WRITTEN BY AVIGAIL ABARBANEL 

Inverness Scotland, 18 March 2010

Please watch the documentary ‘Children of Gaza’ by Jezza Neumann here. Then please visit http://childrenofgazafund.org/  to make a donation to help Amal who has been living with shrapnel in her brain since Israel’s attack just over a year ago.A couple of nights ago I watched the documentary ‘Children of Gaza’ on Channel 4’s ‘Dispatches’. The film was made by the award winning documentary maker Jezza Neumann. Since then I can’t get the face of Amal, one of the four children featured in the film, out of my head. Amal was wounded during Israel’s attack on Gaza just over a year ago. She was found under rubble and I understand that for a while she lay near the dead and mutilated bodies of her uncles, one of whom had his head split in two.

Since Israel’s attack over a year ago, Amal has been living with several pieces of shrapnel lodged in her head. She is suffering from frequent awful headaches and nosebleeds. This is in addition to the obvious psychological trauma that she has to live with. As a psychotherapist I have no idea how long it will take and if it will ever be possible for Amal to recover from the trauma she has been through, and what life will be like for her if the shrapnel can’t be taken out of her brain.

In the film it was explained that an Israeli charity arranged for Amal to see a neurosurgeon in Israel to see what could be done for her. I understood the necessity but I still don’t think it was appropriate to send Amal to Israel for treatment. Imagine what it must feel like for her. Amal knows perfectly well that Israel is responsible for what had happened to her, to her family and her community. Can you imagine what she must have felt when she was sent to an Israeli surgeon? That surgeon, good or not, is or was a solider in the same military force that has been hurting Amal’s people. To send her to someone like that is insensitive and macabre.

I was also absolutely appalled that despite receiving permission to go into Israel to be examined by the surgeon, Amal and her elderly grandmother were made to wait 7 hours outdoors to get permission to cross the border. This is just another example of the indignities that Israel puts the Palestinian people through on a daily basis. There was no real reason for the wait just like there is no reason to keep anyone waiting for hours at checkpoints every day. Jewish Israel does not think that the Palestinian people deserve to be treated with dignity.

But do not make the mistake of dismissing this as the random acts of a messy and dysfunctional third world style bureaucracy. Rather this is a deliberate and calculated campaign to humiliate the Palestinian people and break their spirit. Broken people stop resisting even when exposed to the worst abuses.

In its fight against the spirit of Palestinian resistance Jewish Israel does not distinguish between the very young, the infirm, the able-bodied or the elderly. Every human spirit can inspire resistance. The inspiration and motivation to resist can come from your elderly grandmother just as much as your ten-year-old niece or newborn baby. Every single person with an aspiration for freedom is a threat to an occupier and oppressor. This is why Israeli soldiers can murder young children in their parents’ arms. They don’t distinguish between freedom fighters and ordinary people. This is the reason behind Israel’s persistent policy of collective punishment. It’s also why there is an international law against it. It’s because occupying powers and oppressors have always viewed the whole group as a threat, not just the designated freedom fighters.

The lack of compassion and humanity on Israel’s part is staggering and frankly I have had just enough of this. I don’t believe that a Jewish Israeli child or soldier with a brain injury would have been treated as poorly as Amal was. What Israeli soldier would allow his grandmother to be treated the way Amal’s grandmother was?

Enough is enough! I can’t sit by any longer and watch this happen without doing something. I would like to see Amal flown to a country overseas with an adult family member to be examined and possibly operated on by a capable and caring surgeon who has nothing to do with Israel and who would be prepared to take on Amal’s case. I know this is likely to cost a lot and will be hard to organise, so I hope a group of us can get together to arrange this somehow. I have never done anything like this before and have no experience. But among the readers there are people with great organising, campaigning and fundraising skills and experience, people who have means, people who have influence and people who know people in key places.

I am asking you to join together to take on Amal’s cause, and help her and her family end this ongoing nightmare. It’s important that Amal’s family in Gaza is contacted so that they can be an integral part of any attempt to help her.

All the children of Gaza need help; all the people of Gaza need help. I would like to help everyone and the way to do this is to do everything possible to end the siege, open the borders and ultimately end the occupation of the Palestinian people. It is unacceptable that people should live the way the people in Gaza do. Jewish Israel cannot be trusted to end this nightmare out of the goodness of its heart. Israel is going very fast down the slippery slope of war crimes and human rights violations. Despite its relentless protest and cries of ‘poor me’, Jewish Israel is a morally bankrupt state that is rapidly losing the legitimacy it should never have had in the first place.

On the Channel 4 website Jezza Neumann, the director of ‘The Children of Gaza’ wrote a short piece (http://www.channel4.com/programmes/dispatches/articles/children-ofgaza-filmmakers-feature  describing his experiences in Gaza. In it he mentions that if anyone wants to help any of the children featured in the film they should contact http://childrenofgazafund.org/  There you will be able to make a donation for one or more of the four children mentioned in the film. The site is hosted by True  Vision Productions, which was “founded in 1995 by Brian Woods and Deborah Shipley to make international campaigning documentaries. A number of charities have grown out of the films [they have] made… The Foundation is for those viewers who SPECIFICALLY want to help the individuals featured in our films. Each film will have its own account, and donations to that account will be used solely in connection with helping the characters from that film.”

Please make a donation through the site but let’s see if we can do more than give money. Perhaps we can in some way support the True Vision foundation to offer the help that Amal and the other children need so urgently.

The film http://www.channel4.com/programmes/dispatches/episode-guide/series-56/episode-1

Noam Chomsky had once observed an insightful nature of such 'conspiracies', as the open shared natural goals stemming from the very nature of its definition, which could therefore, no more be termed a conspiracy than both GM and Ford endeavoring to maximize their profits at all cost be termed a 'global corporate conspiracy'.

I have always added to that, the equally un-remarkable observation that a hungry lion anywhere in the world pouncing upon a lamb is similarly no global conspiracy by the world's lions to eat up all the lambs on the planet. That is just the nature of the bestial predators when its 'might defines right'. The higher cerebral concepts of 'right', 'wrong', 'moral', 'immoral', etc., do not even exist among any primal predators, for these only behave according to their nature. Pious platitudes, if they could be argued by the lion or the snake for instance, would in fact only be disseminated to the lambs and the mice to make them an even easier morsel to acquire!

The only thing that occasionally deters such exercise of primacy is a collective natural response like the one observed in the 'Battle at Kruger' park. Indeed, the quest for the holy grail of extracting voluntary servitude from the masses of mankind is the key idea of cultivating a willingly compliant public in order for the illuminated ones becoming their stewards for life. In Bertrand Russell's' timeless characterization, to extract voluntary servitude such that: "

Thus we observe that from Plato to Nietzsche, from the philosopher-king to the 'Ubermensch', all have argued the necessity of ruling upon the sheepish masses as the 'divine' imperative of the 'enlightened ones'. Indeed, Zbigniew Brzezinski even sub-titled his seminal book "The Grand Chessboard" with its egotistical subtitle "American Primacy and Its Geostrategic Imperatives", merely extending that idea of 'Ubermensch' rule from the most 'enlightened ones', to the most powerful sole-superpower!

The same theme exists among the 'Chosen Peoples', to deem their primacy upon the goyim their inherent nature, their divine destiny. The 'Ubermensch' are suckled these lessons in their mothers milk to acquire those imperatives across generations in perhaps the same way as the generations of corporate executives and CEOs who inherently know that they need to continually enhance the valuation of their company's stock performance in a capitalist system.

So, when these 'divine' ubermensch creatures who are beyond good and evil, behave in their primal predatory natural manner across time and space, across evolution or creation, are they being 'conspiratorial'?

In the Chomsky-Ebrahim nomenclature, perhaps not.

In the Ron Paul nomenclature, it is merely a shared 'Conspiracy of Ideas'  in which 'CFR exists, the Trilateral Commission exists', and that, it is only 'an ideological battle' wherein:

These are real things, it's not somebody made these up, it's not a conspiracy, they don't talk about it, and they might not admit about it, but there has been money spent on it …

According to such legalism, smart conspirators, if powerful enough, could affect the enaction of conducive federal statutes, or prevent the enaction of adverse ones, that would enable them to get away with many morally reprehensible systems and acts. The Federal Reserve System for instance, falls into this category. A legalized extortion racket to enslave the public in perpetual debt for the issue and supply of their own national currency. Similarly, bootlegging is a federal crime one decade, a respectable business the next! And internationally, it is the enaction of laws under WTO which defines what is criminal and what isn't - not the raping and harvesting of developing nations that goes on under its conspiratorial rubric!

Thus suffice it to say, the word 'conspiracy' even has legal semantics, albeit rather limited. It is limited because it is easy to circumvent an abhorrence and call it legal when the king makes the laws.

But the multitudinous connotations of this word do not stop there. It also has a 'tin-hatted' or 'kookish' implication in furtherance of the devilish art of political science based state-craft. This was indeed implied by Congressman Ron Paul in his afore-quoted speech when he stated regarding the North American Union: "

In fact, some of the best cloaking devices for clandestine covert-operations and hidden agendas have been invented by the most brilliant minds - here is one exposition for instance from Ezra Pound: "invent two lies and have the public keep arguing which one of them might be true". Another is by Leo Strauss - the erudite teacher of the majority of the neo-cons - called "Noble Lies". A third by the White House, often referred to as "plausible deniability", okay may be it was invented by the DIA, the grand-daddy of all intelligence agencies. This thinly-veiled euphemism for deception to protect the leadership if things go badly in covert-operations became public knowledge during the Iran-Contra scandal, the televised coverage of which had gripped the American nation for months, including myself. And this wasn't just a rogue operation with ad hoc deniability cover by patriotic agents as most in the public are led to believe. Deniability is official government policy vis a vis any covert operation dating back to President Truman's signing of NSC 10/2. That directive made the introduction of 'plausible deniability' a requirement for CIA's clandestine operations in case they were ever blown while still active. Below is an excerpt from

'Management of Covert Actions in the Truman Presidency

Lastly, we also have the 'limited hangout' and 'modified limited hangout' conspiracies to mislead the public in case 'plausible deniability' for governmental wrong-doing doesn't work. This modus operandi of accepting partial mea culpa for something less consequential in order to mask the more egregious crimes was amply demonstrated by Richard Nixon during the waning years of his presidency. A good description of it with excerpts from the Nixon tapes planning the red herrings is on Wikipedia.

It should now be self-evident that while still active, or while mileage is being extracted from a clandestine operation recently concluded, or some egregious wrong-doing, all references to it must be squashed or dismissed, inter alia, by labeling them as kookish 'conspiracy theories'. And when blown, to have the cover story ready for 'plausible deniability', and/or some version of 'limited hangout'. What are these if not real conspiracies to mask real clandestine covert-operations and wrong-doings?

Thus, if it is axiomatically asserted that there is no such thing as a real conspiracy theory, then that really works wonderfully in the interest of the cloak-makers because it makes one forget the perspectives of history.

And this complex Machiavellian deception game behind alleging 'kookishness' bears exposing fully: invent two or more lies, not just one, and keep the good hearted well meaning peoples in the 'populist democracy' occupied debating which one of them might be true, for it would hardly matter what conclusions they reached. And wherever they ended up, to perhaps yank one of the lies from underneath them by conclusively showing it to be false thus conveniently demonstrating a baseless 'conspiracy theory' in order to keep that notion alive in the public imagination. This consequently delegitimizes in the public mind serious researchers' efforts in uncovering any covert-operation while its secrecy is of paramount necessity. Afterwards, after faits accomplis, after statute of limitations expiring, it makes little difference if historians and con-fession artists make a pecuniary gain peddling what is inconsequential history to the newer evolving realpolitik du jour. The recognition of this self-evident truth of the matter and its utility to Machiavellian statecraft was boldly narrated even in the New York Times (Ron Suskind, Oct. 17, 2004):

Cass R. Sunstein of Harvard Law School, the man who is today President Obama's Information Czar in the White House, in his 2008 paper titled Conspiracy Theories, called this process of the creation of diabolical red herrings, introducing 'beneficial cognitive diversity' through 'cognitive infiltration'. The paper has to be read in its entirety in order to be appreciated for its brazen and open appeal to Machiavelli.

So many complex semantics for the simple term 'conspiracy theory' - it's not just mere nomenclature - that this overview of its usefulness to statecraft was necessary in order to situate anything with such a bombastic title as 'The Capitalist Conspiracy', in its proper social-political-legal-conspiratorial context.

And an equally insightful and rational response to this question of long enduring conspiracy for world domination, is added to the motivational mix by G. Edward Griffin in the video below:

Thus, Griffin aptly noted: "The New World Order Is Not New", but a common objective borne of natural inclination to primacy which apparently transcends time, space, geography and race. It naturally increases in its scope in proportion to the vistas of power it acquires. And it automatically attracts to its cause the coterie of sycophants and useful idiots essential in realizing its overarching agendas. It is helped along, as W. Cleon Skoussen uncannily observed in his commentary in 'The Naked Capitalist':

'The real value of Tragedy and Hope … [is the] bold and boastful admission by Dr. Quigley that there actually exists a relatively small but powerful group which has succeeded in acquiring a choke-hold on the affairs of practically the entire human race. Of course we should be quick to recognize that no small group could wield such gigantic power unless millions of people in all walks of life were -in on the take- and were willing to knuckle down to the iron-clad regimentation of the ruthless bosses behind the scenes. As we shall see, the network has succeeded in building its power structure by using tremendous quantities of money (together with the vast influence it buys) to manipulate, intimidate, or corrupt millions of men and women and their institutions on a world-wide basis.' (pg. 6)

Subsequent manipulation of global events through statecraft machinations become trivial when one has already taken over the state's machinery and its many essential instruments of policy-making. The upshot of it all is that it becomes a moot point what label one might give to this empirical predatory behavior. Zbigniew Brzezinski even openly proclaimed its pertinence to statecraft in the very first sentence of his book mentioned earlier: 'Hegemony is as old as mankind'. The undeniable fact remains that world-government has been a long historical passion of oligarchs! The quest for the hegemony of the entire world has been their natural enduring conspiracy for world government. And it is finally coming to its grand fruition in our own time as most useful idiots still mindlessly chatter on about 'conspiracy theories'.

I read your article 'Why no Jewish writer can be believed' with much interest. You know, sometimes I feel like that about the Anglo Saxons. Often times, as history is evidence, especially vis a vis the East India Company and its colonial conquests whose enduring shackles of mental servitude are still felt daily in my native nation, can one really tell the difference between the Jewish white Anglo-Saxon and the Christian white Anglo-Saxon race? While the religious rituals may be different, the imperial practices aren't when the reference begins and ends with 'race'! Any conflict between them is often only the white man's burden negotiation between two ubermensch fighting over primacy!

Let me therefore, begin this response by first agreeing that every name which you have mentioned in your article, I too have similarly unraveled some aspects of their narratives which weren't entirely wholesome (to put it charitably). The last one, Gilad Atzmon's, was here:

But that website took down my comment (now why would they do that?)! Fortunately, I had saved a local copy which is cached here:

Often times, as G. Edward Griffin also puts it, the sins of the 'left' are uncovered by their enemies on the 'right', and vice versa. The in-fighting among hegemonic pigs often betrays their criminal secrets. For an astute non-bigoted seeker of truth and justice for all, that's simply the low hanging fruits of the rotten tree to be plucked for forensic analysis. Especially, if they also happen to be the type-3 of Hitler's classification of people:

"In journalistic circles it is a pleasing custom to speak of the Press as a 'Great Power' within the State. As a matter of fact its importance is immense. One cannot easily overestimate it, for the Press continues the work of education even in adult life. Generally, readers of the Press can be classified into three groups: First, those who believe everything they read; Second, those who no longer believe anything; Third, those who critically examine what they read and form their judgments accordingly." (Mein Kampf, Vol. 1, Chapter X)

Otherwise, I for one do not have the infinite resources to dig out the dirt on all the hectoring hegemon pigs on the planet. Let them dig it out on each other. I'll only use it circumspectly. I cannot permit my mind, and my guard, to take vacation for even a single moment - for the 'devil' knows no race, color, cast, or creed! Minimally I need to protect myself from being tainted by your prejudices - but I also find your views interesting, and often worth refuting lest they taint the feeble of mind too comfortable in their own adjusted worldview.

So, back to your narrative, I find the race construct disturbing no matter who uses it, the antagonist, or the protagonist.

I quite agree that the Talmud is a major tortuous source of Jews' misanthropic ambitions as god's ubermensch created on earth to lord over the Goy. But not completely. Atheism too is not an unfamiliar imperial driving force in the same vein:

By that token, I could condemn your non-beliefs the same way - couldn't I? It is just logic.

People generally do not lie, cheat, deceive, murder, become water boys or house negroes for the ubermensch, or endeavor to conquer the 'untermenschen' by way of deception, by their race or religion - the political ponerologists advocating the psychopathic view of ubermensch not withstanding. In my humble view, people do so by choice (including perverse indoctrination and the 'banality of evil').

I am unwilling to condemn such misanthropes by their race, religion, caste, or creed � because, by its logic, I would unfairly have to condemn all peoples belonging to those sets. That is guilt by association! I see no difference between that, and the crimes of Nazism, Zionism. I condemn criminals only by their acts. To the extent that misanthropic doctrines from their books, cultural heritage, or tortuous philosophies might motivate them, well, there are at least 60 million white Anglo Saxon ubermensch Christian misanthropes alone in the Bible Belt of America trying to bring on Armageddon and Jesus! I think they far surpass the Jews in sheer numbers. Therefore, should I condemn all Christians for the twisted perversion of such a large number of criminals among them who think bombing other nations will lead to some Rapturous Nirvana? Or, perhaps the entire white Anglo Saxon population by their race alone, for between Jews and Christians, that's the entire Western civilization? By your logic, why not?

I find the following recipe which was legally averred at Nuremberg by Robert H. Jackson rather defining, reasonable, equitable, and wisely applicable to all cases of misanthropic thoughts that transform into inflicting actual harm upon others, whether by bombs, or by debt-enslavement, whether in the quest of Lebensraum, Zionistan, or one-world government:

"The intellectual bankruptcy and moral perversion of the Nazi regime might have been no concern of international law had it not been utilized to goosestep the Herrenvolk across international frontiers. It is not their thoughts, it is their overt acts which we charge to be crimes." (Nuremberg, Closing Speech)

I charge as crimes against humanity, the enactment of the 1913 Federal Reserve Act. All those who crafted it, proposed it, enabled it, aided and abetted in its passage as well as in its obfuscation over the past 100 years, and benefitted from its enslaving action of the entire nation, are more appropriate candidates for being accorded the full 'enemy combatant' protocol at Guantanamo Bay than its present indigent inhabitants! For indeed, in that one enabling Act, is accumulated the combined evil of all the evil that has followed over the past 100 years, including all the wars, its 100 million victims, and entire nations entrapped in un-payable debt to steal their public commons! That first monumental crime is independent of the race - all the Congressman who signed the Bill under the stewardship of Bernard Barauch and Col. House, including the President of the United States at the time who approved it, and the vast numbers of newsmedia and PR spokespersons of both political parties who got on the Hegelian Dialectic bandwagon of sloganeering "banking reform" and filled the newspapers with their bullshit, were Christian white folks right alongside the Jewish white folks. (The blacks in America at the time only lived in their ghettos after their escape/emancipation from the clutches of their white Christian Anglo Saxon plantation owners, and therefore can't rightly be counted among the races who contributed to the hijacking of America.)

