Mohammad Othman, a prominent Palestinian activist involved with War on Want partner, Stop the Wall, has been detained without charge by Israeli authorities. His detention is illegal – and he now faces the risk of torture. We need to take action to free him now.

Write to the UK Foreign Secretary urging the British government to put pressure on Israel to release Mohammad immediately.

http://www.waronwant.org/Freemohammadothman

Mohammad has dedicated the last 10 years of his life to the defence of Palestinian human rights. Since his arrest by Israeli authorities on 22 September Mohammad has been subjected to six military hearings. Yet he still has not been charged with any crime, leading his lawyers to believe he is being targeted by Israel solely because of work in defence of human rights.

During his time in detention, Mohammad has been held mostly in solitary confinement and subjected to lengthy interrogation sessions, threats and sleep deprivation. He is currently being refused access to his lawyers and last week was secretly moved to a new detention centre, where his lawyers fear he could now be tortured.

War on Want is campaigning for Mohammad's urgent release. Please take this e-action now. With your help, we can free Mohammad Othman.

http://www.waronwant.org/Freemohammadothman

Thank you,

Yasmin Khan

Senior Campaigns Officer

Palestine@waronwant.org

visit: http://freemohammadothman.wordpress.com/

These sad and bankrupt organizations are always the first to condemn any tragedy that happens here or anywhere for that matter, when the perpetrator(s) are of the Muslim faith or are Arabs or of Arabic heritage.

Their actions are responsible for the continued discrimination against us. Instead of issuing condemnations of crimes that take place, and making it look as if being Arab or Muslim is the reason for committing the crime, they should have a backbone and either shut up or take the stand that will challenge the right wing and the system in the United States and make it clear to them that Islam and or Arabs are not reasons crimes take place.

No human being should condone the killing of people anywhere and that's why we should all be shocked to see crimes such as the one committed by Nidal Hasan take place.

Crimes always take place and they are carried out by people who for whatever reason(s) commit them, and we all should take a clear stand against these crimes, but the Muslim and Arab organizations in this country should not be waiting for crimes carried out by Muslims and or Arabs to take place so they can be the first to condemn them, but their job should be to combat racist acts and rhetoric that is taking place on daily basis, which goes without any challenge.

Since the first second that media outlets in the US learned that Hasan was a Muslim, they started attacking the religion and those who believe in it and the condemnations by Muslim and Arab groups did nothing but add fuel to these racist attacks on us.

This should be clear to those organizations, because this always happens. And even though some Jason Rodriguez went into his former work offices in Orlando Florida and started shooting and killing people there, media outlets said nothing about this guy's religion and its role in having him commit this outrageous crime, nor did Christian organizations issue any condemnations - even though no one group in the history of the world has committed more crimes than Christians.

So why do these Muslim and Arab organizations keep doing this?
Go figure.
Source: http://wewillreturn.blogspot.com/2009/11/muslim-and-arab-organizations-in-us.html
Yousef

Please visit
http://wewillreturn.blogspot.com

In many parts of the West, certain political parties or movements are treated as if they come from the Moon or are alien to any body politic. Their existence among the people is always scrutinised as negative, transitory and something created in a boardroom or a backroom, imposed upon an unsophisticated public that is unable to differentiate a true political programme from empty and simplistic rhetoric. These parties or movements are depicted as if they only address the margins of society who are disenfranchised from any “normal” democratic bodies, and thus, are ramshackle bands that represent a minority constituency. Given their oppositional nature to pre-existing parties, they are outfitted with the label that will serve to keep them isolated from the structures that are already in operation. All of this is to destroy the party or movement by propaganda work rather than analysis of reality.

An entire mythology has been built around the Palestinian resistance movement (which morphed into a party) Hamas. This construct has actually taken on more legitimacy as a factual interpretation of Hamas than the facts themselves. In most of the Western media, no matter if it is on the right or the left, and in some of the “moderate” media in Arab countries, the very name of the party is coupled with terms such as “fundamentalist”, “radical” or “terrorist”. Clearly, this serves to create a fear trigger that will remove the word from being critically and honestly evaluated. The listener will immediately identify Hamas with a negative connotation and is removed from responsibility for understanding that this is a manipulation of reality. The listener is expected to accept the claims that Hamas is “anti-democratic” and “fanatical”. It is child’s play to then convince the listener that Hamas is Bad, that it is the Enemy of all We represent (in our own eyes, tolerance, democracy, Goodness itself). It is possible to then extend that reading to the belief that action must be taken against them, that they are a “cancer that must be gotten rid of”, as quoted by the institutional peacenik, Noa. How does one eradicate a cancer, once it has been diagnosed? By extirpation or bombardment. With cancer treatment, one “bombards” even the healthy parts of the body with toxic agents, waiting to see if after the battle there were enough healthy parts remaining to allow the organism to continue to exist. Once you have set into the minds of millions of people the idea that destruction is good, because the enemy is just so damaging and evil if allowed to exist, the risk of bringing the entire organism to its grave by weakening it dramatically is taken as a viable risk to run. This is a way to make them justify actions that their own eyes don’t see as therapeutic, but are pure horror and evil.

How did it work that the world was so fooled and allowed Israel to destroy Gaza to “get rid of Hamas”? It was quite simple, and it’s always the same answer: Israel and its allies keep people disinformed. Those who actually will go slightly below the screaming headlines of the newspapers might find out a few facts buried that that will contradict the spin, but not that many people will go that far, given that they are exposed to something with an element of truth buried deep within. If that were not problematic enough, even the “progressives” have done meritorious services to rendering Hamas untouchable. They might accept them as a “resistance movement” but they won’t allow their personal ideological bias to see Hamas as a progressive force for their own people’s advancement. This may be out of conviction, convenience or even lack of research or a blindspot that does not allow variations on the theme of the class struggle, where everything is “international” and the same type of rules and ideals should be considered applicable and necessary for all, going so far in some cases to “import democracy” under various more or less aggressive forms.

These people, many of whom are armed with good intentions, have chewed, swallowed, and are spitting back quite a few of the outright lies and distortions that are part of the mythology created by opponents of Hamas, created in Israel and the West, primarily.

What are the components of that mythology?
1) Hamas was created by the Israeli Mossad.
2) Hamas represents a marginal portion of the Palestinians.
3) Hamas turned democratic enough just to be able to obtain some legitimacy to later take over and turn the Palestinian Territories into an Islamic State.
4) Their victory in the polls was nothing more than a protest vote against the corruption of Fatah.
5) Hamas is comprised of a bunch of illiterates and their electors are sucked in by their own ignorance.
6) Hamas is a fundamentalist group and therefore inflexible and incapable of any modification or evolution. The oft cited Charter is used against them to stress that they are simply a radical, destructive group poised for Holy War.
7) Hamas does not seek any kind of compromise with other Palestinian political parties or factions, and are therefore the divisionary element that prohibits of the unity of the people.
8 ) Hamas operates to indoctrinate their people with hate propaganda in order to utilise them as cannon fodder.
9) Hamas is a terrorist group that exists only thanks to financing by “fundamentalist regimes”.

That Hamas is merely a resistance movement has been thoroughly disproved by the elections, but this seems to be the safe place that activists can cluster in order to allow themselves to be able to tolerate Hamas, while wishing for their quick demise. They are not viewed then as having a true heritage as a political party that can be compared to those of “democratic nations” of the “international community”, and thus, analysis of them can remain at an elementary level, lending itself to hasty generalisations.

I ask my readers to kindly forgive all the inverted quotation marks, but these words do become ironic and empty of true meaning when they are applied to the objects indicated by the spin doctors, whose task it is to do the bidding of the hegemonic powers. How can a minority of a handful of nations that always pits itself against the will of the remainder of the world community in the UN be considered as the “international community”? It’s a boy’s club that excludes practically everyone. How can a country that puts in office the candidate who obtains the lesser amount of votes be called a “democracy”? It is when we start to question our own foundations that we can detect that there is a lot of convenience in presenting any opposition as being an enemy and outside of paradigms that we consider to be core to our expectations of how to establish a just and equitable world.

It’s time to debunk a few of these myths with facts.

1) Hamas was not created by Mossad. Although Israel does like to claim credit for many things, this one is not their doing. Political Islam in Palestine has had a presence since the early 40s in Mandate Palestine, and Hamas was born as part of the Muslim Brotherhood (Ikhwan), with many of its early leaders formally affiliated. It was the experience of refugeehood that turned Hamas into a more autonomous element with a particular nationalist basis to it, a natural result of the urgent and real human situation of displacement and loss of their cultural and national identity.

There were close relations of this group with the Egyptian base, and the first offices of the Ikhwan in Palestine were created in Gaza in 1945, led by a member of one of the most important families of the zone, Sheykh Zafer al Shawwa. During the first Arab-Israeli war, Islamist volunteers reinforced the ranks, coming primarily from Jordan and Syria, and this support showed the refugees that the Ikhwan had the courage to defend itself, even during the “Israeli War of Independence”. The growing number of refugees gave a stronger identity and sense of purpose to the Islamist movement in Palestine. Therefore, in the civil society and in the population in general, a motivation from any other source was not required to be able to pledge: “I promise to be a good Muslim in defending Islam and the lost land of Palestine. I promise to be a good example for the community and for others.” These were the words spoken by those who swore their loyalty to the Ikhwan in Palestine (source: Beverly Milton Edwards, “Islamic Politics in Palestine”, p. 43). The local Ikhwan had its own agenda, defending its lost land. It didn’t require fanaticism, outside influence or even propaganda. The refugees themselves were living proof of the horrors of deportation and suffering. The identification as part of an international movement was concomitant with the recognition of the particularity of the Palestinian experience. The official foundation, dating 9 December 1987, was only the culmination of an organisation in the works for decades. Organised Islamic resistance was further utilised when the situation precipitated dramatically in 1967 and a new generation was born as refugees. For this generation, a return to Islam was considered as a necessity for the moral and political future of a people that was being literally destroyed. The cause of the Nakba was seen by many as the result of the distancing from a normal society, the Palestinian one, in which the ethical, religious, cultural and traditional values had been devastated by the occupation, and the descent into further degradation, poverty, disenfranchisement and social instability was seen not only as the result of the occupation, but part of its cause.

The “international community” would not come to the rescue of these people, the rest of the Ummah was not caught up in their national struggle, largely because they were not directly involved or were even prohibited from involvement. The extreme pain and disgrace of losing one’s land at that time was a new element to the area, where previous colonisation avoided expelling the indigenous inhabitants, and throwing off the usurpers was not complicated with the total loss of roots and a base. The basis for the formal dimension of Hamas was thus present for decades prior to its official birth. In order to operate, being under the thumb of the occupation, these organised groups that existed had established charities and benefit organisations for their people. These institutions were tolerated by Israel in the Occupied Territories. Israel conceded some operating space through granting of licenses. As General Yitzhak Sager said in an interview to the International Herald Tribune in 1981, the Israeli government “…gave money that the military governor allocated to the mosques […] the sums were used both by the mosques and the religious schools, with the purpose of reinforcing a subject that would contrast that of the Left that was in favour of the PLO.” If there was some motivation for Israel to be involved, it was really as an act of ‘divide and rule’, a bit of tolerance, a bit of economic support to the various religious associations in order to see if an opposition to the nationalists of the PLO could develop. They really were only looking for a way to see the weakening of the PLO, which was gaining some support in the West, and they did not found, provide major financing or in any way influence a movement that they would in some way infiltrate or control. That is pure mythology. Why give Israel credit where none is due?

2) That Hamas represents only a marginal portion of Palestinians is another myth to debunk. It is indeed true that all Palestinians are not refugees, and it is also true that virtually all of the leaders of Hamas were born in exile or at some point were subjected to the experience of expulsion and loss of their homes and possessions. This is a core Palestinian experience, and it is true that even those (few) Palestinians who were not uprooted can identify with the loss of their cultural and national identity, and all of them know that their national aspirations and cohesion as a group have been destroyed by Israel. Thus, even a movement or party that has its own identity in the refugee camps and in exile or in religious roots, is recognised as an intrinsic, legitimate and natural representative of Palestinians as a whole. They even obtained the majority vote in areas of the West Bank that were not considered as Hamas strongholds, as well as obtaining votes from many Christian areas.

3) The myth that Hamas turned “democratic enough” just to get its foot in the door as the first step of forcing an Islamic State upon the entirety of Palestine is a very widespread one, especially in the progressive circles that do not recognise the popularity of the movement or who have an ideological prejudice against any religious movement. There is much to be said in favour of separation of church and state, but this of course is something that cannot be imposed from afar, and furthermore, there are many levels of separation to take into consideration. Those who subscribe to this position of “Hamas buying time before introducing the Sharia” tend to deny that a democracy has certain characteristics, and it is not necessarily a synonym of “secularism”. When the word “democracy” is applied correctly, it has certain characteristics, and Hamas meets these. Hamas has popular consensus. It has an internal structure that is autonomous and recognised as legitimate by its constituency. It follows the rules of elections, meeting the requirements for participation. Once elected, it assumes its role within the existing system, not having overthrown or staged coups against established structures. It is a political movement with several factions (some of them armed, as is true of many parties in areas under occupation, Fatah included) with a history and an organisation. There is widespread discussion among its constituencies, including those who are political prisoners, prior to making decisions, and the majority decides the actions to be undertaken. If one thing must be said about it to set it apart from parties that Westerners are familiar with, highest level leaders generally do not assume the governing roles. This is understandable in a party where a great quantity of the leaders are routinely assassinated by Israel. That the current political director, Khaled Meshaal, must live in exile after having once been victim of an attempted assassination says more about this anomalous situation than a thousand words can.

4) That Hamas’s victory in the Legislative Council election was nothing more than a protest vote (another pet theory of the left) was brilliantly illustrated as false by Paola Caridi in her very good book (despite the sensationalist subtitle) “Hamas, What it is and what the Radical Palestinian Movement Wants”, published by Feltrinelli and only available in Italian at this time. I am translating a few paragraphs that deal with this question.

“There is a precise political reason for which the majority of Palestinians voted for Hamas. It is a reason that concerns the decision made by the Islamist movement formally on 23 January 2005. (translator’s note, a year prior to the Legislative elections): a unilateral truce, reached together with the Islamic Jihad (that had instead broken it on several occasions), which had turned words into facts: that there would be the end of the season of terrorist attacks made by Hamas inside Israel as indicated within the confines of the 1949 armistice, the Israel within the Green Line, in other words. The ending of suicide attacks in Israeli cities, substantially bringing an end to the Intifada as well as (Hamas’s) participative choice is interpreted by the Palestinian population as a precise political proposal: an alternative to those who had governed and controlled them, holding the hegemony up to that moment. A proposal that poses at the same time new de facto limits to Hamas’s resistance strategy. The Islamist movement has not been, therefore, chosen only as a protest against the corruption, patronage and inefficiency of Fatah, which as a party is often confused with the PA. Corruption, patronage and inefficiency that are related, at least from a temporal point of view, with the failure of the Oslo Accords and the “facts on the ground” realised by the Israelis.

“The people of Hamas were considered people who are serious, who did not enrich themselves at the expense of the population, in fact, they continued to live in normal neighbourhoods and in the refugee camps.” (Caridi, p. 171).

5) An extremely offensive smear, oft repeated, is that Hamas’s followers and its leaders are a “bunch of illiterates” or “religious fanatics”. Almost all the leaders are (or were, given the number of assassinations within their ranks, the past tense is de rigueur) university graduates in fields ranging from medicine and physics to jurisprudence, economics and theology, is testament itself that this smear is merely to throw dirt on them and paint them as having read only religious texts and therefore “under-developed” when compared to other movements. Education has always been one of the pillars of Hamas and its charity work. The people of Palestine don’t need to be told this, it is a reality for them, where in many cases without this foundation, Palestinians would be left wanting in this area.

6) The inflexibility of Hamas is another myth, especially yanked out when speaking of the 1988 Charter (Mithaq). Shiekh Hamed Bitauri, “religious authority of Nablus, president of the Union of the Palestinian Ulemas, known for his radical positions had no problem confirming that ‘the Charter is not the Qu’ran. We can change it. It is only the synthesis of the positions of the Islamist movement in its relations with the other factions, and its politics.’ Aziz Dweik, founder of the Department of Geography of the University of Nablus, later to become the spokesman of the Palestinian Parliament after the 2006 elections, and imprisoned in Israeli jails since the summer of that year, went even further, declaring the political and pragmatic necessity of distancing from the Mithaq of 1988 to Khalid Amayreh, Palestinian journalist that is sensitive to Islamist positions, he said that ‘Hamas would not remain as a hostage to rhetorical slogans of the past like those of the ‘destruction of Israel’.” (Khalid Amayreh, Hamas Debates the Future: Palestine’s Islamic Resistance Movement Attempts to Reconcile Ideological Purity and Political Realism, in “Conflicts Forum”, Nov. 2007, p.4) (Caridi p. 90).

Haniyeh has mentioned on many occasions that the Charter has been surpassed in its substance by the other official documents, the most important of which, the Electoral Programme of the Reform and Change List (the list in which Hamas ran for office). This programme is structured like a document that goes far beyond the needs of a political campaign, according to the leader of Hamas, and it indicates the policy of the movement. It was not written in the heat of the revolution of the Intifada, and reflects the evolution of the party. The changes present are not ideological so much as ones of a strategic and political nature. The positions have been reiterated so many times in interviews and public interventions, it seems incredible that the complexity and maturity of Hamas should by now not be apparent to everyone. It is clear that they are still dedicated to the liberation of Palestine, but they are attempting to achieve it through reaffirmation of the rights of the people, knowing full well that as a party, Hamas is not equipped to overthrow the occupation in any practical way or to destroy what they recognise as a reality.

Many of us who follow events in the Middle East hope that they do not surrender to pragmatism so far as to recognise Israel not only as a reality, but as a “Jewish State”, however, we must watch from the sidelines and evaluate facts. The people of Palestine will be vigil about what rights are being surrendered, if any, and many of us believe that backs to the wall, they will not capitulate and lose what they know is theirs for reasons of political expediency. Hamas too is aware of this fact.

7) Hamas has been far less divisionary than its principle counterpart, Fatah. The Gaza “coup” that shocked and saddened the world was actually a preventive measure to the thwart the planned takeover by the Fatah forces faithful to Dahlan (in collaboration with Israel). That Hamas was the party that was awarded victory by its own people has never been recognised by the “international community” that nevertheless pushed for elections and insisted that this was the necessity for Palestinians, because this would mean that the resistance had been granted legitimacy and would become policy within the governing body, the rejection of negotiations as sub-alternates with Israel, which was Fatah policy, had been officially sanctioned by the populace and it would only be a matter of time before the programme would become policy. So, any steps by the Fatah “Security Forces” to overtake Gaza would actually have been the coup. But in the backwards way of viewing events, fuelled by disinformation, the tragic bloodbath between Palestinians prevented the real overthrow of democracy that would have taken place had Dahlan had the chance. Again and again, Hamas has sought to work together with the opposition party, and this is something they would not tolerate in the vain hope that their economic advantage and political nulla osta from the boy’s club would allow them to command even in absence of the popular mandate to do so.

8 ) It’s not necessary to use propaganda to show to Palestinians in the Occupied Territories and in exile, and even to many within Israel, the ongoing destruction of the Palestinian civilisation and people. Blockades, bombardments, assassinations, war, checkpoint humiliations, restrictions, separation of families, imprisonment and further abuses are not isolated incidents, but they are the daily bread and water of Palestinian life. No one needs to invent a rage over a phantasmagoric enemy. There is a real one that is subjecting the people of all ages and conditions to humiliation, deprivation and death. Showing a man in a mouse costume to insist that children are being indoctrinated in hate might go down well with the uninformed masses, but a glimpse into the reality makes Farfur look like the sweetest kind of way for a child to assimilate and tolerate that he or she is a prisoner doomed for life to suffer in the most atrocious way for being born as a lesser being in the oppressors’ eyes.

9) The worst smear against Hamas is the one to keep them as the symbol of evil: that they are a terrorist group, financed by “rogue States in the axis of evil”. Bearing in mind that their financing is abysmally inferior to the gigantic economic and “military aid” package given to Israel by America, Canada and many other nations in the “international community” in an official way, why should the claim of foreign financing be considered as unacceptable when it is simply the way the that Israel keeps afloat through billions of dollars annually, up front, and heaven only knows what other financing comes in through the thousands of “charities” that are really little more than fronts for mass immigration to Israel to curtail Arab growth? If Zionism and its charities are considered as legitimate and noble, why are Islamic ones put on blacklists and the donors treated as if they are financing terrorism? There is a double standard here.

That Hamas has rejected terror operations against civilians and did its best to do so in the service of achieving a realistic improvement for the life conditions of its people is an authenticated fact, corroborated by none other than the USA Congressional Research Service, a Think Tank that basically presents its conservative and Israel-friendly positions to the Congress so that they become policy. In fact, in the document coordinated by Jim Zanotti http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/mideast/R40101.pdf  Israel and Hamas, Conflict in Gaza (2008-2009), we see that the quoted “reason” for the onslaught of Gaza to “cleanse it of Hamas”, the rockets fired into Israeli territory, was nothing but an excuse that the West drank down with gusto as if it were cherry juice. The extremely rudimentary rockets were recognised as NOT having been launched by Hamas, and not only that, Hamas was viewed as being able and willing to suppress the attacks. It is significant that the first victims of the Israeli attacks in Gaza were the regular police forces who had just been trained, perhaps also for this purpose. Zanotti writes:

For the first five months, the cease-fire held relatively well. Some rockets were fired into Israel, but most were attributed to non-Hamas militant groups, and, progressively, Hamas appeared increasingly able and willing to suppress even these attacks. No Israeli deaths were reported (although there were injuries and property damage), and Israel refrained from retaliation.

