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

Just to show that people can (and should) get these issues having to do with public money and policy in the discussion at the decisional level, we have the video of the short talk given at the Ann Arbor (Michigan) City Council Meeting. It should serve as an example of ways to act and influence people who pull the strings of the money purse.

Power to the People right on! (thanks to the Dearborn activists who are tigers!!)

Palin Sidetracks Scrutiny of Obama's Communitarian Plan

Yes, President Obama is a socialist. He's a free trade communist. He's a free trade capitalist, too. He's Christian, he's Muslim, he cares about people and he has lots of hope. Obama is all of this, and much, much more. Obama knows that all opposing economic, religious and social theories were finally resolved in one perfect solution, called communitarianism.

"Fortunately, many, including many liberals, have come to view as mistaken a liberalism with such a strong principle of neutrality and avoidance of public discussion of the good. Some think the change a result of the critique provided by communitarianism; others see it as a clarification of basic liberal philosophy. Regardless, a refined view has emerged that begins to create an overlap between liberalism and communitarianism." http://defsi.typepad.com/deafening_silence/2009/08/under-the-skin-of-health-care-reform-dr-ezekiel-emanuel-in-his-own-words-pt-2.html

The communitarian theory of Community Rights is shared by every appointee in Obama's administration. From his Drug Czar Gil Kerlikowske (who created the COMPASS database when he was a Grants Director at COPS) to his new Health care advisor (Zeke Emanuel, who advises we withhold medical care from citizens unable to "participate"), the Obama administration follows the Clinton and Bush leadership into merging the former United States under a global justice system rejecting US constitutional supremacy in favor of the supremacy of Communitarian Law.

"Emanuel's thesis adviser at Harvard was Prof. Michael Sandel, a noted communitarian who has argued that our political debates bracket gut-level values to our detriment. Emanuel writes in the tradition of a communaritan who believes that procedural liberalism — the reigning philosophy of government today — does not allow for priorities among health care services because it "cannot appeal to a conception of the good." Emanuel writes: "But without appealing to a conception of the good, it is argued, we can never establish priorities among health care services and define basic medical services." Emanuel sketches out a "civic Republicanism" telos — that is — our health care decisions as a society should be yoked to a system that "promote[s] the continuation of the polity-those that ensure healthy future generations, ensure development of practical reasoning skills, and ensure full and active participation by citizens in public deliberations-are to be socially guaranteed as basic." He notes that such a system would deny "services provided to individuals who are irreversibly prevented from being or becoming participating citizens." " http://politics.theatlantic.com/2009/08/the_death_panel.php

The "change" Obama promised to bring to America is entirely based in his expert, high level training in communitarian thinking. Communitarianism, like communism, socialism and capitalism, has a history and a philosophy that can be verified by a second grader. A simple google search for the word "communitarian" produces millions of returns. With more mainstream and credible sources describing the Obama administration as communitarian every day now, you'd think the Americans would be all over it and wanting to know more. Every day I do see a few more who are interested and studying it, but, (and especially since Palin jumped in) for the most part, Americans are not even considering it. They ignore it at their national peril.

This isn't the International Jewish Banker's theory or the Illuminati and Alien agendas, although many would hope that you think it is, just so that they can easily discount you and laugh at your racism, ignorance and gullibility. The Communitarian Philosophy is well documented in upper academia and insider news reports since 1990, it's the topic of numerous grad school programs and international legal seminars; it's just not often discussed in view of the "unwashed masses." They have a Communitarian Network at George Washington University in D.C. They have extremely well connected leaders and mentors, like Dr. Amitai Etzioni, MaryAnn Glendon and Dr. John McNight, as well as an entire active network of Community activists (including Michelle and Barack Obama). The Communitarian Network published a Platform, it's signed by real people (some of the names you may even recognize) and they've published thousands of documents about their agenda. Dr. Etzioni isn't called a "guru" and the "everything expert" because he wrote one or two unread, obscure books. His latest book, "Security First" is quoted as an expert source in daily Pentagon briefings (and I still think I should get daily Pentagon briefings too, since I am the one who alerted a Pentagon intelligence analyst to Etzioni's Palmach terrorist ties to the Israeli Defense Force. As of June 2008, Etzioni was not even in the US Army's database of known international terrorists operating inside the USA!).

It should come as no surprise that the Communitarian Update #36 begins thus:

"The first ever workshop on bioethics from a communitarian perspective will take place at George Washington University on 6/5/2001. Papers by Ezekiel Emmanuel (A Communitarian Perspective on Research), Mark Kuczewski (Organ Donation and the Common Good), Leonard Fleck (A Communitarian Perspective on Health Resource Allocation), and Eric Meslin (Human Cloning). Participation is by invitation only. Send nominations to Joanna Cohn at comnet@gwu.edu with "bioethics" in the subject line." http://www.gwu.edu/~ccps/communitarian_update_n36.html

In Europe, the terms for communitarian legal supremacy over national courts and political systems exists in thousands of EU documents, national integration departmental procedures and established free trade (WTO) case law. To say there is no evidence for communitarianism or that the theory is benign or ineffective is a lie of epic proportions. The reason the Anti Communitarian League website grew to become such a huge research site is because there's more evidence for communitarianism than one person has time to gather in one lifetime. How much longer can it remain so neglected and unimportant? How many communitarian accompanying laws must be passed before the American people are allowed to examine the principles it upholds?

Obama's communitarian mentors came to the USA from the 1850s to the 1990s to "shore up the moral, social and political environment." They continue to come here from the UK, Europe, Israel, the Soviet Union, the Vatican, the City of London, Brussels, the Hague and Communist China, advising US officials to make significant illegal changes to our political system. Communitarians open doors formerly locked and guarded by We the People under state and federal constitutional law. They help formerly free state citizens to advance harmoniously into a new specific idea of responsible global citizenship (aka slavery). They guide our leaders to foster interdepartmentalized privacy and property invasions. They advise our elected officials which people should be allowed to live, and ominously predict which people need to die for the "good of the community."

"Emanuel, however, believes that "communitarianism" should guide decisions on who gets care. He says medical care should be reserved for the non-disabled, not given to those "who are irreversibly prevented from being or becoming participating citizens . . . An obvious example is not guaranteeing health services to patients with dementia" (Hastings Center Report, Nov.-Dec. '96). " (Betsy McCaughey, founder of the Committee to Reduce Infection Deaths and a former New York lieutenant governor writing in "Deadly Doctors" about Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, Obama's health policy advisor and brother of White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel)

An ever changing target is difficult to identify or to launch an counter-attack against. That's why adept communitarians continuously shift their focus and hide their true ideology behind whatever ideology upsets you the most. When the American "right" accuses Obama of being a socialist or a communist, they play directly into the "capitalist-libertarian versus socialist" debate. The final outcome of the debate is not allowed into the debate itself. The left owns an ample arsenal of dis missives (red-baiting, McCarthyist, etc.) that keeps the controlled "right" exactly where the communitarians need them — stuck in the outdated (and over) capitalist v communist divide. For example, Sarah Palin's right wing introduction of leftist communitarian policing to her hometown of Wassilla was never an issue in the last presidential campaign. Palin's recent facebook attack on Emanuel may be designed to take the focus OFF communitarianism (http://neveryetmelted.com/2009/08/16/dowd-palin-strafing-ezekiel-emanuel/ ). Here's a place where the 103 comments show where the attention's been diverted to: http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2009/08/dr-death-panel-ezekial-emanuel-lashes.html .

