The recent Turkish decision to exclude Israel from an aerial military exercise over Turkish territory is another indication that Turkey will not allow itself to be blackmailed by criminal international Zionism.

Following the decision, Zionist officials and media sought to mitigate its impact on the increasingly troubled relations with Turkey by claiming that it had little to do with the genocidal blitz which the Israeli army carried out in winter against the Gaza Strip.
However, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, the Prime Minister of Turkey, and other Turkish officials  have made  it amply clear that the cancellation of the military drill is consistent with the feelings of the vast bulk of  the Turkish masses vis-à-vis the Nazi-like atrocities in the Gaza Strip.

This week, Erdogan once again invoked the mass killings by the Israeli army of hundreds of Palestinian children, using white phosphorus shells and other weapons of death.
The Turkish premier argued convincingly that Turkey has an influential public opinion and that it was the government’s duty to take it into consideration.

His remarks have effectively silenced Zionist pretensions and attempts at self-assurance that Turkey would budge to Zionist pressure.

To be sure, Israel is unlikely to succumb to the new reality of Turkish-Israeli relations, namely that the quasi-Islamic leadership of  Turkish republic will not just play deaf and dumb and look the other way if the Zionist regime keeps up its genocidal crimes against the helpless and innocent civilians in occupied Palestine.

Zionist circles, incensed by their inability to intimidate or bully the Turkish leadership, are likely to be devising ways and means of retributions against Turkey.

These might include instigating the Jewish-controlled American congress to declare the anti-Armenian campaign of 1915 a “genocide” or even a “holocaust.” More importantly, Israel and its Zionist circles are likely to step up efforts to incite the traditionally secular Turkish military establishment to topple the democratically-elected government.

Israel has had a reputation of inciting the Turkish military against civilian governments that dared deviate from the Zionist line.

A classical example was the Zionist-envisaged coup against the first Islamic Prime Minister of modern Turkey, Necmittin Erbakan in 1997.

Moreover, Israel could still manipulate a vast network of Freemason agents to destabilize the Turkish government.

Zionism played a pivotal role in effecting the downfall of the Ottoman state after Sultan Abdul Hamid II adamantly refused repeated Jewish solicitations for a national Jewish home in Palestine.

Nevertheless, Israel would have to be extremely cautious about any provocative interference in internal Turkish affairs since this could boomerang badly on Israel and cause irreparable damage to Israeli-Turkish relations.

Also, the increasingly stable relations between the Turkish government and the military establishment are likely to make any Zionist-inspired conspiracies against the stability of Turkey more difficult than ever before.

The exclusion of Israel from the Anatolian Eagle exercise seems to be a popular measure for most Turks who are disquieted by recurrent efforts by government-backed Jewish extremists to arrogate a foothold at the Aqsa Mosque in occupied Jerusalem, one of Islam’s holiest sanctuaries.

In addition, the decision is manifestly morally right. After all, which country, let alone an Islamic country, would host warplanes that only a few months ago were raining death on helpless and unprotected children throughout the Gaza Strip, killing, maiming and incinerating thousands of innocent people, and utterly destroying thousands of homes, mosques and other civilian buildings?

The Zionists will always try to defend or cover up their evil crimes, now exposed by the Goldstone report, with obscene lies.

They would claim, as the former Israeli Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni did this week, that the virtual genocide in Gaza was not an anti-Palestinian act but rather an “anti-terrorist act.”
But such claims are nothing short of a fornication with language.

After all, it is well-established that the vast majority of the victims of the Gaza blitz were innocent civilians. This fact is readily recognized by human rights groups such as Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch and even Israel’s own B’tselem group which monitors Israeli army crimes in the occupied Palestinian territories.

So could it be that the entire world is wrong about what happened in Gaza while the Judeo-Nazi thugs in Tel Aviv are right?

The Turkish leadership should therefore be applauded for its moral commitment toward  the helpless Palestinians, many of whom have Turkish ancestry, who are languishing under an unmitigated Nazi-like military occupation.

This Turkish approach to Israel, an entity whose very existence constitutes a gigantic war crime, or a crime against humanity, is the least any Muslim country can do to prevent a possible genocide against the Palestinians.

This is why, other Muslim (and non-Muslim) countries with diplomatic ties with the Israeli regime ought to learn a moral lesson from Turkey and stop having “business as usual” with the Nazis of our time.

I am saying this  because it is a Nazi act par excellence to employ the most advanced technology of death  to exterminate innocent civilians who are even denied access to food and fuel as well as  some of the basic amenities of life, on the ground that a few Israeli settlers were killed and injured by primitive projectiles fired by desperate Palestinian resistance fighters who found themselves very much in a situation resembling  that which faced the anti-Nazi resistance fighters in Europe during the Second World War.

I am sure that conscientious people around the world, including many Jews, know in the depth of their hearts that what Israel did in Gaza ten months ago, and what it has been doing to the Palestinians for decades, belongs to the same moral category under which Nazi atrocities are listed.

This is why it is a moral obligation of the highest order upon all people of conscience and honesty, irrespective of religion and race, to condemn, expose and isolate this nefarious regime that is trying to consolidate the law of the jungle in place of international law.

