Palestinian in Exile

I always thought that nationalism is a disease. In a place like Palestine, this thought borders on blasphemy. "Al-wihdeh Alwataniyeh" or national unity has for long been treated like a sacred religious ritual and, as is the case with such rituals, we don't know what it means, its implications or what is it really that we should do about it. We just hold the banners of national unity and wander the streets of Ramallah, and chant for it.Tomorrow, the PA will have its first National Unity Government. In this case, it is less than a unity and more of a Sudanese-style power sharing (Haniyeh being AlBashir, and Azzam Ahmad being Silvakeir). Will this government lead us out of the current situation? will it end the fighting? the lawlessness? the sense of disorientation into which we have fallen?(it just struck me- did we ever have an orientation? did we ever know where we were going?) I doubt that the long lasting law will be broken: Nothing ever changes here- if it does, then to the worst!
"Nationalism often robs a people of its intelligence even as it grants that people a sense of dignity".
We have for long ceased to look at the root of the problem. The actions of our leaders seem to be detached from anything that is happening on the ground. This is the legacy we had after 38 years of Arafatism, and now our hopes that it will go with him are fading away.My problem with Nationalism is its exclusiveness. If you are a nationalists you are bound to view humans of other nationalities differently, just like a religious person is bound to view those of other religions differently. You are bound to feel that your comfort is worth more than their, your ideas are more important than theirs, you might come up to a conclusion that your blood is worth more than theirs even. This, is the real problem of Palestine/Israel, and probably of the whole world. You become indifferent to others because, simply, they are not Palestinians, or Israelis or Chinese or....In Palestine, we are witnessing first hand what this means, we suffer through it. We see our wealth stolen away, because others want to use it. Our water is taken away then sold back to us 4 times more expensive than to our neighbour settlement. Our life taken away, because it is more convenient for the soldier in the 12 meter high grey tower.Nationalism, in whatever context, is racism! Believe it or not. The thing is, in other national states, there are small minorities who are not part of the national majority group and hence, they don't constitute a threat to the country, so countries are more able to provide them with their rights. In countries were there are more than one national group, there is bound to be a fight between them because nationalist sentiments strip people from the ability to see their counterparts as humans: They start seeing them as republicans or loyalists, Palestinians and Israelis, Black and white etc... And this causes the problems.When John Lennon Imagined a different world this is what he was talking about.Now the religion of the 20th century is advancing strongly into the 21st century, and now it is combined with the even more dangerous "divine religions" leading to an unholy mix of exclusion, racism and violence.This is why I believe we should not fight our struggle in Palestine on the platform of Nationalism. You can't simply accuse the other side of being wrong when you are intending to do the same thing. We have to fight this struggle on a platform of justice and equality.

In the new Peace Now report about how much of the Israeli settlements (colonies) in the West Bank are built on Palestinian private land, the numbers have changed. The most significant number is the most crucial one: in the earlier report, the group said that 86 percent of the land on which Ma'leh Adumim is built is privately owened by Palestinians.But the Israeli government and the majority of Israelis have convinced themseleves that Ma'leh Adumim is not a settlement, but a suberb of Jerusalem. It even has an ACE hardware store there. They made clear that this is the kind of settlement they will not give up.So Ma'leh Adumim's numbers change.what are the new numbers? (oh, take a wilde guess!).54 percent.Where did Peace Now get this number?From the Israeli Civil Administration.This is the problem with Peace Now. They buy into the world of make believe that their government creates. They are up in it to their necks. As one of them says, he can't prove that the numbers are wrong and the data base is manipulated. God forbid that they ever talk to the Palestinians and see what they have because their frame of reference is their government and the laws of their government--the unjust laws of their government.But why even talk to the Palestinians. Whether the settlements are built on private Palestinian land or state land, they are illegal according to international law. It is illegal for an occupying force to change facts on the ground in the land it occupies. But Peace Now is not concerned here about international law, but about Israeli law. Private land is not good, but state land is kosher.Although I'm desparate for any sign from the Israeli side of real support for Palestinian rights, I can't get excited over what's coming out of Peace Now.As to this New York Times article about the new report, forget it! It will only confirm the average NYT's reader's view that things are "unclear" and "messy" and "complicated" when it comes to Israeli settlements so one is better not get too overexercised morally about it all and just hope the Palestinians appreciate how much the Israelis are agonizing over all of this mess that they just "found" themeselves in! In short, leave it to the Israelis. They'll do what's best.