Nevertheless, each party felt as though the other was violating the terms of the unwritten ceasefire. Hamas demanded—unsuccessfully—that Israel lift its economic blockade of Gaza, while Israel demanded—also unsuccessfully—a full end to rocket fire and progress on the release of Israeli corporal Gilad Shalit from Hamas’s captivity.

Israel cited the sporadic rocket fire as justification for keeping the border crossings and Gaza’s seaport closed to nearly everything but basic humanitarian supplies. Hamas, other Arab leaders, and some international and non-governmental organizations involved in aiding Gazan civilians complained that Israel was reneging on its promises under the unwritten cease-fire agreement.

If that were not enough, the author, certainly not sympathetic in any way to Hamas, makes statements about the aftermath of the war where even Israel admits that Hamas was not responsible for the rockets:

Since Israel’s unilateral ceasefire began on January 18, 2009, there have been about 40 sporadic rocket launches into southern Israel, far fewer than occurred on average per day just before Operation Cast Lead. Moreover, Israeli officials believe that smaller militant groups, such as Palestinian Islamic Jihad and the Al Aqsa Martyrs’ Brigades, and not Hamas, have fired the rockets, as they did during the cease-fire (although it is possible that Hamas is enabling or acquiescing to these attacks while preserving deniability).

So, Israel used the excuse of Hamas rocket launches to justify the elimination of Hamas (by means of destruction of the entirety of Gaza) through what they call “military operations” but the rest of humanity knows is war, while they were aware that Hamas was neither the author nor the facilitator of the rockets, any kind of excuse they pull out of the magic hat to justify their actions should fall on deaf ears. Complaints about arms smuggling through the most rudimentary of tunnels should stink to high heaven when we see the Defense Budget Appropriations for US-Israeli Missile Defense Programs in that same Congressional Report. Iron Dome, David’s Sling and other “military aid” costing the American people billions of dollars are described briefly. For every five ineffective bottle rockets that are smuggled through a tunnel, the USA is flying in full cargoes of arms and cases of cash to be spent by Israel for their military “needs”. The double standards here also draw innocent blood in violation of international law at the expense of your hard-earned money. Again, from the Congressional report:

Israel may have used weapons platforms and munitions purchased from the United States in its military operations in Gaza, reportedly including, among others, F-15 and F-16 aircraft, Apache helicopters, and, according to Israeli press reports, GBU-39 small diameter guided bombs approved for sale by the 110th Congress following notification in September 2008.

Additionally, all unilateral truces between Israel and Hamas (called by Hamas, not by Israel) were broken in every case by Israel. In many cases, making incursions into the Occupied Territories, which legally they are prohibited from doing, as civilian populations under occupation (even if the “settlers” have left, Gaza is kept under siege by Israel) are required to be protected by the occupier, not attacked. Israel, using weapons and planes supplied for them by the good graces of the people of the United States, bombarded streets where their targets (politicians and clerics that Israel terms as “militants” if not worse) were located, killing in an indiscriminate way anyone in the range, children included. If that’s not terrorism, the word has no meaning.

These are only a few of the myths in circulation. They represent just a portion of the lies, disinformation and hasbara that circulates about one of the major Palestinian parties, born from within, developing as all parties do, from below, and legitimised by fair and legal elections. Debunking these lies is a duty. One doesn’t need to agree to the entire programme of Hamas, but one is obligated to recognise that they are entirely different from the image that they have been straightjacketed into. What Jessica Rabbit said in the film, “Who Framed Roger Rabbit” could very well apply to Hamas: “I’m not bad, they just draw me that way.”

This article is part of the Palestine Think Tank and Tlaxcala initiative The First Word War against Disinformation. If you would like to contribute your own original articles to this initiative, send them to contact@palestinethinktank.com or to tlaxcala@tlaxcala.es

visit www.tlaxcala.es and www.palestinethinktank.com

Reclaiming Significance: Palestine Think Tank and Tlaxcala declare the First Word War
WRITTEN BY MARY RIZZO 

There are some words that are used as emotional triggers and mental blinders. They serve the purpose of directing the mind to a specific direction where its critical faculties are set in temporary congealment so that the terminology itself remains vivid and indeed obtains an emotional response from the listener, but its connotations are modified either wholly or in part by whoever is propagating the message. There are many terms and short phrases that are part of our lexicon and which have been utilised for the purpose of influencing our opinions and thus, obtaining our “moral” backing of certain political or ideological goals, obviously, with an intent in mind, gaining our consensus either implicitly or explicitly, since consensus is required by the dictates of “democracy”.The use of linguistic instruments of persuasion is true especially in the most sophisticated fields of Psyops (psychological operations enacted by governments, particularly during wartime or crisis), but it is also utilised in basic journalistic communication and becomes part of the “public discourse”. Since language is the instrument we all use, its codification is essential so that there is no need to define all terms, facilitating the communication of ideas, but there are those whose task is to bend these terms into weapons and functional propaganda devices. Experience tells us that Israeli Hasbara (“Propaganda Plus”, a term that a psychologist friend of mine has coined), is organised at many levels in creating consensus that reiterates their own bias, which can be defined as “Israel first and foremost”, and they do it through the use of rhetoric and language.

This language is so thoroughly imbued in contemporary Western thought that Orwell’s Ministry of Truth seems to be nothing less than the prediction of what the Hasbara Ministry (and all of its more or less formal or official off-shoots around the world) does all in a day’s work. While watching the evening news, one barely raises an eyebrow anymore when becoming aware of acts committed against civilian populations living under military occupation – war crimes under any circumstances, reported as if they are legitimate and necessary acts when not even outright humanitarian deeds. These same atrocities are being bandied as steps towards peace and co-existence and the element of human suffering is wiped out or negated. Yet, when the victim of the suffering is a Westerner or “in the same Democratic camp”, the opposite mechanism is set off and we are to feel moral indignation.

We who are the clients of the Western Media are spoon-fed certain information that would be morally repugnant if the tables were turned and rather than being the perpetrators, we would be the victims. Those who compose and compile their reports give higher intrinsic value to the lives of those they feel are within their constituencies and they assemble the information to reinforce this bias and turn it into normative thought. When a Western Soldier falls he is treated as a hero, no matter where he was or what he was doing at the time, the same is true of Israelis who occupy lands “cleansed” of the non-Jewish population. Whenever the target of any violent action is shown, their moral stature is commensurate with how closely they fit into our own image of ourselves. When the victims reported number among the official “bad guys”, we almost are expected to feel relief and a surge of patriotism that tells us a message indicating that “good is indeed prevailing”. Likewise, we are expected to “root for” someone living in Sderot, treated as if their hardships, nervous cats and “defiance” are naturally our primary concern. During the war waged against Gaza, a group of teenagers complaining that they felt confined between their schools, homes and bomb shelters was given the same space and gravitas in the mainstream mass media as Palestinian parents mourning in grief at the destruction of their homes and the murder of their children by Israeli soldiers and weapons. It would be absurd in any context to make any kind of equivalence between these two levels of suffering, but we are expected to not blink an eye at this kind of reporting.

It is exactly the same as the way we are expected to accept Israeli justifications of their status as “the most moral army in the world” no matter what the photos filtering out of the inferno of Gaza were showing us. In the words of the Prime Minister of Israel immediately following some public outcry: “As a moral army without peer, the IDF took care to act in accordance with international law and did its utmost to prevent harming civilians who were not involved in the fighting, including their property, and to this end, inter alia, distributed very many flyers and also used the local media and the local telephone network in order to deliver timely general and detailed warnings to the civilian population. The IDF also acted to provide for the humanitarian needs of the civilian population in the Gaza Strip during the fighting.”

What is hidden in that press briefing, besides the value judgment about being a moral army without peer, is the wickedness of the content of these “humanitarian” flyers and the “use” of the local media and telephone network. The flyers warned people of the intent of destruction that would soon follow if the people (trapped as they were) did not simply “leave”. This demonstrated pre-meditated intent to cause harm and the warning of death and destruction of property belonging to civilians. Regarding the use of phones, in an article published in USA Today, it was reported that Palestinians received calls on both cellular phones and land lines, warning them that their home was about to be bombed. The calls could not be traced or blocked because they came from international carriers. The Israeli officials claimed this was a service towards Palestinians, (prior obviously to the real service rendered), yet, Maj. Jacob Dallal, the military spokesman interviewed, declined discussing just how the Israeli military obtains cell phone numbers in Gaza, which are not listed anywhere.

The “use” of local media was actually the IDF hacking into Al Aqsa TV as well as breaking into local radio stations including those of Hamas, the PFLP and the Islamic Jihad. According to accounts by Kamal Abu Nasser, during broadcasts on the Voice of Jerusalem, the IDF would break the signal on an hourly basis and broadcast messages blaming Hamas for all the problems in Gaza. This claim was backed by many Gazans who had become dependent upon the radio for a connection with the world, and instead were bombarded with propaganda by those dropping bombs over their heads.

The detailed warnings and humanitarian aid is also easily debunked. The IDF did not explain even to the doctors what type of weapons were being used and how to treat the very strange wounds that were typical of DIME and white phosphorus use. As everyone is by now aware, the Gaza Strip was under total blockade by land, sea and air, with any goods entering coming in through the tunnels, which the Israelis and Americans ran to quickly define as being used for “arms smuggling”, and not simply the only way to move goods of all sorts when all above-ground access was cut off by both Israel and Egypt, where the security forces responding to Fatah were also located. Reading any statement made by Israel always takes a great deal of effort. The truth is there, but it is the opposite of what is stated. Yet, these statements are taken at face value and even elevated to humanitarian status.

Do those who write them and disseminate them take us for blind, deaf and dumb? Or are we all of these things and more? Has our placement on the globe as privileged beings “outside the axis of evil” eliminated the possibility of seeing ourselves how others might see us, and make us exempt from being thoroughly disgusted at the importance we give ourselves and the disregard for others? Have we become the insensitive monsters we must look like or are we just indoctrinated and brainwashed enough to prohibit us from thinking critically?

Since the mass media can’t censor and prevent everything from coming to the surface, those who control it run for cover in furnishing the canonic interpretation of events that we are expected to accept as “fact” or even as “truth”. If we are still able to see, the goal of the Hasbara experts is to prevent us from thinking. This is why these fear triggers and catch phrases are so handy. They do the work for our brains. It is necessary for us to feel “informed” but not necessary for us (and actually detrimental to them) to elaborate and think. Once we have stopped thinking, we will remain silent in the face of the violence used to oppress the weak.

Totalitarian regimes have always depended on either ignorance or fear to help them carry out their work of establishing, consolidating and maintaining their dominion over those who otherwise would rebel against them. The same appears to be true in today’s “democracies”. Pressure is put on Islamic charities, groups that combat occupation are categorised as being terrorist movements and diplomatic relations are also dependent upon the blessing of whoever holds the purse strings. Conditions are set that prohibit openly supporting political movements and even governments that are critical of the Zionist state, as if this itself is the barometer of the validity of an entire nation in the global spectrum. In short, even democracies (again, quoting my psychologist friend, “demonocracies”) implement strong indoctrination to instil their hegemonic advantage politically, economically and even morally. They utilise the media, both as information and entertainment, to brainwash and form their model of a good citizen so that the society is fully supportive of whatever political plans their government will back. The effects filter down all the way to the bottom, even to our children, who are asked to a-critically salute “heroes of peace” armed to the teeth in Afghanistan and Iraq. It seems that Orwell had gotten it right after all.

Fighting the empty rhetoric, deconstructing the lies one by one and taking back the power of our critical thinking is something that is no longer a luxury, but an absolute necessity. To contribute to this ideal of consciousness-building, Palestine Think Tank and Tlaxcala are launching a series of essays that examine many of these terms and phrases, one at a time, in order to construct an alternative lexicon and to present a more accurate reading of the words that surround us at the moment primarily as propagandistic emotional triggers. We ask our contributors, members and affiliates to reflect upon and write about these issues, and we also invite our readers to contribute essays for publication, translation and dissemination.

Which terms interest us? There are actually very many to choose from, so the choice is left to the writers. By no means do we wish to limit the essays to one alone on each theme, as each author may wish to contribute his or her own point of view or argumentation to deal with a theme already touched upon. We hope that this international collaborative effort can contribute to a better understanding of world issues, and a greater awareness of how we play an active role, and not only can we reject the flawed definitions given to us, but we are able to fill these terms with content and understand them in their true dimensions. 

Please send your contributions to contact@palestinethinktank.com or tlaxcala@tlaxcala.es

The First Word War on Tlaxcala http://www.tlaxcala.es/pp.asp?reference=8839&lg=en

The First Word War

Israel’s ultimate secret weapon

WRITTEN BY AYMAN EL KAYMAN

Translated by Manuel Talens and edited by Machetera 

Every time that Shimon Peres, Tzipi Livni or Ehud Barak (not to mention the indescribable Olivier Rafkowicz, the Francophone spokesman the IDF) pronounce the word, one would say they are expectorating, spitting, insulting. They never say Hamas, but Khamas, substituting the Arab H for a rude “Kh”.

Hamas — an acronym of harakat al-muqâwama al-'islâmiya (حركة المقاومة الإسلامية), i.e. Islamic Resistance Movement — it’s spelled in Arabic with H, that is to say, with ح, but in Zionist lips such a ح transforms into خ.

The problem is that in modern Hebrew, Khamas means “robbery, plundering.”

For that reason, the subliminal message that comes out of the mouth of the mob State’s more insignificant spokesman every time he/she speaks of “Khamas” is, to begin with, negative, both for Hebrew and Arab speakers, since in Arabic the letter “khâ” means… shit. A mother tells her son: “Don’t touch that, it’s khâ.” For the same reason, for any Arab in the world the Egyptian Foreign Minister deserves the name he has, Abul Gheith (pronounced “khait”, literally the father of shit).

This deliberate phonetic selection by smart Israeli linguists is an absolute perversion, since the “Heth” (ח) — eighth letter of the Hebrew alphabet — (equivalent to the Arabic خ), traditionally represents light and life. But how can one be surprised at what these leaders do if they are the same who chose Hannukah’s Sabbath — a celebration of light — to launch Operation Cast Lead on Gaza?

I wonder if press correspondents and Western media’s special envoys in Israel, who repeat like parrots the Israeli pronunciation of “Khamas”, are aware of the fact that they are serving as accomplices in the use of a secret linguistic mass destruction weapon.

International jurists should study with supreme urgency the notion of linguistic war crimes.

Ayman El Kayman, researcher at the ILEA (International Linguistic Energy Agency). 

Israel's ultimate secret weapon on Tlaxcala http://www.tlaxcala.es/pp.asp?reference=8852&lg=en

The First Word War is an initiative by Palestine Think Tank and Tlaxcala.

The authors who wish to participate in this First Word War can send their texts to: contact@palestinethinktank.com or to: tlaxcala@tlaxcala.es

 Manuel Talens and Machetera are members of Tlaxcala, the Translator’s Network for Linguistic Diversity. Talens is also a member of Rebelión and Machetera is editor of the blog http://machetera.wordpress.com/. This translation may be reprinted as long as the content remains unaltered, and the source, author, translator and editor are cited.

The First Word War

Syntactic terrorism

WRITTEN BY SANTIAGO ALBA RICO

Translated by Manuel Talens and edited by Machetera 

(image by Abbe Nozal) “A Palestinian gunman shoots to kill in Jerusalem,” states the front page of the digital edition of El Mundo newspaper. Then my eyes reverse toward the heading’s introduction: “At least one person wounded.” Next, those people patient enough to read the body of the news will find out that the only dead victim of this action was in fact its executor. Let’s leave aside the term “gunman”, a cipher of unyielding violence so de-politicizing that it legitimizes any bad naming all by itself, so negatively flat that we refuse even to apply it to these lunatics who kill people at random in USAmerican schools and restaurants. Let’s also leave aside the fact that El Mundo hides the murdered Palestinians — as they keep growing in number, hour after hour — at the bottom of the page, in “Other News.”

But we’d better pay attention to the even subtler syntactic terrorism, to the structural distortion of sentences. Have we ever noticed that Palestinians are always the “subjects” — both active and passive — of all sentences? “A Palestinian gunman shoots to kill in Jerusalem,” “A Palestinian dies as consequence of an exchange of shots with the IDF.” Do we perceive the enormous distance separating “A Jewish settler shoots to death three Palestinians” and “Three Palestinians die at the hands of a Jewish settler?” The true “agent” of all problems in Palestine hides behind syntactic positions and, crouched down there, erases all the footprints of his/her responsibility.

Palestinians do kill (a negative decision, freely chosen). Palestinians do die (as if it was a law of nature). Palestinians always die indeed as a consequence of a missile shot from a helicopter, after an incursion of tanks in Nablus, after a shooting between Fatah and Israeli soldiers. But who kills them?

If I say that my grandmother died a few minutes after the beginning of bombing in Afghanistan, nobody in his/her right mind would establish such a relationship between both events as to blame USAmerican B-52s. However, syntactic terrorism juxtaposes two actions and links them by a causal and indissoluble relationship.

“Three Palestinian children die in hospital after an Israeli raid.” The reader has to make an effort to re-establish the true subject — both semantic and moral — of this sentence. Couldn’t they have died from measles? What if they fell from a wall? Every single day Palestine witnesses coincidences like my grandmother’s, with such frequency that it is surprising that the streets of Jerusalem are not crowded by parapsychology experts. “Seven Palestinian youths die natural deaths after an Israeli missile pulverizes their house.” “A Palestinian woman collapses, victim of a cardiac arrest, at the same time that a soldier shoots at her heart.”

There is nothing more paradoxical that journalists having finished taking refuge, without even being aware of it, in the philosophy of medieval Muslim Al-Ghazali (Iran, 1058 – Tus, Iran, 1111), who felt forced to deny all causal links in nature to defend the absolute freedom of God. No matter if Occupation and Intifada are coeval or consecutive, Israelis shoot and blow up children without any relationship whatsoever. God is free of doing what He wants and of tying two phenomena as He fancies. Israel only seems to be guilty because our conventional chronological scale states that shots always precede dead people. Wouldn’t it be enough that Palestinians died first and Israelis shot later for us to have the revelation — like journalists do — of the Occupant’s innocence? 

From Torres más altas
Numa Ediciones (Valencia 2003)
ISBN: 9788495831057 
Syntactic terrorism on Tlaxcala: http://www.tlaxcala.es/pp.asp?reference=8842&lg=en

The First Word War is an initiative by Palestine Think Tank and Tlaxcala. 

The authors who wish to participate in this First Word War can send their texts to: contact@palestinethinktank.com or to: tlaxcala@tlaxcala.es. 

Manuel Talens and Machetera are members of Tlaxcala, the Translator’s Network for Linguistic Diversity. Talens is also a member of Rebelión and Machetera is editor of the blog http://machetera.wordpress.com/. This translation may be reprinted as long as the content remains unaltered, and the source, author, translator and editor are cited.

Convocatoria internacional de ensayos contra la desinformación 

La primera guerra mundial de las palabras – Palestine Think Tank y Tlaxcala declaran la guerra contra la desinformación

WRITTEN BY MARY RIZZO

Traducción de Manuel Talens 

Hay vocablos que se utilizan para desencadenar emociones y ofuscar la mente. Han sido diseñados para embrutecer de forma transitoria las facultades críticas del intelecto, pues aunque permanecen fonéticamente vívidos y capaces de despertar una respuesta emocional en quienes los escuchan, sus connotaciones semánticas han sido parcial o totalmente modificadas por quien las propaga como emisor del mensaje. Nuestro léxico actual incluye muchas palabras y locuciones especialmente diseñadas para inspirar opiniones y obtener un apoyo “moral” a proyectos políticos o ideológicos específicos. Su objetivo último es la creación de consenso, el requisito indispensable de la “democracia”. 

El uso de herramientas lingüísticas de persuasión es uno de los aspectos más sofisticados de la denominada “guerra psicológica”, a saber, las operaciones de orden psíquico puestas en marcha por los gobiernos, particularmente en tiempos de guerra o de crisis [1]. Pero la guerra psicológica también forma parte de la comunicación periodística básica y del “discurso público”. Dado que todos utilizamos la herramienta del lenguaje, su codificación es esencial para que no sea necesario definir todos sus fonemas, lo cual facilita el intercambio de ideas. Sin embargo, hay individuos cuya única tarea consiste en convertir las palabras en armas e instrumentos funcionales de propaganda. Sabemos por experiencia que la Hasbará israelí está organizada de tal manera que crea consenso mediante la continua reiteración retórica de su indiscriminado y tendencioso apoyo a Israel [2]. 

Este lenguaje, artificialmente modificado, está imbuido de forma tan meticulosa en el pensamiento occidental contemporáneo que el orwelliano Ministerio de la Verdad se ha convertido en la predicción novelística de lo que en Israel hacen a diario el Ministerio de la Hasbará y todas sus ramificaciones más o menos oficiales distribuidas por el mundo. Cuando uno mira las noticias por la noche, ya prácticamente ni se extraña al enterarse de los actos cometidos contra poblaciones civiles que viven bajo ocupación militar: crímenes de guerra bajo cualquier circunstancia se comunican como si fuesen actos legítimos e indispensables o incluso realizados con fines humanitarios. Esas mismas atrocidades circulan camufladas como pasos imprescindibles para la paz y la coexistencia, mientras que el sufrimiento humano que provocan permanece oculto o desmentido. Sin embargo, cuando la víctima del sufrimiento es un occidental o pertenece “al mismo campo democrático”, se pone en marcha el mecanismo opuesto, que desencadena nuestra indignación moral. Somos la clientela sumisa de los medios occidentales, cuyas informaciones ya totalmente digeridas nos parecerían repugnantes si se cambiasen las tornas y, en vez de ser los verdugos, fuésemos las víctimas. 