The true nature of the current debate cannot be exposed to the average American, as it appears close to 91% will be most likely to object to eliminating the US Constitution in favor of Communitarian Values (see ACL homepage poll: http://nord.twu.net/acl ).

As for Obama's new advisor on health care,

"His views aren’t limited to this one [the Lancet ] article. In 1996, he wrote a short article for the Hastings Center, in which he expounded upon the role that communitarianism might play in healthcare. Dr Emanuel’s bio-ethical views are heavily fueled by adherence to this philosophy of communitarianism. Briefly put, communitarianism is a fairly new political philosophy that emphasizes the role of the community in defining and shaping individuals. Communitarianism focuses on the need to balance individual rights and interests with that of the community as a whole, and that individual people (or citizens) are shaped by the cultures and values of their communities." http://www.politicalevidence.com/2009/08/obamas-ration-man-ezekiel-emanuel.html

What happens when Americans are actually introduced to the term communitarianism, and why is is always placed inside special quotes?

"Finally (really), because this is a blog about discrimination, I need to relate Dr.Emanuel’s health care “communitarianism,” i.e., his subordination of individual rights to the needs of the community, to the “communitarianism” that is at the root of much racial preference theory. Mickey Kaus noted, in the first of his posts linked above, that civic republican communitarianism is a version of modern liberalism popularized (to a degree) by the Harvard philosopher Michael Sandel. As some of you with long memories may recall, we have encountered Sandel and his theory here a couple of times, way back in 2003, in discussing how preferentialists have abandoned individual rights in favor of group rights (discriminating against individual whites and Asians isn’t discrimination because whites and Asians as a group suffer no undue hardship)" http://www.aarp.org/community/groups/displayTopic.bt?pageNum=1&groupId=1162&topicId=3474092

There's no doubt what-so-ever that Obama's (and Hillary's) National Health Care program is based entirely in communitarian principles. Nobody's ever explained it better than the writers for the natural health site Mercola.com did almost five years ago:

"A communitarian ethic increasingly governs health care in the U.S. It places a greater value on the health of the community, on society as a whole, than on the health of particular individuals. Public health officials have put together a vaccination schedule designed to eliminate infectious diseases to which the population is prey.

"Officials recognize that these vaccines will harm a small percentage of (genetically susceptible) individuals, but it is for the common good. The communitarian code posits that it is morally acceptable, if necessary, to sacrifice a few for the good of the many. Or as one observer more bluntly puts it, "Individual sheep can be sheared and slaughtered if it is for the welfare of their flock." This information is provided by Mercola.com, the world's most visited and trusted natural health website.

Communitarianism, by Obama's mentor's definition, is supposed to be the final synthesis of all conflicting political, racial, and religious ideologies. It's based entirely on Georg Hegel's interpretation of "God's Idea." Hegel said men will only be free when they make themselves total slaves to the state. He also said only a very enlightened few can comprehend how this works out for mankind. Hegelians helped force the world into social evolution by promoting violent conflicts between opposites. Now they brilliantly offer us their preplanned and more "moral" solutions to their own staged conflicts. The real conflict, the one between us and them, has barely surfaced as a possibly yet. That's the one they know they'd lose.

The only thing the communitarians have not been prepared to debate is an anticommunitarian argument. Since they claim their final synthesis is so perfect it gives rise to no antithesis, they can never acknowledge the existence of any credible counter-theory, no matter how well presented it is or how well backed up it is with published documents. All American colleges teach communitarian programs and policy, but most are savy enough to disguise it with vague terms like sustainable community development and rebuilding faith-based communities. On the rare occassion that our anti thesis is introduced to a class as an assignment or under "further reading," the result is always the same — dead silence.

When a communitarian uses the word "community" in a public program, they're quietly imposing Community Rights on unsuspecting people holding legal claim to the protection of their natural born Individual Rights. The term "community" can be used to define anything from the global merchant community to the local community's Neighborhood Watch program. The emerging global communitarian system is a data driven experiment in micro-managing all aspects of human life. It's no accident that the US Census expanded into the invasive American Community Survey, just as it's not an accident that rural college programs like the Natural Resources and Community Development Program offered by the University of Alaska, Fairbanks primarily teaches "Workshops using GPS for navigation and mapping." How can they make us all "participate" if they don't know who we are, where we live and how many guns we own?

Communitarianism is the global change ideology of the 21st century. It's the foundation for global COPS, US-UK peacekeeping invasions and UN-NATO wars of liberation. It's the purpose for intrusive international efforts to achieve sustainable community development. It's the foundation for the European Union (and CAFTA/NAU/SPP/Wildlife & Trade Corridors, et.al.) and the primary reason for the failure of the Lisbon Treaty. Considering the recent anticommunitarian developments in Germany, Ireland, Portugul and the Czech Republic, now might be a very good time for Americans to get up to speed on Obama's real agenda and join their allies in what's left of the free thinking world.

"In essence, the court has ruled that by passing the so-called "accompanying law" to the Lisbon Treaty, which determines the rights of the German parliament to participate in European legislation, Germany had relinquished significant monitoring rights to the "Brussels EU". According to the judges, this unconstitutionally subjects the German people to the whims of a bureaucracy that lacks sufficient democratic legitimacy." (www.eu-facts.org )

The EU constitution and the Lisbon Treaty are being soundly rejected by the voters and judges (?!?!?) in several European countries. Nothing bothers the communitarian promoters of global peace and democracy more than people's insistance on peaceful, fully informed democratic voting. The Responsive Communitarians feel they have zero obligation to respond to legitimate questions and requests for their insider planning documents. If the communitarians have their way, Americans in the US will never get the chance to vote on communitarian integration. Obama and the fully committed communitarian US Congress will just slip it down our throats like we're all special guests at Jim Jones' cocktail party.

Their superior community morality knows no limits and has no organized opposition in the USA. The communitarians don't even worry about public scrutiny… the left v right divide works wonders at keeping people confused and way off target. How did the American press miss the fact that Obama appointed a communitarian to the US Supreme Court (Sonia Sotomayor)?

"Anyone who, without preconception, examines the life of Norman Thomas emerges with the sense of a deeply moral and morally subtle man who called himself a Socialist – even while he was repudiated by myriad Socialists – because he believed that a communitarian philosophy is truer to democracy than the everyone-for-himself libertarianism that represents the opposite pole in American politics." ("So, Who the Hell is Norman Thomas?")