So, are all the white Anglo Saxons of America guilty of that first monumental crime against the American public, and the world's peoples? Are they all complicit in hiding it, spinning it, obfuscating it? But you have already absolved Eustace Mullins. I apologize for using an obvious truism to make the blatant point that by your criterion of guilt by association, you should have dismissed the good Samaritan Christian Mullins too without reading, just like the anti-Semitic choir does!

In a previous communication regarding another article way back in September 2009, titled: 'Jewish disinfo the specialty of popular Rense columnist', I had also noted your zeal for gross, and what I felt at the time was ignorant, generalization. In that article, you had carelessly maligned Islam in the same breadth as Christianity by asserting: "Throughout human history, the Talmud is the heart of darkness, and the Bible and the Qu'ran are complicit in concealing this fact." I had written to you:

'As a Muslim, I would only like to inquire on your statement: "Qu'ran are complicit in concealing this fact". Would you kindly let me know what you have based that assertion upon? While I might concur with anyone that the Talmud contains some really abhorrent things, nay shocking things, I also wonder who among the Jews really believes in what's in their old books…. but that's not the purpose of this letter to you. It is to only inquire the basis upon which you chose to malign Islam, by asserting that the Qur'an is deliberately complicit in concealing some abhorrence, some distortions in Judaism like its Talmudic teachings. As you surely [must] know [Islam], both Prophet Moses and Jesus are revered in the Qur'an as among the Great Prophets. Qur'an assert that God sent both Moses, and Jesus, among many other prophets, to mankind, to every people, and each time sent a new one to correct the erroneous man-made teachings that had cropped in the previous prescription over time, or to generalize the particularized teachings, as the case between Moses followed by Jesus, with Prophet Muhammad being the last one to correct all past manmade errors, and to generalize God's religion to all mankind. So, while one may not believe in Islam, or any religion [for that matter], the fact of your assertion being false [in the context of Qur'an and Islam] is plainly manifest. Thus I inquire if it was inadvertent, malicious, or merely ignorant. And if none of those, then kindly do enlighten me the reason for your statement. We can always learn from each other � no one has monopoly over knowledge.'

That moment onwards, I could easily have dismissed you on the same grounds as you have dismissed all the Jews: "[Anglo Saxon] writers inevitably [distort and prevaricate], blur and twist the contours of any argument to invariably shape it into advantage for only themselves."!But I still read your present article with care, and I am even taking the time to respond to you, once again - since it warrants a response - because I refuse to bow to the vagaries of your personal prejudices and myopia lest it infect others. You already may have a great following among the white supremacists I imagine, despite perhaps your own aversion to it - I hope.

Finally, I do thank you Mr. John Kaminski for your often provocative and bold viewpoints, whether or not one agrees with them. I think it is courageous and un-inhibited people like yourself who continually push on the acceptable envelop of thought and its public expression, and thus widen the discourse space for many more ordinary people like myself to have our tiny voice (for what little that's worth). Minimally, the brownshirt thought-police will chase you before they might chase me (or perhaps they will soon lock up all the non-conformists regardless)! Be that as it may, let's not get carried away as the self-proclaimed avantgarde in provocative thought, into realms of moral absurdity, especially in falling prey to the antagonists own vices: guilt by association, the race factor, arrogance, and ignorance.

Thank you.

Zahir Ebrahim

Project Humanbeingsfirst.org

Source URL: http://print-humanbeingsfirst.blogspot.com/2010/02/respto-johnkaminski-jewish-writers.html

Source PDF: http://humanbeingsfirst.files.wordpress.com/2010/02/respto-johnkaminski-jewish-writers-feb282010.pdf
Kaminski article URL: http://www.johnkaminski.info/pages/the_next_chapter/too_late_for_trust.htm

“Non-Violence is a powerful weapon that can and will weaken the iron fist of the Occupation”

WRITTEN BY Sami Awad, Director of the Holy Land Trust

What is Non-Violent Resistance?

Non-Violence is an alternative to either armed resistance or passive acceptance of the status quo. It is both a strategy and a philosophy which rejects violence as a means to promote change, and instead aims to change power relations through assertive acts of omission (refusal to do something) or commission (actively challenging the status quo). It is a method by which to change the minds of both the oppressor and oppressed so that a new reality can be built upon different perceptions of the ‘other’.

The many tactics of non-violence can be broken down into three broad categories:

1) Civil Disobedience: when individuals or a group refuse to obey rules and laws, therefore undermining the power of the oppressor. For example refusing to respect laws prohibiting the gathering of people, or the waving of a flag as has been the case in Palestine.

2) Reverse Strike: Involves community building and the creation of alter-natives, in order to make a people less dependent on the facilities of their oppressor. This can involve boycotts of the oppressor’s goods and services and the development of alternatives.

3) Direct Action: These are symbolic actions which are specifically directed to gain broad sympathy or express personal grief, opinions and commit-ment to a just cause. Direct action can take many forms along the spectrum between assertiveness and aggressiveness. For example a peaceful protest versus a group of individuals actively removing a roadblock or earth mound.

Successful non-violent campaigns are able to effectively utilize all three of these methods simultaneously.

Non-Violence in Palestine – Past and Present

Despite the common mischaracterization of Palestinian resistance as wholly violent or radical, there is a long and rich history non-violent actions and campaigns, as well as a large number of contemporary ones. For instance:

In 1902, the inhabitants of three Palestinian villages – al-Shajara, Misha and Melhamiyya – held a collective peaceful protest against the takeover of 70,000 dunums (7,000 hectares) of agricultural land by the first European Zionist settlers.

In 1936 Palestinians held a six-month non-violent industrial strike against the British Mandate’s refusal to grant self determination to Palestine. The ultimate aim of the strike was to make Palestine ungovernable by anyone but the Palestinians themselves.

Fifty years later, in 1986, Hannah Siniora, then editor of the East Jerusalem Arabic Daily, called for Pales-tinian civic disobedience by boycotting Israel-made cigarettes. This led to a full-scale Palestinian boycott of Israeli soap, food, water, clothes and other consumer goods.

The 1987-1993 First Intifada was largely conducted non-violently. Palestinians held mass public demonstra-tions, refused to pay taxes, and sought out local alternatives to Israeli facilities. Community leader Mubarak Awad initiated olive tree planting on Palestinian land about to be confiscated by Israeli settlers. Israeli law prohibited any construction on land dedicated to growing fruit. Awad used non-violent resistance, and Israel’s own laws, to challenge the encroaching settlements.

Currently, and especially since construction of the separation Wall began on June 16th 2002, Palestinian villages across the West Bank have cooperated in non-violent resistance. The communities of Jayyous, Budrus, Bil’in, Ni’lin and Umm Salamonah have all non-violently resisted the Wall being built around them. Weekly non-violent demonstrations against the Wall are held in the cities of Bil’in and Nihlin (north of Ramallah) which bring together Palestinians and Israelis, as well international activists.

The Logic of Non-Violent Resistance

The logic of a non-violent strategy to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is simple. Turning this knowledge into a practical campaign effective in achieveing Palestinian goals is much more difficult. Practically, a non-violent strategy allows for a broader and therefore larger participation among the citizenry than armed conflict does. This was true in the First Intifada – largely credited with empowering civil society, women, as well as the young and old. The players in the Second Intifada, on the other hand, were restricted to their ability and willingness to fight violently.

Secondly, by unilaterally removing violence from one side of the equation, there is the possibility of transforming the perception of victimhood within Israel and the international community, which could in turn affect policy. Looking back through this book, it is clear that Palestinians and Israelis live in a rather assymmetric world, and that this conflict disproportionately affects Palestinians. Yet in the minds of Western Europeans and Americans especially, the perception of Palestinians has been shaped more by the sporadic acts of terror, rather than by the accumulation of suffering wrought by occupation.

It is assumed, but not guaranteed, that a non-violent stategy would lead to a decrease in the cycle of death and injury. This sadly could be both bad and good for the Palestinian cause. A decrease in death and carnage is likely to coincide with a sharp decrease in media attention – precisely what is needed most to inspire change in opinion and policy.

Only a strategy that is assertive, coordinated, inclusive, creative, and one that is more and more adept at creating its own media can hope to succeed in making lots of noise without firing any bullets. There have been powerful, if not controversial, attempts by isolated villages to begin building this movement. It is time now to learn from their experiences and begin coordinating a national non-violent strategy.

Israel’s Response to Non-Violence

Israeli, Palestinian and international human rights organizations routinely catalogue, and often film, Israel’s response to non-violent actions. The response usually consists of using overwhelming force to disburse crowds.

Most typically, Israel employs tear gas, concussion grenades and rubber bullets to do so, but on many documented oc-casions they have employed live ammunition, and most re-cently have begun showering protesters with a mixture of sewage water and chemicals from nearby settlements. The saddest part of this response is the effect that it has upon the non-violence movement in general. The fact that protesters have been literally showered in sewage, beaten and sometimes killed in the daily or weekly events, reaffirms the notion amongst those most skeptical of a peaceful strategy that ‘Israel only responds to violence’.

This perception is further strengthened by the lack of accountability laid upon those soldiers and their commanders who routinely sidestep the law in their use of force. Rarely, if ever, has anyone been punished; and never have these punishments made their way up the ranks or into the realm of those who design policies. This lack of accountability has endowed soldiers with a sense of immunity from their actions; a perception which no doubt adds to their willingness to utilize force – even when unneccessary.

This last summer the small village of Ni’lin north of Ramallah began to organize weekly, and sometimes daily demonstations against the encroaching wall. On July 29th, the ten year old unarmed Ahmed Hassan Yusef Musa was struck in the head by a rubber bullet and killed at one such demonstration. The following day, at Ahmed’s funeral – turned demonstration, 19 year old Yusuf Ahmad Amira was shot dead by the IDF. Neither case has resulted in punishment.

This is the same village where a 17 year old girl Salaam Kanan was able to capture video footage of a bound and blindfolded Palestinian man being shot at point blank range by a soldier a few feet from his commanding officer. This particular case received alot of attention; however, Israeli, Palestinian and international human rights organizations insist that many more incidents like this take place when no cameras are present.

The struggle for Palestinian liberation has reached one of its most difficult phases so far. The current complex situation is showing positive changes as well as negative ones, which should all be weighed on their own merit. One thing, however, has not changed: the absence of a clear and unambiguous recognition for the Palestinian popular voice. Unfortunately this is not only the case at the level of governments, official media, and international politics – but seems to be a stubborn phenomenon that continues to affect all levels of involvement, from the grassroots up to the higher echelons.

On the positive side, we have seen an increased involvement in recent years of international supporters with the Palestinian issue. Ever since the genocidal wave of aggression that was poured over Gaza in the winter of 2008/2009 on top of an already suffocating siege, we have heard an increase in volume of the sounds of protest from the international community, most notably at non-governmental levels. International aid convoys such as Galloway's Viva Palestina and the Code Pink convoy made headlines in doing their best to provide humanitarian relief to the ravished Palestinians of Gaza. The global BDS movement has booked significant successes in the area of boycott and divestment against Israel, and continues to empower voices calling for sanctions against the zionist entity. On the political level, the Goldstone report dealt a serious blow to Israeli credibility and to its artificial image as a benevolent island of progress and democracy in the Middle East.

However, these positive changes are taking place within an environment that continues to promise less and less hopes for Palestinian self-determination. The Israeli occupation has not ended since the Oslo agreements, but has intensified. The Palestinian political scenery has not strengthened itself, but has fallen prey to unprecedented internal division. Israeli aggression against Palestinian civilians in the form of assassination, imprisonment, home demolition and confiscation of farm land and property has not softened under pressure from the international community, but has grown ever more relentless. Support from Arab governments has decreased and has even been transformed in some instances into a tight-knit collaboration with the goals of the Israeli-American-European axis of colonization and domination.

Variety and diversity

In this increasingly confusing jungle of political entanglement, we are seeing a wide variety of responses from the Palestinian side. Some voices are calling for a complete abolition of the two-state-solution, and a radical return to the original ideal of the single unified state for all of its citizens, regardless of their religion or ethnicity. A good example of this is the direction that is propagated among others by Ali Abunimah, spearhead of the Electronic Intifada, who has no qualms about calling for a one-state solution as the only viable option to reach peace. On the political level, Hamas is increasingly finding itself physically and politically isolated within the Gazan territory, which is scoffingly called an 'emirate' by their adversaries. The 'two-staters', most visibly represented by the ilk of Mahmoud Abbas, are finding it increasingly difficult to make it clear to their followers how they will turn the romantic ideal of a two-state-solution into a reality – against all odds – and which level of Palestinian independence it would provide if it were to be realized at all.

On top of this most visible political division, there are several individual alternatives sprouting up in the field. A shocking example is the opinion expressed recently in an interview with Le Figaro on January 6th by Sari Nusseibeh, president of Al Quds University, who answered the question 'what is the perspective for the Palestinian people?' with the following words: "My next proposal will be to ask Israel to annex us, accepting us as third class citizens. The Palestinians would enjoy basic rights, movement, work, health, education, but would have no political rights. We would not be citizens, only subjects."

It can safely be assumed that such an extremist statement, which violates even the most fundamental principles of the Palestinian struggle, is a lone voice that does not represent the opinions that exist among the Palestinian people. It baffles the mind how someone who is at the head of one of the largest educational institutes in the Palestinian civil community, would be prepared to offer such a complete capitulation of the Palestinian struggle to the zionist entity. The answer may be found in lack of principle, lack of vision, or simply in despair. It may very well be that such a destructive opinion would not have been voiced, if the arena was dominated by the sound of a collective Palestinian popular voice.

The diversity presented above illustrates how difficult it seems to have become to speak of a unified political Palestinian stance. Of course, exceptions such as Sari Nusseibeh should be simply brushed aside, but even then we are still left with a wide variety of Palestinian views and solutions. Unity, as always in times of trouble, is difficult to be found at the level of solutions, but is often still present at the level of common principles. Since none of those who propose a solution possess the actual tools for achieving them, it is there that unity should be sought, and found.

There are universal Palestinian principles that are connected to the physical and political history of the Palestinians, which are upheld by an overwhelming majority among them, across the entirety of the Palestinian spectrum. It is true that there are voices who aim to exclude the millions of Palestinian expats and refugees, in order to consolidate their own local or personal power and influence. Still, apart from this small number of agitators of Palestinian division and disunity, it is hard to find Palestinians who disagree that the most central issues of the Palestinian cause are the retreat of the zionists from all occupied territories including East Jerusalem, the capital of Palestine, and the right of return of the refugees.

The voice of the people

It is in the interest of Israel to perplex both the Palestinians and the international community on these issues, which has been its sole objective for participating in the Oslo negations from their very beginning.  From the Israeli point of view, it was a shrewd 'pacification process', providing them with the time for creating facts on the ground, and trying to make these irreversible. It is in the demographic and political interest of the Israelis to exclude expatriate Palestinians from the equation, not only in their physical absence but also in their right of opinion and representation as an inalienable part of the Palestinian people.

Sadly, the zionist entity has proved to have been able to groom a handful of Palestinians into a willingness to support this divisive direction. However, this thin layer of aspiring 'leaders' can only be seen as representative of the collective Palestinian identity in the wishful thinking of some egotistic power-mongers, and of course in the fantasies of the zionists who aim to conquer and subdue the entirety of historical Palestine. The truth is that the majority of Palestinians are very well aware who they are and where they come from, through family ties and histories, and cannot simply be separated artificially to suit the personal goals of ambitious politicians.

So there definitely is a unified popular Palestinian voice, that transgresses all the boundaries of geographical and political separation – but are we hearing it?
 
In the political void that is left open by the lack of Palestinian political unity, and in the absence of a clear platform for the non-politicized Palestinian voice, we also see an increasing number of Jewish and Israeli speakers, who are willing to speak up for Palestinian rights. This phenomenon can be viewed in a variety of ways, and has positive as well as negative sides.

It can be advantageous to the Palestinian cause that certain political statements in favor of Palestinian rights and independence are made by Jews or Israelis, as they are perceived as being more credible to a Western audience, coming 'from the horse's mouth', so to speak. Another advantage is that it is inspiring to see that not all those who are born into the zionist entity are racist, and on a personal level, are representing a moral victory of true human values over bigoted hatred and greed. From a more pragmatic point of view, just like Palestinian political disunity serves the interests of the Israeli occupier, political disunity within Israel should be beneficial for the struggle for Palestinian independence.

However, unbridled enthusiasm makes it easy to overlook a quite crucial downside to these developments. First of all, it runs contrary to the goal of Palestinian independence to be in need of non-Palestinians to do the talking, let alone to achieve the envisaged endpoint of Palestinian liberation. An increased dependence on these conscientious Jews would result in creating the impression that Palestinians are a helpless, unqualified and immature people who are unable to run their own affairs and organize their own struggle, and are depending on the mercy of their occupier for any possible beneficial developments.

It is of the utmost importance to realize how little of the mainstream Israeli public view is represented by these admirable activists. There was rarely a time when the absence of a true Israeli peace movement was so evident, as during the 'Cast Lead' Israeli massacre on Gaza. However, unfortunate as it may sound, it would be very misleading to say that the presence of Israeli activists among anti-wall activists and in the Sheikh Jarrah protests represents a voice among Israelis that has a numerically significant body of support within their society. To make a bold comparison: for the overwhelming majority of Israelis, the position of these activists in Israeli society is considered as aberrant as the above-mentioned view of Sari Nusseibeh's is among Palestinians. It is dangerous to fool oneself with romanticized perceptions.

Regaining our voice

In view of the above, it should never be taken lightly when an Israeli is appointed as a spokesman in a Palestinian grassroots movement, or given another key role. Regardless of that person's qualifications and intentions, it is a strategic error of judgment on the part of such a movement to make that choice. It would be an example of genuine foolishness for the Palestinians to allow themselves to enter into a situation where Israelis are their occupiers, as well as their liberators.

A serious change of mentality is also required at the level of the international supporters of Palestinian rights. If they are genuine about their wish for Palestinian independence, they should support it on every level. This means that they should start doing their best to clear the stage for Palestinian popular voices, and to give a high priority to Palestinian speakers, writers, artists and activists. There is a strong tendency to fall into a romantic admiration of courageous Israelis who speak up against Israeli human rights violations, while giving little credit to Palestinians who express their views.

It is up to these international supporters to choose their Palestinian heroes, if they really mean business. If all the people they admire are Jewish or Israeli, it will be difficult to believe in the genuineness of their intentions. There are at least hundreds of Palestinian activist writers and journalists worldwide such as Ramzy Baroud, Mohammed Omer, Haitham Sabbah, Ali Abunimah and Khaled Amayreh (Google their names when you finish reading this) to mention only a tiny selection of those available. They are excellent speakers and writers in perfect English, who are able to present a balanced narrative of their cause, their aspirations, and the justness of their struggle.

If those who support Palestinians in the West find themselves always hanging only at the lips of Jewish and Israeli writers and speakers, they should seriously question their belief in the true Palestinian cause. Are they supporters of Palestinian liberation, or are they simply propagators of a 'more moral Israel'? In order to start helping to liberate Palestine, the most primary and crucial step that would make a difference would be to help remove the unnecessary muzzle, and let the Palestinian popular voice ring out loudly and clearly.

As all colonized people, the Palestinians have fallen prey to the old adage of 'divide and conquer'. In this sense, nothing is new. Therefore, the first step towards their liberation is to resolve this division, which is more important to the continuation of the existence of the Palestinian national identity than securing political guarantees from any superpower in the world. And since these political divisions are not easily conquered, because they are at least partly caused and maintained by outside influences, there is a primary move that is easy to make, and does not require anything except personal conviction and vision. I am talking about a simple move, that everyone is able to make.