Quienes escriben y compilan sus informes prestan más valor intrínseco a las vidas de los de su bando y ensamblan la información de manera que refuerce este sesgo tendencioso y lo convierta en pensamiento normativo. Cuando muere un soldado occidental se lo glorifica como héroe, sin que importe dónde estaba o lo que hacía en el momento de morir, y lo mismo sucede con los israelíes que ocupan territorios sometidos a la “limpieza étnica” de la población que no es judía. Cuando se nos explicita el objetivo de cualquier acción violenta, la estatura moral que se le otorga es proporcional a su cercanía con la imagen que tenemos de nosotros mismos. Si las víctimas pertenecen a los “malos”, casi se espera que sintamos alivio y una descarga de patriotismo con el mensaje implícito de que “el bien ha prevalecido”. A la par, se espera de nosotros que nos pongamos del lado de quienes viven en Sderot, que sintamos como si sus dificultades, su actitud “altiva” o el nerviosismo de sus gatos fuesen naturalmente nuestra principal preocupación. Durante el cerco de Gaza, los medios de masas concedieron el mismo espacio informativo y otorgaron la misma gravitas a un grupo de adolescentes que se quejaban de su confinamiento entre la escuela, el hogar y los refugios antibombas que a los padres palestinos desesperados ante la destrucción de sus hogares y el asesinato de sus hijos por parte de los soldados y las bombas israelíes. Una equivalencia entre sufrimientos tan desproporcionados como éstos sería absurda en cualquier contexto, pero lo que pretenden tales reportajes es que no parpadeemos al contemplarlos. 

De igual manera, se espera que aceptemos las justificaciones israelíes, según las cuales su ejército es “el más moral de todo el mundo”, y ello con independencia de las fotografías que se fueron filtrando desde el infierno de Gaza. El primer ministro de Israel trató de acallar las quejas internacionales con las siguientes palabras: “El ejército israelí, de una moralidad sin parangón alguno, se ha preocupado celosamente de actuar de acuerdo con el Derecho internacional y ha hecho todo lo posible para impedir cualquier daño a la población civil que no estuviese implicada en el combate, así como a sus propiedades. Con este fin, entre otras cosas lanzó desde el aire muchas hojas explicativas y utilizó los medios de comunicación y la red telefónica local [3] para advertir de antemano y con todo detalle a la población civil. El ejército israelí también se ha ocupado de cubrir las necesidades humanitarias de la población civil durante los combates en la Franja de Gaza.” [4]

Aparte del juicio de valor inherente a esa afirmación, según la cual el ejército israelí es de una moralidad sin parangón alguno, lo que oculta el comunicado de prensa es el contenido de las hojas explicativas “humanitarias” y el “uso” de los medios locales y de la red local de teléfonos. Las hojas advertían a la gente, que estaba en una ratonera y sin posibilidad de escapar, de la destrucción a la que se expondrían si no “se iban”. Esto demuestra la intención premeditada de causar daño y la advertencia de muerte y destrucción de propiedades civiles. Con respecto a las llamadas telefónicas, un artículo publicado en USA Today afirmó que los palestinos recibieron llamadas tanto a sus teléfonos celulares como a los fijos, en las que se les advertía que sus hogares iban a ser bombardeados. Era imposible rastrear o bloquear tales llamadas, porque provenían de compañías telefónicas internacionales. Según los funcionarios israelíes, fue este un servicio que prestaron a los palestinos (antes del auténtico “servicio”, es obvio), pero el comandante Jacob Dallal, portavoz del ejército, se negó a revelar cómo habían obtenido los números celulares de Gaza. 

El “uso” de los medios locales se debió a la efracción del ejército israelí en las imágenes de Al Aqsa TV, así como en la sintonía de las emisoras de radio, entre ellas las de Hamás, el FPLP y la Jihad Islámica. Según Kamal Abu Nasser, durante las retransmisiones de la Voice of Jerusalem, al ejército israelí interrumpía la señal a lo largo de una hora cada día para emitir mensajes en los que acusaba a Hamás de todos los problemas de Gaza. Estas afirmaciones fueron corroboradas por muchos gazanos que dependían de la radio como única conexión con el mundo exterior y que, a su pesar, se veían bombardeados con propaganda por los mismos que lanzaban bombas sobre sus cabezas. 

Las detalladas advertencias y la ayuda humanitaria también son fáciles de refutar. El ejército israelí ni siquiera comunicó a los médicos el tipo de armas que estaba utilizando ni cómo tratar las extrañas heridas que éstas producían, típicas de los explosivos de metal inerte denso y del fósforo blanco. Como todo el mundo sabe en la actualidad, la Franja de Gaza sufrió un bloqueo total por tierra mar y aire y únicamente permanecieron permeables los túneles subterráneos bajo la frontera del Sinaí. Tanto los israelíes como los usamericanos no tardaron en denunciar que estaban siendo utilizados para “introducir ilegalmente armas”, no como la única manera de que disponían los palestinos para recibir productos de todas clases cuando los accesos de la superficie fueron sellados por Israel y Egipto, donde estaban asimismo localizadas las fuerzas de seguridad que se enfrentaron a Fatá. La lectura de cualquier declaración de Israel exige siempre un gran esfuerzo. La verdad está en ellas, pero es lo opuesto a lo que dicen sus palabras. Y, sin embargo, tales declaraciones se aceptan sin rechistar e incluso alcanzan un estatus humanitario. 

¿Nos toman por ciegos, sordos y estúpidos quienes las escriben y difunden o es que somos todo eso y mucho más? ¿Acaso el hecho de vivir como seres privilegiados en este planeta, “fuera del eje del mal”, nos impide vernos tal como otros nos ven y nos exime de sentirnos asqueados ante la importancia que creemos tener y el desprecio que sentimos por los demás? ¿Nos hemos convertido en los monstruos insensibles que seguramente parecemos o sólo hemos sido adoctrinados y nos lavaron el cerebro hasta bloquear nuestras facultades críticas? 

Dado que los medios de masas no pueden censurar ni impedir que todo salga a la superficie, quienes los controlan se cubren las espaldas ofreciendo una interpretación políticamente correcta de acontecimientos, que nosotros hemos de aceptar como si fuesen “hechos reales” o incluso como la “verdad”. Si todavía somos capaces de ver, el objetivo de los expertos de la Hasbará es impedir que pensemos. Por eso, los mensajes que despiertan el miedo y las frases fabricadas a modo de eslóganes están siempre a mano. Hacen ese esfuerzo en lugar de nuestro cerebro. Necesitamos sentirnos “informados”, pero no necesitamos discurrir y pensar (de hecho, sería perjudicial para ellos). Y cuando hayamos cesado de pensar guardaremos silencio frente a la violencia utilizada para oprimir al débil.

Los regímenes totalitarios han dependido siempre de la ignorancia o el miedo para establecer, consolidar y mantener su dominio sobre quienes, de otra manera, se rebelarían contra ellos. Lo mismo parece ser verdad en las “democracias” actuales. Se presiona a organizaciones benéficas islámicas y se tacha de terrorismo a grupos que combaten la ocupación, mientras que las relaciones diplomáticas dependen del beneplácito de quienes controlan los hilos financieros. Se establecen condiciones que prohíben explícitamente el apoyo a movimientos políticos o a gobiernos que mantienen una postura crítica con respecto al Estado sionista, como si ése fuese el criterio que inhabilita a toda una nación en el espectro global. En pocas palabras, incluso las democracias (¿demonocracias?) practican un potente adoctrinamiento destinado a inculcar su ventaja desde los puntos de vista hegemónico, económico o incluso moral. Se utilizan los medios, tanto en su vertiente informativa como de entretenimiento, para lavar el cerebro y configurar un modelo de “buen ciudadano”, con el fin de que la sociedad apoye mayoritariamente cualquier plan político que el gobierno defienda. Los efectos se hacen sentir de arriba abajo en todos los estratos sociales, incluso en nuestros hijos, de quienes se espera que aclamen acríticamente a “héroes de la paz” armados hasta los dientes en Afganistán e Iraq. A fin de cuentas, parece ser que Orwell tenía razón.

La lucha contra la retórica vacía, la deconstrucción de las mentiras y la reconquista de nuestro pensamiento crítico han dejado de ser un lujo para convertirse en una absoluta necesidad. Con el objetivo de contribuir a esta toma de conciencia, Palestine Think Tank y Tlaxcala lanzan hoy una campaña de ensayos centrados en la deconstrucción analítica de muchos de esos términos y locuciones, con el fin de construir un léxico alternativo y ofrecer una lectura más cabal de las palabras que en estos momentos ejercen su asedio sobre nosotros como instrumentos emocionales de propaganda. Pedimos a nuestros autores asociados, miembros y afiliados que reflexionen y escriban sobre estos asuntos e invitamos también a nuestros lectores a que colaboren con ensayos originales para su publicación, su traducción y su difusión. 

¿Que palabras nos interesan? Hay muchas para escoger, así que dejamos la elección al criterio de los escritores. De ninguna manera deseamos limitar los ensayos a una sola palabra en cada tema, ya que podría ser que cada autor desease aportar su punto de vista o sus argumentos a temas ya discutidos. Esperamos que este esfuerzo de colaboración internacional pueda contribuir a una mejor comprensión de los asuntos mundiales y a una mayor conciencia de cómo podríamos representar un papel activo, no meramente rechazando las definiciones viciadas que pretenden imponernos, sino llenándolas de contenido y comprendiendo sus dimensiones de verdad. 

Notas

[1] Véase http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guerra_psicol%C3%B3gica

[2] Véase http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hasbar%C3%A1

[3] Véase http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Government/Communiques/2009/IDF_warns_Gaza_population_7-Jan-2009.htm

[4] Véase http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Government/Communiques/2009/Humanitarian_aid_to_Gaza_following_6_month_calm.htm

La primera guerra mundial de las palabras en Tlaxcala: http://www.tlaxcala.es/pp.asp?reference=8844&lg=es

Los artículos relacionados con esta “guerra de las palabras” pueden enviarse a contact@palestinethinktank.com o a tlaxcala@tlaxcala.es. 

Mary Rizzo y Manuel Talens son miembros de Tlaxcala, la red de traductores por la diversidad lingüística. Talens pertenece asimismo al colectivo de Rebelión. Esta traducción se puede reproducir libremente a condición de respetar su integridad y mencionar a la autora, al traductor y la fuente.

La primera guerra mundial de las palabras - Palestine Think Tank y Tlaxcala declaran la guerra contra la desinformación

El arma secreta definitiva de Israel

AUTOR:  AYMAN EL KAYMAN

Traducido por Manuel Talens

Cada vez que Peres, Livni o Barak (sin olvidar al inenarrable Olivier Rafkowicz, encargado francófono de relaciones públicas del ejército israelí) pronuncian la palabra parece que expectoran, escupen un insulto. Jamás dicen “Hamás”, sino “Khamás”, pues sustituyen la H árabe por una “Kh”, equivalente a la J española.

Hamás, acrónimo de harakat al-muqâwama al-'islâmiya (حركة المقاومة الإسلامية) –Movimiento de la resistencia islámica– se escribe en árabe con H, es decir, con ح, pero en labios sionistas la ح se convierte en Kh, es decir, en خ.

El problema es que en hebreo moderno Khamás significa "robo, expolio".

Por eso, el mensaje subliminal que sale de los labios del menor portavoz del Estado canalla cada vez que habla de “Khamás” es, de entrada, negativo, y ello tanto para oídos hebreos como árabes, puesto que en árabe la letra “khâ” representa… la mierda. Una madre le dice a su hijo: "No toques eso, es khâ”. Por la misma razón, para cualquier árabe el ministro egipcio de Asuntos Exteriores se merece el nombre que tiene, puesto que se llama Abul Geith (pronunciado “jait”, literalmente el padre de la mierda).

Esta elección fonética deliberada de los grandes lingüistas israelíes es de una perversión absoluta, puesto que la “Jet” (ח), octava letra del alfabeto hebreo, equivalente a nuestra J (como la خ árabe), representa tradicionalmente la luz y la vida. Pero cómo extrañarse de lo que hacen unos dirigentes que escogieron el shabbat de la Hannuka –la Fiesta de las Luces– para iniciar su llamada operación “Plomo fundido” (que en realidad significa “Plomo lanzado”) sobre Gaza.

Me pregunto si los corresponsales y enviados especiales de los medios audiovisuales de Occidente en Israel, que repiten como papagayos la pronunciación israelí de “Khamás”, son conscientes de ser cómplices del uso de un arma lingüística secreta de destrucción masiva.

Los juristas internacionales deberían analizar con suma urgencia la noción de crimen de guerra lingüístico.

Ayman El Kayman, investigador de la AIEL (Agencia internacional de la energía lingüística).

¡Buena semana a todos!
¡Que la fuerza del espíritu sea con vosotros!
¡… y hasta el martes que viene! 

Fuente: La dernière arme secrète d'Israël

Artículo original publicado el 20 de enero de 2009

Sobre el autor  Manuel Talens es miembro de Rebelión y Tlaxcala, la red de traductores por la diversidad lingüística. Esta traducción se puede reproducir libremente a condición de respetar su integridad y mencionar al autor, al traductor, al revisor y la fuente.

El arma secreta definitiva de Israel en Tlaxcala http://www.tlaxcala.es/pp.asp?reference=6883&lg=es

La primera guerra mundial de las palabras es una iniciativa de Palestine Think Tank y Tlaxcala.  

 

 

 

La primera guerra mundial de las palabras - Palestine Think Tank y Tlaxcala declaran la guerra contra la desinformación  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Terrorismo sintáctico
SANTIAGO ALBA RICO  

 

 

 

“Un pistolero palestino dispara a matar en Jerusalén”, titula la primera página de El Mundo digital de esta mañana. Después la vista recula hacia la entradilla montada sobre el encabezamiento: “Al menos una persona herida”; a continuación, los que tenemos la paciencia de leer el grueso de la noticia, nos enteramos de que la única víctima mortal de esta acción ha sido precisamente su ejecutor. Dejemos a un lado el término “pistolero”, cifra de la violencia irreductible, tan despolitizador que legitima en sí mismo cualquier respuesta, tan negativamente plano que se evita incluso para los locos indiscriminados que matan en los colegios y restaurantes de EEUU; no atendamos tampoco al hecho de que los palestinos asesinados El Mundo los contaba ayer -a medida que, hora tras hora, iba creciendo su número- a pie de página, en el bolsillo de atrás de “Otras Noticias”.

Más sutil aún, hay que prestar atención al terrorismo sintáctico, a la torsión o tortura de las frases en su estructura misma. ¿Hemos reparado alguna vez en que los palestinos son siempre los “sujetos”, activos o pasivos, de todas las oraciones? “Un pistolero palestino dispara a matar en Jerusalén”, “Un palestino muere como consecuencia de un intercambio de disparos con el ejército israelí”. ¿Percibimos toda la distancia que media entre decir “Un colono judío mata a tiros a tres palestinos” y  decir, en cambio, “Tres palestinos mueren a manos de un colono judío?”. El verdadero “agente” de todos los problemas en Palestina se retira a posiciones sintácticas retrasadas y, allí agazapado, borra todos los rastros de su responsabilidad. Los palestinos matan (decisión alboral, libre, irrumpiente, negativa); los palestinos mueren -como si fuera una ley de la naturaleza. Los palestinos, en efecto, siempre mueren a consecuencia de (el más volátil de los “causales”) un misil lanzado desde un helicóptero; a continuación de una incursión de tanques en Nablus; después de un tiroteo entre fuerzas de Al-Fatah y soldados israelíes. ¿Quien los ha matado?

Si yo digo que mi abuela murió pocos minutos después del comienzo de los bombardeos sobre Afganistán, a nadie se le ocurrirá establecer una relación hipotáctica entre los dos acontecimientos y echar la culpa a los B-52 norteamericanos. El terrorismo sintáctico yuxtapone dos acciones que están relacionadas, en cambio, por una indisoluble relación causal. “Tres niños palestinos mueren en el hospital después de una incursión israelí”: el lector tiene que hacer un esfuerzo para restablecer el verdadero sujeto, semántico y moral, de esta frase. Esos niños, ¿no habrán muerto de sarampión? ¿No se habrán caído de una tapia? En Palestina se dan todos los días coincidencias como las de mi abuela, con una frecuencia tal que sorprende que no haya más especialistas en parapsicología en las calles de Jerusalén. “Siete jóvenes palestinos mueren de muerte natural después de que un obús israelí pulverice su casa”. “Una mujer palestina se derrumba, víctima de un paro cardiaco, al mismo tiempo que un soldado le dispara al corazón”. Nada más paradójico que el que los periodistas hayan acabado refugiándose, sin saberlo, en la filosofía del viejo musulmán Algacel (o Al-Gazzali, muerto en 1111), el cual para defender la libertad absoluta de Dios se vio obligado a negar los encadenamientos causales; contemporáneas o sucesivas, la Ocupación y la Intifada, los disparos israelíes y los niños reventados no guardan entre sí ninguna relación. Dios es libre de hacer lo que le dé la gana y de ligar dos fenómenos como se le antoje; Israel sólo parece culpable porque, en nuestra escala cronológica convencional, los disparos preceden a los muertos. Pero, ¿no bastaría que los palestinos se murieran primero y que los israelíes dispararan después para que se nos revelase, como a los periodistas, toda la inocencia del Ocupante? 

De Torres más altas
Numa Ediciones (Valencia 2003)
ISBN: 9788495831057 

Terrorismo sintáctico en Tlaxcala: http://www.tlaxcala.es/pp.asp?reference=8843&lg=es

La primera guerra mundial de las palabras es una iniciativa de Palestine Think Tank y Tlaxcala

Los autores que deseen participar en esta “primera guerra mundial de las palabras” pueden enviar sus textos a contact@palestinethinktank.com o a tlaxcala@tlaxcala.es. 

Este artículo se puede reproducir libremente a condición de respetar su integridad y mencionar al autor y la fuente. 

La première guerre mondiale des mots :

Palestine Think Tank et Tlaxcala déclarent la guerre à la désinformation

par Mary Rizzo

Traduit par Fausto Giudice, Tlaxcala

 

Il y a des mots qui sont utilisés comme gâchettes émotionnelles et œillères mentales. Ils ont pour but d'orienter l'esprit dans une direction particulière où ses facultés critiques sont temporairement congelées, de sorte que la terminologie elle-même reste vivace et déclenche de fait une réaction émotionnelle de l'auditeur, mais que ses connotations soient modifiées en totalité ou en partie, par quiconque propage le message. Il existe de nombreux termes et phrases courtes qui font partie de notre lexique et qui ont été utilisée dans le but d'influencer nos opinions et, par conséquent, d’obtenir notre soutien «moral» à certains objectifs politiques ou idéologiques, avec une intention évidente : capter notre consensus, implicite ou explicite, car le consensus est un des commandements de la «démocratie». 