Today I think anyone who still calls communitarianism a conspiracy theory or too difficult to pronounce or understand is purposefully diverting your attention from the only thing you may need to know about Obama. If you understand communitarianism, you understand it all. If you know just a piece of it, like the communist piece or the socialist agenda, you may not be able to see how capitalism and libertarianism play a role to further the overall communitarian agenda. Each "side" had a role in the final solution, so yes, they must all be studied and understood. But why stop midway in the dialectical drama? We're already into the final act where everything balances into one perfect theory of achieving world peace and harmony.

Etzioni assumed that once Obama won the presidency, all Americans would learn the actual terms for the new American system of injustice. Apparently Americans still need be kept in the dark regarding the purpose and objectives of the Obama administration. References to communitarianism continue to be short and appear benignly insignificant. It's so not. As Marc Ambender at the Atlantic assures us,

"Sarah Palin and Newt Gingrich aren't debating the moral philosophy of John Rawls, whose formulations Emanuel borrows." (Zeke Emanuel, The Death Panels, And Illogic In Politics)

There's a very short window of opportunity being presented on the global stage.. who will speak for the Americans before the final curtain falls? The Irish? One can only hope.

Stop Communitarian Laws. The country you save may be your own.

Further reading:

Volume 10, Number 4, December 2000
E-ISSN: 1086-3249 Print ISSN: 1054-6863
DOI: 10.1353/ken.2000.0025
Gauthier, Candace Cummins.
Moral Responsibility and Respect for Autonomy: Meeting the Communitarian Challenge
Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal – Volume 10, Number 4, December 2000, pp. 337-352
The Johns Hopkins University Press

"The principle of respect for autonomy has come under increasing attack both within health care ethics, specifically, and as part of the more general communitarian challenge to predominantly liberal values. This paper will demonstrate the importance of respect for autonomy for the social practice of assigning moral responsibility and for the development of moral responsibility as a virtue. Guided by this virtue, the responsible exercise of autonomy may provide a much-needed connection between the individual and the community."

About — Niki Raapana is the co-founder of the Anti Communitarian League, http://nord.twu.net/acl, a tiny, unfunded private research tentsitute that studies communitarianism from a commoner's perspective. Her blog is Living Outside the Dialectic, and with her email box so spammed by right and left wing propagandists lately, she now prefers all online comments about her articles be presented there. Niki is also the author of "2020: Our Common Destiny" (an introduction to communitarian law and the corresponding global political system) and co-author of "The Anti Communitarian Manifesto," presented in 2 parts, "Part One: What is the Hegelian Dialectic?" and "Part Two: The Historical Evolution of Communitarian Thinking."
SOURCE: http://nikiraapana.blogspot.com/

Both my parents immigrated to Indiana from the Palestinian town of Ramallah in the early 1960s, before Israel's occupation in 1967. Like many Palestinians in the Diaspora, they would have been happy with a secular democratic state in the entirety of historic Palestine/Eretz Israel with equal rights for both Jews and Arabs. But also like many Palestinians, convinced that Israelis would never agree to granting equality to all Palestinians, they have supported attempts to create a rump Palestinian state in the parts of Palestine occupied by Israel in 1967 where Palestinians could exercise their right to self-determination.

Having been uncomfortable with the idea of immigrants from Europe displacing the native inhabitants of Palestine, Palestinians have never seriously entertained the idea that they should go somewhere else and displace another people to create a "Palestinian" state. But now that a prominent American politician is making the offer, I have some ideas on a locale.

Obviously, the Arab world doesn't offer any choices. All the good states are already taken. I know that many Israelis including Labor leader Ehud Barak occasionally talk about Jordan being given to Palestinians, but being at the intersection of Iraq, Syria, and Greater Israel is probably not what war weary Palestinians want.

The British offered Theodore Herzl Uganda for a Jewish homeland but the larger Zionist movement rejected the offer. To the best of my knowledge, no one asked the Ugandans how they felt about it, but boy did they dodge a bullet there. Perhaps for similar reasons, Palestinians probably wouldn't want to move to Africa either. There has historically been an under-appreciation of Africa by Semites, but that is probably to Africa's benefit.

Huckabee reminded me of a comment my late grandfather made as we drove from Chicago to Washington, DC and then again through the Blue Ridge Mountains. He couldn't believe just how much beautiful empty land there was in the United States. So much empty land……almost like a land without a people waiting for a people without a land.

And since the United States has played such a prominent role historically in helping Israel keep the West Bank, Gaza Strip, and the Golan Heights, perhaps the United States can offer up one of the states to the Palestinians. Perhaps that was what Governor Huckabee was getting at.

I haven't yet conducted a poll of Palestinians on the Huckabee-Solution, but it seems that California – at least everything from San Francisco and south would be most preferred, no offense to Huckabee's home state of Arkansas. The landscape is very similar to historic Palestine with various Mediterranean climates, lots of orange and fig trees, beautiful vistas, and lots of ocean front property. California even has its own fault lines, just like Israel/Palestine which makes for good wrath of God sermons. It wouldn't matter if you were originally from Haifa, Ramallah, or the Gaza Strip, there would be something to remind you of home.

Many Palestinians immigrated to the US to live in industrial cities where jobs were plentiful. My grandfather's brother worked for Ford for most of his life in Detroit and I grew up in Gary, Indiana. Nothing against Detroit and Gary, but Palestinians have an agrarian history (it wasn't called the Fertile Crescent because you couldn't grow anything) and would prefer California.

Many Palestinians, especially those in the Diaspora, are Christian and they could try their hand at taking over the California wine industry.

And think of all the jobs in Hollywood playing Arab stereotypes that could now go to actual Arabs.

Hmmm, but that raises the issue of what to do with all the Californians that already live there.

Perhaps Huckabee has a solution for them too. There is a lot of empty land in Nevada and Arizona. We'll just have to wait for his next presidential run.

Blessed are the peacemakers.

source: Huffington Post http://www.huffingtonpost.com/amjad-atallah/huckabee-offers-palestini_b_262505.html

The latter option does not necessarily entail a call to arms. Clearly Israel has the overwhelming advantage in this respect in both conventional and unconventional (nuclear) weapons. Just as obviously, neighbouring Arab countries have neither the will nor ability to go the military route. However, the inability to wage war does not automatically mean surrender and eschewing other means to wage struggle.

As powerful as it is militarily, Israel has two major weak points. Firstly, it cannot impose political solutions by force of arms on a people determined to sustain a campaign of resistance. This has been amply demonstrated in two full-scale wars against Lebanon and, most recently, in the assault against Gaza. Secondly, the longer the Palestinians have remained steadfast, and the greater the role the demographic factor has come to play in the conflict, the more clearly Israel has emerged as an apartheid system hostile to peace. If the ethnic cleansing of 1948 and the colonialist expansionism describe the circumstances surrounding the birth of the Israeli state, the recent bills regarding the declaration of allegiance to a Jewish state and prohibiting the Palestinian commemoration of the nakba more explicitly underscore its essential racist character.