The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is one area where liberals and neo-conservatives in America find common ground. From Nancy Pelosi and Hillary Clinton all the way to George Bush and Condoleezza Rice one and all are united in supporting Israel's assault on the Palestinian people and their land. The criticism of Jimmy Carter's book Palestine Peace Not Apartheid is a case in point. The hysteria on the Right is not worthy of repetition, but House Speaker Nancy Pelosi outdid herself by issuing a statement that: "It is wrong to suggest that the Jewish people would support a government in Israel or anywhere else that institutionalizes ethnically based oppression." Wrong to suggest? Here is something right to suggest: Madam Speaker, it is time for you to visit Gaza. In The Tribes Triumphant, arguably one of the best books ever written about the Middle East, journalist Charles Glass describes children in Gaza on their way to school: "... little girls with white fringe collars, boys leading their younger brothers ... with canvas bags of books on their backs, hair brushed back and faces scrubbed ... Thousands and thousands of children's feet padding the dusty paths between their mother's front doors and their schools ... Beautiful youngsters so innocent that they could laugh even in Gaza." Glass reveals that 56.6 percent of the 1.4 million people living in Gaza (if you can call it living) are under the age of 18. That means 792,400 children; Gaza has no cinemas, no theatres, no concert halls, and no space for entertainment or amusement. Where then do these children play? Israel controls all access to, from and within Gaza, never allowing these children to see the world outside this tiny crowded strip of sand they call home. If this, Madam Speaker, is not ethnically based oppression, what is? "Gaza First" was the slogan that got the Oslo accords off the ground in the early 1990s. Today, as innocent, unarmed men, women and children in Gaza are imprisoned, starved and killed by Israel in broad daylight, its obvious that it, meaning the Oslo agreement, was another nail in the coffin of a just and lasting peace. Then came Sharon's Gaza disengagement, which was a disingenuous claim by Israel to make "concessions for peace". Pretending to pull out of Gaza for the sake of peace, Israel tightened the noose around Gaza and its people while freeing itself from any obligation for the welfare of the people of Gaza. People call Gaza a hotbed of terror, neglecting, or perhaps refusing to see that people in Gaza are attempting, albeit in all futility, to resist the terror under which they are forced to live. Close to one million of Gaza's 1.4 million residents are refugees or descendents of refugees forced out of their homes from other parts of Palestine only to be imprisoned and impoverished in Gaza. In The Roadmap to Nowhere Tanya Reinhart writes: "Since 1967, 280,000 people in Gaza have passed through Israeli prisons, detention cells and interrogation rooms." The connection cannot be overlooked: Residents of Gaza have made a name for themselves in resisting the Israeli occupation of Palestine even before 1967 and they have paid dearly for this resistance. On 11 December 2006 Jan McGirk described in The Independent the effects of Israeli terror on the children of Gaza: "No sane child can remain unaffected by the mayhem of Gaza Strip. Playmates frequently are killed or maimed: at last count, Israeli guns had slain 88 Gazan children and wounded another 343 between mid-June and December, 2006" She further writes that "In Gaza's grim conditions, mothers find it hard to tell if their offspring are crying out of fright, pain or misery. But when normally bickering brats fall silent, it's the first sign of mental scars from being constantly scared." She adds, "Muhammad, who would hit smaller children or shatter cups when he did not get his way, eventually revealed in an after school meeting that two IDF soldiers had executed a young man right in front of him." In America people still speak of a "peace process", and the situation in Gaza and in the West Bank is characterized as a conflict between two people who can't find a fair compromise. Few dare to mention that the only process that is taking place is oppression for the sake of expansion. Palestinian children are imprisoned, traumatized, starved and murdered so that Israeli can maintain its hegemony over the: "Land of Israel". Gaza is collateral damage, the children of Gaza are of no consequence and the leaders of the enlightened, democratic Western world could not care less. But in spite of its enormous military might Israel's authority over life in Gaza can be must be defied. People conscience must act so that the ethnically based oppression, of which House Speaker Pelosi says it is wrong to accuse Israel, must be brought to an end.

