects civilians. It has tried to give this bloody conflict a religious dimension leading in the end to confirm the Zionist and American claims that the conflict is religious. As a result this decision weakened international sympathy with the Palestinian right to sovereignty, independence and to build their national entity.
The Parliamentary elections of 2006 have revealed the power of the Hamas movement which is adherent to the political Islam. Moreover the internal political adversaries between the movement of Fatah and Hamas contributed to affirm the charge of terror and the retreat of the Arab popular support for an issue that was at the entire Arab’s central cause. The betting began in international parties and conflicting axis: America, Europe, Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Egypt on the one hand and with Iran and Syria on the other hand.
The tragic thing is that the suffering of the Palestinian people has changed into a field of blind conflict and the Arab-Israeli conflict changed into a Palestinian-Palestinian conflict. Israel appears as the only democratic state capable of controlling the rhythms in the Middle East as a whole. The question is whether Abu Mazin and his team will topple the government of Hamas or the call for early election.
Labels: Alex Trebek........What is PEACE
Subscribe to Posts [Atom]