Ironically, just as Israel has attained the peak in its drive to fragment the Palestinian people, with geographical divides between those in Israel and those abroad, between Jerusalem and the West Bank and the West Bank and Gaza, and between one governorate and the next in the West Bank by means of ring-roads, walls and barriers, Palestinians have become reunified in their hardship and in the challenges that confront them. Regardless of whether or not they bear Israeli citizenship, or whether they are residents of Jerusalem, the West Bank or Gaza, they all share the plight of being victims of Israel's systematic discrimination and apartheid order.

If the only alternative to evading the struggle is to engage in it in order to resolve it, we must affirm that our national liberation movement is still alive. We must affirm, secondly, that political and diplomatic action is a fundamental part of managing the conflict, as opposed to an alternative to it. In fact, we must elevate it to our primary means for exposing the true nature of Israel, isolating it politically and pressing for international sanctions against it.

In this context, we must caution against the theory of building state institutions under the occupation. An administration whose security services would be consuming 35 per cent of the public budget, that would be acting as the occupation's policeman while furthering Netanyahu's scheme for economic normalisation as a substitute for a political solution, is clearly geared to promote the acclimatisation to the status quo, not change. Building Palestinian governing institutions and promoting genuine economic development must occur within the framework of a philosophy of "resistance development". Such a philosophy is founded on the dual principles of supporting the people's power to withstand the hardships of the occupation and reducing dependency on foreign funding and foreign aid. The strategic aim of the Palestinian struggle, under this philosophy, must be to "make the costs of the Israeli occupation and its apartheid system so great as to be unsustainable".

If we agree on this course for conducting the struggle, then the next step is to adopt a unified national strategy founded upon four pillars:

1. Resistance. In all its forms, resistance is an internationally sanctioned right of the Palestinian people. Under this strategy, however, it must resume a peaceful, mass grassroots character that will serve to revive the culture of collective activism among all sectors of the Palestinian people and, hence, to keep the struggle from becoming the preserve or monopoly of small cliques and to promote its growing impetus and momentum. Models for this type of resistance already exist. Of particular note is the brave and persistent campaign against the Separation Wall, which has spread across several towns and villages, offered five lives to the cause, and become increasingly adamant. The resistance by the people of East Jerusalem and Silwan against Israeli home demolitions and the drive to Judaise the city presents another heroic model. Yet a third promising example is to be found it the movement to boycott Israeli goods and to encourage the consumption of locally produced products. In addition to preventing the occupation power from milking the profits from marketing locally produced products, this form of resistance can engage the broadest swath of the population, from old to young and men and women, and revive the culture and spirit of communal collaboration. The campaigns to break the blockade against Gaza, as exemplified by the protest ships, the supply caravans and the pressures on Israel to lift its economic stranglehold, are another major type of resistance.

2. Supporting national steadfastness. The importance of this pillar is its focus on strengthening the demographic power of the Palestinian people so as to transform their millions into an effective grassroots force. It entails meeting their essential needs to enable them to remain steadfast in their struggle, and developing Palestinian human resources as the foundation for a strong and independent Palestinian economy. However, in order to achieve these aims the Palestinian Authority (PA) economic plan and budget must be altered in a way that pits their weight behind development in education, health, agriculture and culture, as opposed to squandering a third of the budget on security.

For example, the passage and immediate implementation of the bill for the national higher education fund would serve the educational needs of hundreds of thousands of young adults. In addition to elevating and developing the standards of university education, it would also work to sustain the impact of development aid and eventually reduce reliance on foreign support. The fund would also alleviate the school tuition burdens on more than 150,000 families, put an end to nepotism in the handling of student study grants and loans, and provide equal opportunity for academic advancement to all young men and women regardless of their financial circumstances. Equally innovative and dynamic ideas could be applied to other areas of education, or to stimulating the fields of public health, agriculture and culture with the overall aim of developing the educated, innovative and effective modern human resources needed to meet Palestinian needs as autonomously as possible and, hence, capable of weathering enormous pressures.

3. National unity and a unified national leadership. This strategic aim entails restructuring the Palestine Liberation Organisation on a more demographically representative basis and putting into effect agreements that have been previously reached in the Palestinian national dialogues held in Cairo. Over the past few years, the thrust of Israel's greatest advantage and the thrust of its assault centred around the Palestinian rift and the weakness of the disunited Palestinian leadership. In order to redress this flaw, the Palestinians must adopt a new mentality and approach. Specifically, they must: relinquish the mentality and practice of vying for power over an illusory governing authority that is still under the thumb of the occupation, whether in the West Bank or in Gaza; give up the illusion that Palestinian military might, however great it might become, is capable of leading the Palestinian struggle alone; adopt democracy and pluralistic democratic activities and processes as a mode of life, self-government, peaceful decision-making, and the only acceptable means to resolve our differences and disputes; resist all outside pressures and attempts (particularly on the part of Israel) to intervene in our internal affairs and to tamper with the Palestinian popular will. There must be a firm and unshakeable conviction in Palestinians' right to independent national self-determination.

The most difficult task that we face today is creating a unified leadership and strategy binding on all, from which no political or military decisions will depart, and within which framework no single group or party has a monopoly on the decision-making processes. Only with a unified leadership and strategy will we be able to fight the blockade as one, instead of evading unity for fear of the blockade. With a unified leadership and strategy we will able to seize the reins of initiative from others, as opposed to spinning from one reaction to the other, and we will be able to focus our energies on asserting our unified will instead of squandering them in internal power struggles in which the various parties seek outside assistance to strengthen their hand against their opponents on the inside. Only then will we be able to shift the equations that subordinated the national liberation movement to the narrow concerns of the PA (both in the West Bank and Gaza) and turn the PA into an instrument in the service of the national liberation movement.

4. Building and enhancing an international pro-Palestinian solidarity movement combined with a drive to impose sanctions against Israel. That such a movement already exists and is steadily growing is heartening. However, it will take enormous efforts to organise it and coordinate its activities properly so as to ensure it has the greatest possible influence upon decision-makers, especially in Europe and the West. Palestinian, Arab and Muslim communities will need to be orchestrated towards the realisation of the same goals. If the solidarity movement has scored significant successes with the organisation of a boycott of Israeli products, the decision by the Federation of British Universities to boycott Israeli academics, and the decision taken by Hampshire College and some US churches to refuse to invest in Israel, much work has yet to be done to expand the scope of such activities and build up the momentum of the solidarity movement.

The Palestinian plight, which Nelson Mandela has described as the foremost challenge to the international humanitarian conscience, strongly resembles the state of South Africa at the outset to the 1980s. It took years of a concerted unified drive before the South African liberation movement finally succeeded in bringing around governments to their cause. The tipping point came when major companies realised that the economic costs of dealing with the apartheid regime in Pretoria were unsustainable. In the Palestinian case, the success of an international solidarity movement is contingent upon three major factors. The first is careful organisation and detailed planning, a high degree of discipline and tight coordination. Second is a rational, civilised rhetoric that refuses to play into Israel's tactics of provocation. The third is to address and recruit progressive movements and peoples in societies abroad, including anti-Zionist Jews and Jews opposed to Israeli policies.