Failing to do so, God forbid, means that the law of the jungle will prevail.

In an unusual decision, the Norwegian Nobel Committee put an end to seven months of searching among the 205 nominees for the Nobel Peace Prize and conferred it upon Barack Obama.  The Norwegian committee's decision provoked very mixed international reactions: ranging from stupefaction to huge laughter.  The statement by the organization's president, Thorbjorn Jagland got straight to the point: "It's important for the Committee to recognize those people who are struggling and idealistic, but we cannot do that every year.  We must from time to time go into the realm of realpolitik.  It is always a mix of idealism and realpolitik that can change the world."  The problem with Obama is that his idealism remains at the level of rhetoric, while in the world of realpolitik, his initiatives could not be more antagonistic to the search for peace in this world.

Likewise, the stupid and disgraceful feat immensely serves the Israeli goal of covering up the Nazi-like crimes the Israeli occupation army committed during its manifestly criminal war on the Gaza Strip nine months ago. 

Endorsement of the report by UNHRC would probably have paved the way for the prosecution of Israeli war criminals before  the International Criminal Court (ICC) as well as International Court of Justice (ICJ) in The Hague. 

The PA has given a plethora of  mostly mendacious pretexts to justify the scandalous act which numerous Palestinians, ordinary people as well as intellectuals, have described as an expression of national treason. 

To be sure, the Palestinians had on their side a solid majority of  33-35 member-states out of the 47-member council, which means the Goldstone commission report could have been easily endorsed by the UNHRC and referred to ICC or ICJ. 

Hence, the only real interpretation of the PA decision to delay a vote on the report is that the Ramallah regime wanted only to appease Israel and the Obama administration irrespective of the disastrous effects and ramifications on the Palestinian cause, especially on the unwept victims of Israeli war crimes in the Gaza Strip. 

Well, if Israel can get away with murdering 1300 Palestinians and utterly destroying half of Gaza, the next holocaust would probably assume European proportions. After all, the world can’t be more Palestinian than the Palestinians themselves. 

Prior to the decision, there were reports that President Obama personally intervened behind the scenes, asking the PA leadership to stop pushing for the endorsement of the report since according to him doing so would undermine “diplomatic efforts.” 

Similarly, another report suggested  that the PA had reached  a deal with Israel whereby the apartheid  Zionist regime agreed to license a business venture partially owned by wealthy businessmen linked to the PA  in return for the latter agreeing to defer discussion of the Goldstone report at the UNHRC. 

The PA ambassador to the UN in Geneva, Ibrahim Khreishi, was quoted as saying that the Palestinian leadership was interested in a “compromise text.” 

“It will help us explain to the Israelis that the international community is with the Palestinians to achieve their hopes and dreams.” 

What a stupidity! After more than 42 years of a criminal military occupation, do we still have to explain our suffering to the Israelis? 

Does Mr. Khreishi really think that all the Israelis needed to desist from their Nazi-like crimes against our people was just a “convincing explanation”? 

Does the PLO ambassador think a “compromise text” would make the despicable thugs and war criminals in Tel Aviv reconsider their criminal approach vis-à-vis the Palestinians? 

And what does a “compromise text” mean anyway? Did Israel not commit war crimes and crimes against humanity knowingly, willfully and deliberately against innocent people in Gaza? 

Didn’t Israel rain death, using state-of-the-art of the American technology of death, on unprotected civilian neighborhoods, killing and maiming thousands of innocent men, women and children?  

Didn’t Israel rain white phosphorous on large parts of Gaza, incinerating innocent life all over the coastal territory? 

Didn’t Israel knowingly and deliberately rain bombs from high altitudes on homes, mosques, colleges, hospitals and schools all over Gaza? 

So, how could any human being with any semblance of honesty and morality try to make these crimes look less nefarious and less satanic by agreeing to adopting a  “compromise text”?

Of all people in the world, we Palestinians must call the spade a spade especially when we see that proverbial spade in the hands of our grave diggers,  tormentors and child killers. 

The Judeo-Nazi army, navy and air force  murdered our people en masse in Gaza and the West Bank. They committed their horrendous crimes in broad daylight and  in full view of the entire world. 

There were no extenuating circumstances or controversial accounts of what really happened. The so-called “Qassam rockets” are largely a red-herring and shouldn’t be used in the same phrase with the horrendous Israeli machine of death since the enormity and deadliness in both cases are totally incomparable.  

And above all, the person who prepared the report, Richard Goldstone, is a Jew, actually a Zionist Jew, who would never overplay and exaggerate these war crimes against a virtually completely unprotected people whose very physical survival has always depended and continues to depend on the good will of the international community.

Hence, the Palestinian people, the longest-lasting victims of genocidal racism,  and the entire free world around us would like to know what is it that makes the Palestinian leadership in Ramallah and its disoriented ambassador in Geneva cringe so submissively in the face of Zionist pressure? 

Don’t you people have any modicum of honor and national dignity? After all, we are talking about real crimes and hundreds of children mercilessly murdered by the army of  these thuggish Zionist spokespersons who are now shamelessly bragging about swaying the PA ambassador into helping  the Israeli propaganda cause. 