 

Les instruments linguistiques de persuasion sont utilisés en particulier dans les domaines les plus sophistiqués des Psyops (opérations psychologiques déclenchées par des gouvernements, en particulier en temps de guerre ou de crise), mais ils sont aussi utilisés dans la communication journalistique de base et deviennent partie intégrante du « discours public ». Puisque le langage est l'instrument que nous utilisons tous, sa codification est indispensable pour qu'il n'y ait pas lieu de définir tous les termes, en facilitant la communication des idées, mais il y a ceux dont la tâche est de tordre ces termes pour en faire des armes et des dispositifs fonctionnels de propagande. L'expérience nous apprend que la hasbara israélienne (la «propagande plus», un terme inventé par un ami psychologue), est organisée à plusieurs niveaux pour créer un consensus qui réitère un postulat exclusif, qui peut être défini comme « Israel über alles», et cela est réalisé par l'utilisation de la rhétorique et du langage.Les proclamations israéliennes sur les avertissements détaillés et l'aide humanitaire peuvent également être facilement déconstruites. L'armée israélienne n'a pas même expliqué aux médecins quel type d'armes avaient été utilisées et la façon de traiter les plaies très étrange qui étaient typiques de l’usage de DIME et de phosphore blanc. Comme tout le monde le sait maintenant, la bande de Gaza était sous blocus total par terre, mer et air, les seules marchandises y entrant le faisaient par les tunnels, que les Israéliens et les Américains se sont empressés de définir comme étant utilisés pour la "contrebande d'armes», et pas simplement le seul moyen de faire passer des marchandises de toutes sortes quand tous les accès en surface étaient coupés à la fois par Israël et l'Égypte, où des forces de sécurité dépendant du Fatah étaient également stationnées. La lecture de toute déclaration faite par Israël demande toujours beaucoup d'efforts. La vérité est là, mais c'est le contraire de ce qui est déclaré. Pourtant, ces déclarations sont prises au pied de la lettre et même élevées au rang de déclarations humanitaires. Ce langage imprègne est tellement la pensée occidentale contemporaine que le ministère de la Vérité Orwell semble être rien de moins que la prédiction de ce que le ministère de la Hasbara (et l'ensemble de ses filiales et annexes plus ou moins formelles ou officielles de par le monde) fait jour après jour. Quand on regarde le JT du soir, on hausse à peine un sourcil plus lorsqu'on enregistre des actes commis contre des populations civiles vivant sous occupation militaire – des crimes de guerre en tout cas, qui sont présentés comme des actes légitimes et nécessaires, ou même carrément comme des actes humanitaires. Ces mêmes atrocités sont colportées comme des étapes vers la paix et la coexistence et l'élément de la souffrance humaine est effacé ou nié. Mais quand la victime de la souffrance est un Occidental ou un ressortissant "du même camp démocratique ", c’est le mécanisme inverse qui est déclenché et nous sommes induits à ressentir une indignation morale. Nous, qui sommes les clients des médias occidentaux, sommes nourris à la cuillère de certaines informations qui seraient moralement répugnantes si les rôles étaient inversés et si, plutôt que d'être les auteurs, nous étions les victimes. Ceux qui composent et compilent leurs reportages accordent une plus grande valeur intrinsèque à la vie de ceux qu'ils estiment faire partie de leur public et ils rassemblent les informations qui renforcent ce préjugé pour produire une pensée normative. Quand un soldat occidental tombe, il est traité en héros, peu importe où il était ni ce qu'il faisait à ce moment-là, la même chose est vraie vaut pour les Israéliens qui occupent des terres «nettoyée» de leur population non-juive. Chaque fois que la cible d’une action violente est montrée, sa stature morale est directement proportionnelle à la façon dont elle correspond à notre propre image de nous-mêmes. Lorsque les victimes signalées font partie  des «méchants» officiels, nous sommes presque exhortés à ressentir un soulagement et une poussée  de patriotisme qui nous envoie un message indiquant que «ce sont bien les bons qui ont gagné». De même, nous sommes appelés à soutenir et défendre quelqu'un qui vit à Sderot, traité comme si ses difficultés, ses crises de nerf et sa crânerie étaient naturellement notre première préoccupation. Pendant la guerre menée contre Gaza, un groupe d'adolescents se plaignant de se sentir confinés entre leurs écoles, leurs domiciles et leurs abris ont reçu le même espace et la même importance dans les médias dominants que des parents palestiniens accablés de douleur face à la destruction de leurs maisons et l’assassinat de leurs enfants par des soldats et des armes israéliens. Il serait absurde dans quelque contexte que ce soit de faire une quelconque équivalence entre ces deux niveaux de souffrance, mais on attend de nous que nous ne bronchions pas face à ce genre de reportages.

 

 Il en va exactement de même avec les justifications israéliennes de leur statut d’ «armée la plus morale du monde», que nous étions censés accepter sans tenir compte de ce que nous montraient les photos qui ont filtré de l'enfer de Gaza. Pour reprendre les mots du Premier Ministre d'Israël immédiatement après quelques protestations publiques : «En tant qu’ armée morale sans égal, les FDI ont pris soin d'agir en conformité avec le droit international et fait tout leur possible pour éviter de porter atteinte aux civils qui n'étaient pas impliqués dans les combats, y compris à leurs biens et, à cette fin, entre autres, ont distribué beaucoup de tracts et aussi utilisé les médias locaux et le réseau téléphonique local afin de délivrer à temps des avertissements généraux et détaillés à la population civile. Les FDI ont également pris des mesures pour répondre aux besoins humanitaires de la population civile dans la bande de Gaza au cours des combats. "

 

Ce qui est caché dans ce communiqué de presse, outre le jugement de valeur sur le fait d’être une armée morale sans égal, est le caractère abject du contenu de ces tracts "humanitaires" et de "l'utilisation" des médias et du réseau téléphonique locaux. Les flyers avertissaient les habitants de l'intention de destruction qui allait bientôt suivre si les gens (pris au piège comme ils l’étaient) ne « partaient » pas tout simplement. Cela démontre une intention préméditée de causer des dégâts et c’était un avertissement de mort et de destruction de biens appartenant à des civils. En ce qui concerne l'utilisation des téléphones, dans un article paru dans USA Today, il a été signalé que les Palestiniens ont reçu des appels à la fois sur leurs téléphones portables et fixes, les avertissant que leur maison allait être bombardée. Les appels n'ont pas pu être retracés ou bloqués car ils venaient de fournisseurs internationaux. Les responsables israéliens ont prétendu que c'était un service rendu aux Palestiniens, (avant évidemment le vrai service rendu), et pourtant, le Commandant Jacob Dallal, le porte-parole militaire interrogé, a refusé de répondre à la question de savoir comment l'armée israélienne obtient les numéros de téléphones mobiles à Gaza.

 

Quant à "l'utilisation" des médias locaux, elle a consisté en un piratage d’Al Aqsa TV  par les FDI ainsi que l’irruption par la force dans les stations de radio locales, dont celles du Hamas, du FPLP et du Jihad islamique. Selon un récit de Kamal Abu Nasser, lors d'émissions sur La Voix de Jérusalem, les FDI interrompaient les émissions toutes les heures pour diffuser des messages rejetant la faute sur le Hamas pour tous les problèmes à Gaza. Cette affirmation a été confirmée par de nombreux habitants de Gaza qui était devenus dépendants de la radio pour rester connectés avec le monde, et au lieu de cela ont été bombardés de propagande par ceux-là mêmes qui larguaient des bombes sur leurs têtes.

 

Est-ce que ceux qui les rédigent et les diffusent croient que nous sommes aveugles, sourds et muets? Ou sommes-nous tout cela et plus encore? Est ce que notre positionnement sur le globe comme des êtres privilégiés "en dehors de l'axe du mal" a éliminé la possibilité de nous voir comme d'autres pourraient nous voir et nous exempte d'être dégoûtés de l'importance que nous nous donnons à nous-mêmes et du mépris pour les autres? Sommes-nous devenus les monstres insensibles dont nous avons l’air, ou sommes-nous simplement assez endoctrinés et soumis au lavage de cerveau pour nous interdire de penser de manière critique?  

 

 

 

Puisque les médias de masse ne peuvent pas censurer et empêcher tout de venir à la surface, ceux qui les contrôlent se mettent à couvert en fournissant l'interprétation canonique des événements que nous sommes appelés à accepter comme des «faits» ou même «la vérité». Si nous sommes encore en mesure de voir, l'objectif des experts en hasbara est de nous empêcher de réfléchir. C'est pourquoi ces déclencheurs de peur et ces phrases-choc sont si pratiques. Ils font le travail pour notre cerveau. Il nous est nécessaire de nous  sentir «informés» mais pas nécessaire de conceptualiser et de penser (ce qui serait à leur désavantage). Une fois que nous avons cessé de réfléchir, nous garderons le silence face à la violence utilisée pour opprimer les faibles.

Les régimes totalitaires ont toujours dépendu de l'ignorance ou de la peur pour les aider à effectuer leur travail d'établissement, de consolidation et de maintien de leur domination sur ceux qui autrement se révolteraient contre eux. La même chose semble être vraie dans les "démocraties" d'aujourd'hui. Des pressions s'exercent sur les organisations caritatives islamiques, les groupes qui combattent l'occupation sont classés comme mouvements terroristes et les relations diplomatiques sont également tributaires de la bénédiction de ceux qui tiennent les cordons de la bourse. Des conditions sont fixées, qui interdisent de soutenir ouvertement les mouvements politiques et même les gouvernements qui sont critiques envers l'État sioniste, comme si cela était le baromètre de la validité de toute une nation à l’échelle mondiale. Bref, même les démocraties (là encore, pour citer mon ami psychologue, les «démonocraties ») mettent en œuvre un endoctrinement fort pour instiller leur avantage hégémonique politiquement, économiquement et même moralement. Ils utilisent les médias, tant pour l'information que pour le divertissement, pour endoctriner et de former leur modèle d'un bon citoyen afin que la société soutienne pleinement les plans politiques du gouvernement, quels qu’ils soient. L’effet de ce lavage de cerveau se fait sentir à travers tout le spectre social, jusqu’à nos enfants, qui sont invités à saluer de manière acritique les « héros de la paix » armés jusqu'aux dents en Afghanistan et en Irak. Il semble bien qu’Orwell avait raison, en fin de compte.

 

Lutte contre la rhétorique vide, déconstruire les mensonges un à un et reprendre le pouvoir de notre pensée critique est une chose qui n'est plus un luxe mais une nécessité absolue. Pour contribuer à cet idéal de conscientisation, Palestine Think Tank et Tlaxcala lancent une série d'essais qui examinent beaucoup de ces termes et phrases, un et une à la fois, afin de construire un lexique de substitution et de présenter une lecture plus précise des mots qui nous entourent pour le moment principalement comme déclencheurs propagandiste d’émotions. Nous demandons à nos contributeurs, membres et associés de réfléchir et d’écrire sur ces questions, et nous invitons également nos lecteurs à contribuer par des textes pour publication, traduction et diffusion.

 

Quels termes nous intéressent-ils ? Il y en a en fait beaucoup parmi lesquels choisir, le choix est donc laissé aux auteurs. En aucun cas nous ne voulons limiter les essais à un seul sur chaque thème, car chaque auteur peut souhaiter contribuer avec son propre point de vue ou ses arguments pour affronter un thème déjà abordé. Nous espérons que cet effort de coopération internationale peut contribuer à une meilleure compréhension des problèmes mondiaux, et une plus grande conscience de la façon dont nous jouons un rôle actif, ne nous contentant pas seulement de rejeter les définitions erronées qui nous sont données, mais nous mettant en capacité de donner un contenu à ces termes et de les comprendre dans leur véritable dimension.

 

La première guerre mondiale des mots sur Tlaxcala: http://www.tlaxcala.es/pp.asp?reference=8841&lg=fr 

La Première guerre des mots est une initiative de Palestine Think Tank et Tlaxcala Les auteurs souhaitant y participer peuvent envoyer leurs contributions à contact@palestinethinktank.com et à  tlaxcala@tlaxcala.es.  

La Première guerre des mots
La dernière arme secrète d'Israël

AUTEUR: AYMAN EL KAYMAN

Peres, Livni, Olmert, Barak, sans oublier l’inénarrable Olivier Rafkowitz, chargé des relations publiques francophone de Tsahal : chaque fois qu’ils prononcent ce mot, ils ont l’air d’expectorer, de cracher un gros mot. Ils ne disent jamais « Hamas », mais « Khamas », remplaçant le « H » par un « kh », équivalent de la jota espagnole.

Hamas, acronyme de harakat al-muqâwama al-'islâmiya (حركة المقاومة الإسلامية) – mouvement de la résistance islamique – s’écrit avec un « h », ح en arabe, mais dans leur bouche, le ح devient خ .

Or, khamas, en hébreu moderne, veut dire « vol, spoliation»!

Ainsi donc, le message subliminal qui sort de la bouche du moindre porte-parole de l’État-voyou, chaque fois qu’il parle du « khamas », est d’emblée négatif, aussi bien pour les oreilles hébreues que pour les oreilles arabes, puisque, en arabe, la lettre « khâ » exprime la …merde. Une mère de famille dit à son enfant : « ne touche pas ça, c’est khâ ». Ainsi pour tout Arabe, le ministre égyptien des Affaires étrnagères mérite bien son nom puisqu’il s’appelle Abul Gheith (littéralement le père de la merde).

Ce choix délibéré de la part des Grands Linguistes Israéliens est d’autant plus pervers que le « Chet » (ח), la huitième lettre de l’alphabet hébreu, représente traditionnellement la lumière et la vie. Mais il ne faut s’étonner de rien de la part de chefs qui ont choisi le shabbat de la Hannoukah – la Fête des Lumières – pour déclencher leur opération « plomb jeté » (et non pas « plomb durci », comme on s’obstine à nous le répéter) sur Gaza.

La question que je me pose est celle-ci : les correspondants et envoyés spéciaux des médias audiovisuels occidentaux en Israël, qui reprennent presque tous cette prononciation israélienne de « khamas » sont-ils conscients qu’ils se font complices de l’utilisation d’une ALSDM (arme linguistique secrète de destruction massive) ?

Les juristes internationaux devraient de toute urgence se pencher sur la notion de crime de guerre linguistique.

Ayman El Kayman, enquêteur de l’AIEL (Agence internationale de l’énergie linguistique)

Bonne semaine, quand même !

Que la Force de l’esprit soit avec vous !

…et à mardi prochain !

Source : Coups de dent – Le blog de Ayman El Kayman

Article original publié le 20/1/2009

Sur l’auteur
Ayman El Kayman est un auteur associé de Tlaxcala , le réseau de traducteurs pour la diversité linguistique. Cet article est libre de reproduction, à condition d'en respecter l’intégrité et d’en mentionner l’auteur et la source.

La dernière arme secrète d'Israël sur Tlaxcala : http://www.tlaxcala.es/pp.asp?reference=6882&lg=fr

La Première guerre mondiale des mots

Tuer, mourir : terrorisme syntaxique

Santiago Alba Rico

Traduit par Fausto Giudice, Tlaxcala 

"Un pistolero palestinien tire pour tuer à Jérusalem" : c’est le titre de Une de l’édition électronique de El Mundo de ce matin. Puis le regard se pose sur le surtitre : « Au moins une personne blessée ». Ceux d’entre nous qui ont le courage de lire l’info apprendront que la seule victime mortelle de cette action a été justement son exécutant. Laissons de côté le mot "pistolero", emblème de la violence irréductible, qui a un tel effet de dépolitisation tel qu’il légitime en soi tout type de riposte, si négativement plat qu’on évite de l’utiliser même pour les fous qui tuent de manière indiscriminée dans les lycées et restaurants aux USA.

Laissons aussi de côté le fait que les Palestiniens assassinés hier étaient comptés hier –au fur et à mesure que d’heure en heure, leur nombre allait croissant – dans le même El Mundo en bas de page sous la rubrique Autres infos.

Nous devons prêter attention à quelque chose d’encore plus subtil, le terrorisme syntaxique, la torsion des phrases dans leur structure même. Avons-nous jamais remarqué que les Palestiniens sont toujours les «sujets», actifs ou passifs de chaque phrase? " Un pistolero palestinien tire pour tuer à Jérusalem", "Un Palestinien meurt suite à un échange de tirs avec l'armée israélienne". Percevons-nous toute la distance qu’il ya entre dire «Un colon juif tire et tue trois Palestiniens», et dire : «Trois Palestiniens tués par un colon juif?". Le véritable «agent» de tous les problèmes en Palestine se retire sur des positions syntaxiques, et, accroupi là, supprimer toute trace de leur responsabilité. Les Palestiniens tuent (une décision libre, agressive, négative) ; les Palestiniens meurent, comme s'il s'agissait d'une loi de la nature. Les Palestiniens, en effet, meurent suite à (le plus volatile terme de causalité ») un missile lancé d’un hélicoptère, ou à une incursion de tanks à Naplouse, ou encore une fusillade entre forces du Fatah et soldats Israéliens. Qui les a tués?

Si je dis que ma grand-mère est morte quelques minutes après le début des bombardements sur l’Afghanistan, personne ne songera à établir une relation entre les deux événements et à blâmer les B-52 usaméricains. Le terrorisme syntaxique juxtapose deux actions qui sont liées, cependant, par une relation causale indissoluble. « Trois enfants palestiniens meurent à l'hôpital suite à un raid israélien »: le lecteur doit faire un effort pour rétablir le vrai sujet, sémantique et moral de cette phrase. Ces enfants, ne seraient-ils pas morts de la rougeole? Ne seraient-ils pas tombés d’un mur? En Palestine, il ya des coïncidences tous les jours comme celle de ma grand-mère, avec une fréquence  telle qu’il est surprenant qu’il n’y ait pas plus de spécialistes en parapsychologie dans les rues de Jérusalem. « Sept jeunes Palestiniens meurent d'une mort naturelle après qu’un obus israélien pulvérise leur maison. » « Une femme palestinienne s'effondre, victime d'un arrêt cardiaque, alors qu'un soldat lui tire au cœur. » Rien de plus paradoxal que de constater que les journalistes ont fini par se réfugier sans le savoir dans la philosophie d’ Al-Ghazali (1058-1111), qui pour défendre la liberté absolue de Dieu fut contraint de refuser les chaînes causales; contemporaines ou successives, l'occupation et l'intifada, les tirs israéliens et les enfants explosés n’ont aucune relation entre eux. Dieu est libre de faire ce qu'il veut, et de relier deux événements comme il lui plaît, Israël ne semble coupable que parce que, dans notre échelle chronologique classique, les tirs précèdent les morts. Mais ne suffirait-il pas que les Palestiniens meurent d’abord et que les Israéliens tirent ensuite pour que se révèle à nous, comme aux journalistes, toute l’innocence de l’occupant ?

Source : le livre Torres más altas, Numa Ediciones (Valencia 2003) – ISBN: 9788495831057 

La Première guerre des mots est une initiative de Palestine Think Tank et Tlaxcala. Les auteurs souhaitant y participer peuvent envoyer leurs contributions à contact@palestinethinktank.com et à tlaxcala@tlaxcala.es.   

World events have taken an interesting turn recently, with the Goldstone report, which wreaked havoc in the beginning of the week being nearly completely overshadowed by Iran’s revelation of another nuclear facility, according to diplomats in Vienna on September 25.

The Iran nuclear threat – although theater is a more suitable term – was highlighted repeatedly, first by US President Barack Obama during a UN speech on September 23, then again by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu the next day. The latter came armed with maps and relentlessly provoked Holocaust memories, following the ever so predictable, albeit insensitive and deceptive pattern. 

This charade was meant to distract from the nearly 600 page UN report, prepared by South Africa judge Richard Goldstone and others, dedicated mostly to Israeli war crimes in Gaza. 

Confirming that Israel wantonly used weapons, including illegal weapons, against a defenseless civilian population in Gaza and going so far to say that Israel did not only commit war crimes, but indeed may have also committed crimes against humanity, the findings of the report were all set by the wayside. The report was utterly rebuked by Netanyahu and his ilk, arrogantly disregarded and shelved. 

Concurrently, Israel’s official statement regarding the IAEA’s pressure on Israel to sign on to the Non-Proliferation Treaty was that Israel “deplored” such a notion. The Israeli conceit may be redundant, but is as ever infuriating.  

Many of Israel’s devoted supporters accused the Goldstone mission of fabricating conclusions before the investigations even came to a close. 

And so yet again, Israel unhesitatingly established that they it’s above the law, promptly and successfully turning the world’s attention to the greater menace: Iran. 

It seems that President Obama is also learning some painful lessons regarding the balance of power between the US and Israel, going into negotiations in Washington this past week – along with Palestinian Authority President, Mahmoud Abbas – with a strong stance for the complete freeze of all settlement activity, and ending with clear and potent calls for the Palestinians to continue down the road of diplomacy inspite of Israel’s refusal to consider the option of adhering to international law. In the words of Israeli writer, Uri Avnery, “No point denying it: in the first round of the match between Barack Obama and Binyamin Netanyahu, Obama was beaten.” 

Learning from past history, one can hardly be optimistic to expect a US victory in the second round, or anytime soon for that matter. 

And thereafter, the Israeli cue was emulated, and Obama followed it to the letter. Israel’s recent use of illegal weapons on civilians, its arsenal of hundreds of nuclear weapons and its refusal to consider disarmament paled in comparison to the potential threat that could arise should Iran seek a nuclear weapon some time in the future. 

Obama’s words to Ahmedinejad and the people of Iran at the UN were decisive: “They are going to have to make a choice: Are they willing to go down the path to greater prosperity and security for Iran, giving up the acquisition of nuclear weapons … or will they continue down a path that is going to lead to confrontation.” 

This is sure to ignite a war of words, to the pleasure of Netanyahu and his extremist government. 

But the outcome of this duel will certainly exceed the realm of words. 

It seems that Obama’s rebuke and Netanyahu’s declarations could actually lead to the detriment of the Non-Proliferation Treaty and indeed to us all, by encouraging nations who until this point do not possess nuclear weapons to expedite the creation of their own arsenal. After all, what we have learned from this episode is that nations who do not yet possess weapons of mass destruction had better get on the band-wagon and make some, for it seems that without them, they are nothing more than sitting ducks. 

How ironic it is, and what a sweet-talker Netanyahu is, to successfully divert the worlds eye, ears and conscience away from what he has indeed done, to the dangerous notion of what another man with up until this point can only be branded for fiery speeches, could do some time in the future. 

As for Ahmedinejad’s crusade for Iran, it could be very possible that in the end, the ones who will pay for his bold declarations will be as usual, the Palestinians, who after the scourge of Israel’s Operation Cast Lead nearly one year ago, still await the bare necessities to rebuild, still thirst for clean water and basic sustenance. Netanyahu has been tireless at drawing parallels between Iran and Gaza, presenting them both to the world as dire threats to the existence of the Jewish State. When addressing the UN in New York on September 24, he branded Iran once again, exhorting that. “The struggle against Iran pits civilization against barbarism. This Iranian regime is fueled by extreme fundamentalism. What starts as attacks on Jews always ends up engulfing others. This regime embodies the extremes of Islamic fundamentalism.” 

Interesting words from a man whose former administration and current administration could very well face the International Criminal Court for the endorsing the carrying out of crimes against humanity. 

Such utterances make one wonder, just who in the world are we to trust, and who in the world are we to fear? 

For the time being however, one can only hope that the international community reject all attempts to be blinded by Netanyahu’s fear mongering, and insist on a stern and decisive investigation into the alleged war crimes in Gaza, as presented in the Goldstone report so that the real culprits, not the imagined ones in Tehran, pay for their heinous crimes against the defenseless people of the Strip. 