This move is simply to reclaim the struggle as our own, by regaining our Palestinian popular voice, making sure it gets heard, and speaking up loudly and clearly for Palestinian unity and liberation. We also should always give priority to Palestinian speakers and writers, instead of rushing only to forward the articles of Amira Hass and Gideon Levy to our mailing lists, and barely giving any interest to the writings of our own people. Have you caught yourself doing this? Let us change it. We are not in a position to compete against each other – we should empower each other. Our own Palestinian voice is irreplaceable – if we let others speak in our name, we have already killed our independence before it is even born.

Tariq Shadid is a Palestinian surgeon living in the Middle East, and has written numerous essays about the Palestinian issue over the years. Most of these were published by the Palestine Chronicle http://www.palestinechronicle.com , and have been bundled in the book "Understanding Palestine", which is available through Amazon.com. He also runs a website of internationally oriented music dedicated to the Palestinian cause, which can be found at http://www.docjazz.com .

The Palestine Strategy Study Group suggests that the following three requirements are essential for there to be an effective Palestinian national strategy that is unified, strongly formulated, and clearly communicated to the outside world. All three lie firmly within the capacity of Palestinians to achieve. They can be acted upon straight away. This Report calls on all Palestinians to make this happen.

1 THE REQUIREMENT OF A NEW DISCOURSE

An essential prerequisite for seizing the strategic initiative is to shape the nature of the discourse within which the issue of Palestinian independence is discussed.

A discourse is a framework of language within which verbal communication takes place. It is the discourse that determines what can and cannot be said within it and how this is to be understood. At the moment the Palestinian national struggle is nearly always discussed in terms of other peoples’ discourses. This is like playing all football matches on other teams’ pitches. It is always an away game – we begin one goal down. Palestinians must refuse to participate on those terms. We must explain and promote our own discourse and make this the primary language within which the Palestinian issue is discussed.

Two international discourses in particular are inappropriate for the Palestinian case. Unfortunately these are the usual frameworks adopted by the international community.

The first is a peacemaking discourse, which assumes that the problem is one of ‘making peace’ between two equal partners, both of whom have symmetric interests, needs, values and beliefs. This is the wrong discourse because there are not two equal conflict parties. There is an occupying power and a suppressed and physically scattered people not allowed even to have its own identity legally recognised.

The second is a statebuilding discourse, which assumes that the problem is one of ‘building a state’ along the lines attempted in Cambodia or El Salvador or Mozambique – or even to a certain extent in Afghanistan. This is the wrong discourse because there is no Palestinian state.

The result of the dominance of these two discourses (not to mention the prevailing Israeli-US discourse) is that the essence of the Palestinian problem is not recognised in the first place. This is disastrous for the Palestinian cause.

The Palestine Strategy Study Group strongly urges fellow Palestinians to seize their destiny in their own hands by refusing even to enter these other discourses until it is appropriate to do so and to focus all their energies on explaining and promoting the prior Palestinian discourse. The appropriate discourse uses the language, not of peacemaking or statebuilding, but of national self-determination, of liberation, of emancipation from occupation, of individual and collective rights, of international law. This must be the primary discourse. Only when the priorities defined within the primary Palestinian discourse of emancipation are recognised can the hitherto rightly subordinated discourses of peacemaking and statebuilding move properly into the foreground.

Perhaps the most appropriate comparable discourse here is the discourse of decolonisation. This needs to be clearly understood by the international community. For example before 1947 Gandhi’s primary discourse in India was not a peace-making discourse, because he was not making peace with Britain but struggling to end British occupation. And it was not a state building discourse because there was not yet an Indian state. His primary discourse was one of emancipation and national struggle. The same is true of the Palestinian discourse. Palestinians are of course ready to enter serious negotiations. They are more ready to do this than Israelis. But such peacemaking has to be defined within a context that genuinely aims to deliver Palestinian national aspirations. Anything less is simply not peacemaking but a confirmation of continuing occupation and repression.

There is no space to pursue this in detail further here, except to note the importance of combating a central idea in the peacemaking discourse that what is at issue is two equivalent ‘Israeli’ and ‘Palestinian’ ‘narratives’. No doubt there are Israeli and Palestinian narratives. But what is centrally at issue is not a mere Palestinian narrative, but a series of incontrovertible facts – facts of expulsion, exclusion, dominance and occupation bitterly lived out by Palestinians day by day over the past 60 years and still being endured at the present time. This is not a narrative. It is a lived reality. Finding the best strategy for ending this lived reality is the main purpose of this Report.

Transforming the discourse within which it is discussed is a major part of that effort.

For example, here are some undeniable facts. In 1922 there were 84,000 Jews living in Palestine (census data). By 1947 this number had risen to 608,000. Much of this was the result of deliberate policy to build immigrant Jewish numbers in order to create a Jewish state in Palestine. At that time (1947) there were 1,364,000 Palestinians. Palestinians owned some 95% of the land where they had lived for centuries. Yet in November 1947 UN General Assembly Resolution 181 called for a division in which Jewish land would be 57.12% and Palestinian land would be 42.88%. This was not a Security Council Resolution. The Jewish State of Israel was declared in May 1948. By the time of the ceasefire in 1949 Israel held 78% of historic Palestine and the Palestinians were left with 22%. The 1949 Armistice Line was not and is not a legally defined political border. UN General Assembly Resolution 273 (III) of 11 May 1949 admitted Israel into the UN, not a ‘Jewish’ State. Some 750,000 Palestinians had become refugees (about half the population – see UN Resolution 194). In 1967 Israel occupied the remaining 22% of the land of Palestine.

In November 1988 the Palestine Liberation Organisation, recognised by Palestinians as their sole representative, made the extraordinary sacrifice of accepting the existence of the State of Israel and determining to establish an independent Palestinian state on the remaining 22% of historic Palestine in accordance with UN Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338 (PNC Political Communique, Algiers, 15 November, 1988). Has a national movement ever made a concession on a similar scale? To this day this remains the basis for official Palestinian strategic objectives. Yet for twenty years these objectives have not been realised. Why? In negotiations Israelis repeatedly say ‘we do all the giving and the Palestinians do all the taking’. This is the opposite of the truth. Palestinians continue to demand no more than 22% of their historic land. It is Israel that has done all the taking through continuous government backed settler encroachment on this remaining 22%. The aim has been to create ‘facts on the ground’, now reinforced by the ‘security wall’, in order to reduce the land left for a future Palestinian state below even 22%.

This is not just a ‘Palestinian narrative’. These are facts. At the time of writing Israeli government-backed settler encroachment is still continuing relentlessly despite the negotiations. Palestinians know that Israel is not yet a serious negotiating partner. It is on the basis of these facts and on this understanding that the strategic objectives for Palestinians are set out in the next section.

2 THE REQUIREMENT OF NATIONAL UNITY

The second prerequisite is national unity. A house divided against itself cannot stand. Palestinian strategic action is impossible if the Palestinian nation is unable to speak with one voice or to act with one will. This does not mean agreeing about everything. Nor does it cancel internal Palestinian politics. But it does mean that, when it comes to formulating and enacting a national plan in relation to the outside world, Palestinians must subordinate internal politics to the superior demands of shared destiny and unity of purpose.

It is not surprising that, under the intolerable pressures of occupation, deep internal divisions have surfaced, particularly since the passing away of the charismatic national leadership of Yasser Arafat. It is also true that external powers – particularly Israel but also others – have adopted a deliberate policy of ‘divide and rule’. But this is all the more reason for Palestinians to rise above such rivalries, pressures and provocations when formulating a strategy for national liberation. The future in this respect is in our own hands.

After the hopes engendered by the creation of the National Unity Government in the wake of the achievement of the manifestly free and fair January 2006 elections, the events of June 2007 were a severe blow to Palestinian national unity. The Palestine Strategy Study Group has no interest in allotting blame and it is not its business to make pronouncements on internal Palestinian politics. But the Group is unanimous in calling on all political leaders to conduct internal politics in such a way that the Palestinian people present a unified face to the outside world. The Group is convinced that this is also the wish of the vast majority of the Palestinian people. We owe this to all those who have struggled for so long and made such great sacrifices for the national cause. This is essential not least because of the prospect of a possible national referendum on the current negotiations. How can the Palestinian people make an informed decision on a matter of such supreme national importance without prior extensive and informed national debate that rises above partisan political interest? This Report is an attempt to encourage such a debate.

3 THE REQUIREMENT OF STRATEGIC THINKING

The third prerequisite is that as broad a spectrum of Palestinians as possible should join in the task of strategic analysis, strategic choice, and strategic action. In this report the Palestine Strategy Study Group invites readers to participate in a strategic approach to the national project, because this is the essential means for its realisation.

Strategic thinking is a particular kind of thinking. Strategic thinking formulates clear national objectives and keeps them firmly in view throughout. Everything is subordinated to the achievement of those objectives. But analysis is also guided by hard-headed assessment of relative power capabilities – what Palestinians and others can and cannot do on their own or in combination.

Strategic thinking combines ultimate vision with a firm grasp of practical possibilities.

So the analysis of power links objectives to strategy. The concept of power is central in politics and is elaborately discussed in the literature. But it will be taken here in its simplest sense as the ability to get what you want done. If you get what you want done you have power. If you do not get what you want done you do not have power.

Four aspects of power are important in strategic thinking and are worth bearing in mind while reading this report because they have guided its formulation.

First there is the nature of power (types of power). The American political analyst Joseph Nye distinguishes between ‘hard power’ and ‘soft power’. He sees international politics being played out on a three-dimensional chess-board where the top board represents military power, the middle board represents economic power, and the bottom board represents cultural power. Dominance of any one board does not guarantee strategic success. It depends on the situation. For example in the late 1980s the Soviet Union had invested in enormous military power, but was deficient in economic power and had lost cultural power. The collapse of the Soviet Union demonstrated the severe limits of military power on its own over the longer term. In those circumstances military power proved to be no power at all.

Kenneth Boulding similarly distinguishes between ‘threat power’, ‘exchange power’ and ‘integrative power’:

• · Threat power says ‘do what I want or I will do what you do not want’.

This is an approach that relies on force and the threat of force.

• · Exchange power says ‘do what I want and I will do what you want’.

This is an approach that emphasises bargaining and compromise.

• · Integrative power says ‘do what I want because you want it as well’.

This is an approach that focuses on ‘winning hearts and minds’.

Boulding argues that threat power may be effective over the short term, but is less effective than exchange power and integrative power over the middle term. Repression on its own cannot endure. For Boulding integrative power is the most effective form of power over the long term – the power of legitimacy, of loyalty, of cultural identity, of trust. Enduring families, communities, nations and religions in the end rest on integrative power.

In strategic planning agents must choose the most effective form of power (or combination of forms) in different circumstances, and must be prepared to be flexible in switching from one to the other where appropriate.

Second there are the locations of power (who has power).

The strategic analysis that follows is based on an assessment of what Palestinians can and cannot do on their own or in combination with others in relation to different kinds of challenge. Similar analysis is undertaken of Israeli relative power and options, and those of regional third parties and relevant international players including the United States.

It is essential in strategic thinking to take constant account of how the chessboard
looks from the perspective of the opponent. This is fundamental. A player who does not do this – who only looks at the board from its own perspective – will never be a grandmaster. Such a player will lose. The strategic purpose is to exert mounting pressure on the opponent to act as we want. This can only be done if we understand what the opponent desires and fears, and the sources and limits of the opponent’s power. The same applies to inducing third parties to behave in the ways we want them to.

Third there is the application of power (the strategic deployment of threats and inducements).

Strategic players are able to use threats and inducements (sticks and carrots) effectively in influencing the behaviour of others. Strategic threats must be credible to be effective. This almost certainly means that they cannot be a bluff. Palestinians must therefore be prepared to carry out the threatened actions in case the opponent does not heed them. More is said about this in section 7 below.

Fourth there are the uses of power (how to deploy power to attain strategic goals).

In the end the whole purpose of strategic thinking comes down to the way the various forms of power are used. Oliver Ramsbotham distinguishes between the politician, the visionary and the statesperson in this regard:

• · The politician understands how to manipulate the levers of power inorder to stay in office, but is not able or willing to use power consistently in order to attain strategic purposes. This use of power is ultimately pointless.
• · The visionary, in contrast, does keep long-term strategic goals clearly in view. The visionary can inspire aspirations and can articulate longings. But the visionary does not keep the short-term workings of power in his sights and
  consequently cannot deliver. This use of power is ultimately ineffective.
• · The statesperson never loses sight of strategic objectives, but also clearly understands the workings of political power. The statesperson is able to step back at times in order then to leap forward further (reculer pour mieux sauter), has a good grasp of timing, can sense opportunities and act on them, remains flexible but determined in the face of unexpected events or setbacks.

When the statesperson meets an impasse, he does not remain clutching the bars that block his path. He lets go, finds another path around the barrier, and suddenly appears from an unexpected side to turn the tables on those who thought that they had stopped him. The statesperson surprises his opponent.

He does not act as his opponent expects. The statesperson is capable of strategic thought and action. This use of power is what achieves lasting results.

The Palestine Strategy Study Group wants Palestinian leaders to be statespersons. It is hoped that the report may make a contribution towards clarifying what this entails.
source: http://www.palestinestrategygroup.ps/Regaining_the_Initiative_FINAL_17082008_(English).pdf  

http://www.palestinestrategygroup.ps/ DOWNLOAD THE ENTIRE DOCUMENT IN ENGLISH OR ARABIC

It is important to mobilize the international public opinion so that the United Nations and Member States adopt the necessary measures to end the impunity of the Israeli State, and to reach a just and durable solution to this conflict.

Following an appeal from Ken Coates, Nurit Peled, and Leila Shahid, and with the support of over a hundred well-known international personalities, it has been decided to organise a Russell Tribunal on Palestine.

Based on the Opinion of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) issued on the 9th of July 2004 and on the relevant resolutions of the United Nations Organisation, this Russell Tribunal on Palestine is a civic initiative promoting international law as the core element of the Israeli-Palestinian issue.

Further than Israel’s responsibility, it aims to demonstrate the complicity of Third States and International Organisations which, through their passivity or active support, allow Israel to violate the rights of the Palestinian People, and let this situation be continued and aggravated.

The next step will then be to establish how this complicity results in international responsibilities.

Through a decentralised functioning, the organisation of public sessions and other public events, the organisation of a Russell Tribunal on Palestine is designed as a large communication event, with widespread media coverage over the tribunal and its outcomes. Indeed, the Russell Tribunal on Palestine having no official mandate, its impact rests on its ability to mobilise public opinion, so that the latter puts pressure on governments to obtain that they change their policies in the ways that are necessary to reach a just and lasting peace in the Middle East

First International Session of the Russell Tribunal on Palestine, Barcelona, 1,2,3 March 2010

Six main questions, set out by experts and witnesses, will be submitted to the Tribunal jury. The questions are as follows:

1. Have the European Union and its member states breached their obligation to promote and ensure respect for the Palestinian people’s right of self-determination? Have they cooperated with a view to halting any serious violation of that right? Have they aided or abetted any violation of that right

2. Have the European Union and its member states breached their obligation to ensure respect for international humanitarian law vis-à-vis the Palestinian people in the case of the blockade of the Gaza Strip and the “Cast Lead” military operation conducted by Israel from 27 December 2008 to 18 January 2009? Have they cooperated with a view to ending any serious violation of that law? Have they aided or abetted any violation of that law?

3. Have the European Union and its member states breached their obligation to ensure respect for international humanitarian law and the right of the Palestinian people to sovereignty over their natural resources in the context of Israel’s building of settlements and pillage of natural resources in the Occupied Palestinian Territory? Have they cooperated with a view to ending any serious violation of the law and right in question? Have they aided or abetted any violation of the law and right in question?

4. Have the European Union and its member states breached their obligation to ensure respect for international humanitarian law, the principle of non-acquisition of territory by force and the Palestinian people’s right of self-determination in the case of the annexation by Israel of East Jerusalem? Have they cooperated with a view to ending any serious violation of the law, principle and right in question? Have they aided or abetted any violation of the law, principle and right in question.

5. Have the European Union and its member states breached their obligation to ensure respect for international law in connection with the construction of the wall by Israel in the Occupied Palestinian Territory? Have they cooperated with a view to halting any serious violation of that law? Have they aided or abetted any violation of that law?

6. In the light of the foregoing, have the European Union and its member states breached their obligation to ensure respect for international law and European law in the context of the agreements signed between the European Union and the State of Israel?
The following personalities have agreed to be members of the jury:

• Mairead Corrigan Maguire: Nobel Peace Price (1976), Northen Ireland

• Juan Tapia Guzman: Judge, Chili

• Ronnie Kasrils: Writer and activist, South Africa

• Gisèle Halimi: Lawyer, Former Ambassador to UNESCO, France

• Michael Mansfield: Lawyer, President of the Haldane Society of Socialist Lawyers, Great Britain

• José Antonio Martin Pallin: Magistrado Emérito Sala II, Supreme Court, Spain

• Cynthia McKinney: former US Congresswoman and member of the Green Party, USA

• Aminata Traoré: Author, politician and activist, Mali

• Alberto San Juan: Actor and activist, Spain
  

The Heads of States and Ministers of foreign affairs of EU member States, the President of the European Commission José Manuel Barroso, the President of the European Council Herman Van Rompuy and the High representative of the EU for Foreign affairs and security Policy Catherine Ashton have also been informed on the holding of the Session of the Tribunal. They have been invited to present, if they wish, arguments for the defence.

Source: http://www.russelltribunalonpalestine.net/ (thanks Carlos!)

The way Israel looked to Zionists by the Zionist Nation Builders

Three proposals: Framing our own arguments – ignoring Zionist rhetorical traps – developing strategic thinking and implementing our strategies 

While watching most Western mainstream news and current events shows, how many times do we activists for Palestine find ourselves arguing with the television, pointing our finger at the screen and saying, “NO! That’s not true,” or “How dare you spread this propaganda?”. We are reacting to someone else’s discourse. The public is continually given a version of information and news that, while occasionally purporting to be balanced, actually is an extension of Israeli Hasbara (propaganda). 

We have to be aware of the fact that what news actually reaches the public has already jumped through a dozen hoops before it arrives into millions of homes. The major obstacle is for factual information to even break out of its confines and become “newsworthy”. But overcoming that obstacle is enormously difficult. The selection of what is newsworthy starts before a report gets anywhere near an editorial desk. “News” has its origin in a value system that determines which events are ordinary and which are exceptional, only the latter makes the cut. Editors are in a privileged position because they often promote the interests and values of the society they are part of (national, political or corporate as it may be), as well as being able to create and further adjust the world according to the weight they assign to each argument that makes its way to the general public. 

Events in Palestine are generally reported in the West with Israeli framing and an Israeli timetable, using Zionist terminology and tailoring it to suit their ideological needs, which vary, ranging from winning a war to joining the EU. Framing makes the information appear like news, rather than showing its real nature as part of a PR campaign. 

Even the solidarity movement hesitates to challenge the positions of some of its ideologues when these positions are “pragmatic” and said to be done in order to “enlarge the movement”. These advocates avoid topics which might “turn some people off” such as those people who do not accept Palestinian Right of Return, who do not believe in the legitimacy of resistance, who do not think there is an Israel lobby running the show or whose idea of Palestine is geographically limited to Gaza and the West Bank. 