Nevertheless, it is probably unfair to pin all the blame on Khreishi, a mere functionary who had to heed the stupid instructions from Ramallah. 

True, Khreishi should have resigned rather than be part to an ignominious act of national betrayal. But the ultimate villain is, of course, the Palestinian Judenrat in Ramallah which has become inured to sacrificing  Palestinian national interests for the sake of appeasing Israel and pleasing the Obama administration in the hope of getting a “payoff” of some kind.

Interestingly, however,  the “payoff” given to the PA  that we have seen so far is in the form of more Jewish settlement expansion in the West Bank, more Jewish provocations at the Al-Aqsa Mosque esplanade, and more Jewish violence and terror against unprotected Palestinian citizens in both the West Bank and Gaza Strip. 

As to the Obama administration, it, too, has been “rewarding” the PA for its perfidy and betrayal of its own people by turning a blind eye to Israeli settlement expansion and by insisting that the PA resume talks with the arrogant government of Benyamin Netanyahu without any preconditions.

Well, people who don’t respect themselves don’t deserve respect from others. Moreover, an authority that torments, tortures and kills its own citizens in order to please the Israeli occupier and obtain from it a certificate of good conduct is utterly unqualified to be a true representative of the Palestinian people. 

Finally,  it is probably safe to assume that the PA dreads a thorough discussion of the Goldstone report as much as Israel does. 

According to certain sources, the PA had consistently urged Israel to pursue the criminal war on the Gaza Strip to the end. 

Israel is also believed to possess damning evidence showing some PA officials pleading with Israel to keep up the war on Gaza in order to crush Hamas. 

Hence, it is highly likely that the PA has found itself in an exceedingly embarrassing situation, which explains why it doesn’t want to see a public discussion of the Goldstone report take place anytime soon as this would reveal many shocking  and embarrassing secrets about  PA connivance with Israel in carrying out the Nazi-like onslaught on the Gaza Strip.

Illustration By Carlos Latuff

President Obama got the leaders of Israel and Palestine to shake hands this week. But a meeting in Midtown does not a Palestinian deal make. Here’s why.

By Zahi Khouri *

"Economic Peace Is Possible."

No. Neither sustainable economic development nor peace is possible without political freedom.

The idea of "economic peace" suggests an economic conflict, and the Palestinian-Israeli conflict is certainly not that. Although economic issues do figure into Palestinian concerns, they are not nearly as important as addressing the rights of Palestinian refugees, terminating Israel's occupation of Palestinian land, and establishing a viable, independent, and sovereign Palestinian state, with East Jerusalem as its capital. To suggest that economics are what this is about would be to sideline history and to willfully ignore the reality of Israel's occupation. This conflict is political and it calls for a solution that is political.

Besides, even if economic growth were issue No. 1, the greatest impediment to economic development and opportunity for Palestinians is not the absence of industrial parks as advocated by the Israeli government under its model of "economic peace." Rather, it is the denial of basic freedoms and rights to Palestinians under occupation and the myriad restrictions Israel imposes on the free movement of Palestinian goods and people within, and in and out of, the occupied Palestinian territory. It is the inability of Palestinians to access the 60 percent of the occupied West Bank under Area C (Israeli control), including the 40 percent that Israel claims for its settlement enterprise. And it is the forced isolation of occupied East Jerusalem, long the economic heart of the Palestinian economy, from the rest of the West Bank. All these economic constraints are fundamental to the architecture of Israel's occupation.

In short, "economic peace" is a slogan designed to give the appearance of positive movement while distracting from the real issues and the ongoing dispossession of Palestinians. It does not mean, nor does it promise, an end to Israel's occupation. Rather, it offers economic crumbs in an effort to normalize and better manage the occupation.

"As with Gaza, a West Bank Withdrawal Endangers Israel."

Wrong. Israel argues that its withdrawal from Gaza was rewarded with rocket attacks by Hamas. The attraction of such an argument lies in its simplicity. But just as "economic peace" is designed to divert attention away from the real issues, the argument that a Gaza withdrawal was dangerous for the Israelis is designed to mask the reality that Israel never stopped occupying the Gaza Strip.

Contrary to popular belief, Israel's unilateral disengagement from Gaza in 2005 did not bring about an end to the occupation. Yes, Israel removed its settlers (who, in many cases, relocated to settlements in the West Bank). And yes, Israel withdrew its troops — though only as far as the border. From that close distance, Israel has imposed a medieval-style siege on Gaza that continues to this day. Israel remains an occupying power under international law because it retains effective control over Gaza's borders and its land, sea, and airspace, allowing it to suffocate and starve Gaza as it is doing today.