- Ramzy Baroud (www.ramzybaroud.net) is an author and editor of PalestineChronicle.com. His work has been published in many newspapers, journals and anthologies around the world. His latest book is, "The Second Palestinian Intifada: A Chronicle of a People's Struggle" (Pluto Press, London), and his forthcoming book is, “My Father Was a Freedom Fighter: Gaza’s Untold Story” (Pluto Press, London), now available for pre-orders on Amazon.com.

Mary Rizzo: Could you briefly tell us about the work you do? 

Khalid Amayreh: I am a journalist who since time immemorial has found himself, first as a human being, and second as a journalist, right in the middle of the fray of the enduring Palestinian plight. For example, I remember I knew all the details of Israeli commando operations and massacres when I was merely 7 years old. 

When I went to the US in 1976, I wanted to study Computer Science, then Business Administration. However, as I saw Zionist circles on campus at the University of Oklahoma try somewhat successfully to change the black into white and the big lie into a virtual truth, I decided to study journalism. 

Which I did.  Now, I am fully-engaged in my work, writing nearly daily columns for a host of media outlets on three continents. Eventually, the internet became my ultimate domain because what I do say, and I always have much to say, is not particularly liked by the politically-correct media. Hence, I can say that in a certain sense, the internet has substantially freed us from the traditional media colonialism. 

I am quite satisfied with what I have been doing. My articles are published and posted around the world in several languages, including Arabic, English, French, Spanish and other European languages. Many of my articles are posted on my website. It is www.xpis.ps.   

MR: You have in the past several years faced some difficult situations. Two of these that we are aware of are your denial of a visa to leave the West Bank for conferences in Europe and the other was your arrest and brief detention. Both of these were the doing of the Palestinian Authority. Why do you believe they have put these restrictions on you? 

KA: Yes, my success as a journalist, especially my ability to communicate the Palestinian narrative to Western audiences drew negative reactions from the Israeli security authorities. You know the Shin Beth, Israel’s chief domestic security agency, controls nearly every aspect of our life despite the existence of the Palestinian Authority. Hence, the Shin Beth constantly sought to persecute and harass me in the hope that I would tone down my outspoken criticism of the Israeli occupation and its often barbaric treatment of our people. In this context, they refused to grant me a press card, they refused to allow me access to Jerusalem. And finally, they imposed a harsh travel ban on me. In fact, I am still barred from leaving the West Bank. This is the behaviour of a country that claims to be a democracy.

As to the PA, it is very much slave of Israel. This is why I am also constantly harassed by the PA security apparatus. The PA doesn’t like my writings, and seeing that neither carrot nor stick would stop me, they often incarcerate me for a short period until a media outcry ensued in which case they would release me, hoping that next time I would exercise self-restraint, or more correctly self-censorship.  

MR: You live in one of the areas where settlers have made any kind of co-existence in the same territory as the indigenous population impossible. In your view is the Hebron experience a typical one that would be reproduced whenever there would be closer contact between Jews and Palestinians, or is it in some way different? 

KA: The settlers are mostly genocidal fanatics who would go to any extent, including cold-blooded murder, to reach their goals. And their goals can be summarized in one phrase, and that is the annihilation of the Palestinian people. 

I’ve met numerous settlers, and from my conversations with them, I can say that most of these people represent the Nazis of our time. What else can one say of a people who tell you that you either agree to be enslaved by them or you will be deported and expelled from your own country? And if you said ‘NO’, then you would have to be physically exterminated.  These people are really depraved and sick. They would quote strange quotations from a host of religious books to justify their genocidal ideology. The brutal ugliness of their mentality has no limits.

What is more dangerous is that they don’t stop at the theoretical and ideological levels. They often translate their venomous and virulent views into cold-blooded murder of innocent Palestinians.  And in most cases, the pro-settler Israeli justice system turns a blind eye to their murderous behaviour and lets them get away with impunity.

MR: You often refer to the actions of today’s Israelis as being similar to those of the Nazis, and you present in detail many of these crimes and abuses against especially unarmed civilians that indeed are strikingly similar. Do you believe there is a danger or risk in the use of this analogy?

KA: Well, this is a very good question. First of all, we have to remember that the holocaust didn’t start with Auschwitz or Bergen Belsen and other concentration camps. It started much earlier with comparatively innocuous things like the enactment of anti-Jewish laws in the early 1930s. Earlier, there was Hitler’s infamous book, Mein Kampf. Eventually there was the Kristalnacht, and we know the rest of the story.

Today, any serious observer scrutinizing the collective psychology and behaviour of the Israeli Jewish society would most certainly find many serious similarities between the Jewish state and the Third Reich. In Germany, they had the master race mantra, here in Israel they have the chosen people mantra.

In Germany they had the expansionistic concept known as Lebensraum; and here in Israel they have the settlement scheme. In Germany, they had the racist classification of people into Übermenschen and Untermenschen, while here in Israel almost everything is defined through the prism of being  either Jewish or Goy. The list goes on and on.  Do you know that there are rabbis in Israel who openly teach that non-Jews are animals and whom the Almighty created in a human shape only in deference to Jews. I am not speaking about marginal or obscure figures. I am speaking about rabbis with thousands of followers who are backed by powerful political parties represented in the government and the Knesset.

Ask any average settler how he or she views Palestinians or non-Jews in general, and they will tell you that they are animals and that their lives have absolutely no sanctity.

In short, the Zionist-Nazi analogy is more than legitimate. It is an objective reality.

MR:  Is it possible that there is the danger of a new Palestinian genocide comparable to that of ’48 with the discussions of “population transfer” of the Palestinians who live in Israel that are heard by several political movements that are in power in Israel, or is this population somehow protected and facing more danger are those in the Occupied Palestinian Territories?

KA: The answer is definitely yes. I am saying so because Palestinians have always relied for their very survival on the good will of the international community and world public opinion. Hence, should the world community go into a brief slumber, I have no doubt that Israel would seize the opportunity and embark on the unthinkable.

More to the point, we must view the criminal Israeli onslaught on the people of Gaza nine months ago as a precedent that could be repeated again and again.

Finally, it is crystal clear that the Israeli Jewish society is drifting menacingly toward fascism. For example, today the very survival of the Benyamin Netanyahu’s government depends to a very large extent on the support of three manifestly racist political parties representing the extreme religious right. These are “Habayt ha’Yahudi,” “Echud Leumi,” and Shas, a formerly moderate Charidi party which has been moving steadily toward religious jingoism.

I am speaking about religious parties that see nothing wrong with the mass murder of innocent people. They always can quote from ancient books to justify their morbid ideology. Also, imagine how the world will look like when these racist groups reach power in Israel and seize control of Israel’s huge nuclear arsenal.

And this is not a matter of “if” but rather a matter of “when” it will happen, because it is only a matter of time before the fanatics of Gush Emunim and other Judeo-Nazi elements reach power in Israel. 

MR: Palestinians in Israel comprise twenty percent of the official population. Why is it that, after Azmi Bishara, whose fate is now in exile, and a very few others, this large sector of population is under-represented in their parliament? Would it not be helpful to have more representation? 

KA: The Arab community in Israel is under-represented because of a host of factors. But the main factor is that the Israeli system is designed to keep the Arab community marginalized. Today, Israeli leaders from “right” and “left” are increasingly brazenly advocating ultimate ethnic cleansing of Israel’s Arab citizen. Tzipi Livni, the leader of Kadima, said on numerous occasions that Israeli Arabs would have to seek national fulfilment in the future Palestinian state. Her remarks are nothing short of a euphemism for expulsion and ethnic cleansing.

If this is the view of a respected  “liberal,” and “centrist” politician, imagine the kind of attitudes the right with its religious and secular camps would have toward Israel’s Arab citizens.

MR: You have documented many of the acts against the Palestinian people. If you could put things in an order of those that should be resolved before the others, out of this selection, what would your suggestion be and why: the ending of the siege of Gaza, the dismantlement of the checkpoints, the dismantlement of the Wall, international recognition of Hamas as the legitimately elected representatives of the Palestinians and in the 2006 Legislative elections, release of Palestinian prisoners from Israeli jails, release of Palestinian prisoners from Palestinian jails, a freeze on settler expansion in the West Bank and Jerusalem?

KA: I think all aspects of the Palestinian plight are inextricably entwined. For example, the internal Palestinian problems stem mainly from the Israeli occupation. It was Israel after all which took draconian measures against our people following the 2006 elections when Hamas won the polls. This eventually led to the contention between Fatah and Hamas which culminated in the ousting by Hamas of Fatah militias from Gaza following a failed coup attempt against the elected government by Fatah forces backed and armed by the United States.

But, it is true, we just can’t solve and resolve all the problems facing our people in one fell swoop.  The situation in Gaza remains very harsh and the survival of our people there is imputed first and foremost to their tenacity, resilience and steadfastness, not Israeli magnanimity.

The Palestinian prisoner issue is also a nagging nightmare that is constantly haunting our people. We are talking about nearly 10,000 prisoners many of whom are held without charge or trial because of their non-violent opposition to the Israeli occupation. Their continued detention is undoubtedly a repulsive reflection of the brutal ugliness of the Zionist mentality.

MR: Do you believe that the Palestinians should aim at establishing a new popular uprising, or should they wait and see if the Palestinian Authority can find a unity government or bring an end to Israeli occupation by themselves.

KA: Normally, uprisings, especially in the Palestinian context, are not planned. They just happen when the powder keg reaches the boiling point. But I tend to accept the hypothesis that another Intifada is only a matter of time, given the unmitigated occupation and repression as well as the scandalous failure of the peace process.

As to forming a new unity government, it is really difficult to accord this subject a lot of importance. After all, what is the point of forming a government that has no sovereignty and is subject to the draconian restrictions of the Israeli occupation?

MR: Do you hold out hope that the Obama Administration can bring about at least a bit of improvement for Palestinians, or is it equally subject to the Israel Lobby? 

KA: No, not any longer. Until recently, I thought, probably naively, that Obama might prove himself to be a man of his word. However, his utter failure to stand up to the arrogant Israeli Prime Minister Benyamin Netanyahu has exposed the American president as just another functionary of the establishment.

Moreover, what many in the West doesn’t realize is that for Israel to give up the spoils of the 1967 war, the Jewish state would have to be forced, even physically, to do so.

However, in light of Obama’s obsequious discourse vis-à-vis Netanyahu, especially with regard to the settlement issue, it is increasingly obvious that the US leader is not mentally or politically capable of doing what it takes to force Israel to end the 42-year-old occupation of the West Bank, East Jerusalem and the Gaza Strip.

The task of forcing Israel to end the hateful occupation would require a radical transformation, even a revolution, in American political thinking. And I just don’t see this happening in the foreseeable future.

MR: Why, in your view, have the Palestinian Islamist parties, especially Hamas, not had the strong support of the Ikhwan in other Arab nations, especially following the rejectionist stance of the so-called International Community following the democratic elections? Is it because the project of Hamas has a stronger nationalist nature to it, or might there be other reasons that you have reflected upon?

KA: I think they do as evidenced in the huge demonstrations organized by Islamic organizations throughout the Muslim world during the Israeli blitz against the Gaza Strip. However, we have to keep in mind that most Islamic parties and organizations are based in despotic and authoritarian states. Hence, the often tight restrictions imposed on Islamist activism do have a detrimental impact on the extent to which Islamists can render tangible material support to Hamas.

But the Islamists are giving extremely viable financial support to Palestinian Islamists without which Hamas would have had a much harder time facing international sanctions.

We also have to remember that Hamas is mainly an asset, not a liability, for Islamic activism around the world, which means that support for Hamas by Islamic groups in the Arab-Muslim world is not exactly altruistic in nature but is also motivated by a certain degree of expediency. 

MR: The division of the Palestinian people along many lines, while an internal problem, does prevent more firm opposition to the military occupation of Palestine. Do you think there is a way to overcome the divisions, or are they destined to increase with the introduction of measures such as Dayton’s “Security” forces in the West Bank, for example?

KA: Well, in the final analysis, Palestinian divisions are a symptom of the Israeli occupation. They are not a home-grown malady but rather a foreign-induced phenomenon sustained through political and economic manipulation of certain objective Palestinian needs. After all, we are very much a prisoner population who have been relentlessly used by the Israelis as a field of experiment for over 40 years.

I believe that the ultimate raison d’être of the “Dayton forces” is to crush public opposition to any prospective “peace” deal that would be imposed on the Palestinian people.  Needless to say, such a deal would be tantamount to a real liquidation of the Palestinian cause. However, I really doubt whether these forces would succeed in their mission in the long run.

The Palestinian cause is simply so deeply rooted in the collective conscience and psyche of our people, so much that it is inconceivable that these kids would succeed in morphing our people into submission. That would be anti-historical antithetical to the nature of things in Palestine.

MR: Recently, the first group of Palestinian refugees from the Al-Tanaf, Al-Waleed and Al-Hol refugee camps in Iraq have been “settled” in the USA. What do you think of this kind of programme?

KA: Naturally, we are very suspicious about any resettlement of Palestinian refugees anywhere in the world. But I am certain about one thing, namely that the refugee plight and the right of return will continue to define the Palestinian question.

I am saying so because the refugee problem is the Palestinian problem.

MR: What kind of personal experiences does the average Palestinian living in the West Bank have with the Israelis?

KA: Well, it is safe to say that the mental landscape of every Palestinian man, woman and child is overwhelmed with the Israeli nightmare. Ours is a landscape shaped by home demolitions, land seizure, evil roadblocks and checkpoints manned by trigger-happy soldiers, humiliating inhuman treatment, cruelty, terror and unrelenting criminality. Ours is a real holocaust minus the gas chambers.  We are after all the longest suffering people on earth, and we continue to suffer on a daily basis.

Today in every junior high school in America, students read Anne Frank, while in every high school Elie Wiesel’s ‘Night’ is requisite reading. This is the man who says rather brazenly that he readily identifies with Israeli crimes and that he couldn’t bring himself to say bad things about Israel. 

The victims of the first Kristalnacht enjoy the world’s approbation and sympathy, while at the same time having succeeded in demonizing an entire people for whom Kristalnacht still remains a night without end.  

MR:  It seems that access to information about the reality of Palestine, especially of the hardships brought on by the war, the checkpoints and the blockade of Gaza, should enlighten the public that there is a humanitarian emergency. What, in your view, is preventing the international community and the Arab nations from expressing moral outrage and demanding their leaders to hold Israel accountable for these situations? 

KA: I think the Arab masses would want to help the Palestinians, and they are actually helping. However, for most Arabs helping the Palestinians, especially Hamas, involves a certain risk as most regimes view identification with Hamas as connoting opposition to the regimes itself. This is true in American-allied states such as Egypt and Jordan.

As to people around the world, I think the overall outlook is positive. I think a growing number of people are now willing to take to the streets to voice their solidarity with our people. But what we need to do is to keep up the good work and try as hard as possible to isolate the evil entity.

MR: Do you believe that there is a great deal of fear in the Palestinian people which prevents them from voicing denouncements of the corruptions of the PA and the PLO before it? Or could some of this be because the allocation of funds is filtered through these organs and people need to make a living?

KA: Of course there is. The Palestinian Authority is effectively a police state without a state, and the corrupt people and their supporters, friends and cronies occupy powerful positions in the PA hierarchy. Take for example the millions of dollars arrogated by Yasser Arafat’s widow, Suha. It is widely believed that the former “First Lady”! received millions of dollars from the PLO as part of a financial settlement which very few Palestinians know about. As to the justice system, it is very much subservient to the political level and the security apparatus. This is how the donor countries, e.g. the US, are shaping Palestinian “democracy.” 

MR: What can the exiled or Diaspora Palestinian community do for their brothers and sisters in Palestine?

KA: Palestinians in the Diaspora have a grave responsibility to carry out. They should constantly communicate our plight to the world, they should always be eloquent spokespersons for their people and their cause. But in order to be successful and effective they have to organize themselves and try to enlist local support for Palestinian grievances in their respective places of residence. My ultimate advice to Palestinian expatriates is: make as many friends as possible for our just cause. And don’t allow yourselves to be diverted from the central goal, and that is to create and effect pressure on the Zionist regime.

And don’t get yourselves involved in any activities that might be misconstrued as “anti-Semitic.”  Judaism is not our enemy.  

MR: What can “internationals” do to help?

KA: “Internationals” and other solidarity activists have a hugely important job to do. They are witnesses to what Satanic Zionism has been doing to the Palestinians. Israel would want to gang up on us while the eyes of the world are shut. It is very much like the way a murderer or a thief behaves. They don’t want to be seen committing their crimes.

In fact, I can safely claim that had it not been for these courageous men and women, the level of Israeli terror against the Palestinians could have been much worse.

Therefore, I would like to salute each and every one of these heroes who have been sacrificing their time, energy and careers in protecting an unprotected people. You are the good Samaritans of our time.  So come here, bring your friends, and don’t forget your cameras. May God bless you all.

MR: You are often considered to be especially sensitive to and close to the positions of the Islamist parties, and very often, there are more than a few false representations of them, including for example that Hamas had help from Israel in its foundation, with some even saying Mossad was involved, that they won the elections only because they represented a “protest” vote, and more crucially, that their operations are not resistance, but are rather terrorist acts. Evidence points away from all of these positions, yet they are part of an interpretation trend as much in “the left” as for “moderates” and “neo-cons”. Why do you think that despite evidence, for instance, Hamas always maintained their unilateral truces, while Israel engaged in targeted assassinations of high-ranking leaders of Hamas, people across the board are so quick to accept these false representations as legitimate?

KA: I am not affiliated with any political group. This is because I had long realized that affiliation with an ideological or political party would interfere with and be detrimental to my work as a journalist. Besides, the little philosopher inside me always tells me to be constantly free-minded.

I remember that poet who described fanatical adherence to a political party. He said: I always voted at my party’s call, and never thought for myself at all.

Having said that, I also realize that it is imperative that people must support just causes and speak up the truth even in the presence of power. This is why it is paramount for my mental and psychological health that I must stand against such vices as oppression, arrogance, immorality, mendacity, selfishness, hypocrisy, rapacity and racism. I know it is not easy to swim against the current. However, it is also true that silence or indifference or inaction in the face of evil is morally disastrous in the long run. We mortals live a few decades in this life. It is essential therefore that we lead a dignified life shaped by our concerns for freedom and justice and sublime human spirit.

As to Hamas being helped by Israel, I think this is a form of disinformation by the anti-Islamist camp aimed first and foremost at besmirching Hamas.

The way Hamas has been behaving and acting since its foundation more than 20 years ago should be a clarion refutation of all these lies and insinuations.

This is not to say though that Israel has not tried and is not trying to pit Palestinians against each other. But this is not the same as saying that Hamas was created by Israel or that its growth was facilitated by the Israelis.

After all, Islamic fundamentalist groups are a global phenomenon and by no means confined to occupied Palestine.

MR: What do you think the final status might be in terms of statehood and what do you foresee as a timetable for this?

KA: It is very difficult to figure out how and when this conflict will end. What is clear though is that it won’t come to an end in the foreseeable future. I am convinced that the increasingly-religious conflict will continue for several more decades. However, in order for the conflict to reach an exhaustive conclusion, Zionism would have to disappear.

A final point, I strongly believe that time is not working in Israel’s favour as Israel is going to find it increasingly difficult to live normally in a hostile environment. Fifty years from now, Israel will be surrounded by more than 700 million Arabs and Muslims. And Jews themselves would be a small and dwindling minority in mandatory Palestine.

And like Albert Camus said “in world where everything can be denied, there are forces undeniable, and on earth where nothing is sure, we have our certainty.” And I think the dismantlement of Zionism is a historical certainty.

WRITTEN BY Saed Bannoura – IMEMC News   
Despite the outcry raised by Palestinian and international human rights organizations, the Israeli military announced this weekend it plans to go ahead with 55 home demolitions in Nablus — a city deep inside the West Bank which is supposed to be under the control of the Palestinian Authority.

The homes in question are located in the Sawiya district in the city of Nablus, in the northern West Bank, an area with few Israeli settlements — although Israeli settlers have announced plans to expand the settlements located there. 

“The Israeli decision constitutes a serious turning point in the development of Israeli attacks on Palestinian human rights,” said the Center for Human Rights and Democracy in a statement released on Friday.  The group said that it is concerned that these 55 demolitions will set a precedent for further demolitions in areas that are supposed to be under Palestinian control. 

Israeli forces have recently stepped up the rate of home demolitions, mainly in the East Jerusalem area, with the stated aim of creating "facts on the ground" that will be difficult to turn back if peace negotiations begin between Israel and the Palestinian Authority. 

Israeli home demolitions of Palestinian homes have been condemned on multiple occasions by the United Nations, as such demolitions are grave violations of international law.  Home demolitions nearly always accompany Israeli construction and expansion of settlement colonies on the areas where the demolitions take place. (end)

The following is a letter sent by a Palestinian to an Israeli activist and forwarded on.

Dearest friends

Reading Al-Jazeera and another Arab website, the people of As-Sawiyah have been shocked to learn of the ruling by the Israeli High Court that 50 homes in As-Sawiyah and Yutma (another village nearby) are fated for demolition by the Israeli authorities.

It must be noted that the Israeli authorities have issued the people living in these homes a warning to stop building and refrain from any additions to the existing structures. The Israeli Civil Administration has directed these people to take up legal procedures in order to obtain permission to protect their homes. I know such procedures have been undertaken since my own sister is one such case. If the Israeli government will go ahead and implement this decision, this will mean despair for these poor families and create a real crisis.