The fact that disturbs many of us is that the coverage, so blatantly biased in favour of Israel’s interests, is not recognised as the propaganda that it is by most of the general public. Yet, we can rest assured that those producing this coverage are indeed fully cognisant of it. They are able to hide most of this bias with other smokescreens, such as the “Global War on Terror”, campaigns against “weapons smuggling”, interventionist operations labelled as “nation building” and dozens of other newsworthy items that catch the imagination without expecting the public to think too deeply though, since if they did reflect on the meanings of these words, they might become extremely unhappy with these policies.  Editors no longer even try to hide behind body shields of objectivity, because now they are “promoting values”. 

This is why when there is a report about heavy bombing of Gaza, no time will be wasted in inserting images or phrases that place all the blame on the Palestinians. It was they, after all, if one follows the linear presentation of the report, who launched rockets from Gaza into Sderot. That these claims are highly exaggerated, that the Israeli actions were disproportionate or even were war crimes never gets stated. The public must accept the Israeli logic that is used to justify the shelling. The aggressor becomes the victim and the idea is reinforced of the strikes against Gaza as legitimate “reaction” that anyone would undertake to “defend their families”. 

Mainstream coverage then juxtaposes references to Hamas “taking over” Gaza and inferences that they are a terrorist organisation in a rebel region. The context or facts are never explained, and geography and history are turned on their heads, with Israel depicted as “leaving Gaza” which the media then depicts as being abandoned to the marauding fanatics who brought death and destruction upon the land. Thus, facts may be present in the reports someplace (number of deaths), but they are seen through a distorted lens and dished out, steaming hot on a Zionist plate. They are there to serve Zionist needs and they are very successful at doing it too. The public has felt saddened, but at the end of the day, they justified the Israeli aggressor and ignored the fate of the victims, civilians like themselves for the most part. After all, it’s the Israelis whose values are shared. It’s the Israelis who have been painted into a corner in an existential fight for their lives. 

This kind of reporting, however, is not in any way new. Looking back at the way the dropping of American atomic bombs on Japanese people or the carpet bombing of a city like Dresden using phosphorus weapons, was justified in the mass media of the time, nothing has changed. It is standard procedure in wartime to utilise the mass media and for it to be at the service of the “patriotic cause”. This is true not only in the West. Political propaganda is an important weapon and it is always well-oiled. Yet, we activists have to be aware of the manipulation that does not serve the causes of humanity and justice because it is only propaganda and, more importantly, we have to make others aware of it. Every time we use any Zionist discourse, the way we should be using it is to debunk it. It only serves us if we are stripping away the propaganda and showing just how empty the rhetoric is. We should never be giving it any legitimacy.  

Moving away from a war scenario, though, we can see how the Hasbara permeates very many other aspects of our lives and worse, how we as activists get trapped into it. Our lawmakers have fully adopted the Israeli narrative as “the Truth”. This is demonstrated by their policies and rhetoric. A very recent example of how we have fallen into a Zionist trap is our reaction to the commemoration of the Holocaust in Europe. The politicians and media people take the Zionist cue and stick it between the bookends of “Anti-Semitism” and “Israel”. The issue is framed precisely the way the Zionists can best utilise it to justify Israel’s illegitimate takeover and destruction of Palestine. The ethnic cleansing of Palestinians and their dispossession, their transformation from Fedayin to refugees and exiles or “fifth columns” (internal enemies) within Israel is totally hidden from view. Israel is not presented as it is, but as an idea, an oasis of democracy and salvation for all the Jews of the world. It is depicted as the victory of good over evil. Israel is a story with a “happy ending”. While victims have every right to be commemorated (we demand the same for our victims), the tragedy of the Jewish victims in Europe is used for the political ends of a racist State that discriminates against non-Jews, yet somehow, enjoys vast international consensus. 

We activists should be able to differentiate between a commemoration and a political manipulation. We should be aware of which arguments will make a difference to Palestinians and which ones will fall into the traps Zionists set for us to slide down into. 

It’s no secret that Holocaust commemoration has morphed into pro-Israel rallies and festivals using music, film, arts, culture and politics to promote allegiance to Zionism. The linking of the two (a legitimate commemoration and a political/ideological rally) was very clever and it has been outrageously successful. Hats off, sincerely. The indelible connection serves Zionist interests because as soon as someone condemns the Zionist ideology, they are going to be defamed as “negating the Holocaust” and not respecting the victims of a totalitarian regime. The marketing has been spotless, so the connection is here to stay and we better admit it and take stock. If we are pointing out that this coupling is an instrumental manipulation, which we have been doing now for quite a long time, almost as long as the celebrations themselves have been officially adopted in each State, can we claim that this has gotten us anywhere? Anywhere positive? Those controlling the media control how our rhetoric is (mis)interpreted and all that has happened is that new demonising of those who dare make this into their speeches is unleashed, doing zero for those populations, much less for liberating a single Palestinian from his or her oppression? No proof exists that our exposure of this ploy is effective, the contrary is true. More Holocaust museums are built, more air-time is granted to Israel in the way it chooses to be depicted, as the solution to endemic Anti-Semitism and the garrison mentality that it uses to justify all of its actions is reinforced. 

A proposal is in order. We should let Holocaust Memorial Day be celebrated without commentary, and let the argument become the terrain of historians and not activists. 

The Holocaust should not be our argument unless we are indeed historians who spend our time researching and bringing light to areas that need study. There is a world of Arab history, of Palestinian history that demands to see the light of day. This includes the Palestinian Nakba, and we should not use the Jewish word, it is history they share with Europeans, it is not our history. Palestinians had nothing to do with the crimes in Europe. Every time the issue is at the core of discourse, it brings the topic into the area where Zionists are experts at manipulation and domination of the discourse, twisting the truth and denying any connection between mass immigration of Jews into Palestine and the Nakba. 

A way to avoid the manipulation is to simply ignore the event, just like the Zionists ignore our events. They do not commemorate our Nakba or our Naksa, our tragedies and important moments and indeed our very history are black holes to them. Undeniably, we are invisible unless we are framed the way Zionists can obtain gains from, as terrorists, savages, bunglers of peace deals offered on silver platters. Not as a single people with a common past and future. It’s obvious that their “ignore them and they will go away” strategy works! If this is the case, why are we so bullheaded and persist in playing the game their way? Why don’t we try their tactic on for size? Why must we continue arguing over issues that do not concern us such as the Holocaust or Anti-Semitism? Since when are these Palestinian issues? Since when do we think it is good to waste so much of our time on reacting to Zionist issues rather than forcing them to react to ours? 

The Palestinian cause should not be reactive. It is an ongoing struggle to reclaim rights, land and dignity that have been destroyed by the Zionist project. That Zionism (“the national movement for the return of the Jewish people to their homeland and the resumption of Jewish sovereignty in the Land of Israel” according to the Jewish Virtual Library) is a racist ideology is not our opinion, that it is based upon ethnic and religious exclusion is stated in their very literature and laws. It only could accomplish and realise this project in the middle of the Arab world by means of violence against Arabs and continued oppression of Palestinians. Zionism does not allow coexistence, and there is no version of Zionism that is not exclusionist.  

It can only benefit us to concentrate on being the masters of discourse and not reactive to a discourse that is designed as propaganda or as a diversion to keep us from implementing our own projects. We need to opt for a different approach, one that sets the agenda, that seeks to resolve our problems in a pragmatic way. This requires that we listen to ourselves and set our issues as the themes to dominate the discourse. It requires an active strategy of planning, coordination of actions to achieve all kinds of short-term and long-term goals. It means working on matters that count to us, that keep us focused on our problems and the ways to resolve them and not caught in somebody else’s propaganda web. 

We have so many issues on the table and so many people dedicated to their resolution. We need to use that as a resource and our emphasis has to be directed towards our goals and the means to obtain them. Just a list of the top issues on the table can barely scratch the surface, so vast is the range of issues.

Due to the wars waged upon Palestinians, the sanctions and medieval siege against them, their situation has dramatically plummeted in recent years and hopes seem to vanish. Geographically, Palestinians are divided and even as a people, they have been fragmented. All of this can only bode ill for the struggle, and Palestinians need to reclaim their strength and know that they will succeed, in spite of such odds against them. The list of Palestinian needs covers every aspect of life and none of these needs can be met without actively seeking to obtain them. Palestinians are steadfast, patient and courageous in the face of such oppression and tragic circumstances. They are willing to work towards their liberation, they have never given up on that hope, and the last vestiges of belief that sorting things out with the Zionists through negotiation seems to have abandoned them. Illusions are able to sustain hope only until a certain point, then desperation sets in, then… as in all revolutionary struggles, people join together and realise the power they have.

Palestinians, like every other people, will build their own future and use their own society to do it, with their values and heritage as a base. Like every revolutionary movement before it, the message is not to wring one’s hands, cry and commiserate until the storm passes, but to join forces and to DO. The message of Malcolm X, Steve Biko, Che Guevara, Ben Bella, Gamal Abdel Nasser, Michel Aflaq and many others was clear. Their leadership empowered the masses to utilise their own free choice and their own cultures to cast off those who would dominate them and turn them into slaves. The leaders never said, “Just say No”, but they set an agenda, they framed the issues, they empowered the people who were in a weak position of colonialism, oppression, occupation, apartheid. No one ever brought liberation to an oppressed people. It has always been obtained through popular struggle, action and commitment to the goal.

Just saying, “NO” to Israel is meaningless unless one says “YES” to Palestine. Anti-Zionist rhetoric makes activists “find one another”, feel passionate and stirs them to action, but in and of itself can produce nothing useful because it promotes nothing.

To best understand a practical approach, let us think of a corporate board meeting. Each year, the company’s state of affairs is illustrated with detailed specifics to the managers and investors so that they can approve or reject the balance, (of course, audited by a body that has no corporate interests). If they approve it, as most boards do, they then move onto the step of deciding how to utilise their assets, what investment or management choices must be made in order to be profitable in the next period. The board does not focus on what another company is doing, but they take stock of their own liabilities and propose strategies to make the company successful. They study the milieu and make projections. The competition is referred to as a source of stimulus, seen in a strategic basis whose successful strategies should be copied or imitated, but their agenda is not what is on the table. That would make no sense.

Bringing this analogy to Palestine, one can observe that there is a massive need for Palestinian society at every level, and not only the upper echelons, to draw up a balance sheet that reflects the real conditions on the ground. Assets and liabilities need to be known and quantified. A strategy must be developed that can be implemented in a reasonable timeframe so that each action can be tried, judged and corrected.

Actions have to take priority over rhetoric, and the list of possible actions with analysis of their implementation, inter-connection and outcome has to be compiled, factoring in as many variables as possible, even using Game Theory projections (http://palestinethinktank.com/2009/12/03/a-strategy-revolution-a-game-theory-approach-to-palestinian-resistance/). There are many groups and organisations that already exist and should be coordinated so that focus on the problems can be specific and each focus group can take advantage of a wide range of input. All groups in Palestine should be empowered, taking the lead in determining the priorities of the interventions and the goals that each group intends upon obtaining. Then, these actions must be implemented.

Activists around the world need to follow the timetable and the directions of those who are making proposals shared by the widest possible consensus, and the actions need to be economic, cultural, political as well as supported enthusiastically and disseminated properly. The Palestinian agenda is our agenda, resistance actions are our means, boycott is our instrument, the Palestinian voice is the guiding one. We activists have to be willing to follow, and willing to roll up our sleeves and get our hands dirty. When we address those in our societies, let us be valid representatives of the Palestinian struggle, but let us allow them to set the discourse.

There is space for all of us in this struggle, and at least one campaign for every activist to engage with: health and environment issues, human and civil rights, refugee issues, labour rights, freedom of movement, projects for documentation of Palestinian history and protection of its land and heritage, freedom for the PLC and for all political prisoners, rebuilding Palestinian infrastructure and creating jobs, and it only begins there. There is a wall in Palestine that must come down, a siege that must end. Our plates are full and Palestinians need to lead the discourse as protagonists, they must determine the action. Any other direction is a false one and will lead nowhere.

Palestine Think Tank

see the introduction to the series: http://palestinethinktank.com/2010/01/22/common-activist-errors-and-some-proposals-to-rectify-them/

or its abridged version published on Ma'an News Agency: http://www.maannews.net/eng/ViewDetails.aspx?ID=257044

By Jihad Mansour

A Palestine Think Tank Editorial

WRITTEN BY  Yousef Abudayyeh, Mohamed Khodr, Mary Rizzo, Haitham Sabbah and Saja 

Activism and activists for Palestine have been getting some media attention recently. This is absolutely great news. It is an opportunity that we need to take advantage of, especially since Palestinians themselves are denied space in almost all mainstream mass media. Reflecting on this fact, we at PTT have decided to express some of our observations, thoughts and suggestions in order to enhance the work of all activists, ourselves included. This is a summary of some of the things that we believe are some common activist errors and our proposals for avoiding that errors lead to damage. In the coming weeks we will elaborate on each of these points in essays. We hope that our observations and proposals can be of use for ourselves and for those who commit their time and energy to the Palestinian cause. 

1. Not Emphasising Unity and Being Divisionist Among Ourselves.

Perhaps the most overriding issue that precedes all others is that of Unity.  On Unity, there are two kinds: one is fundamental, the other is merely beneficial. Fundamental Unity is that between Palestinians as a People. Palestinians have a common enemy: the occupier, the adversary of Zionism/The Jewish State, and a common goal that should be shared by all: the recognition of all of their rights and implementation of the same. Sectarian divisions simply must be overcome as they are indeed overcome in the Zionist camp.

Palestinians are scattered all over the world, with most of them living in Exile. The struggle over the last 62 years has been sustained and the name "Palestine" has survived because of the sacrifices of the Palestinians in Lebanon, Jordan, Syria, the Gulf States, Europe and elsewhere. Their national struggle is one, and it is for the liberation of their homeland, their mother country. It is for the return to their homes and villages and to achieve a peaceful, democratic life. We should not allow this national struggle to be reduced to the issue of the fate of a Hamas rule in Gaza and a very limited self governance "State" led by Abbas in what's left of the West Bank. Hamas and Fatah are two political parties, they are not the supreme voice of all Palestinians around the world, nor can they propose themselves as such. Just like in any other country around the world, nationalism and patriotism do not belong to parties, but to a People. It is tragic that the clashes between these parties have derailed the Palestinian aspirations, and that any opponents to either of these parties have been silenced, jailed or even killed. This is not what Palestinians have sacrificed their lives for. Nothing can occur in Palestine as long as Hamas and Fatah, each with outside supporters, are divided. It is a dramatic and damaging situation to have a Palestinian population divided along sectarian lines, and this division is precisely what Israel hopes will remain in their policy of Divide and Rule. To be divided is to serve Zionist interests. Palestinians must place the overcoming of sectarian differences as the priority. If current leaders do not want that, other leaders will emerge and earn widespread support. Already many leaders are aware of the public sentiment and the claims to dedicate their energies to reconciliation must be more than promises, they have to become facts, and Palestinians should hold them to these goals.

A united Palestine that is back to its Arab body is the greatest threat to Israel, and elections must take place, because Palestinians, like all other people, have a right to choose their own leaders. Yet, we must differentiate between elections that happen under occupation, whose main purpose should be to make life a little easier for the Palestinians who live under the brutal Zionist rule, and elections that should include all Palestinians worldwide, which should produce their political leadership that is able, willing and ready to tackle the issues that face ALL Palestinians: the liberation of Palestine and the Return of the Palestinians to their original homes and villages. Politics must be subordinate to national interests, and all parties should come to a pact to work together towards realisation of national interests, while maintaining their identities and proposals. How to achieve Unity should take a great amount of space in discourse. It is the crucial issue.

The Unity of Non-Palestinians is different. It has to be at the service to the goals of Palestinians and to support actions that can bring about justice and freedom for them. At the moment, its primary goal should be working on whatever will facilitate the Unity of the Palestinians and making the Palestinian national agenda the priority.

2. Allowing Ourselves to Follow Zionist Discourse.

In doing this, we are forced into being “reactive” and not “active”. This means losing our own framing, not developing our own strategies. There are myriad individual responses, but little in the way of coordination between them, even at an ideological level. This makes it easy for them to turn out to be counter-productive if they enter into conflict with other responses. They are not inter-connected the way the Zionist strategy is. Zionists have a “narrative”, Palestinians have their history. We need to learn about it, keep it in the spotlight and be able to advocate it with ability. 

So much has been written on Anti-Zionism, and the argument has been exhausted to the point of it being merely repetitive. We should now focus on Pro-Palestinian priorities and strategies, an area that is practically untouched upon and opens up “active” horizons. Palestinians are enduring the worst brutality and we should provide them with guidance and hope, and listen to what their ideas are. We should propose this “positive and active” approach to all activists around the world and continue to propagate this point until it reaches the people of Palestine. 

3. We Use Zionist Terminology.

This is a mistake we commit far too often. We have to create our own terminology or reach into our own linguistic catalogue for the “best” lexicon. Zionists have done it, they have Hasbara Manuals and propaganda training. If our language is repeated often enough, people will begin to understand the basic facts. An example: we use the terms Gaza/West Bank as a substitute for Palestine, not realising that Palestine is far more than this. Indeed, even Palestinian Territories is erroneous and created a mental construct that Palestine is only equivalent to the parts outside the Green Line. This is an idea that has been imposed, but it should be rejected. In this case, we must refer to Gaza as “Gaza, Occupied Palestine”, as well as remembering to say, “Ramallah, Occupied Palestine”, “Jerusalem, Occupied Palestine” and even “Tel Al-Rabie, Occupied Palestine”. Yes, calling Tel Aviv with its original name is radical, but perhaps necessary. At the very least, it can open debate where it may be effective. 

4. We Allow Our Energies to be Diverted.

Our energies are far too often diverted to off-topic issues, as important or as co-related as they might be, in certain moments, they tend to serve as distractions and slippery slopes, especially when we are addressing them in a reactive way. A few of these issues are the European Holocaust, Iran’s Nuclear Programme, Jewish Identity Politics, Muslim Identity Politics. On the same token, we are too often oblivious to an interconnection between global events and international politics and how they affect Palestinians. We need to focus on events, reality and not on perceived threats, preventive aggression or imperialist “nation building”. We have to pull blinders off our eyes and not hero worship anyone. All leaders look out for their particular interests, which is the way it has always been and there’s no evidence that it’s about to change. We have to think about which interests coincide with the Palestinian freedom cause and which ones “use” this cause. Having a common enemy or two does not mean sharing common causes, but following convenience. This has always been a stumbling block towards Palestinian liberation.

Global and regional issues are often inter-connected with Palestine, although sometimes in ways that are more that meets the eye. It is important to recognise what is empty rhetoric, what could be propaganda that serves as disinformation, false flag operations and diversion from goals and principles. Propaganda comes from our friends as well as from our enemies, so we need to critically examine what comes to us and filter through only what is useful and beneficial to the cause. There may be disagreements as to what is beneficial, but we all know that the farther issues are away in time and space from Palestine, the more likely they are to be diversions.

5. We Do Not Treat the Hebrew/Israeli Mass Media as the Hasbara It Is.

Our sources are far too often Hasbara Organs. There are certainly some very good journalists dedicated to Palestinian people there, and not everything written in Israeli papers is propaganda, but the papers themselves ARE. The best of them serve as a sort of fig leaf. What is the purpose of most of the Israeli papers? To create a “we are under attack” mentality among Israelis and to justify their manufactured “fears” and the actions against Palestinians to abate these fears. If any proof is needed, a look at the most “progressive” Israeli paper on any given day has advertisements on its homepage for Birthright, Ahava, several clips for Gilad Shalit, Golf resorts in Palestine and other lures for people to come and colonise Palestine from outside. We should know what Israelis are writing, but we must be selective and realise the purposes of the Israeli media. In fact, we should never forget that it is there to establish Israeli hegemony in the area. It seeks to promote Israel as the legitimate voice of the West and Democracy. Sometimes these papers are designed to appeal to Westerners more than to Israelis.