Hillary Clinton Gives Palestine's Texts an "F"

Hillary Clinton was on hand for the press conference announcing Itamar Marcus's publication of another of what Palestinian educator Gabriel Baramki calls "poisonous attacks" of Palestinian textbooks.

Wonder how many US textbooks Clinton scrutinized before she took on the daunting task of Palestine's Arabic texts?

Disheartening to see her align herself with an American-Israeli propagandist who gets paid to cherry pick items from the Palestinian media to aid Israel in its efforts to demonise Palestinians.

Marcus is an American and an illegal settler. Did I say that? The ones who hog up all the Palestinian water for themselves.

Hillary Clinton is supposed to represent American values.

Instead she hob-nobs with falsifiers of history and this occupier of stolen property, which is a violation of the Geneva Convention, while feigning concern for Palestinian children's education:

"These textbooks don't give Palestinian children an education, they give them an indoctrination."

Unfortunate, that one running for the highest office in the land considers respect for the Universal Declaration of Human Rights "indoctrination." Marcus offers this poem (I am sure his Arabic is impeccable) from a textbook as an example of "the Palestinian demand that Israel accept millions of residents of refugee camps as part of a settlement is one of the chief obstacles to peace."

At the gates of Jaffa, oh my beloved,
And the disarray of the remains of the houses
Among the ruins and the thorns
I stood and told my eyes: Oh eyes
Let us cry
On the ruins of those who left and disappeared from them
The house calls for the one who built it.

Hillary Clinton and Itamar Marcus, ensconced in some neurotic denial that the Palestinians were not ethnically cleansed, expect Palestinian educators to join them in their neuroses, and twist Palestinians expressions of their right to return home as manifestations of hate and indoctrination.

Itamar Marcus's livelihood depends on demonising and misrepresenting Palestinians. Itamar Marcus is a "chief obstacle to peace."

And Hillary Clinton disgraces America's values and thumbs her nose at peace by embracing this textbook example of a bigot.