On behalf of all these families I'm turning to you as Israeli friends and legal NGOs, peace activiest, UN, international agencies which offer human rights & legal services, Embassies, Consults also and peace activists to make efforts to spare us such a catastrophe. We invite you to visit tent support which is set up in the our village Assaweyah
My best wishes, 
Abed Khalil

“The Israel Project”, a US media advocacy group, has produced a revised training manual to help the worldwide Zionist movement win the propaganda war, keep their ill-gotten territorial gains and persuade international audiences to accept that their crimes are necessary and conform to “shared values” between Israel and the civilized West.

It’s a clever document.

The manual teaches how to justify the slaughter, the ethnic cleansing, the land-grabbing, the cruelty and the blatant disregard for international law and UN resolutions, and make it all smell sweeter with a liberal squirt of the aerosol of persuasive language. It is designed to hoodwink us ignorant and gullible Americans and Europeans into believing that we actually share values with the racist regime in Israel and that its abominable behaviour is therefore deserving of our support.

Israel is hoping for a public relations massacre. The other side – the Palestinian Authority and the Palestine Liberation Organization – don’t take communications seriously and have neglected to correct Israeli distortion. They are happy, it seems, for Israel’s one-sided definitions to prevail, which of course makes the task for Israel so much easier. This latest propaganda offensive is potentially the “coup de grace” to finish off the tormented Palestinians. See it here.

And the manual will no doubt serve as a communications primer for the army of cyber-scribblers that Israel’s Ministry of Dirty Tricks is recruiting to spread Zionism’s poison across the internet.

This quote at the beginning sets the tone: "Remember, it’s not what you say that counts. It’s what people hear."

Top priority: demonise Hamas

The manual’s numerous messages are aimed at the mass of “persuadables”, primarily in America but also in the UK. The strategy from the start is to isolate the democratically-elected Hamas and to rob the resistance movement and the Palestinian population of their human rights.

• “Clearly differentiate between the Palestinian people and Hamas. There is an immediate and clear distinction between the empathy Americans feel for the Palestinians and the scorn they direct at Palestinian leadership. Hamas is a terrorist organization – Americans get that already. But if it sounds like you are attacking the Palestinian people (even though they elected Hamas) rather than their leadership, you will lose public support. Right now, many Americans sympathize with the plight of the Palestinians, and that sympathy will increase if you fail to differentiate the people from their leaders.”

The plight of the Palestinians under Israel’s heel was an international concern long before Hamas appeared on the scene.

But this is familiar ground. We scorned George Bush and Tony Blair and had to differentiate between them and their respective peoples. We now have to do the same with Barack Obama and Gordon Brown. We are tired of having to make that same differentiation between the Israeli people and the dreadful leaders they produce.

• "ISRAEL’S RIGHT TO DEFENSIBLE BORDERS: With more than three years of violent history since Israel’s agreement to withdraw from Gaza and portions of the West Bank [sic], Americans have had time to take stock of the situation and form opinions. The big picture: they believe that Hamas’s leadership of Gaza has made Israel and the region less safe, while some are more receptive to what they perceive as a moderate approach in the West Bank by Mahmoud Abbas. Based on these experiences, they are willing to grant Israel more leeway in resisting calls to give more land for more peace."

Here we clearly see the motive for demonizing Hamas – Israel wants more leeway to continue its land-grabs and other criminal activities.

• “If… If… If… Then”: Put the burden on Hamas to make the first move for peace by using If’s (and don’t forget to finish with a hard then to show Israel is a willing peace partner). “If Hamas reforms… If Hamas recognize our right to exist… If Hamas renounces terrorism… If Hamas supports international peace agreements… then we are willing to make peace today.”

How one-sided and daft can you get? Substitute Israel for Hamas.

Words that work

The manual sets out numerous examples of “words that work” – supposedly.

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

No mention here of the billions of tax dollars Israel takes from the US and spends on munitions to obliterate and vaporize its neighbours.

• “Peace can only be made with adversaries who want to make peace with you. Terrorist organizations like Iran-backed Hezbollah, Hamas, and Islamic Jihad are, by definition, opposed to peaceful co-existence, and determined to prevent reconciliation. I ask you, how do you negotiate with those who want you dead?”

Hamas and Hezbollah are only regarded as terrorists by the White House and Tel Aviv and by US-Israeli stooges and flag-wavers in Westminster and elsewhere.

In Executive Order 13224 – "BLOCKING PROPERTY AND PROHIBITING TRANSACTIONS WITH PERSONS WHO COMMIT, THREATEN TO COMMIT, OR SUPPORT TERRORISM" – Bush used this definition: “The term “terrorism” means an activity that –

(i) involves a violent act or an act dangerous to human life, property, or infrastructure; and
(ii) appears to be intended —
(A) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;
(B) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or
(C) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, kidnapping, or hostage-taking.”

It describes the antics of the US and Israel perfectly.

• "There is NEVER, EVER, any justification for the deliberate slaughter of innocent women and children. NEVER… there is one fundamental principle that all peoples from all parts of the globe will agree on: civilized people do not target innocent women and children for death.”

Quite so. Where does that leave Israel, which recently killed 320 children in Gaza and 773 civilians, including 109 women? From 2000 (the start of the second Intifada – the Palestinian urising against the Israeli occupation) up to the end of last year Israel had slaughtered 4,936 Palestinians in their homeland, including 952 children, according to the Israeli human rights organization B’Tselem. In the same period Palestinians killed 490 Israelis in Israel including only 84 children. So, Israel’s kill-rate is at least 10 to 1, and rising since the blitzkrieg on Gaza.

Iran-backed or US-backed – take your pick

• “Use humility. ‘I know that in trying to defend its children and citizens from terrorists that Israel has accidentally hurt innocent people. I know it, and I’m sorry for it. But what can Israel do to defend itself? If America had given up land for peace – and that land had been used for launching rockets at America, what would America do? Israel was attacked with thousands of rockets from Iran-backed Palestinian terrorists in Gaza. What should Israel have done to protect her children?’”

Palestinians too have a right to defend themselves. Hamas was the popular choice of Palestinians at the last election and is entitled under international law to take up arms against an illegal occupier and invader. If it is supported by Iran, so what? Israel is extravagantly funded and supplied by the US. Here’s part of their begging-bowl “Military Aid Speech”:

• “Israel makes the request for military assistance out of self-defense. As a democracy, they have the right and the responsibility to protect our borders. As a democracy, they have the right and the responsibility to protect their citizens.
  

• “Israel does not ask for US troops to protect itself. It does not ask for a single American soldier to protect its borders. It only asks for the funds for them to protect themselves. They need the equipment so that their own troops can ensure the safety of their civilian population through this gathering conflict with the enemies of democracy.
  

• “They didn’t ask to have our nation built in range of Iranian missiles. They didn’t ask that their nation be a focal point for religious extremists who have declared war on the West and on democracy.
  

• “But they are, and they need your help."

And here’s the rationale behind it:

• “Americans fundamentally believe that a democracy has a right to protect its people and its borders. And while Americans don’t want to increase foreign aid in a time of significant budgetary deficits and painful spending cuts, there is one and only one argument that will work for Israel (in four easy steps):
  

(1) As a democracy, Israel has the right and the responsibility to defend its borders and protect its people.

(2) Terrorist groups, including Iran-backed Hezbollah and Hamas, continue to pose a direct threat to Israeli security and have repeatedly taken innocent Israeli lives.

(3) Israel is America’s one and only true ally in the region. In these particularly unstable and dangerous times, Israel should not be forced to go it alone.

(4) With America’s financial assistance, Israel can defend its borders, protect its people, and provide invaluable assistance to the American effort against the war against terrorism.”

It’s evident that Americans don’t believe in democracy enough to allow Palestinian democracy to flourish.

• “When the terror ends, Israel will no longer need to have challenging checkpoints to inspect goods and people. When the terror ends we will no longer need a security fence.”

There are no rockets coming out of the West Bank, so why is the security fence still there – and still being built? Why are the occupation troops still there? Why are hundreds of checkpoints still there? Why is Israel still stealing land, demolishing Palestinian homes and building settlements there?

• "Remind people – again and again – that Israel wants peace.

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

Reason Two: The speaker that is perceived as being most for PEACE will win the debate. Every time someone makes the plea for peace, the reaction is positive. If you want to regain the public relations advantage, peace should be at the core of whatever message you wish to convey."

Israel has never met its peace agreement obligations. It doesn't want peace – every action is directed at keeping the conflict going until the Israelis have stolen enough land and established enough 'facts on the ground' – Jews-only settlements, highways, disconnected Palestinian bantustans – to enable them to redraw the map to suit their expansionist agenda and make the occupation PERMANENT.

Gaza in a vice

• “Israel made painful sacrifices and took a risk to give peace a chance. They voluntarily removed over 9,000 settlers from Gaza and parts of the West Bank, abandoning homes, schools, businesses and places of worship in the hopes of renewing the peace process. Despite making an overture for peace by withdrawing from Gaza, Israel continues to face terrorist attacks, including rocket attacks and drive-by shootings of innocent Israelis. Israel knows that for a lasting peace, they must be free from terrorism and live with defensible borders.”

Israel never left. It still occupies Gazan airspace, coastal waters and airwaves, and controls all borders except Rafah where it nevertheless exerts a veto. Israel has Gaza in a vice, which is crushing the tiny enclave’s economy, starving its 1.5 million citizens and creating a huge humanitarian crisis in an attempt to bring the elected government to its knees.

• "Draw direct parallels between Israel and America – including the need to defend against terrorism… The more you focus on the similarities between Israel and America, the more likely you are to win the support of those who are neutral. Indeed, Israel is an important American ally in the war against terrorism, and faces many of the same challenges as America in protecting their citizens."

Note how Israel’s strategy is almost totally dependent on the false idea that they are victims of terror and Western nations need to huddle together with Israel for mutual protection. Fortunately, level-headed people are beginning to realize who the terrorists really are.

It must be blindingly obvious by now that allowing parallels to be drawn between Israel and America only serves to increase the world’s hatred of America. US citizens need to wake up to this, and British citizens should avoid falling into the same trap.

Inject with “core values” and repeat over and over again…

• "The language of Israel is the language of America: 'democracy', 'freedom', 'security', and 'peace'. These four words are at the core of the American political, economic, social and cultural systems, and they should be repeated as often as possible because they resonate with virtually every American."

If so fluent in this language, why doesn’t Israel acknowledge its neighbours’ rights to democracy, freedom, security and peace and end their military oppression?

• "A simple rule of thumb is that once you get to the point of repeating the same message over and over again so many times that you think you might get sick – that is just about the time the public will wake up and say 'Hey – this person just might be saying something interesting to me!' But don’t confuse messages with facts…"

Never let facts get in the way of a good message!

• “How can the current Palestinian leadership honestly say it will pursue peace when previous leaders rejected an offer to create a Palestinian state just a few short years ago and now refuse to live up to their responsibilities as outlined in the Road Map?”

This must be a reference to Ehud Barak's so-called "generous offer”, another of the myths Israelis love to peddle. The West Bank and the Gaza Strip, seized by Israel in 1967 and occupied ever since, comprise just 22 per cent of pre-partition Palestine. When the Palestinians signed the Oslo Agreement in 1993 they agreed to accept the 22 per cent and to recognize Israel within “Green Line” borders (i.e. the 1949 armistice line established after the Arab-Israeli war). Conceding 78 per cent of the land that was originally theirs was an astonishing compromise on the part of the Palestinians.

But it wasn't enough for greedy Barak. His “generous offer” required the inclusion of 69 Israeli settlements within the 22 per cent remnant. It was plain to see on the map that these settlement blocs created impossible borders and already severely disrupted Palestinian life in the West Bank. Barak also demanded the Palestinian territories be placed under "temporary Israeli control", meaning Israeli military and administrative control indefinitely. The “generous offer” also gave Israel control over all the border crossings of the new Palestinian state. What nation in the world would accept that? The unacceptable reality of Barak’s offer, contained in the map, was hidden by propaganda spin.

Later, at Taba, Barak produced a revised map but withdrew it after his election defeat. Don’t take my word for it – the facts are well documented and explained by organizations such as Israel’s Gush Shalom.

• “Why is the world so silent about the written, vocal, stated aims of Hamas?”

And why is the world so silent about the written, stated aims of the racist regime and its political parties? Read their manifestoes.

• “Successful communications is not about being able to recite every fact from the long history of the Arab-Israeli conflict. It is about pointing out a few core principles of shared values – such as democracy and freedom – and repeating them over and over again… You need to start with empathy for both sides, remind your audience that Israel wants peace and then repeat the messages of democracy, freedom, and peace over and over again… we need to repeat the message, on average, 10 times to be effective.”

Is democracy a shared value? Israel is an ethnocracy not a democracy. Is freedom a shared value? The world is still waiting for Israel to allow the Palestinians their freedom.

• “The situation in the Middle East may be complicated, but all parties should adopt a simple approach: peace first, political boundaries second.”

Renounce resistance while still under Israel’s jackboot? The correct approach is for the international community to insist first that Israel complies with international law and the many UN resolutions it has contemptuously ignored. The boundaries are already defined. Whatever issues remain to be decided, Palestinians should not have to negotiate under occupation or duress.

Rockets, bombs and atrocities: the language of peace

• "Bottom line: What will happen if we fail to get the world to care about the fact that Israeli parents in southern Israel need to literally dodge rockets when they drive their children to kindergarten in the morning? What will happen if the world allows Iran, the world’s largest state sponsor of terrorism, to get nuclear weapons? What will Israel do if bad press causes American citizens to ask [their] government to turn its back on Israel? Why do I care so much about the success of your communications efforts? I care because I never want our children to live through what my family and yours lived through in the Holocaust."

Only one in 500 makeshift Qassam rockets causes a fatality, small beer compared to the devastation and carnage resulting from Israel’s state-of-the-art rocketry targeted on Gaza. How does it look when Palestinians are forced to pay the price for the Holocaust? And how much does Israel care about the Palestinian holocaust it has caused?

The manual then gives a long glossary of terms. Here’s a sample:

• “Deliberately firing rockets into civilian communities”: Combine terrorist motive with civilian visuals and you have the perfect illustration of what Israel faced in Gaza and Lebanon. Especially with regard to rocket attacks but useful for any kind of terrorist attack, deliberate is the right word to use to call out the intent behind the attacks. This is far more powerful than describing the attacks as “random”.

Israelis know all about bombarding civilian targets. And they are careful not to mention that Sderot, until recently the only Israeli township within range of Gazan rockets, is built on the ruins of an ethnically cleansed Palestinian village whose inhabitants were forced from their homes by Jewish terrorists.

• “Economic Diplomacy”: This is a much more embracing and popular term than the current lexicon of “sanctions”. It has appeal across the political spectrum: the tough economic approach appeals to Republicans, and the diplomacy component satisfies Democrats.

We can all play this game. Israel is now beginning to suffer “economic diplomacy” in the form of worldwide boycotts.

• “Economic Prosperity”: Whenever Israel talks about the “economic prosperity” of the Palestinians, it puts Israel in the most positive light possible. After all, who can disagree?

What sort of prosperity is it when nothing can be imported or exported without Israel's approval and fisherman can't even put to sea in their own waters without having their boats shot up by the Israeli navy?

• “Human to Human”: “We know that the average Palestinian and the average Israeli want to come together and make peace. They want to live in peace. Israeli leaders have come together with Arab leaders to make peace in the past. But how do you make peace with Hamas and Hezbollah?”

Simple. You get off their land and stay off. There can be no peace under occupation. You have to be very stupid not to understand that.

• “Humanize Rockets”: Paint a vivid picture of what life is like in Israeli communities that are vulnerable to attack. Yes, cite the number of rocket attacks that have occurred. But immediately follow that up with what it is like to make the nightly trek to the bomb shelter.

Would Israel care to tell the world how many bombs, rockets and shells (including the illegal and prohibited variety) its US-supplied F-16s, tanks, armed drones and navy gunboats have poured into the densely-packed humanity that is Gaza?

Still more advice…

• “Living together, side by side”. This is the best way to describe the ultimate vision of a two-state solution without using the phrase.

Sounds cute but is worn out. Who would want to live alongside bigots and extremists who have made your life a misery for 61 years?

• "When talking about a Palestinian partner, it is essential to distinguish between Hamas and everyone else. Only the most anti-Israel, pro-Palestinian American expects Israel to negotiate with Hamas, so you have to be clear that you are seeking a 'moderate Palestinian partner'."

Where are the moderate Israeli partners?

• "The fight is over IDEOLOGY – not land; terror, not territory. Thus, you must avoid using Israel’s religious claims to land as a reason why Israel should not give up land. Such claims only make Israel look extremist to people who are not religious Christians or Jews.”

If the fight isn’t about land, why did Israel steal it at gunpoint? And why won’t they give it back when told to by the UN?

• "Think PRO-PALESTINIAN. While I have spoken about Israeli casualties, I want to recognize those Palestinians that have been killed or wounded, because they are suffering as well. I particularly want to reach out to Palestinian mothers who have lost their children. No parent should have to bury their child.”

Israel won’t even allow cement into Gaza to build the graves.

• "And so I say to my Palestinian colleagues … you can stop the bloodshed. You can stop the suicide bombings and rocket attacks. If you really want to, you can put an end to this cycle of violence. If you won’t do it for our children, do it for your children.”

Effective Israeli sound bite. Speechless.

• "I want to see a future where the Palestinians govern themselves. Israel does not want to govern a single Palestinian. Not one. We want them to govern themselves. We want them to have complete self-determination."

Is that why Israel tried to snuff out Palestine's democracy – and the people’s right to self-determination – immediately after the 2006 elections?

• "The big picture approach is this: You must isolate Hamas as:

– A critical cause of the delay in achieving a two-state solution

– The biggest source of harm to the Palestinian people, and

– The reason why Israel must defend its people from living in terror.

Read from the Hamas Charter. Now, here’s how to attack Hamas: indict them with their own indoctrination materials. Yes, people know Hamas is a terrorist organization – but they don’t know just how terrifying Hamas can be. The absolute best way to heighten their awareness is to read from the Hamas Charter itself. Don’t just “quote” from it. Read it. Out loud. Again and again. Hand it out to everyone."

At last Israel makes a good point. After three years of “government” Hamas must be mad to persist with its ill-advised charter. They have been severely tested. They have matured. They have earned credibility in many eyes. Israel’s behaviour makes Hamas look good. But all that will count for nothing if they don't rewrite their charter as a matter of urgency.

Regev’s pearls of wisdom. But how safe is the region under the threat of Israel’s nukes?

• "It’s not just Israel who refuses to speak to Hamas. It’s the whole international community… Most of the democratic world refuses to have a relationship with Hamas because Hamas has refused to meet the most minimal benchmarks of international behaviour." – Mark Regev

Isn’t that a little cheeky, Mr Regev, coming from a regime widely condemned for war crimes, piracy and mega-lawlessness?

• "It was the former UN secretary-general, Kofi Anan, that put four benchmarks on the table. And he said, speaking for the international community…
  

That if Hamas reforms itself … – Mark Regev

If Hamas recognizes my country’s right to live in freedom…

If Hamas renounces terrorism against innocent civilians…

If Hamas supports international agreements that are being signed and agreed to concerning the peace process… then the door is open. But unfortunately – tragically – Hamas has failed to meet even one of those four benchmarks. And that’s why today Hamas is isolated internationally. Even the United Nations refuses to speak to Hamas.

Which of those benchmarks has Israel met, Mr Regev?

• "Israel is very concerned about the Iranian nuclear programme. And for good reason. Iran’s president openly talks about wiping Israel off the map. We see them racing ahead on nuclear enrichment so they can have enough fissile material to build a bomb. We see them working on their ballistic missiles. We only saw, last week, shooting a rocket to launch a so-called satellite into outer space and so forth. The Iranian nuclear programme is a threat, not just to my country, but to the entire region. And it’s incumbent upon us all to do what needs to be done to keep from proliferating.” – Mark Regev

Why is Israel the only state in the region not to have signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, Mr Regev? Are we all supposed to believe that Israel's 200 (or is it 400?) nuclear warheads pose no threat? Would you also like to comment on why Israel hasn’t signed the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention, and why it has signed but not ratified the Comprehensive Nuclear Test-Ban Treaty, similarly the Chemical Weapons Convention? What proof do you have of Iran's nuclear weapons plans?

And why do you persist in misquoting Mr Ahmadinejad?

The Holy City is not up for grabs

• "The toughest issue to communicate will be the final resolution of Jerusalem. Americans overwhelmingly want Israel to be in charge of the religious holy sites and are frankly afraid of the consequences should Israel turn over control to the Palestinians. Consider:
  

– 71 per cent of Americans trust Israel most to protect the holy sites in Jerusalem, compared to 6.1 per cent who trust the Palestinian authority most. 8.5 per cent per cent trust neither.

– 54 per cent of Americans believe that ‘Jerusalem must remain united under Israeli sovereignty’ while just 23.9 per cent believe that ‘Jerusalem should be divided into Israeli controlled and Palestinian controlled areas’.

Given the choice between the two, Americans of all political and demographic stripes trust Israel to protect and have sovereignty over Jerusalem."

Israel is in control right now and prevents Muslims and Christians from outside the city visiting the holy places. No way can Israel be trusted. The UN's partition plan decreed that Jerusalem should become a ”corpus separatum” under international management. It is unlikely that the UN would wish to see its resolutions torn up or international law rewritten for Israel’s sole benefit, regardless of America’s misinformed opinion.