With this consideration, we don’t give the same interest or attention to Palestinian/Arab writers who certainly deserve it. Arab papers are not cited as sources. Westerners and even many involved activists do not know what Palestinian writers or academics are even thinking, because they are not getting the widespread circulation for reasons that can only be considered a sort of discrimination. This is evident simply by looking at most sites, where Europeans and Americans and Israelis command the discourse, no matter from what political position.

A blatant example of the deafness to the Arab voice is when the Organ Harvesting crime was exposed. For many years, Palestinians have been talking about this issue and it was no secret. There was often a sort of “embarrassment” involved, as people often tagged their reports with, “I know, but don’t have any proof to show.” When a Westerner simply repeated not only what he had published before in a book, but what had been already stated by Palestinians, it became “newsworthy”. But the curious part of the matter is that it was not a Palestinian source to bring this issue up, but a Zionist paper, The Jerusalem Post. They did not print the article (it was Tlaxcala, in cooperation with the author, which translated it into English hours later) but the Israeli propaganda organ alluded to it as proof to be used as the worst evidence of smears and defamation, just in time for the Israeli Conference taking place at that moment about the Dangers of European Anti-Semitism. This important issue finally got out into the open, but we have to work harder to be the ones setting the discourse, for our own ends and not in a reactive way. Issues shouldn’t come to light or die according to an Israeli/Zionist timetable, nor should they serve any of their purposes.

Mass media is crucial to dominate. Israel has the lion’s share of space in the mainstream media and Westerners have the lion’s share in alternative media. We should aim for increased Palestinian framing of their own cause, as well as being extremely cautious of the sources we use and the information we disseminate. With the rapidity of communications, there is much haste and little verification of facts. We must at all costs avoid spreading information that could be black operations, psychological warfare or disinformation regarding the Middle East.

6. We Abandon Critical Thinking for Emotive Thinking.

Emotions are part of human experience, but they don’t carry any weight in courts, they are absent from legal documents and legislation. This is a battle for justice, and our references are laws and documents, which also include procedural/diplomatic/legal regulations. If we hammer home the concept of legality and justice, we have to also abide by these principles. International law, while flawed, is on the side of the Palestinian people. It guarantees Palestinians the rights to resist occupation, right of return, right to protection and other rights besides. This is how, as advocates for the cause, we can be of greatest service. We can’t appeal to emotion (since it doesn’t work) nor act only out of emotion (as it excludes strategic planning). What is the mantra of Israel? “Israel has a right to exist”. So, if rights are their choice of battlefield, and it’s actually clear that they don’t have the legitimate right they claim, it is obvious that they are winning the propaganda war using our best instrument. We have to turn this situation around, full stop.

On the other hand, Israel has refined and invested in their Hasbara. The same is true for supporters of Israel who influence people by means of intense emotional blackmail that is enforced by means of juxtaposition of past Jewish suffering and current Israeli identity (a combination of the survivor/victim mentality and the image of a democratic state on the brink of extermination in the midst of a hostile region). Any part of this image can be promoted with extreme professionalism. The appeal to emotions is constant, but we must recognise that these emotional triggers are manufactured, manipulated and designed to appeal to a Western audience that does not scratch beneath the surface to form its own opinions. The image/message bombardment from Hollywood especially elicits a visceral emotional response that allows only guilt or sympathy. There is no paragon in the Palestinian world to this kind of campaigning. Perhaps we need to channel the emotional appeals into effective educational instruments rather than crying amongst ourselves and wondering why the world is turning its back. If we are going to appeal to emotion, we have to calculate how to do it. Just as Zionists have successfully done.

7. We Do Not Understand What Interests the Public.

In contemporary times, we aren’t speaking so much to “populations” as we are to a “public” that is in some way receptive to a message. If the Gaza massacres last year, and the Lebanese massacres only 3 and a half years ago have not only tightened the control over Gaza and reinforced UNIFIL control (on behalf of Israel) of Lebanon, it’s 100% clear that NOTHING at all will phase the public. We are trying to convince them of things that they either do not care about or are unable to comprehend. It is possible that there is so much brainwashing that the slaughter in broad daylight of innocents brings no compassion or mercy, it elicits no outrage. How much does the public opinion count? They are there to provide the necessary consensus to leaders so that the leaders can maintain power. Consensus to leaders supporting Israel, then, perhaps should be undermined by other means, especially when the national interests do not coincide with this support. In the USA, for example, work could be on stressing that USA involvement in more foreign wars is expensive and that interventionist politics are damaging for Americans. If intervention is supported less and less, the policies will have to change so that power may be maintained domestically. This will result, as a consequence, in reduction of resources diverted to Israel and the “GWOT”.

We have a responsibility to educate and inform those we are in contact with. Associations of all kinds, in Palestine and beyond, student groups, religious and cultural organisations can influence their communities and provide opportunities to engage in actions that can have an impact upon public opinion and eventually upon politics. Arab organisations are particularly obligated to assume their responsibilities and to do outreach and participate in the public discourse through op-eds, letters, protests and education so that the world will see that this issue counts for Arabs and that the time of expecting the world to solve things in the UN or the White House has come to an end.

8. We Wait for Leaders to Sort Things Out (or for the Demographic Bomb).

It is futile to wait for leaders to resolve this problem even if they think they are princes of peace and can save the planet. They are there for the conservation of their own power. Besides, delegating this task to them does not empower resistance, which, if strategically organised over the entire Palestinian world, CAN BE EFFECTIVE. Included as resisters are not just factions or a single ideological base. Every Palestinian party, faction or movement, every single Palestinian, wherever he or she resides in the world, is a resister. Claiming the opposite is Zionist bunk. There is a mass, a huge number of persons involved, it’s by no means limited to one type of resistance or resister. Joining them in their struggle will be others sympathetic to their cause, including Arab populations, the non-Arab international public, liberation and human rights movements around the world. Acts of coordinated solidarity, commemoration, protest, choices such as boycotts, sabotage of illegal Israeli infrastructure, media events and campaigns already exist and many do outstanding work, but they can be given greater leverage, greater focus if they share at least the same common bases. Those focusing on urging negotiations, looking for compromise solutions, or with collaboration and co-existence with Zionism have a base that is not the core goal. Long term solutions will have to come about, but the Palestinians have been waiting long enough as it is. Waiting for a “demographic bomb” to explode is not a solution either. People have the power.

9. We Do Not Abandon What Does Not Work and Change.

We are creatures of habit and we often seek a “comfort level” and remain there. If voting and elections “don’t work”, a different strategy is called for. If our economic support is diverted into maintaining costly structures and doesn’t go directly to the people, we have to find ways to engage in thousands of micro-projects or to independently finance communities. Sponsorisation and twinning efforts, for instance the one Bristol has done, are brilliant alternatives to some larger orgs. that perhaps have such high overhead or such flawed bookkeeping, that whatever trickles down is not enough to effect concrete change or bring relief. The actions by the volunteers at Nahr El-Bared are another wonderful example to follow. Not only do they build community, but they are tangible aide to those outside the PA food-chain. Creativity in our actions, seeking alternatives are things that need to be enhanced. There are so many orgs that already exist, let’s keep them focused and effective, and if they fail to deliver, we take stock bravely. The time has come to concentrate on positive, workable strategies. In the end, this will be what makes the difference and not Anti-Zionist rhetoric.

10. Different Situations Require Different Solutions.

We need to understand the milieu we are operating in. Different environments might mean an entirely different strategy. For instance, if we are in Turkey, we can overcome the task of drawing public attention to an anti-Zionist stance. It’s not an issue there. If we are in Germany, the legacy of Nazism still assumes a role in the national identity and German relations with Israel. In the USA, the budget is heavy on military spending and institutional support of Israel. In most of the West, “terrorism” is associated with “Islam”, and these are only a few examples of the dozens of particular issues that affect the international relations regarding Palestine.

Debunking lies, while at the same time keeping the eye on the law, justice and even the convenience that each public will perceive, is a necessary task, and it’s going to vary in every single environment. Equally important is awareness of the laws/customs in the places in which we operate. If we know we will be filmed/photographed/monitored, we have to remember that our placards, the presence of flags, including the desecration of them, masks and facial covering, etc. will serve Israeli propaganda interests as long as they violate the laws/customs or are deemed as Anti-Semitic. In many countries, there are rigid rules for public assembly, participants are identified and even minor violations can be fatal for the action. In Italy, for instance, there is an absurd law that children are not “allowed” to participate in demonstrations! Even some authorised assemblies can provoke damage rather than good. A prayer assembly in Milan by Muslims that was held outside the Cathedral was a fiasco as far as PR goes. The space was indeed the most important plaza in northern Italy, but being in front of the Cathedral was sure to be attacked in the press and by the local politicians with a strong Islamophobic bent as an offence to Christians. In the heated environment of Milan, this was indeed the outcome and anyone could have predicted it. Choices have to be thought out strategically, factoring in even failure.

In North America and many European countries, legitimate political parties are blacklisted. That means it is illegal to donate money to them or to engage in economic exchange. Anyone collecting funds to be distributed to any of these parties instead of utilising alternative NGOs or ad hoc orgs is going to wield a death blow to the donors. This is but one example of the need to know the ambient of the action, from the beginning to the end.

11. We Fall For Too Many Hasbara Traps.

We do “dialogue” on their terms. We accept their gatekeeping by the constant framing of their arguments that excludes our own. We utilise their language and media. We are not following our own timetable. Dialogue is important, but if it is not based on equitable rules or it loses sight that the purpose is not to simply communicate, but to elicit change, it’s a waste of our time. That alone is a major Hasbara goal; to get us to waste our time.

12. This Is Not a Religious Issue.

We forget far too often that this is not a religious issue. It is an issue of an Arab population being expelled from their own land to make room for the European colonisation of Arab land. It is an issue of human rights and justice. Often, religion colours the conflict, with the Zionists using the Bible to justify theft of Palestinian Land and Hamas using the Quran to resist. Yet, it is not and never was a religious issue. We oppose Israel because it has stolen Arab land and dispossessed Arab people, not because it is Jewish.

However, since religion does dominate the discourse, rightly or wrongly, we have to seek ways to render this connection beneficial. We should work with interfaith groups if they share our goals, especially those Jewish groups who are committing much of their efforts to educating those who share their faith. The majority of Jews are not part of the Israel lobby and outreach to them builds friendship, solidarity, common strategies and debunks the myths they often hear in their local Jewish media and in their Synagogues, most of which have an Israeli flag on the Bimah.

Likewise, Christians around the world should know that many Palestinians share their same faith and that many Arabs, including Palestinians, have kept Christianity alive in the Holy Land. The plight of these Christians, who suffer due to racist, exclusionist Israeli laws and practices, should be made known to Christians who all too often are exposed to myths and falsehoods regarding Arabs as being enemies of Christianity.

13. We Do Not Tailor Our Discourse.

Sometimes we fail to address the “audience” properly. We must learn to tailor our discourse for the listener, and that means we have to be aware who we are addressing and for what purposes. While refusing to use the word “Israel” is fine in private among Palestinian advocates and Palestinians, we have to realise that this entity does exist in the reality of the rest of the world. It may create confusion to refer to it differently in something like a letter we are hoping will be published in the Washington Post. We have to explain what Israel does, what kind of history it has, but we also have to realise that it is present for the listener. We should be media savvy enough to realise how our discourse will be discarded or considered by editors and how to tailor it accordingly to express the points we need to make. On the other hand, we must not shy away from the words “Jew” or “Jewish”. This is the “national character” of Israel. It is not a democratic State, but rather an exclusionist, supremacist, racist State that extends full rights and many privileges to Jews alone. This fact can’t be beautified by any means, it is reality. In addition, the IDF is a Jewish army. It’s not a “democratic” one that represents its population, since many religious Jews are excluded but even more revealing, one fifth of the registered population is comprised of Palestinians and there are many other immigrants who are not represented. They may “join” only after conversion or through specific units aimed at service as a fast-track to conversion/full rights as an Israeli. The Druze are a limited exception, again, serving so as to obtain rights excluded to them as ordinary citizens in the Jewish State. Palestinians and others have the right to use the proper terminology without being vilified for it. If heinous acts are being committed by the IDF, it is not improper to refer to them as Jews operating as the military/control branch of the Jewish State. 

14. We Need To Be Welcoming.

We will always need more/new people in this cause and we will always meet new people. We have to create and build networks, share our knowledge and experiences, disagree in a civil manner, listen, learn, do outreach, be involved in other struggles out of sincere love of freedom. Therefore, the practice of excluding people based on their religion, political ideas, sexual preferences or lifestyles has got to be reduced. We can’t agree with all people on all things, but we too might be seen as “wrong” for the beliefs we hold, which we have a right to hold as human beings. We have no right to judge others on who they are, we should be working all together to serve the common cause. Those who use their connections for anything else are abusing and using the Palestinian people. It may not be immoral to receive money for activism, but honoraria should cover costs or be devolved to Palestinian refugees. Solidarity should not become an industry.

15. We Put Conditions on Our Solidarity.

Palestinians do not seek to salvage crumbs of pity from anyone and they do not require to be told what kind of resistance they should engage in or who of them is entitled to express their needs. That their struggle is not only a struggle for equal rights, it is a struggle for liberation, is a fact that is well known to them, and it requires a vast range of actions for Palestinians to survive and maintain hope of liberating themselves. The fact of the matter that most of their resistance has been non-violent should be clear to activists who frequently call on them to “find a Palestinian Gandhi” or to abandon one form of resistance or another or even declare that there is only one right form. All of these conditions, judgments and demands are unfair to Palestinians and unrealistic.

A combination of all types of resistance as well as supportive acts coming from outside such as boycotts should be supported, unconditionally. While it is with the best intentions that activists compare South African Apartheid to the Palestinian cause, the reality is different. Palestinians are living under a brutal military occupation and face the genocide of their people. They have not obtained the support of any international organisation, and are encouraged to dig their way out of it all by negotiations for rights when they know what their rights are and all of them know what the map of Palestine looks like. They are asked to concede, to give up more, when what they are trying to do is to regain their lost land, rights and freedom.

It goes beyond the issue of obtaining equal rights, but is quite simply put, a struggle to throw off the chains of occupation and create Palestinian society and governance in a people that has been dispersed throughout the entire world. Palestinians have no State, they have no army, and they are fighting for their very survival. They deserve our complete solidarity to defend themselves and to create the nation. Asking ourselves how we can serve them, not how they can deserve our solidarity, is the one crucial question to ask again and again, and each time, we may obtain different responses. With the goals of their liberation in mind, let us serve.

For the movement to become a genuine ally and a true supporter of Palestine, the Palestinians and their struggle for freedom, it needs to listen to Palestinians stating their own history, claiming their narrative and defining their struggle in their own words. It has been very hard for the pro-Palestinians to explain that the question of Palestine does not begin in 1967 to the leaders of many solidarity movements in the USA and Europe, and thus the question of Return became a difficult issue with many of those leaders, causing a split within the movement into almost two equal halves. We were able to make sure that our true allies understand that all struggles are connected. We fight for human dignity and basic rights and these are some of the links between Palestine, Lebanon and Iraq. Also we cannot turn our backs on other struggles such as the struggles of the US citizens of New Orleans, the people of Haiti and others. It is important to make the connections and understand how our struggle relates to the struggles of all oppressed people, and also, the ways in which it differs.

A response to the first entry in Palestine Think Tank and Tlaxcala's First Word War:
“Logos", plural “Logoi” is Greek , meaning “Word” or “Reason”. In Arabic “Kalimah” means “Word”, Plural “Kalaam” Hence, “’Elmul-Kalam” means “Science of word” which means “Linguistics”. It is also worth mentioning that the “word” is sharper than a mighty sword.

Well, linguistically speaking, the human language is a highly organized system basically composed of three elements functioning independently and inseparably:

The individual sounds which are called “Phones”
The combination of these sounds into meaningful units which is called “Morphs”, and
The combination of these meaningfull units into a larger utterance which is called “Syntax".

So far, the Zionist ugly lyre has had the above three chords, and they keep stroking them, composing their propaganda campaigns for serving their unjust, twisted cause.

Mr. Ayman El-Kayman has cleverly explained the first stage “The combination of individual sounds aka PHONES in his article. He also touched on the subliminal messages involved.

The second stage “The combination of meaningful units aka MORPHS” is abundant in the Zionist propaganda; their choice of certain suggestive “WORDS”, such as: Islamists, the improper usage of words “fundamentalists” and “Madrasa”, the improper usage of the comprehensive word “Arabs” instead of the selective word “Palestinians” (though Palestinians are Arabs), but the point is their suggestion (their hate to the Palestinians). The Palestinians are Arabs. Therefore Arabs are to be hated, too – a twisted logic where the implied quantitive “all” is judged by the implied quantitive “some”, hence logically yielding a wrong conclusion.

The third stage “The combination of meaningful units aka Syntax. Mr. SANTIAGO ALBA RICO cleverly covered this stage. But languages have more features for the Zionist cabals to manipulate such as: Adjectives, adverbs, and tenses.

In my preparation for exposing the perversion of the Zionist rabbis, I came across this piece of news:

“ Muslim' rabbi flees sex scandal
Thursday, 13 January 1994

JERUSALEM (AFP) – A rabbi at the centre of a sex scandal has run off to his native Morocco and converted to Islam.”

Rabbi Shimon Dadon, who in Israel had enticed schoolgirls by giving away exam results, is working in a mosque. A rabbinical court is to decide whether to grant a divorce to his wife, Myriam. Under Jewish law, the husband must agree."

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/muslim-rabbi-flees-sex-scandal-1406526.html

For God sake, why use the word “Muslim” in description of the word “rabbi”? How can it be possible that some one is “Muslim” and a “rabbi” in the same time? If he is a Muslim, then he is not a rabbi. And if he is a rabbi, then he Jewish, not Muslim.

In conclusion, what really bothers me is Journalists nowadays are foolish; parrots intentionally mimicking the Jewish propaganda machine, or unintentionally out of ignorance, and sometimes out of fear of getting smeared with anti-Semitism; a dirty card the Zionists always wave in the face of whoever opposes them.

So what is the solution? – We have to fight fire by fire.

SEE: http://palestinethinktank.com/2009/10/02/the-first-word-war-palestine-think-tank-and-tlaxcala-declare-war-against-disinformation/

SEND your contributions to contact@palestinethinktank.com or tlaxcala@tlaxcala.es

This psychosocial support program was initiated by our partner Afaq Jadeeda (New Horizons) to address children's psychological needs after the New Year's assault on Gaza.   Let the Children Play and Heal is giving tens of thousands of children and youth opportunities to express themselves though art, dance, music, story-telling, theatre and puppetry; to get support from the larger community; and to have fun and just be children.

Additionally hundreds of mothers have also been trained to help their extended families cope with the aftermath of the attacks, and a psychologist identifies and refers children who need individual counseling. All programs are free, thanks to the support of MECA donors.

Dear Friend of the Children,

As you probably know, I spent five days in Gaza last January right after the devastating Israeli attacks. I was there helping MECA deliver the more than six tons of food, medicine, and medical equipment – including an ambulance and wheelchairs – that you helped provide.