The scale of the humanitarian crisis that Israel has created in Gaza is hard to convey. Even before the election of Hamas in 2006, there were severe restrictions on the amount of food, water, fuel, and other essentials allowed to enter the Gaza Strip. In 2006, then-senior Israeli government advisor Dov Weisglass callously claimed that "the idea is to put the Palestinians on a diet, but not to make them die of hunger." The result was that by the end of 2007, well over 80 percent of Gaza's population lived below the poverty line. Authorities have also clamped down on Gaza's imports and exports, suffocating the Palestinian economy. By November 2007, the U.N. World Food Program was already warning that less than half of Gaza's food import needs were being met. Following the election of Hamas, Israel tightened these economic restrictions further to enforce a complete closure, further compounding the humanitarian crisis. It is within this context that Israel's disengagement from Gaza must be judged.

Of course, rocket attacks from Gaza are not a proper response to Israel's harsh policies. Palestine is a just cause fought for in the name of rights, universal principles, and international law; its actions must be faithful to that. The lesson that should be drawn from Gaza is that the only guarantee of security for Israel is a full end to its occupation and domination — not just an end in name. The only form of withdrawal carrying the promise of peace is a full withdrawal — from the West Bank and East Jerusalem, along with Gaza — that allows for the establishment of an independent and sovereign Palestinian state.

"Arab Intransigence Blocks Peace."

Four words: the Arab Peace Initiative. First proposed by Saudi Arabia in 2002 and subsequently endorsed by 57 Arab and Islamic states, the Arab Peace Initiative offers full normalization of relations with Israel in exchange for Israel's full withdrawal from all territory occupied in 1967, as well as a just and agreed upon solution for Palestinian refugees in accordance with U.N. General Assembly Resolution 194. That resolution, in essence, says to Israel: Do what is required of you under international law and U.N. resolutions, and the Arab and Islamic world will normalize relations in return. Israel's response so far has been to ignore the Arab Peace Initiative, squandering what is a historic opportunity.

As for the Palestinians, President Mahmoud Abbas and Prime Minister Salam Fayyad are the most accommodating Palestinian leaders ever to hold office. Yet Israel is frittering away their time at the helm; Israeli leaders evidently feel no urgency to negotiate. Eventually, this window of opportunity will close. As settlers flock to the territories, Palestinians will determine that a Palestinian state is no longer viable. When the debated solution turns from two states to one state with equal rights for all, Israel may well regret it did not seize multiple opportunities to return all of the West Bank and East Jerusalem as part of a peace deal.

"Settlements Are Not the Issue."

They are crucial. Israeli settlement activity is precisely the undertaking that is foreclosing the possibility of a Palestinian state. Recent U.S. efforts to restart meaningful negotiations have faltered around Israel's refusal to implement a comprehensive settlement freeze in keeping with obligations under both international law and the "road map." Israel's refusal to comply has undermined the credibility of the peace process and eroded Palestinian public confidence in the ability of negotiations to bring tangible results.

Rather than favoring Palestinians or Israelis, a credible peace process holds both accountable to commitments made in the name of peace. The true test of meaningful negotiations, as distinct from negotiations for their own sake, is what happens on the ground. The faux freeze Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is now proposing — build units already in the pipeline and then implement a brief six-month freeze, all the while continuing pell-mell with construction in East Jerusalem — is powerful on-the-ground evidence that Netanyahu and his coalition intend to build greater Israel at the expense of Palestinians.

Israeli settlements pose the greatest threat to the two-state solution. Settlements and their related infrastructure, like settler bypass roads, account for more than 40 percent of the West Bank, fragmenting the territory, monopolizing freshwater resources, and confining Palestinians to a series of disconnected cantons where unemployment, poverty, and hopelessness have reached endemic levels. Settlements run counter to the very principle of "land for peace" on which the Middle East peace process is built, and they make a viable and sovereign Palestinian state a physical impossibility. Without a viable and sovereign Palestinian state, there is no two-state solution.

"Israel's Occupation Is Not Apartheid."

It is. In fact, it would be most accurate to call it occupation, colonialism, and apartheid all rolled into one. This is the conclusion reached in a recent report commissioned by the Human Sciences Research Council of South Africa, titled "Occupation, Colonialism, Apartheid?", that brought together a team of international scholars and legal experts to assess Israel's occupation vis-à-vis international law.

On apartheid, the report identifies a series of discriminatory laws, standards, and practices that Israel applies exclusively to Palestinians living under occupation — laws, standards, and practices which do not apply to Israeli settlers living in the occupied West Bank and that are intended to "maintain [Israel's] domination over Palestinians in the OPT [occupied Palestinian territories] and to suppress opposition of any form."

In particular, the report identifies three pillars of apartheid as it existed in South Africa, noting that they also exist in the occupied Palestinian territory today. The first pillar consists of laws and policies that "establish Jewish identity for purposes of law and afford a preferential legal status and material benefits to Jews over non-Jews." The ramifications of this include the massive disparity in terms of the rights and privileges enjoyed by Israeli settlers compared with Palestinians, such as the denial of the right of return for Palestinian refugees compared with the 1950 Law of Return allowing all Jews to immigrate to Israel or, since 1967, the occupied Palestinian territory.

The second pillar concerns Israeli policies intended to segregate the population along racial lines. These policies center on the confinement of Palestinians to areas that resemble "Bantustans" (the largest being Israel's complete closure on Gaza), policed by Israel using a network of walls, roadblocks, checkpoints, and a special permit regime. Meanwhile, the Israelis construct settlements and a separate road system to service them, all built on confiscated Palestinian land that Palestinians can no longer access.