Neocolonialism
Leong Yew, Research Fellow, University Scholars Programme, National University of Singapore
One common argument among postcolonial intellectuals is that it is too simplistic to say that imperialism has ended and that this occurred when the European empires relinquished their colonies during the few decades after the second world war. The use of the term, neocolonialism, is one such manifestation of this ongoing nature of imperialism. Yet it is in itself extremely contentious because it is multifaceted and loosely used, is often used as a synonym for contemporary forms of imperialism, and in a polemical way is used in reaction to any unjust and oppressive expression of Western political power. Lying underneath all these various meanings of neocolonialism is a tacit understanding that colonialism should be seen as something more than the formal occupation and control of territories by a Western metropole. Hence while formal methods of control like the implementation of administrative structures, the stationing of military forces, and most importantly the incorporation of the natives as subjects of the metropolitan government, neocolonialism suggests an indirect form of control through economic and cultural dependence. In this case neocolonialism describes the continued control of former colonies through ruling native elites compliant with neocolonial powers, populations that are exploited for their labour and resources in order to feed an insatiable appetite for finished physical or cultural commodities made by the metropole.
There is some theoretical consensus and development of neocolonialism as well. Scholars in postcolonial studies like Robert Young, Bill Ashcroft, Gareth Griffiths, and Helen Tiffin agree that inspite of the looseness of the term, neocolonialism originated with Kwame Nkrumah, Ghana's first post-independence president. Part of a burgeoning consciousness developing among postcolonial elites in Africa, Nkrumah became aware that the gaining of independence and national sovereignty by African states were purely token and in no substantial way altered the relationship between the colonial powers and the colonized state. In effect the formal granting of independence created a more Manichean system of dependency and exploitation:
Neo-colonialism is... the worst form of imperialism. For those who practise it, it means power without responsibility and for those who suffer from it, it means exploitation without redress. In the days of old-fashioned colonialism, the imperial power had at least to explain and justify at home the actions it was taking abroad. In the colony those who served the ruling imperial power could at least look to its protection against any violent move by their opponents. With neo-colonialism neither is the case. (xi)
In particular, Nkrumah makes the following points about neocolonialism in 1965:
It continues to actively control the affairs of the newly independent state
In most cases neocolonialism is manifested through economic and monetary measures. For example the neocolonial territories become the target markets for imports from the imperial centre(s)
While neocolonialism may be a form of continuing control by a state's previous formal colonial master, these states may also become subjected to imperial power by new actors. These new actors include the United States or may be international financial and monetary organizations
Because of the nuclear parity between the superpowers, the conflict between the two take place in the form of "limited wars." Neocolonial territories are often the places where these "limited wars" are waged.
As the ruling elites pay constant deference to the neocolonial masters, the needs of the population are often ignored, leaving issues of living conditions like education, development, and poverty unresolved.
In more recent days there have been attempts to frame such reactions to new forms of colonialism as simply "irrational" antipathy towards the West, as a type of resentment for the disparities between First World and Third, and also as a way of explaining victimization. However Nkrumah's views on neocolonialism cannot be so easily explained because they more firmly elaborate historical and possibly deterministic structures on a larger scale. Particularly Nkrumah sought to develop the idea of imperialism advanced by Lenin in Imperialism: The Highest Stage of Capitalism. In this case it makes no sense to claim that imperialism sustains itself because of the continued lust for power after power but that there exists a higher logic driven on by capitalism and the never ending need of accumulation and production, now sustained on a global scale. Nkrumah picks up on these Marxist themes by noting how capitalism and its problems (like class conflict) occuring at the metropolitan centres become "transferred" onto the peripheries.
While Nkrumah does not provide a solution to neocolonialism in Neocolonialism: The Last Stage of Imperialism he makes a number tacit suggestions, including the need for pan-African unity in making the task more difficult for neocolonialism. But it is a number of allusions to Marxism that Nkrumah exposes his views on neocolonialism as a potentially self-defeating project. In some sense this would come through postcolonial resistance and revolt when neocolonialism reaches a culmination in the peripheries, but more indirectly destabilizes the neocolonial centre that practices it.
Apart from Nkrumah, the idea of neocolonialism has also been used in other contexts. Robert Young, for instance, sees neocolonialism as being advanced first through "development and dependency theory" and then through "critical development theory" (49-56). At issue in development and dependency theory is the difficulty for the Third World states in escaping from the Western notion of development. Classification, economic growth, the ways economic output is measured, and the progressive linear model of development have been so deeply entrenched that neocolonized states have no other recourse but to be part of that system. Consequently dependency theorists depict a world made up of developmental inequities, noting that metropolitan centres, in seeking to be even more developed, "under-develop" the peripheries through trade exploitation. More recently critical development theory goes beyond its predecessor because the notion of neocolonial actions in the periphery cannot be so easily explained, especially with the economic successes of Asia. In this regard "development" can no longer be theorized in purely economic terms but has to incorporate other dimensions like culture, gender, society and politics as well. In variations of critical development theory like post-development theory, Young asserts that there has been a movement towards "popular development." This is the empowerment of usually non-governmental, civil actors to address fundamental human needs, hence an emphasis on sustainable development, "self-reliance," and "cultural pluralism and rights" (55). A number of post-development theorists have even advocated development outside the framework of the Enlightenment logic, and by so doing look towards postcolonial politics as the future direction development theory could take. It is at this juncture that Young notes the potential convergence between developmental theory and postcolonialism

"The Zone where the natives live is not complementary to the zone inhabited by the settlers"
''Violence is a cleansing force. It frees the native from his inferiority complex and from his despair and inaction; it makes him fearless and restores his self-respect.''
by:
Frantz Fanon

Frantz Fanon (July 20, 1925 – December 6, 1961) was a Martinique-born French author and essayist. He was perhaps the preeminent thinker of the 20th century on the issue of decolonization and the psychopathology of colonization. His works have inspired anti-colonial liberation movements for more than four decades.