I am so proud, as you should be, at the enormous difference we are making in the lives of thousands of children and their families.

Still, I must tell you that every single day I am haunted by images from that journey four months ago. The horrifying injuries I saw. The silence of suddenly orphaned children just staring into space or searching though the rubble of their destroyed homes looking for cherished belongings. I think of the schoolchildren sitting next to desks with candles marking the places where their friends sat just weeks or days before.

I think, also, about the many children I have heard or read about – as I'm sure you do -who have suffered almost unimaginable inhumanity. Like the small children found starving next to the bodies of their dead mothers while Israelis soldiers prevented rescue workers from reaching them.

Most of the children may heal from their physical injuries over time, but it is the invisible wounds – the deep psychological trauma they suffer from the brutal Israeli assault – that's of the gravest concern to me today.   

Every family in Gaza has witnessed or experienced the horror in some way. Children have seen their loved ones turned into shattered corpses, their homes turned to rubble. As a result, some have stopped speaking or eating. Children of all ages experience terrifying nightmares, bed-wetting, or are unable to sleep at all.

I hope you feel, as I do, that we must do whatever we can to address the profound psychological injury the children in Gaza bear in the aftermath of Israel's 22-day assault.

The best hope for helping the children overcome their trauma is to involve their families and community in their healing through multiple forms of therapy.

That's why I'm writing to you today to ask for your generous support once again..

New Horizons — Afaq Jadeeda in Arabic — is an extraordinary organization the Middle East Children's Alliance has worked with for many years. New Horizons provides a creative environment for developing the kids and teenagers personalities psychologically, culturally, technically and socially. They have developed outstanding programs to deal with aggression and despair – the two most common expressions of trauma among Gaza's children.

MECA has helped New Horizons start summer camps, sports teams, and after-school programs. This past January, while the war on the people of Gaza was still underway we were able to send in $30,000 for New Horizons to prepare and deliver hot meals to families whose homes were destroyed.

Our friends at New Horizons have sent us their plans to launch a major community mental health project they are calling Let the Children Play & Heal, with a goal of reaching at least 50,000 children. I'm asking you to, please, make a special gift today to enable them to to:

• Send teams of staff and volunteers to hundreds of schools and day care centers to work with children through painting, singing, drama, and dance. For more than a decade New Horizons has been using the arts to help children living with violence, loss and trauma
• Bring in psychologists to train the teams and to identify and refer children for counseling at community mental health clinics.
• Train approximately 500 mothers to work with their extended families on how to use play to help children express and resolve aggression, anxiety and grief. 
• And distribute 10,000 booklets to the community about coping with the psychological trauma of the war.

The project will cost $76,000, and they are counting on you and me and hundreds of other MECA supporters to make sure the children's psychological injuries do not become permanent – with disastrous consequences for the children, their families and Gaza's future.

New Horizons has given us a tremendous opportunity to help heal tens of thousands of children who might otherwise be facing a lifetime of profound anxiety, rage and an inability to cope with daily life. I hope you'll join me in telling New Horizons that, together, we will Let the Children Play & Heal.

I realize, especially in these difficult times, that your contribution may mean some personal sacrifice for you, and I am deeply grateful. I know – because I was told over and over again in Gaza – that your continued support means so much to people who are struggling to rebuild their lives after the most horrifying violence and destruction.

Many thanks on behalf of the children,

Barbara Lubin
Founder and Director

P.S. A recent UNICEF study concluded that that mental health, anxiety and stress are the main health problems in Gaza, essentially affecting the entire population. With your help now, the New Horizons community initiative will be able to make an enormous difference in the lives of so many children and families who may not have visible injuries, but are nonetheless in terrible pain. Please send your special contribution in the enclosed envelope to MECA within the next ten days. Thank you.

Make a secure online donation to this important program for children in Gaza.

http://www.mecaforpeace.org/article.php?id=492

Now Israel is free to massacre Gaza again without worrying about back-talk from anyone in the MSA meetings. 
 
Here is the Boycott-Israel resolution that pained MSA so much that they shut down the First Amendment–
 
http://dearbornboycottsisrael.blogspot.com/2008/09/msa-resolution-to-boycott-apartheid.html
 
_________________________________

MSA Resolution to Boycott Apartheid Israel, and to Stop Apartheid on Campus

Photo: Malcolm X, meeting with the leadership of the Palestine Liberation Organization in 1964. 

This was sixteen years after European Zionists invaded Palestine, destroying over 400 Palestinian villages. 

It was an extremely violent ethnic cleansing operation.

It exiled the majority of Palestinians out of Palestine.

This Resolution was proposed for an immediatevote by the Michigan Student Assembly, at the University of Michigan.

This Resolution then was torn up by the Assembly's General Counsel, as the "Michigan Daily" reporter watched:

http://dearbornboycottsisrael.blogspot.com/2008/09/attempted-resolution-proposal.html 

But the Resolution was again presented to the Assembly for a vote. This Resolution has also been proposed for a vote by the University's LSA Student Government: 

Resolution to Boycott Apartheid Israel, and to Stop Apartheid on Campus 

Resolution Summary: 

1. Boycott all Israeli products.
2. Take that $1 trillion you’re spending to kill Muslims, and spend it instead on re-building Detroit.
3. Stop 400 years of White Privilege—the University should admit every Black high school graduate.

Boycott all Israeli products 

WHEREAS, White Supremacism, including Zionism, is the most genocidal force on Earth, 

WHEREAS, Congress has paid $300 billion to Israel, according to Congressman John Dingell, 

WHEREAS, Israel spent that money on a genocidal ethnic cleansing campaign against the Palestinian people, which has culminated in the Israeli siege against Gaza, 

WHEREAS, Israel has forced 1.5 million Palestinians into a concentration-camp existence in Gaza, where childhood malnutrition and anemia are rampant, 

WHEREAS, Israel is threatening to unleash a “Holocaust” on Gaza, 

WHEREAS, Malcolm X was right— the Zionists had no “legal or moral right to invade Arab Palestine, uproot its Arab citizens from their homes and seize all Arab property for themselves”

WHEREAS, Israel’s alliance with Apartheid South Africa was "more intimate and more extensive than anything similar in Israel’s history", according to Professor Benjamin Beit-Hallahmi, 

WHEREAS, Israel has hundreds of nuclear weapons, which it tried to share with Apartheid South Africa,

WHEREAS, Israel is training its pilots to nuke Iran, a land of 76 million people who have never invaded anyone,

WHEREAS, Israel trained and oversaw SAVAK, the brutal force of torturers who kept the Shah of Iran in power, 

WHEREAS, the United States has been bleeding Iran with economic sanctions, then with U.S.-imposed dictatorship, then with U.S.-fueled invasions, almost continuously since 1952, 

WHEREAS, those economic sanctions still make it impossible for Iranians to get spare parts for any airplane, from anywhere in the world, 

WHEREAS, Israel is demanding even crueler economic sanctions against Iran,  

THEREFORE, the Michigan Student Assembly demands that Congress impose a total boycott against all Israeli products,

THEREFORE, we demand that Congress cut off all aid to the racist state of Israel, the last Apartheid State on Earth. 

THEREFORE, we demand that the University of Michigan Board of Regents declare a boycott against all products imported from the racist state of Israel. 

Take that $1 trillion you’re spending to kill Muslims, and spend it instead on re-building Detroit. 

WHEREAS, Congress has spent $1 trillion to kill millions of Iraqis since 1991,

WHEREAS, Congress has killed over a million Afghans since the 1980’s, using a series of unbelievable excuses,

WHEREAS, the U.S. repeatedly bombs Somalia, using more unbelievable excuses, 

WHEREAS, Senator Clinton threatens to “obliterate Iran”, and Senator McCain sings “bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran”, 

WHEREAS, Senator Obama threatens to invade Pakistan, then President Bush launches military strikes directly on Pakistan,

WHEREAS, Congress’s trillion-dollar genocide against Muslim lands is conducted at the direct expense of Black America,

WHEREAS, Congress’s trillion-dollar occupation of Muslim lands is conducted at the direct expense of Black America, the Michigan Student Assembly demands that Congress immediately remove its trillion-dollar army of occupation from every nation on Earth, because that army only brings coups, torture, racism, and death to the planet; 

THEREFORE, we demand that Congress immediately spend that trillion dollars, which was stolen from Black America, on the immediate rebuilding of Detroit, including mass transit that every Detroiter can walk to, including the best elementary, secondary, and university education in the nation, including the best neighborhood clinics, the best neighborhood libraries, and the best housing infrastructure in the nation, and including the necessary industrial facilities to build all of those things, and to employ every Detroiter of working age, with full union wages and benefits, 

THEREFORE, we demand that Congress similarly rebuild every U.S. inner city, and that this rebuilding be directed by Black engineers, architects, professors, physicians, educators, and managers, and that this rebuilding be staffed by Black union labor, nationwide, until Black unemployment ceases to exist, 

Stop 400 Years of White Privilege—

–the University should Admit every Black high school graduate. 

WHEREAS, centuries of government policy, backed up by organized white violence at every level, has attempted to beat down African political power, financial power, industrial power, and landholding power, from the Congo to Chicago, 

WHEREAS, Martin Luther King Jr. was right— the U.S. government is “the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today”,

WHEREAS, the U.S. has murdered and imprisoned African and African-American leadership on a mind-boggling scale, from Lumumba in the Congo, to Mandela in South Africa, to Fred Hampton in Chicago, to Marcus Garvey, to the Orangeburg Massacre, to the Jackson State Massacre, to the U.S.-Israeli-South-African invasion of Angola in the 1970’s, to the U.S.-Israeli-South-African creation of death squads across the African continent which have murdered millions and stripped Africa of unimaginable wealth, 

WHEREAS, today’s white suburban power structure was built with a trillion-dollar federal highway subsidy, and with massive governmental subsidies to build all-white suburban settlements, which have sucked the wealth and political power of Black America into virtually all-white enclaves, while barring the bulk of Black America from entry, 

WHEREAS, white political, economic, employment, and educational power has always been built on massive federal subsidies, from the railroads in the 19^th century, to the government-backed white academies created to suck away resources from any public educational system that might benefit Black students, 

THEREFORE, the Michigan Student Assembly finds it obscene that a violent, 400-year steamroller of white privilege– where whites use the riches of Black labor to perpetuate a closed circle of privileged white university admissions, a closed circle of white business connections, a closed circle of white jobs, perpetuated by a heavily subsidized white suburban political machine,– is called a “meritocracy”, while the slightest effort to get Black students into the University is called “reverse racism”; 

THEREFORE, the Michigan Student Assembly demands that the University of Michigan Board of Regents immediately guarantee admission, tuition-free, to every Black student who graduates from every Michigan high school, together with year-round tutoring for every new student who needs it; 

THERFORE, we declare, in advance, a highly visible picket line and a 3-day student strike, if any state authority attempts to “stand in the schoolhouse door” to block the open admission of Black students to this University.

____________________________________________________________________

Photo: In 1975, Israel had helped South Africa to invade Angola, sending military advisers and electronic equipment to the front. 

The next year, you see the Prime Minister of Apartheid South Africa, John Vorster (second from right), meeting with Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin (right), with future Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin (left), and with Moshe Dayan, in Israeli-occupied Jerusalem (al-Quds).

From: Revealing Gaza, in the eyes of the beholder

I recently was invited to a workshop discussing the Palestinian dialogue and what destiny is waiting for it, I found it very useful for non-political people like me and I thought it would be helpful and eye-opening if I share it with you.  The invitation was from Mr. Omar Shabaan, the president of Pal-Think organization http://www.palthink.org/, and the workshop was held at the organization's headquarters in Gaza.

PAL Think for Strategic Studies is an independent non-profit, non-political, non-governmental and non-sectarian think and do tank that aims to stimulate and inspire rational public discussions and consensus for the well-being of the Palestinians and the Region. PAL Think was established in 2007 in Gaza-Palestine by group of Palestinian researchers and community activists who have intimate relations and diverse knowledge of the Middle East, its current problems, potentials and possibilities. (http:www.//palthink.org.)

Mr. Omar Shabaan is a leading Palestinian figure who is well-known in the world of economics and entrepreneurship and was one of the first Palestinians to shine in those fields. He didn’t stop there but decided to start an organizaton to give back to his community and help this community grow, understand and be aware.

Omar Shabaan is a senior economic advisor, with over 15 years of experience in management consultancy and private sector development. He participated in various international conferences on economic issues. He has developed manuals and published more than 100 articles in local newspapers and on international websites. During the past few years and on a regular basis, he has been invited by local and international NGOs to speak on various economic, social and developmental topics such as; the Israeli disengagement plan, PA national budget, SMEs development, free trade agreement and industrial zones. He has been interviewed by many well-known international newspapers such as Lemonade, New York Times, the TIMES, Al-Ahram weekly, Washington Times, Christian Science Monitor. Also he has given interviews to many TV and radio stations such as Al-Jazeera, BBC, ABC, NBC, Monte Carlo and Nile News, etc.
The workshop was given by two of Mr. Shabaan's friends and main hosts:

1- Mr. Ashraf Jomaa (representing FATAH)

2- Dr. Ismail Radwan (representing HAMAS)

The guests and attendees were leading Palestinian personalities in the world of media, community activists, owners of organizations and people with militant experience.

Mr. Omar Shabaan started the workshop with some strong words of welcoming and a summary about Pal Think Organization:

" We welcome you all, as many local; international, national, and worldwide initiatives are pressuring and supporting the dialogue of reconciliation.

Pal-Think is honored to be one of the leading active organizatons to achieve and support the reconciliation between (FATAH and HAMAS) and played a role in exchanging messages between both parties.

We found real moves and good intentions of both parties to help achieve reconciliation and help the dialogue succeed so we are conducting that workshop because we believe the Palestinian Civil community has the right to know where the is dialogue now, what happened in Egypt, what is the reason behind postponing it and what destiny is waiting for it." The main hosts both agreed on good intentions and on doing the utmost to help this dialogue succeed and that the Palestinian benefit and utility is the main goal of both parties.

Then a debate started between both hosts, each trying to illustrate and express his party's beliefs, goals, points of disagreement, needs, tasks, worries and visions.

The main issues discussed in this workshop were the points of disagreement and here is a glimpse of this debate:

Mr. Ashraf Jomaa: Main issue of disagreement is the elections and everything around it. We want this election to be a listing – percentage elections (you elect a list of people that represent either a certain party or a list of independents or represent a certain political program), this will help everyone join these elections But HAMAS is against this method and demands a mixed election (where many parties could join a list and the percentage of rebate exceeds 2%) which will put us in the same zone of conflict since not everybody will join independently and only HAMAS and FATAH will be the main lists.

Mr. Ismail Radwan: Mixed elections will help all parties more and at the same time help protect HAMAS representives and elected personalities since HAMAS is the number one party that Israel and zionists want to kill and imprison. We entered the listing elections and won it but where are most of the elected people of HAMAS now? They are imprisoned by Israel. It’s our right to protect our people.

Mr. Ashraf Jomaa: Security is also one of the issues we disagree on. We have agreed on hiring only qualified people overlooking their political belonging and start re-constructing all security sections. The disagreement came when we wanted to start with the security sections in Gaza then the West Bank when HAMAS disagreed and demanded the start to be across Palestinians at the same time.

Mr. Ismail Radwan: I think since we will start fixing all security sections why don’t we start fixing all sections whether it’s here or in the West Bank. Why start with here first? FATAH is acting as if the security sections in the West Bank are forbidden to touch or fix and that’s not acceptable.

Mr. Ashraf Jomaa: Assembling the government is something we disagree about, we agree with HAMAS that the government should have the nature of classes and parties (since HAMAS won the elections of 2006) but we disagree on HAMAS demanding the Prime Minister to be from their party so we suggested to have the President as the prime minister.

Mr. Ismail Radwan: We won the elections, so I think we have the right of taking the position of the Prime Minister and anyway this issue will be discussed more with the upcoming dialogue sessions. We also want to discuss the political program that has the political phrase of (respect and commitment). We won’t accept this because we won’t acknowledge Israel or commit with it since they don’t want to respect or acknowldge us.

Also if we unite and assemble a strong government then we will force the whole world to talk to us, cooperate with us and respect us.

At the end of the long debate that I summarized, both hosts agreed on looking forward to the upcoming dialogue sessions and that the postponing comes from the need for more time to work on the points of disagreement and solve them.

Also both agreed on a point that the dialogue came so far and achieved a big advancement that the old sessions lacked.

They were optimistic and believed in announcing the success of the dialogue soon and that good intentions along with good deeds will result to a near reconciliation. They both won’t compromise with any principles but will work on the points of disagreement.

I will end this article with a question I wanted to ask both sides but couldn’t because of the lack of time, this question now is open for everyone to answer:

"I represent a huge class of Palestinian people whom are non-political when I ask, DON’T THE PALESTINIAN PEOPLE WHO SUFFERED ALOT IN BOTH CONFLICTS (PALESTINIAN – ISRAELI CONFLICT AND PALESTINIAN – PALESTINIAN CONFLICT) DESERVE FROM BOTH PARTIES TO COMPROMISE AND HELP THE DIALOGUE OF RECONCILIATION SUCCEED NO MATTER WHAT IT TAKES SO THEY CAN BREATHE, LIVE AND FEEL SAFE?"

Omar Ghraieb ( Journalist – Translator)

Palestine – Gaza

Source: http://gazatimes.blogspot.com/2009/04/i-recently-was-invited-to-workshop.html

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.   

This beautiful short film was produced in the series sponsored by the EU commission on Human Rights.

A must watch clip.

Establishing lasting peace is the work of education; all politics can do is keep us out of war.

I am certainly not in the habit of defending Barack Obama against his detractors, but the controversy drummed up by rabid right-wing hysterics over President's back-to-school speech on Tuesday is quite simply bizarre and absurd. However, the manufactured uproar and outrage over the President's socialist/fascist/communitarianist (hey, pick an ideology, any ideology!) "brainwashing" of unsuspecting and impressionable students on one of their first days of school brings up very real and very serious concerns over both the potential and realities of aggressive government indoctrination and the abuse of open access to America's youth.

In the days leading up to Obama's fifteen-minute long, syndicated speech, the conservative netherworld was abuzz over what sort of cultish and dangerous hypnotism our Kenyan-born Commie Muslim commander-in-chief would dish out in classrooms all over the country. The paranoia and fear promoted by political and media demagogues and repeated thoughtlessly by their audience of ventriloquist dummies created a sort of dual-McCarthyism, equal parts Joe and Charlie.

Last week, Glenn Beck warned listeners of his radio show about the dangers of Obama's upcoming speech and "the indoctrination of your children," saying that the Presidential address was evidence of the "get 'em while they're young" approach of of big government's brainwashing tactics. Meanwhile, NewsBuster's contributing editor Mark Finkelstein repeatedly compared the address to Chinese communism, likened Obama to Mao Zedong, and even inquiring in one blog post whether "our MSM report on the interesting parallel between our president's plan for our children and the approach of another Great Leader from the past?" Then there was Mark Steyn, a Canadian author and political commentator, who, while speaking on the Rush Limbaugh Show made extensive reference to Saddam Hussein’s cult of personality in Iraqi schools and warned against Obama's attempt to do the same here in the United States.