The final pillar focuses on repressive measures initiated under the rubric of "security." For example, Palestinians are subject to arbitrary arrest, administrative detention, extrajudicial killings, torture, and an oppressive code of military laws and military courts that fall short of international standards for a fair trial. These measures are reinforced by restrictions on freedom of expression, assembly, association, movement, and so on, which are ultimately designed to suppress Palestinian dissent while reinforcing Israeli control.

In short, former U.S. President Jimmy Carter, who grew up in the Jim Crow South, has it right when he uses the term apartheid to describe Israel's policies in the occupied Palestinian territory. And the facts are increasingly on the table. Whether the Barack Obama administration, already saddled with a brutal fight over health care, has the courage to challenge Israel's "economic peace," siege of Gaza, intransigence, settlements, and apartheid remains to be seen.

* Zahi Khouri is chief executive of the Palestinian National Beverage Co. (a Coca-Cola franchisee), chairman of the Palestinian Tourism Investment Co., and chairman of the board of the NGO Development Center, a Palestinian nongovernmental organization.

But what does Holocaust denial really mean?  Begin with the word Holocaust.  The Holocaust[2] (spelled with a capital H) refers to the killing of six million Jews by the Nazis during World War II.  It is supposed to be the German's "Final Solution" to the Jewish problem.  Much of the systematic extermination was to have taken place in concentration camps by shooting, gassing, and burning alive innocent Jewish victims of the Third Reich. 

People like Germar Rudolf, Ernst Zundel, and Bishop Williamson who do not believe this account and who dare to say so in public are reviled as bigots, anti-Semites, racists, and worse.  Their alternate historical scenarios are not termed simply revisionist, but are demeaned as Holocaust denial.  Rudolf and Zundel were shipped to Germany where they were tried, convicted, and sentenced to three and five years, respectively. 

Politicians deride Holocaust revisionist papers and conferences as "beyond the pale of international discourse and acceptable behavior."[3]  Non-Zionist Jews who participate in such revisionism, like Rabbi Dovid Weiss of the Neturei Karta, are denounced as "self-haters" and are shunned and spat upon.  Even Professor Norman Finkelstein, whose parents were both Holocaust survivors and who wrote the book, The Holocaust Industry, has been branded a Holocaust denier.

But putting aside the virile hate directed against those who question the veracity of the typical Holocaust narrative, what is it that these people believe and say at the risk of imprisonment and bodily harm?  For most Holocaust revisionists or deniers if you prefer, their arguments boil down to three simple contentions: 

1.  Hitler's "Final Solution" was intended to be ethnic cleansing, not extermination.

2.  There were no homicidal gas chambers used by the Third Reich.   

3.  There were fewer than 6 million Jews killed of the 55 million who died in WWII. 

Are these revisionist contentions so odious as to cause those who believe them to be reviled, beaten, and imprisoned?  More importantly, is it possible that revisionist contentions are true, or even partially true, and that they are despised because they contradict the story of the Holocaust, a story which has been elevated to the level of a religion in hundreds of films, memorials, museums, and docu-dramas?

Is it sacrilegious to ask, "If Hitler was intent on extermination, how did Elie Wiesel, his father, and two of his sisters survive the worst period of incarceration at Auschwitz?"  Wiesel claims that people were thrown alive into burning pits, yet even the Israeli-trained guides at Auschwitz refute this claim.

Is it really "beyond international discourse" to question the efficacy and the forensic evidence of homicidal gas chambers?  If other myths, like making soap from human fat, have been dismissed as Allied war propaganda, why is it "unacceptable behavior" to ask if the gas chamber at Dachau was not reconstructed by the Americans because no other homicidal gas chamber could be found and used as evidence at the Nuremburg trials?  

For more than fifty years Jewish scholars have spent hundreds of millions of dollars to document each Jewish victim of the Nazi Holocaust.  The Nazis were German, obsessed with paperwork and recordkeeping.  Yet only 3 million names have been collected and many of them died of natural causes.  So why is it heresy to doubt that fewer than 6 million Jews were murdered in the Second World War? 

"Holocaust Denial" might be no more eccentric or no more criminal than claiming the earth is flat, except that the Holocaust itself has been used as the sword and shield in the quest to build a Jewish state between the Mediterranean Sea and the Jordan River, where even today over half the population is not Jewish.  

The Holocaust narrative allows Yad Vashem, the finest Holocaust museum in the world, to repeat the mantra of "Never Forget" while it sits on Arab lands stolen from Ein Karem and overlooking the unmarked graves of Palestinians massacred by Jewish terrorists at Deir Yassin.  It allows Elie Wiesel to boast of having worked for these same terrorists (as a journalist, not a fighter) while refusing to acknowledge, let alone apologize for, the war crimes his employer committed.  It makes Jews the ultimate victim no matter how they dispossess or dehumanize or ethnically cleanse indigenous Palestinian people. 