Life

Martinique and WWII
Fanon was born on the Caribbean island of Martinique, then a French colony and now a French département. He was born into a mixed family background: his father was the descendent of African slaves, and his mother was said to be an illegitimate child of mixed race, whose white ancestors came from Strasbourg in Alsace. The family were relatively well-off for Martinicans, but far from middle class. They could, however, afford the fees for the all-black Lycee Schoelcher.
After France fell to the Nazis in 1940, Vichy French naval troops were blockaded on Martinique. Forced to remain on the island, French soldiers became "authentic racists". Many accusations of harassment and sexual misconduct arose. The abuse of the Martinican people by the French Army was a major influence on Fanon, as it reinforced his feelings of alienation and his disgust at the realities of colonial racism. At the age of eighteen, Fanon fled the island and traveled to Dominica to join the Free French Forces. He later enlisted in the French army and saw service in France, notably in the battles of Alsace. In 1944 he was wounded at Colmar and received the Croix de Guerre medal. When the Nazis were defeated and Allied forces crossed the Rhine into Germany -- along with photo journalists -- Fanon's regiment was "bleached" of all non-white soldiers and Fanon and his fellow black soldiers were sent to Toulon instead.
In 1945, Fanon returned to Martinique. His return lasted only a short time. While there, he worked for the parliamentary campaign of his friend and mentor Aimé Césaire, who would be the greatest influence in his life. Although Fanon never professed to be a communist, Césaire ran on the communist ticket as a parliamentary delegate from Martinique to the first National Assembly of the Fourth Republic. Fanon stayed long enough to complete his Baccalaureate and then went to France where he studied medicine and psychiatry. He was educated in Lyon where he studied literature, drama and philosophy, sometimes attending Merleau-Ponty's lectures. After qualifying as a psychiatrist in 1951, Fanon did a residency in psychiatry under the radical Catalan, Francois de Tosquelles, who invigorated Fanon's thinking by emphasizing the important yet often overlooked role of culture in psychopathology. After his residency, Fanon practiced psychiatry in France for another year and then (from 1953) in Algeria. He was chef de service at the Blida-Joinville Psychiatric Hospital in Algeria, where he stayed until his resignation in 1956. In retrospect one might wonder why Fanon spent over 10 years in the service of France, but his servitude to France's army (and his experiences in Martinique) fueled Black Skin, White Masks. For Fanon, being colonized by a language had larger implications for one's consciousness: "To speak . . . means above all to assume a culture, to support the weight of a civilization" (BSWM 17-18). Speaking French means that one accepts, or is coerced into accepting, the collective consciousness of the French.

France
While in France, Fanon wrote his first book, Black Skin, White Masks, an analysis of the effect of colonial subjugation on the human psyche. This book was a personal account of Fanon’s experience of being a black man, an intellectual with a French education rejected in France by the French because of his skin color.