None of the foregoing is new, by any means. However, these ideas have yet to be put into practice. The logical springboard for this is to operate on the principle that while the Palestinian cause is a Palestinian, Arab and Muslim one, it is above all a humanitarian cause that cries out to all in the world who cherish humanitarian principles and values. The success of the freedom fighters of South Africa, the anti-Vietnam war movement, and the campaigners for the independence of India stemmed primarily from their ability to forge a universal appeal. And this is precisely what we must do. Our mottos for the solidarity movement with the Palestinian people must be "the fight against the new apartheid and systematic racism" and "the fight for justice and the right to freedom." The International Court of Justice's ruling on the Separation Wall, the illegality of Jewish settlements and altering the face of Jerusalem is a valuable legal precedent that official Palestinian governing institutions have ignored for four years. This ruling should now become our platform for a drive to impose sanctions against Israel, just as the UN resolution against the occupation of Namibia proved a platform for mounting a campaign against the apartheid system in South Africa.

The four-pronged strategy outlined above, which is espoused by the Palestinian National Initiative Movement, can succeed if it is guided by a clear vision, patience, and systematic persistence. I do not expect that it win the approval of all. The interests of some combined with their sense of frustration and despair have deadened their desire to engage in or to continue the confrontation with Israel. We also have to acknowledge that certain sectors of Palestinian society have become so dependent upon interim arrangements and projects and the attendant finances as to put paid to the possibility of their contributing to the fight for real change. Yet, the proposed comprehensive strategy does respond to and represent the interests of the vast majority of the Palestinian people and holds the promise of a better future.

The Palestinian national struggle has so far passed through two major phases: the first steered by Palestinians abroad while ignoring the role of Palestinians at home, and the second steered by Palestinians at home while ignoring the role of Palestinians abroad. Today we find ourselves at the threshold of a third phase, which should combine the struggle at home and the campaign of Palestinians and their sympathisers abroad.

In closing I would like to address the subject of a one-state or a two-state solution. It is both theoretically and practically valid to raise this subject here for two reasons. First, Israel has consistently tried to undermine the prospect of Palestinian statehood by pressing for such formulas as home rule, or an interim state, or a state without real sovereignty. Second, the changes produced on the ground by Israeli settlements and ring roads have come to render the realisation of a viable state unrealisable. To some, especially Palestinians in the Diaspora, replacing the call for a one-state solution with calling for a "two-state solution" seems to offer a remedy that gives relief. It is a better remedy, without a doubt, but it is a long way from offering relief. Slogans do not end liberation struggles. Slogans without strategies and efforts to back them up remain nothing but idle wishes or, to some, a noble way to avoid responsibility and the work that goes with it.

Now, let us be clear here. Israel has been working around the clock to destroy the option of an independent Palestinian state on the ground and, hence, the two-state solution. But that does not leave the Palestinian people without an alternative, as some Zionist leaders undoubtedly hope. The single democratic state (not the single bi-national state) in which all citizens are equal in rights and duties regardless of their religious affiliations and their origins is an alternative to the attempt to force the Palestinians to accept slavery under occupation and an apartheid order in the form of a feeble autonomous government that is dubbed a state.

However, whether the aim is a truly independent sovereign state or a single democratic state, both of which Israel dismisses with equal vehemence, neither of these aims can be achieved without exposing and destroying the apartheid system. This requires a strategy. Therefore, instead of allowing ourselves to become divided prematurely over whether to go for the one-state or two-state solution, let us unify behind the common aim required to achieve either: the formulation and implementation of a strategy to fight the occupation, apartheid and racial discrimination. This will lead us to something that is absolutely necessary at this stage, which is to move from the world of slogans to the world of practical activism in accordance with viable strategic plans that mobilise demonstrators against the wall, intellectuals and politicians and other sectors of society. It is high time we realise that diplomatic endeavours and negotiations do not free us from the nuts and bolts of actual struggle. We have one road that leads to a single goal: the freedom of the Palestinian people. There is nothing nobler than to follow this road to its end. This is not a project for some point in the future; it is one that cannot wait. Indeed, we should probably adopt the slogan of the freedom fighters of South Africa: "Freedom in our lifetime!"

* The writer is secretary-general of the Palestinian National Initiative

SOURCE: http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2009/960/op13.htm

Read the magazine online at: http://www.badil.org/al-majdal/al-majdal.htm

Bethlehem, August 2009: The BADIL Resource Center for Palestinian
Residency and Refugee Rights announces the release of its Spring /
Summer 2009 issue of al-Majdal, Badil's English-language quarterly magazine.

This issue of al-Majdal draws on the research and experience of the
participants in the Israel Review Conference
(http://israelreview.bdsmovement.net), and the topics on which they
focused to provide an overview of routes, challenges, and
recommendations for "Litigating Palestine." They evaluate past attempts at taking Israel and its abettors to court, assess the role of law in
attaining justice for victims, and ­perhaps of particular interest to
non-lawyers ­the role of civil society in supporting legal battles to
attain justice for Palestinians.

A recurring theme is the consistent interference of executive and
legislative branches of government to shield Israel and its agents from
prosecution. Susan Akram and Yasmine Gado's article on civil tort claims
in U.S. courts shows how the U.S. government has consistently interfered
to ensure that courts dismiss Palestinian cases on procedural and
jurisdictional grounds. Bill Bowring looks into the situation in Europe
making it clear that Palestinians “do not have the possibility of
addressing complaints to the European Court of Human Rights and the
European Court of Justice.

Contributions in this issue also explore possibilities for legal action
that can potentially overcome ­or at least bypass  someome of these
limitations, by targeting third parties. John Reynolds describes the
case targeting the U.K. government as a third party complicit in Israeli
violations. Deborah Guterman examines the case of Quebec courts against
Canadian corporations involved in the construction of Israeli colonies
in the West Bank. Karen Pennington and Joseph Schechla revisit US courts
in an examination of whether recent precedents targeting Islamic
charities may reopen the door to challenging the Jewish National Fund
and other Zionist para-state organizations as charitable organizations
in that country.

As this issue goes to print, news is circulating about the change in
Spanish universal jurisdiction laws as a direct attempt to protect
Israeli war crime suspects from prosecution. Meanwhile, there is an
ongoing legal challenge to Heidelberg Cement for its plunder of quarries
in the occupied West Bank, and a German-E.U. challenge to European
imports from Ma'ale Adumim's Soda-Club. The U.K. has announced a partial
arms embargo on Israel, while U.K. courts have dismissed the case
challenging the U.K. government for its failure to fulfill its
obligations under international law with respect to Israel's activities
in the Occupied Palestinian Territory. These are some of the many
examples of the ways in which the courtroom has developed as a site of
struggle to attain justice for Palestinians. As such, it is important to
learn from the experiences of the past and coordinate action for the
future in order to increase chances for success.