Get the name-calling right

I’ll close with the following extract:

• “Many on the left see an ‘Israel vs. Palestinian’ crisis where Israel is Goliath and the Palestinians are David. It is critical that they understand that this is an Arab-Israeli crisis and that the force undermining peace is Iran and their proxies Hezbollah, Hamas and Islamic Jihad. You must not call Hamas just Hamas. Call them what they are: Iran-backed Hamas. Indeed, when they know that Iran is behind Hamas and Hezbollah, they are much more supportive of Israel.”

By the same token we must call the racist regime what it is – US-backed Israel.

Iran’s support for Hamas is difficult to quantify and probably less than we think. More funding has probably come from Sunni Arab countries such as Saudi Arabia and Qatar. In any case, it is peanuts compared to America’s support for Israel.

Hamas is an offshoot of Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhhod and was founded in 1987 during the first Intifada. Hezbollah came into being in 1982 in response to US-backed Israel’s invasion of Lebanon. So, the territorial ambitions of US-backed Israel provoked the rise of both. Israel’s problem is entirely self-inflicted and shouldn’t concern the rest of us.

Hamas’s election manifesto in 2006 called for maintaining the armed struggle against US-backed Israel’s occupation of the Palestinian territories, which seems a perfectly valid aim.

Our obligation to respect and promote human rights

The Israel Project’s training manual is an unpleasant piece of work. It runs to 116 pages and I have only scratched the surface. It recycles many of the discredited techniques used by the advertising industry before standards of honesty, decency and truthfulness were brought in to protect the public.

And it serves to undermine with clever words the inalienable rights pledged by the UN and the world’s civilized nations to all peoples, including the Palestinians.

When you have to stoop this low you simply don’t have a case.

The Palestinian side urgently needs to strip away the deception and re-frame the Holy Land situation in truthful language. And it needs to debunk this Zionist handbook. If the PA and the PLO won’t do it, who will?

Everyone should bear in mind the following, written nearly 61 years ago:

“Now, Therefore THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY proclaims THIS UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS as a common standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations, to the end that every individual and every organ of society, keeping this Declaration constantly in mind, shall strive by teaching and education to promote respect for these rights and freedoms and by progressive measures, national and international, to secure their universal and effective recognition and observance, both among the peoples of Member States themselves and among the peoples of territories under their jurisdiction.”

It would seem that Israel has not read or understood the principles enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which all nations signed up to. Attempts to wipe out the rights of people who happen to be in the way of the Zionist vision of a “Greater Israel” deserve no support whatever.

Stuart Littlewood is author of the book Radio Free Palestine, which tells the plight of the Palestinians under occupation. For further information please visit www.radiofreepalestine.co.uk.
Source

Military reinforcement arrived in five Jeeps. Outside the house, one Palestinian activist, Emad Burnat, who was filming, was pushed to the ground. One soldier also broke his camera. Hamde Aburahma and other Palestinian journalists were threatened with arrest unless they stop filming. They hit Ashraf Aburahma, another activist, with the gun injuring his right hand.

The house of Abdullah's brother, Khaled Aburahma, was raided as well, which traumatized his children that were pulled brutally out of their sleep. The invading forces said that until they find Abdullah, the entire neighborhood was theirs. They searched every room and trashed one room downstairs next to the store. They stole Palestinian flags, banners and posters used during demonstrations, and then left the house.

The invading forces exited the village around 3 am without any victims.

Abdullah Aburahma called all the Human Rights organizations worldwide to help stop the night raids in Bil'in, and to support the demonstrations against the occupation which is a legal activity.

Paul J. Balles views a major public relations manual for Israel lobbyists. Written by Dr Frank Luntz, a US Republican political consultant and pollster, on behalf of The Israel Project, a US media advocacy group, it teaches pro-Israel propagandists how to hoodwink people about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, how to silence critics and how to avoid making statements that produce negative reactions.

More than 50 years ago, Vance Packard shook the commercial world with the publication of his book The Hidden Persuaders. It was, as the book jacket claims, “A revealing, often shocking explanation of new techniques of research and methods of persuasion.”

Packard revealed, “If people couldn’t discriminate reasonably, marketers reasoned, they should be assisted in discriminating unreasonably, in some easy, warm, emotional way.”

Much merchandizing success, according to Packard, “…hinged, to a large extent, upon successfully manipulating or coping with our guilt feelings, fears, anxieties, hostilities, loneliness feelings, inner tensions”.

Packard raised serious questions of morality related to the “people-manipulating activities of persuaders … and their ability to contact millions of us simultaneously”, giving them “the power to do good or evil on a scale never before possible in a very short time”.

Among the most evil of the hidden persuaders are the political propagandists. Their “evil” stems from the fact that they have a political agenda, which discriminates unreasonably and is designed to manipulate emotions.

The manipulative approach to politics is, of course, not a discovery of the 1950s, or even the 20th century. Napoleon Bonaparte set up a press bureau that he called his Bureau of Public Opinion. Its function was “to manufacture political trends to order”.

Just as Napoleon Bonaparte believed that “public opinion is a mysterious and invisible power, to which everything must yield”, Niccolò Machiavelli, Italian author of The Prince, described the arts with which a ruling prince can maintain control of his realm.

In a document published by The Israel Project entitled “The Israel Project’s 2009 Global Language Dictionary”, Dr Frank Luntz unmasks a modern-day propaganda campaign that would have made Napoleon and Machiavelli proud. He writes:

There is NEVER, EVER, any justification for the deliberate slaughter of innocent women and children. NEVER. The primary Palestinian public relations goal is to demonstrate that the so-called “hopelessness of the oppressed Palestinians” is what causes them to go out and kill children. This must be challenged immediately, aggressively, and directly.

The emotional appeal to saving children works, but the appeal is based on two lies:

(1) that Palestinians generally (not only suicide bomber extremists) are the ones who kill children, while Israelis (not individual extremists, but Israel’s armed forces) never slaughter Palestinian children.

(2) The second falsehood is that the Palestinians have a public relations goal that must be challenged when, in fact, the Palestinians have proven to be hopeless and goalless when it comes to public relations. Unlike Frank Luntz, the Palestinians have no effective PR voices. They can’t even get their ambassador in the UK to speak out to the British public about Israel’s lies and propaganda.

Next, Luntz attempts to sound reasonable by speaking of acceptable disagreements about economics or politics against fundamental principles of civilized people. The evil allusion here is that the Palestinians are the uncivilized people who target Israeli children.

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

The entire passage, again appealing unreasonably to emotions, makes the pretence that Israel did not target innocent women and children for death with their murderous indiscriminate bombing and missile attacks on Gaza against a huge civilian population of women and children.

However, distorted propaganda about children isn’t enough for Luntz. This is but one part of a page out of 114 pages devoted to this manual for distribution to thousands of propagandists for Israel.

Advancing only as far as page nine, the guided Israel promoters will find “Words that work” (sections that are actually throughout the book). Here’s what Luntz has to say about Gaza:

Israel made painful sacrifices and took a risk to give peace a chance. They voluntarily removed over 9,000 settlers from Gaza and parts of the West Bank, abandoning homes, schools, businesses, and places of worship in the hopes of renewing the peace process.

How generous he makes the Israelis appear, when in fact the removal of Jewish settlers from Gaza had nothing to do with giving peace a chance. As the Israeli Yossi Alpher points out, removal of the settlers gave a demographic advantage to Israel. He says, “no longer are Jewish and Arab populations mixed there in a manner that points to a single binational state as the solution”.

In other words, Ariel Sharon could close the borders, imprison Gazans, hoping they will simply be forced to leave by starvation, murder fishermen and initiate military operations whenever they’re not involved in attacking Lebanon to the north, to slaughter more Hamas women and children.

Then Luntz adds more “Words that work” for the indoctrination of his readers – Israeli propagandists:

Despite making an overture for peace by withdrawing from Gaza, Israel continues to face terrorist attacks, including rocket attacks and drive-by shootings of innocent Israelis. Israel knows that for a lasting peace, they must be free from terrorism and live with defensible borders.

As mentioned earlier, withdrawal from Gaza had nothing to do with an “overture for peace”. The rocket attacks have been a response to being locked into an open-air prison; and they’re aimed at land stolen by Israel. The “drive-by shootings of innocent Israelis” are figments of Luntz’s imagination.

The “free from terrorism and live with defensible borders” line is the overworked motto that twists the truth in the continuing belief that if repeated often enough it will be believed.

No matter how often the propagandists repeat this mantra, the truth is that a few resistance fighters from Hamas have lobbed ineffective rockets against a well-supplied army of Israel’s state terrorists; and the borders they want to defend are on land stolen from the Palestinians.

One might wish that the training in how to spread Israeli propaganda would stop there. If the Palestinians were up to the task, they might counter the lies with what they know of the history and suffering of Palestinians under occupation. Unfortunately, those with the linguistic ability to cope with the Israeli propaganda machine worry about endangering themselves and their families by speaking the truth.

Those who can only speak Arabic fluently are often busy fighting tribal wars within (Gazans vs. the Palestinian Authority), and they can’t compete with Israel’s skilled English speakers or against the organized promotional efforts Israel makes with Americans and Europeans.

Making the task of exposing the lies and deceit exceptionally difficult, Luntz’s propaganda tract, which unravels advice about the “how-to” of Israeli propaganda for 114 pages, seems Herculean to say the least.

Luntz offers advice about things like “Americans want a team to cheer for. Let the public know GOOD things about Israel.” He follows that with “Draw direct parallels between Israel and America – including the need to defend against terrorism.”

He tells his readers to make salient comparisons between Israel and America: “The language of Israel is the language of America: ‘democracy’, ‘freedom’, ’security’, and ‘peace’”.

Even while Israel is throwing Arabs out of their homes in East Jerusalem to make room for Jews, Luntz repeats the boast about how “Israel, America’s ally, is a democracy in the Middle East”. If he reported the truth about the so-called democracy in Israel, he would reveal how it’s really a bigoted apartheid state.

The book is full of charts showing just how effective Israel’s propaganda campaign has been. Not only do Americans believe that Israel is America’s closest ally in the Middle East, but that they both share the same values.

Another chart shows that 58 per cent of Americans believe that the US should support Israel, while only 9 per cent believe that they should support Palestinians. Even when coaching others in how to propagandize, Luntz couldn’t resist the revealing boast about how effective their PR work has been.

The entire screed utilizes all the tricks available to a clever wordsmith: how to use rhetorical questions to silence others, how to pretend that you’re sympathetic with the people but not their evil leaders, how to avoid making statements that produce negative reactions.

All of that came from the first of 18 chapters. Several other chapters, especially on “words that work”, talk about settlements, Israel’s so-called right to self-defence, Hamas, and tackling a nuclear Iran will be taken up in coming exposures.

In recent weeks, there have been consistent reports indicating that a number of Arab regimes are voicing a willingness to normalize relations with the extremist Israeli government of Benyamin Netanyahu.  

According to these reports, some unspecified Arab regimes signaled to the Obama administration that they would be willing to take a number of “gestures” and “overtures” toward Israel, including allowing Israeli planes to fly over their territories, land and refuel at their airports as well as issue entry visas for Israeli officials, business people and ordinary citizens. 

The “gestures” and “overtures” are supposedly meant to encourage the apartheid state to walk in the path of peace and give American-led efforts a chance to succeed.

The latest development  in this unethical morass has been a secret visit by Netanyahu  to an unspecified Arab state, probably in the Gulf region. Some of these former British protectorates, now American satellite princedoms, have informed the Obama administration of their readiness to take daring steps toward normalizing with the Jewish state. 

However, it has been amply clear that all Arab “goodwill efforts” are having the opposite effect on Israeli government behaviors, especially with regard to Jewish settlement expansion and land theft in the West Bank and East Jerusalem. 

Indeed, in the past few days, the Israeli government has issued tenders for building hundreds of settler units all over the occupied territories, further corroding any chances for the creation of a viable Palestinian state. 

The decision is viewed not only as a flagrant defiance of the Obama administration but also as a naked contempt for Arab normalization “gestures and overtures.”

Well, the normalizing Arabs seem to deserve all the scorn they are getting from Israel. After all, people who don’t respect themselves and their peoples don’t deserve to be respected. 

Nonetheless, it seems that the slave-minded Arab regimes wouldn’t alter their scandalously disgraceful behavior vis-à-vis Zionist insolence no matter how much scorn and indignity is smacked onto their shameless faces. 

This is because these decadent self-worshipers relate to the US government, irrespective of the political color of the incumbent administration, as the ultimate pimp whose instructions and directions must be heeded without the slightest deviation. 

What else can be said of Arab leaders who claim to be followers of the Prophet Muhammed but rewards  Israel generously every time the Nazi-like entity steps up its oppression and persecution of the Palestinian people. 

Even whores are mindful of their interests, which shows that those  Arab despots harrowing to normalize with the Judeo-Nazi state don’t even have the morality of a whore. 

I don’t have the slightest doubt that these Kings, princes and presidents-for-life realize well that whatever they do to appease and please Israel will not make the criminal entity opt for peace and therefore put an end to decades of its Nazi-like occupation of Palestine.  

But, if so, why do they still blindly heed American orders to cheapen themselves and their respective countries and peoples when they know quite well that Israel will ignore them with utter contempt.

The answer is clear. These ignorant Arab tyrants are unelected by their people, don’t  feel answerable or even responsible  to the masses and, therefore, feel they can  behave according to their wild whims without having to worry about the consequences of their misrule and  abuse of power, even including treason. 

Besides,  we all know that “normalization with Israel,” which itself is skewed term lacking logical consistency, had been thoroughly tried during the Clinton administration’s reign  when Arab states from the Maghreb to Sheikdoms of the Gulf were herded like meek sheep to normalize with Israel. And what was the outcome of this silly game? 

Did Israel stop killing the Palestinians? Did Israel stop building colonies on stolen Arab land? Did Israel stop demolishing Arab homes? Did Israel stop narrowing Palestinian horizons? 

We know too well  the answers to these questions. Israel actually stepped up its oppression and repression of the Palestinian people, which culminated in the genocidal blitz in Gaza earlier this year, destroying the coastal enclave and mercilessly slaughtering, incinerating and maiming thousands of innocent people whose only crime was their “helplessness” and the non-existence of a powerful state that would shield them from the savagery of the Nazis of our time. 

Another point. We all know that Israel views the entire issue of normalization  with the Arab world as a diversionary tactic to divert attention from and have ample time for effecting more settlement expansion. 

Hence, it is just pointless that Arabs must always harrow aimlessly after Zionist illusions. 

Indeed, one wouldn’t exaggerate much by stating that even if the 300 million Arabs were to become willing weavers of skullcaps for religious Jews, Israel would continue to reject peace and look down on them as scum, vermin and dirty animals that ought to be exterminated.  

We, who have been living under the Israeli occupation rule for decades, know Israel like no other people do. Hence it would be a futile exercise in stupidity and vacuity for these late-day descendants of Omar Ibn al Khattab and Salahuddin to try that which has been tried ad nauseam, but to no avail. 

Israel is a combination of Nazi brutality and Zionist racism and, as such, respects only power and force. Hence, it is imperative that these so-called leaders realize that their stupid “gestures” and “overtures” won’t take them anywhere and that they will continue to be viewed by Israel as stupid imbeciles who have no will of their own and who are bereft of human dignity.  

Well, I don’t blame Israel for viewing you this way. 

When we went to elementary school, we learned that a  wolf shouldn’t be blamed for attacking the sheep if the shepherd is the flock’s enemy.

The U.S. Palestinian Community Network is appalled that the government of the United States not only continues its unconditional support for Israel, but has engaged in establishing a Palestinian contra forces in the West Bank, aimed at deepening Palestinian internal division and engaging in arbitrary arrests and assassinations of political activists. We demand an immediate end to all such programs and the immediate withdrawal of U.S. Lt. Gen. Keith Dayton and his mercenaries from Palestine!

U.S. Lieutenant General Keith Dayton, the U.S. Security Coordinator for Israel and the Palestinian Authority, has overseen the creation of a paramilitary force serving the occupation under the title of Palestinian Authority 'security forces.' While Israeli occupation soldiers regularly abduct, injure and kill Palestinians, Dayton's contras have engaged in a campaign of intimidation against the Palestinian populace, including arbitrary arrests, raids on charitable institutions and non-governmental organizations, assassinations, and torture of political opponents of the Palestinian Authority.

Furthermore, the focus on 'security' comes at the expense of the Palestinian people's real needs. While Palestinians continue to organize to resist occupation and strengthen their communities by building schools, hospitals and community-centered institutions that support the steadfastness of the Palestinian people, the U.S. has poured money, arms and resources into 'security forces' that  provide no security for Palestinians who face daily threats from settlers and occupying forces, but instead act as threats against Palestinians on the ground.

The actions of these squads are fully coordinated with the Israeli military occupation. They carry out arrests, abductions and raids at the direction of Israeli military forces and provide the occupation forces with information about the location of Palestinian activists. Israeli officials have bragged about the success of these paramilitary forces in repressing Palestinian resistance.

In addition, this force is designed to prop up a subservient and collaborationist Palestinian authority. The training for these forces is provided by a number of repressive Arab regimes, who themselves maintain their power due to U.S. funding and support.

These paramilitary squads are not an internal Palestinian question alone.  As taxpayers and residents of the United States, we demand that the U.S. ceases its funding and training of Dayton's mercenaries. U.S. involvement in paramilitary death and terror squads is nothing new - from Colombia, to the Philippines, to El Salvador, to Nicaragua, to Angola and Mozambique, the U.S. has funded trained and armed paramilitary forces to serve U.S. interests and/or support reactionary local rulers.

We call upon all Arab American community organizations, anti-war coalitions, and progressive institutions to take action to end Dayton?s contras program in Palestine by:

1.      Signing on to this statement! Email your endorsement to stopdayton@palestineconference.org. 

2.      Organizing a visit to your Congressional representative. Deliver him or her letter from your community urging that Congress end all funding to Dayton's contras program. 

3.      Issuing a statement from your local community group demanding the immediate withdrawal of  Dayton and his team from Palestine.

U.S. Palestinian Community Network (Palestinian Popular Conference)

September 8, 2009

http://www.palestineconference.org   +   stopdayton@palestineconference.org

The felonious Adam Malul commented on what Gadi Shamni, saying: “the GOC Gadi Shamni is trying to pretty up the picture; in fact he knows what's happening on the ground, but he chooses to stay in his ivory tower and keep his face clean. I am not ashamed of smacking the Palestinian; it was what I had to do. My commanders on the ground, my company commander, battalion commander and brigade commander backed me up, and I did what I was taught by my superiors”. He added: "in the territories. There are those that get dirty every day to defend the State's security".

On 29 July 2009, the Israeli military war criminal Central Command Chief Major General Gadi Shamni issued Military Order 1644 related to so-called “juveniles”. The order is a violation of the Fourth Geneva and the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, which Israel itself had signed. The order is furthermore a grave crime against humanity, as it implements the stance often expressed by representatives of the “state of Israel”, according to which Palestinians have no human rights, what implies that we are not humans.

Shamni concludes his criminal military order by referring to paragraphs which clearly show bad faith, and the bad intentions of Shamni towards the Palestinian children detainees, as it is clearly intended by the Central Command GOC to circumvent the international laws and treaties related to children, and to “legalize” current criminal practices of Israel. See the English translation of the military order 1644 as PDF See the Arabic translation of the military order 1644 as PDF.

• Instructions of this order do not apply to cases in which the list of charges were made prior to the entry of this order into force. He means the 342 children who are currently incarcerated.
• The order enters into force sixty days from the date of issuance, and expires one year later. This means during this time, the troops of Shamni will catch some hundreds of Palestinian children among the peace protesters who throw stones at the Apartheid wall, and that they will be “found guilty” by military judges acting under Order 1644/2009 amendment number (109) issued by Shamni. It does not mean that less children are shot, murdered, tortured, abused or incarcerated – it just means that now these crimes are legalized.

Has anyone heard of any country in the world where children are tortured and incarcerated because of throwing stones at the concrete walls of the concentration camp where they live?

Has anyone heard that a state establish a military court to submit oppressed children to “trials”, because these children dared to express their anger over the violation of their rights by throwing stones at the concrete walls of the concentration camp in which they live?

Has anyone heard about any state which claims that the establishment of a military court was in response to the terms of international conventions on children rights?

Since when do the rights of children call for the establishment of military courts to more effectively prosecute them?

Since when have concrete walls needed armies and military courts to defend them?

This farce and the sanctimonious resolutions and crimes against humanity are taking place only in the zionist “state” called Israel. If this happened in any other country in the world, then the so-called, self-nominated democratic governments would issued a formal and explicit condemnation against that country. But rarely, if ever, do these countries issue such condemnations against Israel, which is governed by war criminals and psychopath military leaders.

Dozens of journalists from Israeli newspapers reported about this military order issued by the IDF Central Command GOC, the war criminal Gadi Shamni, as an achievement. If these wannabe-journalists had read the order issued by the Shamni, resolution 1644 on the establishment of a military court for “juveniles”, actually for Palestinian children, they would understand that the military order of Shamni is not only a crime against children, but against humanity, and against the present of Israel.

People acting as judges in these so-called military court for juveniles would be war criminals themselves. These “judges” of military courts are responsible for incarcerating thousands of Palestinian children during the past 42 years.

Currently there are 342 children incarcerated by these psychopaths among criminals, drugs dealers, sexual perverts, and these children are all subject to continuous sessions of torture to force them to become collaborators with the IDF military intelligence.