On September 2nd, Michelle Malkin accused Obama's classroom address (still six days away at that time) of serving as a government tool for recruiting "junior lobbyists" to serve as foot-soldiers for promoting his crazed liberal agenda, citing the "activist tradition of government schools" (I think they're called public schools, actually) as evidence:

"Zealous teacher's unions have enlisted captive schoolchildren as letter-writers in their campaigns for higher education spending. Out-of-control activists have enlisted their secondary-school charges in pro-illegal immigration protests, gay marriage ceremonies, environmental propaganda stunts, and anti-war events."

Yeah, if only.

In a recent article, Lauri Regan of American Thinker wrote that "Obama has turned his team of brainwashers on the task of indoctrinating America's youth…My children are off limits," whileTownhall.com's Meredith Jessup bemoans the loss of mandatory prayer and religion in public schooling as "big-government influence continues to be ushered in." Jessup thusly concludes that "This massive abuse of government power – reaching into our kids' classrooms – is unacceptable."

A OneNewsNow column from September 4th identifies Diane Jewell, a parent in Indiana, as worrying that "her daughter is being indoctrinated into socialism" by attending public Junior High School. Jewell believes that "it is not Obama's place to talk to children directly, without parental input" adding that she is "very concerned with the increasing involvement of federal government in education." Obviously, Jewell now "regrets her decision to quit homeschooling and in retrospect she wishes she had stayed at home in order to continue homeschooling her daughter."

In a September 1 post featured on her tellingly-titled "Atlas Shrugs" blog (and headlined "Obama in the Classroom: Keep Your Kids Home from School September 8"), Newsmax.com contributor Pamela Geller wrote,

The fascist in chief is taking his special brand of brainwashing to the classroom. Keep your kids home. I think this man is a threat to our basic unalienable rights. I don't want him indoctrinating my children. Seriously.

Ask your school what their participation is in this leftist indoctrination outrage. Keep politics out of the classroom. Keep communists and their propagandists away from small children.

Seriously?

Not to be outcrazied, American Family Association radio host and conservative activist Bryan Fischer wrote in a September 1 column that Obama's speech "is likely to be an exercise in nation-wide indoctrination…The capacity for mischief here is enormous." Then, echoing Geller's sentiments that parents should opt their children out of viewing the speech, Fischer continues,

Unless we get public assurances from the White House that the president won't address health care or global warming or the homosexual agenda (under the color of "human rights for people different than us") this might be a great time for parents to exercise their opt-out authority and give their students a biography of George Washington to read while the President turns the minds of an entire generation to mush.

WorldNetDaily news editor Bob Unruh floated the idea that Obama's speech to students has "been cited as raising the specter of the Civilian National Security Force, to which he's referred several times since his election campaign began, but never fully explained" while also pointing out how creepy it is for the elected President of the United States of America to speak directly to the nation's children about the importance of education. "Parents across the country are rebelling against plans by President Barack Obama to speak directly to their children through the classrooms of the nation's public schools without their presence, participation and approval," Unruh wrote, before quoting random insane rantings of conservative web-forum comments:

"He's recruiting his civilian army. His 'Hitler' youth brigade," wrote one participant in a forum at Free Republic.

"I am not going to compare President Obama to Hitler. We'll leave that to others and you can form your own opinions about them and their analogies. … However, we can learn a lot from the spread of propaganda in Europe that led to Hitler's power. A key ingredient in that spread of propaganda was through the youth," wrote a blogger at the AmericanElephant.com blog, where the subject of the day was a national "Keep-Your-Child-at-Home-Day."

"Totalitarian regimes around the world have sought to spread their propaganda and entrench their power by brainwashing the children. I guess it's easier to indoctrinate a six-year-old instead of fighting a 26-year-old or being challenged by a 46-year-old in the voting booth," the blogger wrote.

Brett Curtis, an engineer from Texas, told the New York Times that the idea of the speech "seemed like a direct channel from the president of the United States into the classroom, to my child," and would therefore keep his three children home from school that day since he doesn't "want our schools turned over to some socialist movement." Jim Greer, the Republican Party chairman in Florida, said he "was appalled that taxpayer dollars are being used to spread President Obama’s socialist ideology," while Kansas City talk show host Chris Stigall, with thoughts of sugar plums and executive pedophilia floating in his head, stated that he "wouldn’t let my next-door neighbor talk to my kid alone; I’m sure as hell not letting Barack Obama talk to him alone."

Never mind the sheer ignorance of all these people, especially the clear fact that none of them knows the definition of fascism or socialism, or could explain the difference between a democracy and a republic, for that matter. Nevermind the fear-mongering and hateful resentment of a recently beaten-up political party. Nevermind the fact that Obama's speech wound up being totally innocuous, completely devoid of politics whatsoever, and called upon this nation's students to take pride in their education, trying hard, and doing their best to achieve their goals. Nevermind that, as Time.com's Michael Scherer put it, "President Obama's speech to your kids reads like a paean to individual striving and free market capitalism, the sort of thing that Ayn Rand and Barry Goldwater might have signed onto. At root, Obama's message is one of individual responsibility, a disquisition on the freedom of American youth to fail or succeed on their own tenacity and merits," and was anything but "lefty, neo-socialist, communitarian brainwashing." 

Never mind that this country's education system is already tailor-made to spread misinformation, entrench mythologies, and promote American exceptionalism to our young children. American history, as taught in schools, is generally nonsense meant to instill and preserve a sense of City-on-a-Hill nationalism, along with healthy doses of tall-tale founding myths, gung-ho militarism, and ethnic cleansing justification in the form of righteous Manifest Destiny. As James W. Loewen explains in his 1995 book Lies My Teacher Told Me: Everything Your American History Textbook Got Wrong, textbooks used to teach our children "leave out anything that might reflect badly upon our national character." More to the point, Helen Keller (y'know the deaf, mute, and blind kid who was actually a radical and progressive political thinker, one of the founders of the ACLU, and a staunch supporter of the NAACP and actual socialism) stated clearly why American history is made up of gross simplifications and hero worship: "People do not like to think. If one thinks, one must reach conclusions…Conclusions are not always pleasant." Anyone who has actually studied real American history knows this to be true.

Students in the United States are taught that Christopher Columbus discovered America and proved that the earth was round (not true); they are not taught that Columbus was a genocidal manic (true). Institutionalized racism and ethnocentrism is all but ignored in history class, Native Americans are demonized as savages (they weren't) and colonists (who were savages) are celebrated as civilized co-existers. (The reason the Pilgrims in New England had such bountiful crops is because all the Native Americans who planted them had either died from European-borne plague or had fled in fear of plague, which John Winthrop, governor of the Massachusetts Bay Colony, called "miraculous.") Students are taught that Albert Einstein failed his math class (he didn't, and was, in fact, a mathematical prodigy by the age of 12). They learn that Isaac Newton was hit on the head by a falling apple and "discovered" gravity (not true), Benjamin Franklin flew a kite in a storm and "discovered" electricity (also not true), and that George Washington chopped down his father's prized cherry-tree and then didn't lie about doing it. (This is a fairy tale created by a man named Mason Locke "Parson" Weems, author of the "biography" The Life of George Washington, with Curious Anecdotes Laudable to Himself and Exemplary to his Countrymen, in which Weems recalled many fantastic, adulatory confabulations about a fabulously deified Washington, with particular emphasis on his overwhelming moral fortitude and infallibility. At various points in the work, Weems refers to Washington as a "hero," a "demigod," "the Jupiter Conservator" [or, "Jupiter, Savior of the World"] and, quite simply, the "greatest man that ever lived".) 

Perhaps it was Weems' Washington biography that Bryan Fischer wants children to read while they're busy skipping Obama's speech. Additionally, what makes Fischer's suggestion that the President's speech would turn "the minds of an entire generation to mush" especially ironic is that the school system in this country already is doing just fine pulverizing truth and stifling critical thought without Obama's help. 

Nevermind that in November 1988, President Ronald Reagan spoke directly to students on political issues via C-Span. During his address, Reagan even called taxes "such a penalty on people that there's no incentive for them to prosper…because they have to give so much to the government." Nevermind that in 1989, President George H.W. Bush spoke to America's youth about drugs via a live television feed. Then, in 1991, he delivered another speech on the value of education via a telecast on CNN and PBS. Media Matters for America reminds us that "while president, George H.W. Bush gave a speech to schoolchildren intended 'to motivate America's students to strive for excellence; to increase students' as well as parents' responsibility/accountability; and to promote students' and parents' awareness of the educational challenge we face.'" According to an article inThe Washington Postfrom October 2, 1991, the "White House sent letters to schools across the nation to encourage teachers and principals to allow students to tune in the speech, which was also carried live by the Mutual Broadcasting and NBC Radio Network. The live television and radio coverage was arranged at the request of the Education Department."

Nevermind that, as researcher Simon Maloy points out, George W. Bush posted a "teacher's guide" on the White House website intended to help students understand the "freedom timeline" and encouraged them to "explor[e] the biographies of the President, Mrs. Bush, Vice President, and Mrs. Cheney."

Nevermind that Obama tells our nation's children, "What you make of your education will decide nothing less than the future of this country. What you’re learning in school today will determine whether we as a nation can meet our greatest challenges in the future," while Bush promoted an agenda to make the United States, in his own words, "a more literate country and a hopefuller country," especially by urging us, in a May 1, 2002 speech, to "take advantage of our fantastic opportunistic society." Whereas on Tuesday Obama spoke of responsibility and accountability, encouraging our young students to stay in school and to "develop your talents, skills and intellect so you can help solve our most difficult problems. If you don’t do that – if you quit on school – you’re not just quitting on yourself, you’re quitting on your country," Bush told a crowd in South Carolina on February 21, 2001 that if "you teach a child to read…he or her will be able to pass a literacy test.” Bush also pointed out, in early January of 2000, that “One of the great things about books is sometimes there are some fantastic pictures” and philosophically mused that “Rarely is the questioned asked: Is our children learning?" Sure, Obama may have motivated whole classrooms full of young, inspired minds with his hopeful expectations when he concluded that "Here in America, you write your own destiny. You make your own future," but Bush hit the nail on the head when, in LaCrosse, Wisconsin on October 18, 2000, he dazzled his audience with this deft word-smithery: "Families is where our nation finds hope, where wings take dream." 

And yet, apparently it didn't seem dangerous for that man to be allowed to talk to children. In school.

Wow. 

But hey, regardless of everything else, one thing seems clear. The right-wing commentators attacking Obama's student address all seem to have something in common: they sure do love America's innocent children and want to protect them, at all costs, from the malevolent machinations (whether Fascist or Communist..or both, together, no matter how mutually exclusive they may be) of a nefarious federal government brain trust. How dare the commander-in-chief and his minions seek to manipulate, indoctrinate, and take advantage of our country's young people by luring them into blindly supporting and advancing the president's every whim? How can decent, freedom-loving, and patriotic citizens simply stand back and do nothing about the looming specter of brainwashed hordes of American students, duped and enlisted by an administration's imperial motivations and ideological agenda, pouring out of government schools as robotic, unthinking recruits and unwitting defenders of a terrifyingly authoritarian regime? 

It would come as no surprise that the very same people lambasting Obama for attempting to infiltrate America's school system in an effort to indoctrinate the malleable minds of our youth are staunch advocates of the United States' military might, planetary hegemony, who "Support Our Troops" bumper stickers on their American-made, gas-guzzling clunkers. The irony here is that the people who are apparently trying to "protect" our children from the grasp of "big government" have no problem with federally-mandated programs that, not only allow, but guarantee US military recruiters access to school kids. It seems that while they fear the multicultural commander-in-chief's motives for telling students to study hard, they are just fine with the military's invasion of those same students' privacy in an effort to condition them to kill indigenous people in foreign countries at the behest of that same commander-in-chief.

A recent piece by journalist David Goodman reveals:

"In the past few years, the military has mounted a virtual invasion into the lives of young Americans. Using data mining, stealth websites, career tests, and sophisticated marketing software, the Pentagon is harvesting and analyzing information on everything from high school students' GPAs and SAT scores to which video games they play. Before an Army recruiter even picks up the phone to call a prospect…the soldier may know more about the kid's habits than do his own parents."

Goodman, in his Mother Jones article, explains that a provision slipped into the No Child Left Behind act by Louisiana Republican then-Representative (now Senator) David Vitter and signed into law by George W. Bush in 2002, was a boon to military recruiters. The provision "requires high schools to give recruiters the names and contact details of all juniors and seniors. Schools that fail to comply risk losing their NCLB funding." As a result, Goodman continues, "this little-known regulation effectively transformed President George W. Bush's signature education bill into the most aggressive military recruitment tool since the draft. Students may sign an opt-out form — but not all school districts let them know about it."

But that's not all. 

Goodman reports that, in 2005, it was discovered that the Pentagon had spent the past two years amassing records from Selective Service, state DMVs, and data brokers to create a database of tens of millions of young adults and teens, some as young as 15, Goodman reports. The result of this massive data-mining project, overseen by the Joint Advertising Market Research & Studies program, is a recruiting database holding over 34 million names. The JAMRS database, run by credit report heavyweight Equifax, is described by its own website as "arguably the largest repository of 16-25-year-old youth data in the country."

Ari Rosmarin, Senior Advocacy Coordinator at the New York Civil Liberties Union and currently working on the NYCLU's "Project on Military Recruitment and Students’ Rights," explains how difficult, if not impossible, it is for students to opt-out of the JAMRS database. In an interview on Democracy Now!, Rosmarin said, "According to the Pentagon, the only way to what they call opt-out of the database is for your parent — a student cannot do this his or herself — a parent needs to send a letter to the Pentagon, asking the Pentagon to take their student out of the list. And even then, you’re not removed from the list; you’re put into what’s called a suppression file, which is a separate list within the JAMRS system and database system that keeps you away out of that list, but you’re never really removed from the list."

Even though the NYCLU filed and ultimately settled a lawsuit against the Pentagon in 2005, charging them with violating the Privacy Act and the Defense Act, which prohibits keeping information on students as young as fifteen, maintaining the information for over three years, the collection of Social Security numbers, and clarifying opt-out information, the military refused to cease the collection of racial and ethnic data.

This data is vital because the recruiters prey on poor and minority students. As a result, black and latino kids wind up in the military in disproportionate numbers to all other demographics. Eric Ruder reports, "In 1995, Tom Wilson, then a high-level official in charge of the Army's personnel department, let the truth slip out in an interview. He explained how the military targeted students "particularly in inner cities…I hesitate to use the term at-risk kids, but kids who would otherwise be called at-risk." Perhaps the war-crazy right-wing in this country was worried that if minority students are inspired by an African-American president's motivation to become writers, inventors, doctors, lawyers, or architects, there might not be enough soldiers left to invade and occupy more foreign countries.

The Pentagon spends roughly $600,000 every year collecting information from commercial data brokers such as the Student Marketing Group and the American Student List, which keep records on millions of high school students. The government also secretly gathers information from unsuspecting internet users, vocational test-takers, and even videogame enthusiasts. Goodman reports,

This year, the Army spent $1.2 million on the website March2Success.com, which provides free standardized test-taking tips devised by prep firms such as Peterson's, Kaplan, and Princeton Review. The only indications that the Army runs the site, which registers an average of 17,000 new users each month, are a tiny tagline and a small logo that links to the main recruitment website, GoArmy.com. Yet visitors' contact information can be sent to recruiters unless they opt out, and students also have the option of having a recruiter monitor their practice test scores. Terry Backstrom, who runs March2Success.com for the US Army Recruiting Command at Fort Knox, insists that it is about "good will," not recruiting. "We are providing a great service to schools that normally would cost them."

Recruiters are also data mining the classroom. More than 12,000 high schools administer the Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery, a three-hour multiple-choice test originally created in 1968 to match conscripts with military assignments. Rebranded in the mid-1990s as the "ASVAB Career Exploration Program," the test has a cheerful home page that makes no reference to its military applications, instead declaring that it "is designed to help students learn more about themselves and the world of work." A student who takes the test is asked to divulge his or her Social Security number, GPA, ethnicity, and career interests—all of which is then logged into the JAMRS database. In 2008, more than 641,000 high school students took the ASVAB; 90 percent had their scores sent to recruiters. Tony Castillo of the Army's Houston Recruiting Battalion says that ASVAB is "much more than a test to join the military. It is really a gift to public education."

To put all its data to use, the military has enlisted the help of Nielsen Claritas, a research and marketing firm whose clients include BMW, AOL, and Starbucks. Last year, it rolled out a "custom segmentation" program that allows a recruiter armed with the address, age, race, and gender of a potential "lead" to call up a wealth of information about young people in the immediate area, including recreation and consumption patterns. The program even suggests pitches that might work while cold-calling teenagers. "It's just a foot in the door for a recruiter to start a relevant conversation with a young person," says Donna Dorminey of the US Army Center for Accessions Research.

The efforts of aggressive military recruiters are also aided by a number of popular videogames. One of them, "American's Army," was created by the Pentagon itself and is available to play free online. According to Goodman, "one in four males between the age of thirteen and twenty-four have played this game" and the users who play it are, according to the Army, "29% more likely to be interested in serving in the military." The other is the insanely popular Xbox game "Halo 3," which has sold more copies than the entire Harry Potter series. The Army spent over a million dollars to sponsor the game and, in turn, players can link automatically from the game to the GoArmy.com recruiting website. 

There have been endless stories about recruiting misconduct and lies military recruiters tell our nation's vulnerable youth, once the recruiting process begins in earnest. Recruiters lie about non-binding contracts, "no combat" clauses in contracts, and threaten young recruits who change their minds about joining the military after signing up for theDelayed Enlistment Program. 

But, it seems, that this stuff doesn't bother conservative commentators or lawmakers, few of whom have actually served in the military themselves. The inconsistency of right-wing attacks never ceases to boggle the mind. They fear big government infiltration of public schools and yet support the most appalling example of big government: endless war and aggressive imperialism. In order to stay at war and maintain the Empire, the United States needs soldiers, by any means necessary. It doesn't seem to matter that while some schools don't have adequate or appropriate learning materials or resources for their students and faculties and that vital programs like "music" are being cut from budgets due to lack of funding, the US government, under President Barack Obama, has a yearly defense budget of over $700 billion (which doesn't include the $100 billion per year that Iraq and Afghanistan cost). In fact, as Goodman tells us, "for every new GI it signed up last year, the Army spent $24,500 on recruitment. (In contrast, four-year colleges spend an average of $2,000 per incoming student.)"

On second thought, maybe Obama just wants our nation's children to stay in school so that military recruiters know right where to find them. Hey, Fischer, what's that cherry-tree story again?

Barakeh explained that the new ruling of the government against the Nakba was a clear sign of collapse of the Israeli State. He added “we have said that we are Palestinian citizens and our roots belong to our homeland, and not to the establishment of the rule of the zionist Jews ruling in Israel”.

Barakeh announced that on Thursday, October 1 2009, a general strike and a protest against the racist policies of the government of Israel will take place.

He said that the Higher Arab Monitoring Committee in Israel took a decision yesterday, Wednesday, September 2 2009, during their meeting held in Nazareth, to hold a general strike on the first of next month.

In the meeting, held in Nazareth, it was decided that the strike will take place on the same day that the events of October 2000, which left 13 Palestinian-Arabs (Israeli citizens) dead, are commemorated.

The one-day strike will include all sectors in Arab towns. This is a serious move, since it has been a few years since the last general strike in the Arab sector. The last time a general strike was called in the Arab sector was in the year 2005, in protest of the decision to close the cases against police officers suspected of firing gunshots during the events of October 2000.

Barakeh said: two days ago the committee’s Follow-up Committee on Education threatened to declare a rebellion if the singing of the Israeli national anthem and encouragement to serve in national service were imposed in Arab schools.