———————————
Visit the al-Majdal homepage at http://www.badil.org/al-majdal/al-majdal.htm

or download the full PDF version of this issue of al-Majdal at:
http://www.badil.org/al-majdal/2008/autumn-winter/majdal39-40.pdf

Annual subscriptions to the printed version of the magazine are
available for Euro 25 (4 issues).

Subscribe online at
http://www.badil.org/paypal/publications.htm
or through email requests addressed to the editor at info@badil.org

“Lebanon’s endangered Green Sea Turtles are no less genetically imprinted by nature to return West to the Sea than her Palestinian Refugees are imprinted by justice to return south to their homes.”
Nehme Hamie, Horse Rancher near Baalbek, Bekaa Valley

It is hard to believe that it has already been three years since July 13 and 15, 2006, when American MK 82 and MK 83, 500 and 1,000 lb. bombs, and four US TOW missiles, gifted to Israel, destroyed Lebanon’s oil storage facility at Jiyeh, 30 kilometers south of Beirut.

The attack at Jiyeh was one of more than 12,000 Israeli air force bombing missions during the 33 day attack on Lebanon, as its navy fired 2,500 missiles as its Army fired over 100,000 shells. Large parts of the Lebanese civilian infrastructure were destroyed, including 400 miles of roads, 73 bridges, and dozens of other civilian targets bombed such as Beirut's Rafic Hariri Airport, ports, water and sewage treatment plants, electrical facilities, 25 fuel stations, 900 commercial structures, up to 350 schools and two hospitals. More than 15,000 homes were destroyed and an additional 130,000 damaged.

The intentional environmental disaster at Jiyeh was the worst of its kind in Lebanese history with more than 15,000 pounds of thick oil soaking Lebanon’s beaches turning some into tar pits. According to the World Bank the bombing of the oil storage tanks produced a 50,000 sq meter “carpet” of oil sunken below the sea just off the coast of Sidon which Greenpeace claims will require decades if not centuries to recover. Efforts by UN Sec.-General Ban Ki-Moon to collect close to a billion dollars from Israel to reimburse Lebanon for clean up and restoration costs remains stymied today by a US veto threat of any Security Council resolution that attempts to hold Israel responsible.

Why clean a Lebanese beach?

The Washington DC-Beirut based Sabra Shatila Foundation as well as American, European, and Lebanese co-sponsors, decided, as part of next month’s 27th Anniversary commemoration of the 1982 Massacre at Beirut’s Sabra Shatila Palestinian Refugee Camp, to clean nearby Ramlet el Baida Beach and develop a continuing program to keep it clean. As one of very few free Lebanese beaches, Ramlet el Baida is used daily by Palestinian refugees, poor Syrians, Lebanese, and the nearly enslaved foreign ‘guest’ workers from Sri Lanka, the Philippines, Ethiopia, Sudan, Bangladesh and other countries.
To its great credit, and in support of the Free Gaza Campaign’s (freegaza.org) efforts to break the siege of Gaza, Beirut’s Municipality agreed with SSF that Beirut’s main beach would be renamed “Free Gaza Beach” for 24 hours and that Ramlet el Baida would be forever ‘twinned’ with Palestine’s Gaza Beach.

Since the beginning of the Lebanese civil war in 1975, Beirut’s beaches suffer from an inordinate amount of trash, some quite heavy. According to two Lebanese environmental NGO’s, Cedars for Care, and Big Blue, part of the garbage is from the huge sea-edge mountain of trash 45 kilometers south in Saidon. The eastern Mediterranean coast current runs approximately south to north and so as Saidon’s trash mountain rubbish washes out to sea, which it does daily, some of it ends up on Lebanon’s northern beaches. The further north one goes along Lebanon’s beaches, the more washed up trash one observes. When Lebanon resolves to recycle Saidon Trash Mountain, her beaches will be in much better shape for all to enjoy.

Some conspiracy theorists claim, without compelling proof, that the large number of plastic hypodermic needles on Lebanese beaches are from Israel’s sea dumped medical waste and relatively large heroin drug addict population, among the highest in the world on a per capita basis, according to the World Health Organization and UNODC (UN Office of Drugs and Crime).

Beach clean-up volunteers were asked to be particularly careful of handling needles, especially with Hebrew markings, or to leave them in place and report to their “team leaders”.

Most studies of the growing drug use to Lebanon’s south indicate that drug abuse is spread among all social strata in Israel. The most abused drugs among Israel’s growing West Bank settlement population are anti-anxiety and anti-depressant ‘cocktails’ as well as cannabis, heroin and synthetic ‘downers’ with heroin becoming more prominent in recent years. In 2006 Israeli authorities again reported a rise in the consumption of cocaine and a sharp increase in the use of LSD and amphetamines. In addition, Israel authorities are concerned about the widespread abuse of tranquilizers; attributed to “the pressure of living surrounded by enemies”. The drug-related crimes are reported to represent 75% of the total crimes committed in Israel. (See Isralowitz R; Reznik A; Spear SE; Brecht ML; Rawson RA. Título: Severity of heroin use in Israel. April, 2007).

Pollution from Israel is not new in Lebanon. Southern villagers have long experienced and resisted Israeli efforts to pollute their farm lands, steal fertile top soil, steal water, sabotage Lebanese crops, weaken the economy and attempt to eliminate commercial competition and ‘put the Lebanese on a diet’ to paraphrase former Israeli Prime Minister, Ehud Olmert with respect to Gaza.

On August 2, shortly after 8 am hundreds of Palestinian and Lebanese volunteers assembled on “Free Gaza Beach” to fill blue trash bags of trash from the 1.5 mile beach. Hezbollah pledged to send Madhi scouts and has since offered more beach cleaning help in the future. (For more on Hezbollah’s Madhi girl guides and boy scouts, see the forthcoming volume by F. Lamb: Hezbollah: Inside Out! Chapter 14: The Madhi Scouts: “Boys and Girls from Brazil or the kids next door?)

As the sun rose rapidly from Syria to the East, temperatures quickly climbed to 35 degrees. Palestinian Refugees Camp volunteers and supporters from Hezbollah, the USA, Iran, Europe, England, Canada, and Lebanon, fanned out across the beach in teams of 15-20 each.

One precocious 12-year-old Hezbollah Girl Guide from Haret Hreik in Dahiyeh, didactically inquired of her American companion from California, “Just how people expect the tiny baby turtles who, Inshallah, will hatch next month and try to crawl to the sea to grow up, can possibly climb over all the beach garbage?”

From the, skinniest tyke, with a determination that inspired some beefy battle hardened elders, they scoured the hot sand and plucked trash.
Some participated in a discussion led by a Syrian teacher who stood in front of a display of the Lebanese, American, Iranian, Palestine, Hezbollah, and various NGO flags. They considered the question of how these flags belonged to their people and not just to their governments. And why it is quite appropriate on such an occasions to fly them next to one other, despite differences among their governments. “Flags represent people, not just governments, flying them does not mean we accept the policies or military actions of governments du jour”, the teacher advised.