The Holocaust narrative eliminates any comparison of Ketziot or Gaza to the concentration camps they indeed are.  It memorializes the resistance of Jews in the ghettos of Europe while steadfastly denying any comparison with the resistance of Palestinians in Hebron and throughout the West Bank.  It allows claims that this year’s Hanukah Massacre in Gaza, with a kill ratio of 100 to one, was a “proportionate response” to Palestinian resistance to unending occupation. 

The Holocaust is used to silence critics of Israel in what the Jewish scholar, Marc Ellis, has called the ecumenical deal:  you Christians look the other way while we bludgeon the Palestinians and build our Jewish state and we won't remind you that Hitler was a good Catholic, a confirmed “soldier of Christ,” long before he was a bad Nazi. 

The Holocaust narrative of systematic, industrialized extermination was an important neo-conservative tool to drive the United States into Iraq.  The same neo-con ideologues, like Norman Podoretz, routinely compare Ahmadinejad to Hitler and Nazism with Islamofascism with the intent of driving us into Iran.  The title of the Israeli conference at Yad Vashem made this crystal clear:  "Holocaust Denial:  Paving the Way to Genocide." 

"Remember the Holocaust" will be the battle cry of the next great clash of good (Judeo/Christian values) and evil (radical Islamic aggression) and those who question it must be demonized if not burned at the stake.  

Daniel McGowan

Professor Emeritus

Hobart and William Smith Colleges

Geneva, NY  14456

September 24, 2009 

Because of admonishment by the administration, it is hereby stated that the above remarks are solely those of the author.  Hobart and William Smith Colleges neither condone nor condemn these opinions.  Furthermore, the author has been instructed to use his personal email address of mcgowandaniel@yahoo.com and not his college email at mcgowan@hws.edu for those wishing to contact him with comments or criticisms.

[2] Holocaust. Dictionary.com. The American Heritage® New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy, Third Edition. Houghton Mifflin Company, 2005. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Holocaust (accessed: February 09, 2007).

[3] http://clinton.senate.gov/news/statements/details.cfm?id=268474  (accessed: February 09, 2007)

Editor's note: This article is meant to contribute to the discussion of the question that opens cyclically every time Ahmadinejad makes a speech (that people run out of the room before it begins, but are able to respond afterward that it was "Holocaust Denial"). Regarding point 1 in the list, the utilisation of the ante-litteram term "ethnic cleansing" opens more questions than it resolves, as the term has been defined thus: 

"Despite its recurrence, ethnic cleansing nonetheless defies easy definition. At one end it is virtually indistinguishable from forced emigration and population exchange while at the other it merges with deportation and genocide. At the most general level, however, ethnic cleansing can be understood as the expulsion of an "undesirable" population from a given territory due to religious or ethnic discrimination, political, strategic or ideological considerations, or a combination of these."

Bearing in mind that genocide is included in this definition, it cannot be excluded that the "Final Solution" did not include extermination. That it was unsuccessful in what it set out to do is evident, and even in history, a trial of intention is impossible without "documentation" to substantiate it.

J Street or no J Street, the American Jewish leadership is winning and it is winning big with its support for the continued Israeli occupation, the expansion of Jewish settlements, funding criminal settlers, funding land and property thieves, keeping Congress hostage and under Zionist siege, continued funding of the Jewish Occupations, undermining the US peace efforts, undermining President Barack Obama's efforts towards peace between Israel, the Palestinians and the Arabs.

It is true there are a number of American Jewish organizations that have been working towards ending the Jewish Occupations and ending the ever expanding Jewish settlements among these group are; Not in My Name, Jewish Voices for Peace, Gush Shalom, American Council for Judaism, Americans for Peace Now, Muzzle Watch, Jews Against Zionism, O Zv’Shalom-Netivot Shalom, Bat Shalom and of course B’Tselem in Israel.

Not withstanding these organizations' commitments and dedication these organizations remain far short of the mark, they made little progress among the American Jewish community which continues in large part to support of the continued Jewish Occupations, expansions of the Jewish settlements, accelerating land and property theft, political and financial support for the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians from Jerusalem, support for destructions of farms and uprooting of trees especially olive trees, targeted killings, and support for war crimes committed by past and present Israel leadership.

The American Jewish leadership continues to and remains in the driver's seat not withstanding the change in administrations from Republicans to Democrats and of course it was and remains in charge and in control of both houses, the US Senate and the House of Representatives, deciding on and even drafting legislations that have to do with US policy in the Middle East, and continues to dictate the level of funding Israel and its Occupation receive from US taxpayers.

For over 50 years American Zionists remain in charge and in the driver's seat when it comes to the Arab-Israeli conflict with notables such as Henry Kissinger, Arthur Goldberg, Justice Brandies, (played a key role in US decision to close its shores to escaping European Jews during WW2) Walter Rostow playing a key role in formulating US policies that made peace impossible, providing Israel with political coverage at the UN through the ever present US veto powers. And opening US arsenals wide open to Israel to grab whatever it wants even at the expense of and engenderment of US military power as Kissinger did in the 1973 War.