Shamni himself is directly responsible for the murders of 975 children by snipers over the past years and the currently incarcerated 342 Palestinian children in his jails. Before that, while Shamni was a colonel and the military commander of Hebron in the years between 1995 – 1997, he himself was involved in terrorizing, sniping and incarcerating many Palestinian children as well as adults, looting Palestinian agricultural lands, vandalizing Palestinian property lands and opening road for the jewish squatters.

Major General Gadi Shamni, the current IDF Central Command GOC, was the military occupation commander in my homeland, the city of Hebron. I know him in person. I know that he participated in and committed crimes against humanity and crimes of war against the civilian populations of Hebron, which all together amount to ethnic cleansing and genocide.

One of the most horrible military operations which Gadi Shamni lead in Hebron was with the “mistaravim” (“those who look like Arabs”), IDF paramilitary death squads, after the Hebron redeployment in 1997. These units wear civilian clothes and they hide their weapons under their long shirts. These units are manned with Druze soldiers who look like Palestinians, so that normal people going about their business are not aware of their presence. In one operation which I witnessed, which took place at the end of July 1997, Shamni sent these death squad units into the middle of Al-Shalala street in the (in name) Palestinian controlled area. It was later said that the undercover soldiers who took part in this incident were from the Duvdevan unit. The mission of these death squads was to catch and kill some children, young boys from the area under the purported control of the Palestinian Authority, and that is what they did.

Shamni himself was leading the mission. He was in the middle of the separation area in Al-Shalala Street, near the Al-Ja’abari pharmacy. His plan was to let his troops stationed on the rooftop of the Al-Said building in the same street throw an Israeli flag in the middle of the Palestinians going about their personal business, just for provocation. His death squads were ready to shoot, murder and arrest anyone. When the youths in the area started stepping on and burning the flag, the “mistaravim” started arresting these children and shooting in the middle of crowded street. A boy of age 9 in the crowd was killed next to me, and I was nearly shot. I witnessed several people in the crowd, some with bullet wounds, being dragged on the ground like sacks by the death squads to where Gadi had set up his command post. I remember being very scared and angry.

I went to the area where Colonel Gadi Shamni was standing and smiling of happiness after this incident. I told him in an angry voice that what he had done to catch some children aged under 15 years was a disgusting bloody game. Gadi did not pay attention to my words, he just continued smiling and expressing his “victories” of having snatched some  children, of shooting and the terrorizing innocent people in the street.

In the words of the lawyer of the Defence of Children International “DCI” human rights organization, Khalid Quzmar:

DCI-Palestine is of the view that children should not be tried in military courts with minimal fair trial guarantees and has a number of particular concerns regarding Military Order 1644 and the treatment of Palestinian children in the Israeli military legal system. DCI-Palestine’s concerns include the following:

Palestinian children are still being interrogated in the absence of a lawyer or family member. The overwhelming majority of these children report being mistreated and forced into providing confessions during interrogation. These interrogations are still not being video recorded, as recommended by the UN Committee Against Torture in May 2009.

Children as young as 12 can still be tried in the military courts, and are treated as adults as soon as they turn 16. This is in contrast to the Israeli domestic legal system that fixes the age of majority at 18, in accordance with generally accepted comparable principles of juvenile justice.

Military Order 1644 provides for the appointment of ‘juvenile judges’ by the Military Court of Appeal. These ‘juvenile judges’ are themselves, military court judges who ‘must be prepared to be competent for the post’. No further information is provided to shed light on how it is anticipated these military court judges are suitably qualified to adjudicate cases involving 12 year old children.

Military Order 1644 exempts all hearings to determine whether a child should be kept in pre-trial detention until the end of the legal proceedings from the requirement of having to be heard before a ‘juvenile judge’.

Much of the language used in Military Order 1644 is discretionary in nature, not mandatory. For example, the ‘juvenile military court’ must convene in separate rooms ‘as much as possible’ and children must not be brought to the court, or detained with adults, ‘as much as possible.’

It must be recalled that over 700 Palestinian children are prosecuted in Israeli military courts each year and the most common charge is throwing stones, including throwing stones at the Wall. The changes proposed by Military Order 1644 appear to lack substance.

As a minimum safeguard, DCI-Palestine continues to call upon the Israeli authorities to:

Ensure that no child is interrogated in the absence of a lawyer of their choice or family member;

Ensure that all interrogations of children are video recorded;

Ensure that all evidence suspected of being obtained through ill-treatment or torture be rejected by the military courts;

Ensure that all credible allegations of ill-treatment and torture be thoroughly and impartially investigated and those found responsible for such abuse be brought to justice.

The International Campaign for Freedom of Movement for Palestinians

The International Campaign for Freedom of Movement for Palestinians (KARAMA) is an independent public and national campaign that aims to alleviate the suffering of the Palestinian people and help them travel within and outside of Palestine in freedom and dignity. The Campaign is fully aware that the ultimate solution to the freedom of movement and travelling for Palestinians is the end of the Israeli occupation, and the full sovereignty for the Palestinian people over their borders, land, water, and air. And this does not contradict at all with our work to reduce the suffering of our people and defend its dignity. 

http://www.ahewar.org/camp/i.asp?id=169&ref=1#new

Phase 1: Travel to Jordan 

Since this campaign commenced with the case of travelling between the West Bank and Jordan, we the undersigned request the following:

Assist Palestinians to travel to and from Jordan with freedom and dignity, without heavy financial burdens, and exhaustive routine procedures. This needs an immediate end to their suffering and improvement to existing travelling conditions, so that Palestinians in the West Bank will be able: 

1. To travel to and from Jordan in new public buses directly from Palestinian city centers, without the need for passengers and their luggage to keep moving from one bus to the other and wait for extended periods of time.
2. To travel directly in private cars to and from Jordan, with minimal procedures and fees.
3. To travel freely 24 hours seven days a week, regardless of the volume of passengers. 

  الحملة الدولية لحرية حركة الفلسطينيين (الكرامة)

الحملة الدولية لحرية حركة الفلسطينيين 
hazem.kawasmi@gmail.com 

2009 / 9 / 6

The past is an integral part of the present, history is the past, especially if the past is associated with oppression, persecution and tyranny of the strong against the weak, and of the occupation against

If the past is associated with war crimes and crimes against humanity and injustice, then the history of the perpetrators is the history of criminals and their crimes, and the victims must never forget, never forgive, lest the perpetrators continue on their path of crimes. Nobody can ask from perpetrators to take responsibility for their crimes, because if they were responsible, or even capable of responsibility, to begin with, they would not engage in acts understood as reprehensible by the vast majority of humanity. The victims, on the other hand, have the responsibility not only to take care of ourselves, but to do everything in our power to stop the perpetrators, and to warn others about them.

I remember hearing my mother say that “the right can not be lost as long as the owner stands behind his right, questioning the right of the criminal and demanding his own right, until justice is achieved”.

The Justice is my goal, and the law is the only way to achieve justice, even after a hundred thousand years. If I die before achieving justice, I will leave it in will to my heirs to claim my rights, be it in one, ten, thousand or hundred thousand years. The jews will give me justice and restore my rights, be it the jews of today, or be it their descendants in 10,000 generations. (Kawther)

On August 21, 2009, I found out that the Israeli war criminal, the former military commander of Hebron, colonel Yigal Sharon, had been appointed as CEO and a coordinator for foreign expansion of an Israeli coffee company, "Aroma", in Europe (Romania, Ukraine, Cyprus) and elsewhere.

I know Sharon personally: he was the best of the worst of the IDF war criminals who served in the occupied territories. He was interested in having  good contact with journalists in order to cover the IDF crimes commited under his command.

I still remember all the grave crimes which he committed and covered in my homeland Hebron, (actually I was one of his victims, my hand was broken under his command). I have all the names of the children who were sniped, murdered and jailed under his command, I know all the military orders which he issued to pilfer the Palestinians property, I also appeared with him in the film “Hebron City without Mercy” in which I exposed the scandalous crimes of his soldiers, who forced Palestinians of Hebron to drink their urine in plastic bottles.

I know Yigal Sharon, who participated in and committed crimes against humanity, crimes of war against the civilian populations of Hebron, which all together amount to ethnic cleansing and genocide.

Yigal Sharon also aided and abetted the criminal lawlessness of the jewish squatters present in Hebron: he conspired with them to dismiss the Israeli police chief at the time, Ish "Bono" Yemeni, who saw his duty in implementing the law equally for all instead of acquiescing to the crimes of the IDF and the squatters.

Because of Yigal Sharon's shameful and criminal past, I wrote AROMA Coffee informing them that it is not acceptable to give employment as the representative of their company in Europe to a war criminal.

A copy of e-mail was sent to the European commission, the chambers of commerce of the countries where Aroma conducts business, and human organizations interested in the issue.

I have not received an answer from Aroma, so I decided to publish the letter, and to seek the help of everybody, also from human rights organizations, to help me to sue Yigal Sharon to try to secure an arrest warrant against him for war crimes anytime he enters Europe.

From: K Salam <email>

To: info@aroma.co.il; dmachover@hickmanandrose.co.uk

Sent: Friday, August 21, 2009 5:25:50 PM

Subject: Yigal Sharon

Ladies and gentlemen,

I just found out that a war criminal, a murderer of Palestinian children in Hebron, colonel Yigal Sharon, is the CEO of Aroma Israel, and that he coordinates the development business abroad (in Europe and elsewhere).

As a defender of human rights, a journalist and a victim of colonel Yigal Sharon, and also in the name of many other victims of Yigal Sharon from Hebron, like for example Hosam abu Allan, Wael Al-Shukhi, Samer Karameh, Lina Misk, I would appreciate if you end the employment of Yigal Sharon with Aroma Israel, as a coordinator of the brand "Marrone Rosso" in Europe and elsewhere, and in any other position.

As a victim of Yigal Sharon and also in the name of the many other victims of the crimes of Yigal Sharon in Hebron, I think that it is not acceptable to give employment to a war criminal as the representative of your company in Europe or anywhere else, where human rights and the laws are respected. I reserve the right to initiate and follow legal steps against Yigal Sharon, wherever he is. I think that it is in the best interest of your company to not be seen as associated with a war criminal and perpetrator of ethnic cleansing and genocide. Outside of Israel, most people prefer not to buy their coffee from people with blood on their hands.

I ask your cooperation in bringing the war criminal Sharon to court for his many crimes. Much success for your company Aroma, but without the war criminal Yigal Sharon.

Thank you for your consideration,

Which are the laws that Yigal Sharon studied at the School of Law? Were they the unjust laws which he imposed  in my homeland. Or were they the codes of "honor" of criminal organizations, of gangs of murderers, thieves and rapists?

PLUS, AFTER THIS ARTICLE, "TALKING POINTS ON THE NOW HISTORICAL CAMP LE JEUNE SPEECH" DON'T MISS IT!!!

WRITTEN BY John Walsh
At Obama’s Summer Place with Cindy: “Leadership” of Peace Movement, MIA

I spent but a short time with Cindy Sheehan as she carried her antiwar protest from an earlier time at Crawford, TX, to Martha’s Vineyard, vacation spot for Obama and many other Democrat Party elite. As Cindy remarked, the real story was not that she was protesting Obama’s wars but that the "leadership" of the peace movement did not support her protest. When the target was Bush in Crawford, she was all the rage with antiwar celebrities, but not so now that the target is Barack Obama. While there is considerable enthusiasm for her anti-Obama protest on the part of the rank and file in the anti-war movement, a refusal of its "leaders" to notify their members far and wide, high and low, crippled the action.

As a result of this betrayal, the numbers at Martha’s Vineyard were not large. But Cindy and her fellow anti-warriors were undeterred. While I was there, she mounted a spirited march down the road to Obama’s place, no more than a quarter mile away from where she stayed. The purpose was to present the President with a poster of Cindy bearing a signed plea to end the wars. The considerable armed force at the gate and the Secret Service officers would not even bring out the lowliest of staffers to receive the poster. Clearly the message from Obama was "Get lost, Cindy." And we were quickly told to move a considerable distance down the road. At least in Crawford it had been possible to demonstrate at the checkpoint to the site – not so at Obama’s place. Thus, did Obama greet a mother whose son was lost in the wars, which he continues and enlarges by the day.

The site chosen by Obama for his vacation appeared restful, even idyllic, that afternoon though the house itself was a considerable distance away from the road, hidden from view. But the image of the "antiwar" candidate lounging comfortably by the ocean, his family nearby, while ordering the deaths, by drones and assorted other killing instruments, of people half a world away, complete innocents, unknown to this man or his advisers, was disturbing indeed. What sort of man could do this? Does Obama bring his much ballyhooed "coolness" down a degree or two for cold blooded murder? Are these wars a matter of conscience or patriotism for Obama? If that were so, does one suppose in a future imperial war that Obama will urge his daughters to volunteer to die in some Muslim land any more than did Bush offer his daughters? Is there no shame to this poltician, Obama, who rose to high office on the yearning of so many for peace? How long will we allow the soothing words of this latter day Elmer Gantry to cover up his deeds?

Despite the silence of the antiwar misleaders, news of Cindy Sheehan’s presence did make the rounds of Cape Cod and the Islands. And who knows but that it might have gone further. Was Obama going to be caught unprepared? A cynic or a realist, or merely someone familiar with the Obama PR machine, might be pardoned for thinking that a plan was in place — and executed in the form of an anti-Cindy mom. And so it came to pass that, while there was no time for Cindy, the Obamas did make it a point to pay a highly publicized visit to another mom, Lisa X, who had lost her son in Obama’s AfPak war. This young man Obama had happened to encounter earlier this year at Camp Lejeune. The Cape Cod Times reported the meeting thus:

So, yesterday afternoon, the family drove from Yarmouthport to Coast Guard Air Station Cape Cod. They waited about two hours at the base. … The Obamas entered. …. President Obama called them all by their first names, Lisa said. "It was like seeing a friend you hadn’t seen in a couple months," Lisa said of the nearly 10-minute meeting.

President Obama offered his condolences. "He told us whatever decisions he makes, he has Nick (and others serving) in mind," Lisa said. Earlier this year, Nicholas X met President Obama and shook his hand. The president gave a speech at Camp Lejeune in North Carolina. Shortly after, Nicholas decided he wanted to be part of the new offensive in Afghanistan, his father told the Times in July.

Lisa said her son called her right after the meeting. "He shook his (President Obama’s) hand and called me moments later and said, 'Mom, the President was amazing, his hand was the softest thing I’ve ever touched, like a baby’s bottom,’" Lisa recalled.

She made sure to tell President Obama that yesterday, drawing a laugh from him. Lisa X said her family is "still pretty numb and raw" over losing Nicholas. But she thought of his likely reaction to the family meeting the Obamas. "He is probably laughing hysterically … and proud."

Such an account should break your heart and stir your anger at this hypocritical politician. The more so if, as one might suspect, this encounter made cynical use of this grieving woman’s trust. That soft hand of Obama’s is soaked in considerable blood now, some of it Nicholas X’s, no less than the rough hands of Bush and Cheney. Obama’s message is clear. Sacrifice your child and endure without complaint the "numb and raw" emotions that come of your grief. And then Barack Obama will glad hand you for "nearly ten minutes" and get some good press — after you cool your heels for two hours awaiting the cool, great man. But protest the senseless death of your son, and you get the bum’s rush at Obama’s gate. Thus, does the erstwhile "antiwar candidate" (How silly that phrase sounds now!) treat Cindy Sheehan whose like he once called on to join him in making peace. And the "leaders" of the antiwar movement are nowhere to be seen or heard.

John V. Walsh can be reached at john.endwar@gmail.comhttp://www.uruknet.info/index.php?p=m57655&hd=&size=1&l=e

Link: dissidentvoice.org/2009/09/barack-obama-to-cindy-sheehan-get-lost/

Thoughts on Obama's Speech at Camp Lejeune, NC

Submitted by Dianne on February 28, 2009 – 7:43pm.

Here are a few "talking points" for activists in response to Barack Obama's speech last week [NYTimes link to transcription] which laid out his strategy for the "War on Terror."

1. In President Obama's Feb. 27 speech at Camp Lejeune, SC he spoke directly to soldiers about how they endured "tour after tour of duty," fighting "against tyranny and disorder." Nowhere in the speech is no mention of President Bush's justification for the drive to war–that Iraq possessed "weapons of mass destruction." Of course we all know now that reason was concocted in order to sell the war! President Obama, who spoke out against the war when he was a state senator in Illinois, knows that too. Yet he goes on to say that the troops can begin to leave because the situation has improved: "the horrific sectarian killing of 2006 and 2007" has been "dealt a serious blow." But neither sectarian killing nor Al Queda existed in pre-U.S. invasion Iraq. They were the consequence of a U.S. occupation.

2. Later in the speech Obama, still addressing the troops, stated "We sent our troops to Iraq to do away with Saddam Hussein's regime and you got the job done. We kept our troops in Iraq to help establish a sovereign government-and you got the job done." This total justification for being cop of the world despite having not having even the fig leaf of any legal authority to take on that role is disturbing.

3. President Obama plans to remove U.S. combat troops within 19 months, leaving something on the order of 30,000-50,000 troops. He did not even mention that there are another 150,000 U.S. "contractors" who have been responsible for killing and torturing Iraqi civilians. The continuing presence of U.S. troops and hired guns will only fuel violence within Iraq and prevent the Iraqi people from rebuilding their country. U.S. troops and all "contractors" should withdraw on an expedited schedule in order to remove the #1 cause of the violence, the presence of an occupying force.

4. President Obama presented the U.S. occupation as a benign force that must stay in order to stabilize Iraq. What are the reasons for the instability? Obama lists these as displacement and poverty, government inability to deliver basic services and that some of its neighbors are working to undermine it. The picture that is painted is disingenuous. The primary reason for the instability is the U.S. invasion and destruction of the infrastructure, and tolerating looting following the invasion. (As then U.S. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld remarked about the looting, "Stuff happens.) Instead of taking responsibility for what another administration did-or repudiating what was done–Obama paints a picture of a country that is poor. In fact, even following the Iraq invasion of Kuwait, when there was a 10-year blockade imposed by both U.S. and European governments through the United Nations, the country's infrastructure was more functional than today, six years after Washington launched its illegal attack.

5. President Obama states that "America has a strategic interest-and a moral responsibility–to act. However he never states what that strategic interest, presumably it is to "help" the Iraqi people. However people all over the world–and even a great many Americans–realize that Washington desires to control the Middle East's oil and oil routes. That's why U.S. foreign policy supports the repressive and fundamentalist Saudi Arabian regime, that's why Bush really went into Iraq, that's why Washington is frightened at the rise of Iran's power in the region. (Many Americans might feel that since Washington caused such destruction, we have an obligation to stay and fix it as if we were the elephants that entered into the china shop. We certainly have a moral responsibility, but that doesn't mean training the army and police. Rather it means providing the reparations money necessary to resettle the displaced and rebuild what has been destroyed.)

6. President Obama has promised to expand the health care services for wounded soldiers. This is important, particularly because he acknowledges "the signature wounds of this war: Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder and Traumatic Brain Injury…." But there is nothing in the speech to acknowledge that war trains soldiers to be violent. Many, when they return home, are unable to adjust, causing tremendous damage to themselves, their families and the entire society.

7. In fact, one of the saddest parts of Obama's speech is the section that states he is increasing the military. We cannot afford the tremendous economic and emotional burden of the military machine we currently have. If there is to be a serious attempt to rebuild the country's infrastructure, to expand job and educational opportunities, we need to cut the military budget, not expand it!

8. The Feb. 26th speech is a cover up. It covers up the real history of U.S. invasion and occupation, it covers up the main source of violence in Iraq, it pretends that the deaths of U.S. soldiers there was in the cause of freedom and friendship with the Iraqi people, it denies Washington's intentions.

9. Further the speech promises a comprehensive U.S. approach to the region and offers three elements: refocusing on al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan, developing a strategy to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapon and actively seeking a lasting peace between Israel and the Arab world. Notice that there is no mention of Palestinians anywhere in the speech.

a. Given the deployment of 17,000 troops to Afghanistan (followed by at least 13,000 more) and the continued use of drones to bomb suspected al Qaeda targets in Pakistan, the first of the three elements seems to be more of the same process of invasion, occupation and destabilization that will bring more violence to those countries.
b. When the shah ruled Iran, the country received the latest U.S. military technology and was encouraged to develop nuclear weapons. But that was when Iran was safely within Washington's sphere of interest. Ironically, Washington's overthrow of Saddam Hussein, Iran's fiercest enemy, along with the UN overthrow of the Taliban, (another thorn in their side), has increased Iran's power in the region. Given Iran's strength, a direct U.S. attack could have serious consequences as even President Bush understood when he nixed Israel's plans against Iran. Both in the case of Iran and Syria it is in Washington's interest to work out some diplomatic accommodation; here is where U.S. interests and those of Israel may divide.
c. Other administrations have aimed at an Israeli/Palestinian agreement and have been unable to do so. While the outline of such an agreement is easy enough to s–: Israel would pull back to the pre-1967 lines, refugees displaced since in 1948 would have the right of return (land or compensation), and there would be a recognition of Israel and Palestine as states–but it's clear that Israel prefers to maintain the fiction that there is no negotiating partner.

10. The problem with the February 27th speech is that it appears Obama is taking responsibility for continuing the U.S. policies he has inherited.That means it is incumbent on all elements in the antiwar and social justice movements to oppose this prettification of war, occupation, torture and destruction and demand that the wars be ended and the troops brought home.
http://www.solidarity-us.org/node/2080