The kids learned more about the environment of the Mediterranean, its fragility and the need for helping its many species in danger from man’s abuse.

As the volunteers from various confessions and countries co-mingled, some asked fellow beachcombers questions including the “why do you guys hate us?” one and the “are you guys really terrorists and Islamophobes, you seem sort of nice?” one.

These questions and many others were heard here even among adults, as more and more visiting Americans and Europeans value the chance to engage in dialogue and gain reliable information, as well as understanding and insights unavailable in many media outlets.

No help from Uncle Sam this time

The US Embassy was asked if USAID might donate water or ice cream for the kids cleaning Beirut’s beach. USAID apologized and told the Sabra Shatila Foundation representative, lovely Ms. Nancy from Cape Cod Massachusetts, that after 3 days careful study of the subject that USAID “regrettably does not have the budget to provide water (cost? maybe $50) for Palestinian and Lebanese children who will be cleaning Ramlet el Baida beach on August Second”. During a follow up call by one of the American Boy Scouts who looked forward to joining fellow scouts from Muslim Sunni Jarrah Scouts and the Muslim Shia Madhi Scouts of Hezbollah, “that ice cream is a luxury these days and not in the USAID budget. However we are able to supply an American flag for display if you would like”.

Bless its heart; the American Embassy in Beirut did indeed present a fine large American flag which flew proudly on the beach next to the flags of Hezbollah, Lebanon, Palestine, Iran, Norwegian People’s Aid, and Big Blue and Cedars for Care, Lebanese environmental groups.

As the thirsty camp kids contemplated “water, water everywhere and ne’er a drop to drink”, and trudged east to west, with the rising Lebanese morning sun on their backs, picking up trash, God shined his grace upon them and with the help of cash donations from American citizens from Florida, Washington State and New York and a Palestinian scholar in Oxford, England, 600 bottles of Lebanon’s finest ice cold pure mountain water, Sohat by name, as well as delicious Lebanese Cortina ice cream, and “Keep our Beaches Clean!” T-Shirts and Baseball caps appeared just in the nick of time.

In defense of USAID’s apparent stinginess it should be conceded that the Agency is not without its own issues. Giving anything to a Palestinian these days requires lot of analysis. One can imagine the hullabaloo in the Israeli occupied US Congress if USAID had provided water for this particular mixture of beach cleaning kids. Which member of Congress would be the first to complain of aiding potential future terrorists? A Congressional investigation might be demanded by close to 20% of its Members beefing up the AIPAC campaign to destroy President Obama’s Middle East initiatives in Palestine.

To excuse USAID further, in its 8/5/09 edition, the Washington Post suggests that decision making at “the main U.S. foreign aid agency(USAID) is in limbo, entering its seventh month without a permanent director despite pledges by the Obama administration to expand development assistance and improve its effectiveness in poor countries.

Both President Obama and Secretary Clinton have said how important helping foreign countries with environmental problems is.

“Increasingly, it's a painful contrast between their rhetoric and the reality of having no leadership at USAID”, according to Carol Lancaster, interim dean of the Walsh School of Foreign Service at Georgetown University, who served as deputy administrator of the aid agency under President Bill Clinton.

Lancaster claims that USAID assistance oversees doubled, to $13.2 billion in 2008 and the agency has become a conduit for money flowing to contractors, who have limited supervision from the agency.

Reverend David Beckmann, president of the aid group Bread for the World, describing the plethora of political claims attached to USAID helping grassroots projects such as beach cleaning. The development program, he said, "is a mess. In the USAID budget, every dollar has three purposes: help build an Air Force base, support the University of Mississippi, and get some country to support our projects.

According to Reverend Beckmann, “The waste of billions of U.S. reconstruction dollars in Iraq and the growing role of development in the U.S. strategy in Afghanistan have given new urgency to long-running debates about reforming the USAID system.”

Sometimes cheery in outlook, the Sabra Shatila Foundation US Embassy contact noted that “after we finish our Iraq and Afghanistan work, and depending on what happens with the US economy, we may have more funding available for projects such as Lebanon’s environment. Next time gives us more notice and we will see what we can do.” No hard feelings.
The beach project was good event. Some volunteers called or emailed the Sabra Shatila Foundation this week and reported, ”we want to do more stuff”.
Slowly, slowly maybe mutual understanding in the Middle East is deepening.
One example, perhaps unrepresentative:

Last year, a former American Ambassador, part of a delegation from a Washington DC based US delegation who had served in the region at the time of Hezbollah’s birth, explained that he had changed his views of the Party of God. “Lamb, he said, “if the average American could come here to observe what is going on in Lebanon today and the ‘human face’ of Hezbollah, I am sure 85% of them would support the Lebanese Resistance and its work.”

Another former US Ambassador recently told a gathering of Americans in Beirut, relaxing with a drink or two following a long day of briefings: “Not only is Hezbollah the most secular of the Lebanese groups in my opinion, Hezbollah is as American as Apple Pie! We are very similar in many ways how we think and analyze problems.” He continued, “Our peoples are much alike. It’s no less than a goddamned shame that our government is currently at odds because if we worked together, with Hezbollah, Syria and Iran, we could solve many Middle East problems from Iraq, Afghanistan to Palestine. We should also calm down about the Iran is seeking nuclear weapons b——-! That’s a red herring if ever I saw one! Hell I don’t claim to know what the Iranians are doing but if I was Iran facing that bunch running Israel I would sure get me a couple for self defense if I could! And while I am on this subject, when and if Iran gets a nuclear bomb, Israel is likely finished. Not because Iran will use it, but because its deterrence will stop Israel from threatening the region and you will see and international resistance bloom like Mao’s thousand flowers!”

Then the retired American Ambassador, who had served in China in the late 1970’s, downed his third scotch on the rocks and fixed his gaze on a svelt Lebanese beauty who entered the Hamra bar and smiled at him.

Fplamb is doing research in Lebanon and can be reached at fplamb@sabrashatila.org .

This was sent to me by Machetera:
Sibel Edmonds just emailed me saying that she has been blocked from her Blog account by Google. The timing is suspicious given her two recent explosive radio interviews and having just been subpoenaed as well. She wants support from anyone to disseminate this information.

I have deleted her personal email but the below is in its entirety from her
website
http://www.justacitizen.com/Press_Releases/URGENTGoogle%27s%20Blogger-Aug6.htm

URGENT: GOOGLE BLOCKS MY SITE DURING SENSITIVE PERIOD

WE NEED YOUR HELP

My Blog Site http://123realchange.blogspot.com is now blocked by Google/Blogger. They will not let me post during this most sensitive period, when I am about to provide deposition on Foreign US government illegal operations in the United States!