Algeria
Fanon left France for Algeria, where he had been stationed for some time during the war. He secured an appointment as a psychiatrist at Blida-Joinville Psychiatric Hospital. It was there that he radicalized methods of treatment. In particular, he began socio-therapy which connected with his patients' cultural backgrounds. He also trained nurses and interns. Following the outbreak of the Algerian revolution in November 1954 he joined the FLN (Front de Libération Nationale) as a result of contacts with Dr Chaulet.
In The Wretched of the Earth, Fanon later discussed in depth the effects on Algerians of torture by the French forces. The fact that some French paratrooper units engaged in torture has had political repercussions in France, where those alleged to have engaged in torture enjoy an amnesty for the "events." That is why Général Paul Aussaresses who admitted publicly to torturing terrorist suspects was tried not for what he did but for not showing sufficient remorse.
Fanon made extensive trips across Algeria, mainly in the Kabyle region, to study the cultural/psychological life of Algerians. His lost study of "The marabout of Si Slimane" is an example. These trips were also a means for clandestine activities, notably in his visits to the ski resort of Chrea which hid an FLN base. By summer 1956 he wrote his famous "Letter of resignation to the Resident Minister" and made a clean break with his French assimilationist upbringing and education. He was expelled from Algeria in January 1957 and the "nest of fellaghas [rebels]" at Blida hospital was dismantled. Fanon left for France and subsequently traveled secretly to Tunis. He was part of the editorial collective of El Moudjahid for which he wrote to the end of his life. He also served as Ambassador to Ghana for the Provisional Algerian Government and attended conferences in Accra, Conakry, Addis Ababa, Leopoldville, Cairo and Tripoli. Many of his shorter writings from this period were collected posthumously in the book Toward the African Revolution. In this book Fanon even outs himself as a war strategist; in one chapter he discusses how to open a southern front to the war and how to run the supply lines.

Death
On his return to Tunis, after his exhausting trip across the Sahara to open a Third Front, Fanon was diagnosed with leukemia. He went to the Soviet Union for treatment and experienced some remission of his illness. On his return to Tunis he dictated his testament The Wretched of the Earth. When he was not confined to his bed, he delivered lectures to ALN (Armée de Libération Nationale) officers at Ghardimao on the Algero-Tunisian border. He made a final visit to Sartre in Rome and went for further leukemia treatment in the USA. Ironically, he was assisted by the CIA in traveling to the United States to receive treatment. He died in Bethesda [Maryland, US], on December 6, 1961 under the name of Ibrahim Fanon. He was buried in Algeria, after lying in state in Tunisia. Later his body was moved to a martyrs (chouhada) graveyard at Ain Kerma in eastern Algeria. Fanon was survived by his wife, Josie (maiden name: Dublé, died 13 July 1960 in Alger), their son, Olivier and his daughter (from a previous relationship) Mireille. Mireille maried Bernard Mendès-France, son of the French politician Pierre Mendès-France.

Work
Although Fanon wrote Black Skin, White Masks while still in France, most of his work was written while in North Africa. It was during this time that he produced his greatest works, Year 5 of the Algerian Revolution (later republished as A Dying Colonialism) and perhaps the most important work on decolonization yet written, The Wretched of the Earth. The Wretched of the Earth was first published in 1961 by François Maspero and has a preface by Jean-Paul Sartre. In it Fanon analyzes the role of class, race, national culture and violence in the struggle for national liberation. Both books established Fanon in the eyes of much of the Third World as the leading anti-colonial thinker of the 20th century. Fanon's three books were supplemented by numerous psychiatry articles as well as radical critiques of French colonialism in journals like, Esprit and El Moudjahid.
The reception of his work has been affected by English translations which are recognized to contain numerous omissions and errors, while his unpublished work, including his doctoral thesis, has received little attention. As a result, Fanon has often been portrayed as an advocate of violence. In the original French, it is clear this is not the case. Furthermore, his work is interdisciplinary, spanning psychiatric concerns to encompass politics, sociology, anthropology, linguistics and literature.His participation in the Algerian FLN (Front de Libération Nationale) from 1955 determined his audience as the Algerian colonized. It was to them that his final work, Les damnés de la terre (translated into English by Constance Farrington as The Wretched of the Earth) was directed. It constitutes a warning to the oppressed of the dangers they face in the whirlwind of decolonization and the transition to a neo-colonialist/globalized world.