Adding to this long list are key decision and policy makers that made irreparable harm to the chance for peace to include the likes of Dennis Ross, Martin Indyke, Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz, Douglas Feith, Edward Luttwak, Dov Zakkeim, Kenneth Adelman, I. Lewis Libby, Richard Haass, Robert Satlof, Elliot Abrams, David Frum, Joshua Bolton, Michael Chertoff among many others who are always in and out of government, yet remain influential decision makers.

To add to this list of key policy and decision makers we must not forget well-funded organizations such as AIPAC, American Enterprise Institute, Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs, Heritage Foundation, Middle East Forum, Institute for Policy Studies, CAMERA, Campus Watch among the hundreds of well-funded and well-connected organizations, not to mention key executives in US media, in films and in business who are the main source of funding to these very influential American Jewish organizations.

Too bad for Israel, for the Palestinians, for the Arabs, certainly too bad for the United States that these leaders and organizations believe that when the blood flows, the money flows, certainly when Jewish and Israeli blood flows, that is the time to cash in and the time when American Jews open their checkbooks and write fat checks to these organizations that are able to orchestrate support for Israel in the media, in Congress and on campus. Of course they are also energized when Palestinian blood is flowing, when the Israeli army and armed settlers murder women and children, when bulldozers are working overtime to destroy Palestinian homes and building the Apartheid Wall.

In a sense, I do feel very sorry for the American Jewish community to have such bloodthirsty leadership that gives unconditional support for Israel right or wrong. It seems that when it comes to commitment to a criminal Zionism all Jewish values and traditions are out the doors, windows and certainly out of mind and heart.

Peace can happen only when the US Jewish community makes its decision whether it supports a secure Israeli at peace with its neighbors and the world within 67 borders and with Jerusalem as shared and open city or supports Israel at war with its neighbors and with continued Occupation. My guess is that the US Jews will continue to support the Israeli Occupation, because Israel at peace with its neighbors puts their leadership out of business and will dry up the source of money to fund the different lobbies and organizations. Peace for Israel will undermine the Jewish leadership stranglehold on US policy in the Middle East and of course it undermines its chokehold control over Congress.

source: http://www.jeffersoncorner.com/j-street-or-no-j-street-the-american-jewish-leadership-is-the-main-obstacle-to-peace-in-the-middle-east/ ]]> http://palestinethinktank.com/2009/09/23/sami-jamil-jadallah-j-street-or-no-j-street-the-american-jewish-leadership-is-the-main-obstacle-to-peace-in-the-middle-east/feed/ 1 http://palestinethinktank.com/2009/09/23/another-farcical-show/ http://palestinethinktank.com/2009/09/23/another-farcical-show/#comments Wed, 23 Sep 2009 20:50:45 +0000 Khalid Amayreh http://palestinethinktank.com/?p=4540 WRITTEN BY Khalid Amayreh

This article was written a few hours before the New York meeting  

One doesn’t have to be a prophet to predict the outcome, or more correctly failure, of the three-way meeting between President Obama, the Israeli premier Benyamin Netanyahu and Palestinian Authority (PA) Chairman Mahmoud Abbas, which is to take place later today in New York. 

The meeting comes on the heels of two important events: First the nearly total failure of Obama’s personal Envoy to the Middle East, George Mitchell, to convince the extremist Israeli leadership to freeze Jewish settlement expansion in the West Bank and East Jerusalem. 

Mitchell met numerous times with Israeli officials in the hope of convincing them to walk in the path of peace. However, instead of listening to Mitchell, who represents the President of Israel’s guardian-ally, Israeli leaders chose to announce fresh settlement expansion plans every time the American diplomat arrived in Jerusalem. 

Moreover, the numerous promises made to Mitchell with regard to a settlement freeze, even including the pledged dismantling of so-called illegal outposts, have all failed to materialize. 

Hence, one can assume that the New York meeting is actually a timely recognition by the Obama administration of the utter failure of  Mitchell’s shuttle diplomacy. 

Second, the three-way encounter comes a week after the publication of the Goldstone’s Commission report which asserted that Israel knowingly and deliberately committed war crimes and crimes against humanity during the December-January blitz against the Gaza Strip. 

Needless to say, during the Nazi-like onslaught, the Israeli army, or Jewish Wehrmacht, murdered, maimed and incinerated thousands of innocent Palestinians. In addition, thousands of buildings, mostly civilian infrastructure such as homes, mosques and schools were utterly bombed and destroyed. 

This is not Arab propaganda. Any human being can travel to Gaza and see for himself or herself the huge magnitude of the shocking holocaust. 

For those who can’t travel to the  besieged coastal territory, they can have access to “Google Earth” and see for themselves. The important thing is not to succumb to the Zionist hasbara machine. These people lie as often as they breathe, to put it mildly. 

It is therefore shameful and immoral for the  American President, who had promised ad nauseam that decency and dignity would loom large in his administration,  to invite and welcome the leader of a criminal entity whose modus operandi continues to consist of murder, lies and land theft. 

This really forces many to pose the following question: What would it take to get the Obama administration to adopt an meaningful  stand against Israeli expansionism, racism and bellicosity? 