A few weeks ago I started receiving Google & Blogger warnings from my
technologically savvy friends and well-wishers, who encouraged me to have a mirror site as a back up and or cease using Google's Blogger all together. I
did take these warnings seriously and started looking at alternatives and
other options. Well, this is what I got from Blogger yesterday:

*From: **Blogger** <no-reply@google.com>
Date: Thu, Aug 6, 2009 at 8:19 AM
Subject: http://123realchange.blogspot.com/ - ACTION REQUIRED
To: XXXXXXXXXXXX

  Hello,

  Your blog at: http://123realchange.blogspot.com/ has been identified as a
potential spam blog.  To correct this, please request a review by filling
out the form at
http://www.blogger.com/unlock-blog.g?lockedBlogID=6542765284440328864

  Your blog will be deleted in 20 days if it isn't reviewed, and your
readers will see a warning page during this time. After we receive your
request, we'll review your blog and unlock it within two business days. Once
we have reviewed and determined your blog is not spam, the blog will be
unlocked and the message in your Blogger dashboard will no longer be
displayed. If this blog doesn't belong to you, you don't have to do
anything, and any other blogs you may have won't be affected.

  We find spam by using an automated classifier. Automatic spam detection
is inherently fuzzy, and occasionally a blog like yours is flagged
incorrectly. We sincerely apologize for this error. By using this kind of
system, however, we can dedicate more storage, bandwidth, and engineering
resources to bloggers like you instead of to spammers. For more information, please see Blogger Help: http://help.blogger.com/bin/answer.py?answer=42577

  Thank you for your understanding and for your help with our spam-fighting
efforts.

  Sincerely,

  The Blogger Team

  P.S. Just one more reminder: Unless you request a review, your blog will
be deleted in 20 days. Click this link to request the review:
http://www.blogger.com/unlock-blog.g?lockedBlogID=6542765284440328864

*

I am still looking into it and will be corresponding with them to find out
what the heck is going on, but I must say the timing of this is extremely
troubling:

Is it coincidence that this comes up when I am subpoenaed <http://123realchange.blogspot.com/2009/08/breaking-news.html>to
provide sworn deposition on matters that have sent our government
scrambling and certain high-level criminal entities sweating big time?

Is this due to my latest interviews for my Boiling Frogs Show on explosive
issues such as AIPAC, Iran, Central Asia, and Pakistan? We know big brother
NSA has been listening, and my guests have really been talking. We just
wrapped up our phone interviews with Phil Giraldi (on AIPAC & Israel and
more), Richard Barlow (on Pakistan and what our government didn't want its
people to know), Joe Trento (on Iran, Brzezinski, and more), Sandalio
Gonzalez (on our phony War on Drugs, House of Death, Kent Memo, and
more)? You see what I am getting at here?

Or is it the fact that this blog is becoming more popular, the visitors'
number has been going up rapidly, and its content getting picked up by many, nationally and internationally? And I am talking about content and topics that are blacklisted by the US Mainstream Media.

I don't know the answer. I may never know. However, what I know is this: I
better find a different or multiple different, blog sites and keep this forum alive. I also want to warn others who may become subject to this kind of notice, or maybe get terminated without any notice!

Please help me, thus all of us, resolve this blockage immediately, since in
the next few days this blog may prove to be extremely crucial to report
developing news and cases which will not be covered by MSM.

Thank you,

Sibel Edmonds

I could denounce the complacency of the self-absorbed and disconnected leadership of our "Arab" community. But at some point, words and videos (and threats to do unspeakable things to one's hair) don't suffice to express frustration. The complacency somehow manages to confound language and camera lenses.

The US has been strangling the life out of Iraq for the last two decades and killed over a million Iraqis and displaced 4 million and continues to support the zionist presence on Palestinian land. What more does it need to do before we see some raw, self-respecting outrage coming out of institutional Arab-America? Behold (emphasis added):

P. 10 of Forum and Link, a local Arab-American magazine, covers the recent ADC fest in Washington. It whitewashes Clinton's crimes. "As the U.S. continues to push for peace in the area, 'I think it’s really important to give the Palestinian people something to look forward to,' Clinton said to loud applause [from the Arab audience]."
 

Meaning, if Bush says at an Arab convention "I think it's really important to give the Iraqi people something to look forward to", he'll also get "loud applause" from Arabs (also known as people who ought to know better).

The ADC also awarded Congressman John Dingell: "After his speech, he wrapped his arms around Dingell and the congressman’s wife Debbie and chatted at length. In an interview before his award, Dingell said much work is needed by political Washington on behalf of Arab Americans."

Allow me to quote Dingell in his own words. This is from the government's own website, not the Book of Arab Conspiracy Theories: http://www.house.gov/dingell/110/080423israel.shtml "In my 50 years in Congress, I have proudly supported more than $300 billion dollars in aid for the State of Israel".

Furthermore, if I massacre a bunch of squirrels, I'll get praise at a squirrel convention as long as I avoid using the expression "war on squirrels." "Shora praised Obama for avoiding using the phrase 'war on terrorism,' a signature phrase in the Bush era that many Arab Americans feel fanned fears of people of Arab and Muslim descent. Shora’s observation drew applause."

The most radical statement out of that convention was this beauty paegant type answer: "Also receiving an award were Hasan and Shereen Newash of Grosse Pointe. The couple founded the Michigan Citizens for Palestinian Rights, an educational outreach group. Before receiving their award, Shereen Newash said they look forward to “peace in the Middle East.”

Saja

* "House Arab" is a term inspired by Malcolm X's usage of "House Negro" and "Field Negro."

The ADC's Criteria for Usage of the Word "Condemnation" and for Invitation as Keynote Speakers at Convention

In order for the ADC to "condemn" an attack, the victims in question must be either:

1) Jewish (which is understandable, considering the timid nature of AIPAC, ADL and JDL; recall "condemnation" of alleged attack on NY synagogues last month); or

2) members of Congress; or

3) Nobel Laureate winners (see below).

Otherwise, if you're a plain vanilla Arab, attacks on you don't get "condemned" by the American "Arab" Anti-Discrimination Committee. For example, condemnation of the savage bombardment of plain vanilla Arabs in Iraq's Guernica, Falluja, is nowhere to be heard by ADC even though the city was bombed to oblivion by the world's only superpower. Mention of the city comes up once on adc.org, in the context of instructing it to release humanitarian workers.

You have to fall into one of the above three categories to matter to the ADC. No exceptions shall be made. Those who request exceptions shall be condemned.

In order to quality for an invitation as keynote speaker to an ADC convention, the bar is a bit higher:

1) strangulate half a million Iraqi kids (Clinton); or

2) convince the UN that defenseless, sanctioned Arab countries have WMD's (Powell); or

3) bomb Arab medicine factories (Clinton again)

* Journalist Yvonne Ridley and film-maker Aki Nawaz sailed to Gaza with the FGM on the first mission to break the siege in August 2008. Ridley was given a media award at the annual Muslim News awards. Her website is www.yvonneridley.org