Influence
Fanon has had an inspiring impact on anti-colonial and liberation movements. In particular, Les damnés de la terre was a major influence on the work of revolutionary leaders such as Ali Shariati in Iran, Steve Biko in South Africa and Ernesto Che Guevara in Cuba. Of these only Guevara was primarily concerned with Fanon's theories on violence; for Shariati and Biko the main interest in Fanon was "the new man" and "black consciousness" respectively. Fanon's influence extended to the liberation movements of the Palestinians, the Tamils, the Irish, African Americans and others.

References in the Arts

Music
Rage Against the Machine quotes Fanon, "grip tha cannon like Fanon and pass tha shell to my classmate" in a track entitled "Year of tha Boomerang" on their 1996 release Evil Empire. The Wretched of the Earth appears on the inside of the album cover.
Zack de la Rocha of Rage Against the Machine also references Fanon in a track recorded with Last Emperor and KRS-One called "C.I.A. (Criminals In Action)." The lyric is: "I bring the sun at red dawn upon the thoughts of Frantz Fanon, So stand at attention devil dirge, You'll never survive choosing sides against the Wretched of the Earth."
Third Sight references Fanon in a track entitled "Will I Get Shot by a Dope Fiend?" on their 2006 release Symbionese Liberation Album.
Digable Planets refer to Fanon in their rap-jazz cut "Little Renee" from the Coneheads motion picture soundtrack.
The Dialectics reference Fanon in a track titled "Lost artists" on their 2006 EP release "Styles of Resistance." The lyric is: "About face, a small place in this reckless abandon, a new canon written out of the ashes of Franz Fanon."
Earthling reference Fanon on their 1995 single Nefisa. The lyric is: "Frantz fanon, yeah yeah i get it. All that curiosity with something to offset it."

(Iraqi prisoner and his son)

For many years now, Mr. Muhammad Salah lived life in the infamy of being labeled as the only designated US terrorist. He suffered the repercussions of this judgment, long before he could face an open and fair trial in a US Court of law. His assets were frozen, and his life shattered. His family carried the burden of this label to their schools, workplaces, and to the local supermarket. Today at the completion of an emotionally tolling trial on Mr. Salah and his family, the final verdict is out. Though he was found guilty of obstructing justice, he was found not guilty of racketeering -- the major charge. The third charge of providing material support to a terrorist organization had been dropped mid-trial. And so, here's the final word: Mr. Muhammad Salah is neither a terrorist nor a criminal for having supplied charitable aid to the most vulnerable factions of his occupied and war-ravaged country of origin, Palestine; a jury of his peers understand that to be true. Our justice system has affirmed what many in his family have long claimed, that Muhammad Salah, a conscientious and upright family man and community member was only guilty of being a bold Palestinian activist. His fate is one that befalls many of his kind. It is to my personal relief, that our justice system is where the buck stops on the political persecution of the embattled Palestinian people. My sense of pride in our court system, however, comes with reservation. Justice as we know it in America involves more than just an endpoint, it invovles the process of how to get there. And while the verdict vindicates Salah and his name, the process, the trial, raises questions for those of us who are concerned about the rule of law, and the sanctity of our constitutional rights. As a civil rights organization, our aspiration is to see every American granted his or her full rights under any and all circumstances. Muhammad Salah's right to a fair trial was forgone when the court decided to accept statements he made under torture. It is a cause for concern to the American people when a U.S. court endorses foreign interrogation methods and detention practices that would be considered illegal under U.S. law. Mr. Salah was systematically tortured by the Israeli Secret Service and interrogated for 80 days. In some countries, such brutality is typically used to break down the psychological condition of a suspect. Because the manner in which the confession was extracted would be inadmissible in the United States, it is repugnant to the public policy of American courts. Muhammad Salah's 6th Amendment right to a public trial was also violated when the court ruled that portions of the suppression hearings and trial would be closed to the public. Also, Muhammad Salah's due process rights were violated when his assets were frozen before he could have the opportunity to defend himself in a public trial. We hope that the suffering of the Salah family is over. We also hope that the "terrorism" label be reserved in the future for those found guilty of that charge in an open and fair trail administered in a respected court of law.