He explained the decision: “This strike will be a protest call against the racist wave that has been sweeping this country on all levels. On the level of the government and its ministries’ conduct, the denial of the Arabs’ rights – at least in anything to do with October 2000 and the murder in Shfa-amr (Shfaram), where the victims are being brought to court instead of hunting down the perpetrator to see who assisted him”.

“Because of the demolition of houses in Wadi Ara without providing any alternatives to the home-owners, and the serious state the local authorities are in. In the Arab education system, we are not talking about computers, but about school benches.”

According to the leading Communist Party of Israel member, “There are 9,000 classrooms missing, and at the rate of construction of the Education Ministry, it will take another 51 years to close this gap. The racist atmosphere has become a favorite arena for frustrated politicians.

“Anyone seeking fame finds it in racist whims against Arabs – the ministers of infrastructure, education, transportations, whoever. Whether it’s an idea to change traffic signs by Transportation Minister Yisrael Katz, or the spreading of Zionist education and rewarding schools for military and national service recruitments rates by the education minister”. MK Barakeh said that Gideon Sa’ar “must understand that he is the education minister, not the defense minister. This is an irrelevant condition to be placed by an education minister”.

He added, “We decided on this move early and we will work until the day of the strike in every city and village and form public commissions to get the broad public on board.

MK Barakeh warned the government, he said: “I would like to warn the government and its extensions not to aggravate its attitude towards the Arab public, but to internalize the message we wish to convey  that we seek life and equality. Threats against the Arab public from the government and the opposition will be futile and will not help. I hope that a large part of the democratic Jewish public is attentive to our demands and concerns.”

SOURCE: http://www.kawther.info/wpr/2009/09/03/palestinian-arabs-wave-of-racism-in-israel

WRITTEN BY SAMEH HABEEB AND AYMAN QUADER

If you are a young Gazan, how do you react to siege, blockade and war? It's time to hear about the struggle to be constructive in the midst of so much hatred and destruction, and to ask how long it can survive.

26 – 08 – 2009

The Gaza Strip has lost 1,400 lives and a further 5,000, mostly civilians, have been maimed and wounded in the latest attack waged by the Israeli government. This came on top of an illegal, yet relentless siege that has dragged on and on for over two years, preventing 1.5 million Gazans from having access to the basic necessities of life, and to the wider world. You might well ask how young people respond to this blockade. Some of course resort to violence. But others have chosen a different tack.

The right to resist derives from the basic values of justice and freedom. It is not confined to the use of force. Millions of people in this world believe in solving conflicts through peaceful means, without shedding blood and causing more hatred. One day this noble struggle could even replace the violence used by humanity against their fellow human beings. Rockets, guns, tanks – as decisive as they are today – have little to say to the wider cultural struggle for a civilised existence.

The first ‘Intifada' uprising was a Palestinian show-case for a unique kind of resistance in which heavily armed Israeli soldiers were confronted by children with stones. That intifada mutated through several phases before it helped us to secure the Oslo agreement in 1993. More and more Palestinians nowadays are revisiting a non-violent resistance that has emerged from their history if only because it has been so dogged by violent conflict and by war.

In the West Bank, the International Solidarity Movement inspired a non-violent movement of resistance in which locals only became involved when Israel started to build the annexation wall. The people of the Gaza Strip started their movement with a different sort of retaliation, this time against the blanket of silence which was the first stage of Israel's siege. Our response was ‘voices instead of bullets'. In the Gaza Strip, by mid-2007 we were engaged in numerous actions which drew international activist attention in our direction for the first time.

Sameh Habeeb, who was coordinator for the Popular Committee Against the Siege (PCAS) when Israel closed down all the border points, cut the electricity dead and with-held all fuel supply, remembers that moment as a turning-point:

"At first, there was just a stunned reaction of helplessness. We all rushed around wringing our hands about what could be done. We were entering an extremely challenging phase in which the question was: how to involve a wider public in our activities? Gazans are notorious for their loyalties and their endless capacity for confrontation. We thought we were in for a very difficult time indeed. But it turned out to be easy.

We realized that it was precisely at that moment, so in need of a clear way forward, that we must bring people onto the streets. We issued a call throughout Gaza to everyone who would listen. It took almost 5 days before any media outlets paid any attention to what we were saying. Then it started. Even the Israeli media were calling us to ask what was going to happen next. The Israeli government called on thousands of reserve soldiers who were promptly deployed along the borders with Gaza. We had promised some kind of action on a specific day – and as the day loomed, the Israeli media carried reports speculating on what might occur. Some predicted that tens of thousands of us would break through the borders with Israel."

The action day arrived and began early with massive media coverage from our side: ‘Human chain to challenge the siege.' Literally tens of thousands of people of all ages did indeed respond: schoolchildren, university students, labourers, women and children and many ordinary people hurried to the Salah El Din. The chain stretched from Rafah to Beit Hanoun and was around 36 kilometers long. The people went to the borders without guns in the manner of Ghandi to make a united protest. However, accorind to Al Jazeera, clashes erupted between youths and the soldiers who fired at them.

Since that memorable day, Jamal El Khoudary, chair of PCAS has launched numerous symbolic activities to end the siege. "Our approach to struggle has many means at its disposal. This is why Palestinian factions, political parties and individuals across the board participate in our actions. Through non-violent actions, we have been able to move the mainstream. However, you have to face the fact that you are always, at any minute, liable to be fired on." This is the price we have to pay to call attention to what is happening to us.

On January 26, 2008 the Palestinian International Campaign to End the Siege on Gaza, led byDr Eyad Sarraj, proclaimed an international day of action against the siege imposed on the Strip. It is important that there is an international response to this call, but at the core of this activity was the coming together of organizations working for peace and solidarity in Palestine, civil society bodies, and human rights advocates and Gazan academics, with Israeli peace activists also wanting to extend solidarity to the people of Gaza in numerous joint actions and events. On that day thousands of activists demonstrated on both sides of the borders between Israel and Gaza. More activists came to Egypt and tried to cross over to Gaza.

The campaign launched a call to gather a million signatures to end the siege of Gaza. Teams of volunteers grouped in villages, towns and neighborhoods of Gaza to collect these names. The aim was to present them to the United Nations, and two hundred thousand signatures had been secured when all this was brought to a rude halt by the Israeli war.

Dr Eyad Sarraj, who is amongst various callings, an international peace campaigner said on that day, "The principal goal of this demonstration is to join the hands of both Israeli and Palestinian peace activists who want to end the siege and all kinds of violence. The most decisive factor in breaking the siege will be through a change in Israeli public opinion." The slogans were: ‘No Movement, No Life' and ‘Humanity, Not Humiliation: Peace, Not Punishment'.

By late 2008 this movement of civic protest was growing new dimensions. Seeing the Palestinians so committed to such actions, international support of various kinds began to build. The Free Gaza movement managed to send three boats into Gaza surrounded by such a media fanfare that the Israelis were not able to touch them. The sea of Gaza has been under a blockade for many years: the last boat to arrive was 41 years ago. They made their fourth attempt during the attack on Gaza, and this time, the boat was destroyed. The crew and cargo of the fifth, Spirit of Humanity, have just been seized by the Israeli government who have imprisoned those on board, including the Nobel Peace prize winner, Mairead Corrigan Maguire, and sequestered or destroyed the toys, medicines and tree seedlings. But our message continues to spread.

Then there is the music. In the beginning of November 2008, the Popular Committee Against the Siege organized a candle-lit protest carried out by young children in Gaza City to protest at the closure of the power station providing electricity to the northern Gaza Strip. The protest started only minutes after the main Gaza power station shut down and the entire city was plunged into total darkness. Gaza's residents started marching alongside the children in the city's streets while the children held candles, singing in both, English and Arabic. Indeed, kids are the light of hope of Gaza, when they call for the freedom that comes through peaceful means. The people of Gaza are finding their own ways of struggling against this inhumane collective punishment.

Many people who don't know Gaza reckon that we live under some kind of Hamas-Taliban Puritanical rule. It is't true, and we are proud to have been involved in what we called the first ‘opera show' ever in Gaza, starring an Italian artist who was willing to come over on one of these boats. On November 27 2008, this concert, ‘Sing for Freedom', organized by a group of young people in the Gaza Strip, was a great success. The aim was to find a new way of breaking the siege, through a resilience that young people can discover together through song, dance, poetry, and hip-hop, announcing to their audience and to the world that their spirit is strong, and that they will never give up their demand to live in freedom, justice and peace in Palestine.

These are just a few examples of the kind of actions that show Palestinian aspirations for a dignified, thriving and humane life that we all hope to see one day. Many unanswered questions still fill our heads. Is this movement effective in challenging Israeli occupation? Should Gazans give up armed resistance? Will non-violent resistance bring back our rights? When if ever will Israel stop killing peace activists in Gaza and the West Bank? (The last victim was Basam abu Rahma, Basam who believed in non-violence, but who was met by death for his beliefs….)

Things are looking bad in the West Bank, where Israel has dealt a particularly bleak hand to President Abbas, who, after returning to the road map in the agreement in Annapolis, clamped down on all sorts of armed resistance with the help of Premier Fayyad. In the end, how was this received? His efforts were greeted by more settlement-building, more invasions and more arrests throughout the West Bank. And in Gaza? More and more people were beginning to look to non-violent resistance under their siege conditions: then came the last war. People are bound to argue for a return to armed resistance. What should one say in return?

We asked three of our acquaintances in Gaza to comment:

* Nadine Rajab, a 25-year-old human rights advocate, says, "As a Palestinian citizen living under siege and under occupation in Gaza, I think resistance has a few legitimate aspects: the general humanitarian dimension, the religious dimension and the national dimension. There are many legitimate means of non-violent resistance such as demonstrations, boycotting products and civil disobedience. But we should engage in both non-violent and violent resistance, because we are part of the society and it is our duty to do so."

* Muhammad Ghates, a 25-year-old young man working in the Gaza Strip has a different view. His brother was killed by the Israeli army in 2007: "Israel is a state that only survives on instability in the region. It has launched several wars against its neighbours since its establishment. Israel only agreed on peace after it was defeated by the Egyptians in 1973. Israel can be made submissive again through resistance and fighting. Maybe non-violent resistance can pave the way, but it can never be the decisive factor." Ghates believes that Israel withdrew from Gaza in 2005 due to the heavy resistance of the Gazan people. He contrasts this with over four years of non-violent resistance in the West Bank that has come to nothing. It may have drawn worldwide attention to the wall issue, but this in turn has resulted in no identifiable pressure on the Israeli state, "My family is pro-resistance and my brother was killed while defending Gaza. We aspire to liberate our country through resistance and fighting as we are under occupation. When the Nazis were invading Europe, nations and populations had the right to resist. But our case is different: we are not granted that right. Our resistance is described as terrorism, regardless of the fact that we are under occupation. It seems Israel as a country only understands the language of power and blood not peaceful means. This was quite clear in their last bloody war on Gaza: everybody was under attack. My house too was damaged. It was a target though I'm a normal citizen and I have never lifted a finger against Israel."

* Another young 21 year-old student living in Al Nuserat camp in the middle of the Gaza Strip says, "Our peaceloving children insist on facing up to Israel, but in a different way. They have escaped into patriotic songs to sympathize with each other. Furthermore, they light candles to express simplicity and innocence. They also draw pictures and write words on walls to show the suffering e.g. even before this gruelling war I saw a picture of a Palestinian child who had written on his chest in Arabic letters, "I'm hungry". I do believe that the non-violent path of activism could be more fruitful than militant resistance."

source:

http://www.opendemocracy.net/article/email/non-violent-action-in-gaza

source: http://peaceforgaza.blogspot.com/2009/08/non-violent-action-in-gaza.html

Ayman T. Quader

When I was a high school student in Ramallah, one of the better known "people-to-people" initiatives, Seeds of Peace, often visited my school, asking students to join their program. Almost every year, they would send a few of my classmates to a summer camp in the US with a similar group of Israeli students. According to the Seeds of Peace website, at the camp they are taught "to develop empathy, respect, and confidence as well as leadership, communication and negotiation skills — all critical components that will facilitate peaceful coexistence for the next generation." They paint quite a rosy picture, and most people in college are very surprised to hear that I think such activities are misguided at best, and immoral, at worst. Why on earth would I be against "coexistence," they invariably ask?

During the last few years, there have been growing calls to bring to an end Israel's oppression of the Palestinian people through an international movement of boycott, divestment and sanctions (BDS). One of the commonly-held objections to the boycott is that it is counter-productive, and that "dialogue" and "fostering coexistence" is much more constructive than boycotts.

With the beginning of the Oslo accords in 1993, there has been an entire industry that works toward bringing Israelis and Palestinians together in these "dialogue" groups. The stated purpose of such groups is the creating of understanding between "both sides of the conflict," in order to "build bridges" and "overcome barriers." However, the assumption that such activities will help facilitate peace is not only incorrect, but is actually morally lacking.

The presumption that dialogue is needed in order to achieve peace completely ignores the historical context of the situation in Palestine. It assumes that both sides have committed, more or less, an equal amount of atrocities against one another, and are equally culpable for the wrongs that have been done. It is assumed that not one side is either completely right or completely wrong, but that both sides have legitimate claims that should be addressed, and certain blind spots that must be overcome. Therefore, both sides must listen to the "other" point of view, in order to foster understanding and communication, which would presumably lead to "coexistence" or "reconciliation."

Such an approach is deemed "balanced" or "moderate," as if that is a good thing. However, the reality on the ground is vastly different than the "moderate" view of this so-called "conflict." Even the word "conflict" is misleading, because it implies a dispute between two symmetric parties. The reality is not so; it is not a case of simple misunderstanding or mutual hatred which stands in the way of peace. The context of the situation in Israel/Palestine is that of colonialism, apartheid and racism, a situation in which there is an oppressor and an oppressed, a colonizer and a colonized.

In cases of colonialism and apartheid, history shows that colonial regimes do not relinquish power without popular struggle and resistance, or direct international pressure. It is a particularly naive view to assume that persuasion and "talking" will convince an oppressive system to give up its power.

The apartheid regime in South Africa, for instance, was ended after years of struggle with the vital aid of an international campaign of sanctions, divestments and boycotts. If one had suggested to the oppressed South Africans living in bantustans to try and understand the other point of view (i.e. the point of view of South African white supremacists), people would have laughed at such a ridiculous notion. Similarly, during the Indian struggle for emancipation from British colonial rule, Mahatma Gandhi would not have been venerated as a fighter for justice had he renounced satyagraha — "holding firmly to the truth," his term for his nonviolent resistance movement — and instead advocated for dialogue with the occupying British colonialists in order to understand their side of the story.

Now, it is true that some white South Africans stood in solidarity with the oppressed black South Africans, and participated in the struggle against apartheid. And there were, to be sure, some British dissenters to their government's colonial policies. But those supporters explicitly stood alongside the oppressed with the clear objective of ending oppression, of fighting the injustices perpetrated by their governments and representatives. Any joint gathering of both parties, therefore, can only be morally sound when the citizens of the oppressive state stand in solidarity with the members of the oppressed group, not under the banner of "dialogue" for the purpose of "understanding the other side of the story." Dialogue is only acceptable when done for the purpose of further understanding the plight of the oppressed, not under the framework of having "both sides heard."

It has been argued, however, by the Palestinian proponents of these dialogue groups, that such activities may be used as a tool — not to promote so-called "understanding," — but to actually win over Israelis to the Palestinian struggle for justice, by persuading them or "having them recognize our humanity."

However, this assumption is also naive. Unfortunately, most Israelis have fallen victim to the propaganda that the Zionist establishment and its many outlets feed them from a young age. Moreover, it will require a huge, concerted effort to counter this propaganda through persuasion. For example, most Israelis will not be convinced that their government has reached a level of criminality that warrants a call for boycott. Even if they are logically convinced of the brutalities of Israeli oppression, it will most likely not be enough to rouse them into any form of action against it. This has been proven to be true time and again, evident in the abject failure of such dialogue groups to form any comprehensive anti-occupation movement ever since their inception with the Oslo process. In reality, nothing short of sustained pressure — not persuasion — will make Israelis realize that Palestinian rights have to be rectified. That is the logic of the BDS movement, which is entirely opposed to the false logic of dialogue.

Based on an unpublished 2002 report by the Israel/Palestine Center for Research and Information, the San Francisco Chronicle reported last October that "between 1993 and 2000 [alone], Western governments and foundations spent between $20 million and $25 million on the dialogue groups." A subsequent wide-scale survey of Palestinians who participated in the dialogue groups revealed that this great expenditure failed to produce "a single peace activist on either side." This affirms the belief among Palestinians that the entire enterprise is a waste of time and money.

The survey also revealed that the Palestinian participants were not fully representative of their society. Many participants tended to be "children or friends of high-ranking Palestinian officials or economic elites. Only seven percent of participants were refugee camp residents, even though they make up 16 percent of the Palestinian population." The survey also found that 91 percent of Palestinian participants no longer maintained ties with Israelis they met. In addition, 93 percent were not approached with follow-up camp activity, and only five percent agreed the whole ordeal helped "promote peace culture and dialogue between participants."

Despite the resounding failure of these dialogue projects, money continues to be invested in them. As Omar Barghouti, one of the founding members of the BDS movement in Palestine, explained in The Electronic Intifada, "there have been so many attempts at dialogue since 1993 … it became an industry — we call it the peace industry."

This may be partly attributed to two factors. The dominant factor is the useful role such projects play in public relations. For example, the Seeds of Peace website boosts its legitimacy by featuring an impressive array of endorsements by popular politicians and authorities, such as Hillary Clinton, Bill Clinton, George Mitchell, Shimon Peres, George Bush, Colin Powell and Tony Blair, amongst others. The second factor is the need of certain Israeli "leftists" and "liberals" to feel as if they are doing something admirable to "question themselves," while in reality they take no substantive stand against the crimes that their government commits in their name. The politicians and Western governments continue to fund such projects, thereby bolstering their images as supporters of "coexistence," and the "liberal" Israeli participants can exonerate themselves of any guilt by participating in the noble act of "fostering peace." A symbiotic relationship, of sorts.
SOURCE: http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article10722.shtml

The lack of results from such initiatives is not surprising, as the stated objectives of dialogue and "coexistence" groups do not include convincing Israelis to help Palestinians gain the respect of their inalienable rights. The minimum requirement of recognizing Israel's inherently oppressive nature is absent in these dialogue groups. Rather, these organizations operate under the dubious assumption that the "conflict" is very complex and multifaceted, where there are "two sides to every story," and each narrative has certain valid claims as well as biases.

As the authoritative call by the Palestinian Campaign for the Academic and Cultural Boycott of Israel makes plain, any joint Palestinian-Israeli activities — whether they be film screenings or summer camps — can only be acceptable when their stated objective is to end, protest, and/or raise awareness of the oppression of the Palestinians.

Any Israeli seeking to interact with Palestinians, with the clear objective of solidarity and helping them to end oppression, will be welcomed with open arms. Caution must be raised, however, when invitations are made to participate in a dialogue between "both sides" of the so-called "conflict." Any call for a "balanced" discourse on this issue — where the motto "there are two sides to every story" is revered almost religiously — is intellectually and morally dishonest, and ignores the fact that, when it comes to cases of colonialism, apartheid, and oppression, there is no such thing as "balance." The oppressor society, by and large, will not give up its privileges without pressure. This is why the BDS campaign is such an important instrument of change.

Faris Giacaman is a Palestinian student from the West Bank, attending his second year of college in the United States.

Source: http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article10722.shtml