Obama is not a stupid man. He must be fully aware of the twisted modes of Israeli thinking. Even a brief argument with an Israeli leader or diplomat would reveal the striking morbidity of the Zionist mentality. 

This is why it is hard  to fathom how an intelligent man continues to believe that the fudge-and-compromise approach would still be working with such racist-minded Zionists who think that the entire universe was created for the sake of the Jew. 

My prediction of the New York encounter’s failure is not a matter of  soothsaying.  It is rather a careful reading into consistent Israeli political behavior since time immemorial. To put it simply, Israel will not give up the spoils of the 1967 war, unless it is forced to. Israel will not give up the bulk of Occupied East Jerusalem unless it is forced to. Israel will not allow the thoroughly-savaged refugees to be repatriated to their former homes and villages unless it is forced to. Finally, Israel will not remove these children of rape, otherwise known as “settlements” unless it is forced to. 

In light, it is perfectly legitimate to wonder if the US which has been utterly unable to get Israel to stop the construction  of even a few settler buildings in East Jerusalem, or even in the rest of the West Bank, would ever be able to compel the Zionist regime to undo the entire Zionist project. 

This is why one must always be cautious and realistic when appraising the inherently oblique American-Israeli-Palestinian axel. In particular, one must resist the temptation of thinking that the US is the dominant player in this scandalous  tripartite game of conspiracy, bullying,  betrayal, domination and compulsion. 

President Obama might be tempted to view with favor misleading Zionist arguments that the Palestinians would have to compromise and give concessions just as Israel is demanded to give concessions. 

But this argument is inherently mendacious and unfair. After all, Israel has been devouring rather gluttonously the contested piece of cheese for many decades, so much so that very little of it has been left anyway. 

Hence, the question that imposes itself on the conscience of conscientious men and women around the world, people who value honesty and justice, is whether it is fair and just to divide the remaining little of the proverbial cheese between Israel and the savaged Palestinians. 

In 1948, Zionist Jews usurped our country, committed hideous massacres, destroyed our homes and villages before deporting the majority of  native Palestinians  to the four corners of the globe. 

The Nakba was our national catastrophe and in a certain sense was our holocaust as well. The harsh impact of this cardinal  disaster remained relevant today as it was more than 60 years ago. 

However, instead of seeking genuine reconciliation with the Palestinians, if only by recognizing their basic human rights, successive Israeli leaderships constantly sought to consummate Zionism by trying to effect our national annihilation. 

Didn’t the infamous Gold Meir claim that the Palestinians didn’t exist? Don’t the shipyard dogs of Zionism continue to this day  to argue that a Palestinian state never existed  as if people not confined into a  nation-state structure didn’t have the right live on their respective homelands? 

As to the Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas, it is crystal clear he is not the best person to lead his people and represent their enduring aspirations for freedom of Justice. He is not an eloquent tongue that would fearlessly defend  our people’s cause nor is he a tough and principled leader who wouldn’t budge under pressure. 

Moreover, Abbas stands  at the helm of an entity whose very survival depends to a large extent on the “good will” and politically-motivated charity provided by western countries and their Arab puppet regimes. 

This is why it is extremely important that the Palestinian people must closely monitor Abbas’s behavior in the coming weeks and months. I am saying this because in the absence of a clarion, determined   and collective “NO” to any prospective concessions by the PLO leadership, especially with regard to our national constants,  Netanyahu and his criminal comrades could have their way of imposing de facto capitulation on an un-sovereign  leadership that is more concerned about defeating  Hamas than ending the Nazi-like Israeli occupation of our country. 

In the final analysis, people whose aspirations don’t go beyond owning a smart car and having a hefty salary at the end of the month can’t be entrusted to be honest representatives of the Palestinian people. 

And a final word to the new Fatah leadership. You repeatedly described yourselves as the new patriotic leadership of the Palestinian people. We listened to you with indifferent silence because we didn’t believe  a word of what you were saying. 

Now it is your turn to prove us wrong.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Saudi Arabia is the birthplace of Islam, the custodian of its two holy mosques, the world's energy superpower and the de facto leader of the Arab and Muslim worlds — that is why our recognition is greatly prized by Israel. However, for all those same reasons, the kingdom holds itself to higher standards of justice and law. It must therefore refuse to engage Israel until it ends its illegal occupation of the West Bank, the Gaza Strip and the Golan Heights as well as Shabaa Farms in Lebanon. For Saudis to take steps toward diplomatic normalization before this land is returned to its rightful owners would undermine international law and turn a blind eye to immorality.

Shortly after the Six-Day War in 1967, during which Israel occupied those territories as well as East Jerusalem and the Sinai Peninsula, the United Nations Security Council passed a resolution stating that, in order to form "a just and lasting peace in the Middle East," Israel must withdraw from these newly occupied lands. The Fourth Geneva Convention similarly notes "the occupying power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies."

Now, Israeli leaders hint that they are willing to return portions of these occupied territories to Arab control, but only if they are granted military and economic concessions first. For the Arabs to accept such a proposal would only encourage similar outrages in the future by rewarding military conquest.

After the Oslo accords of 1993, Arab states took steps to improve their relationships with Israel, allowing for recognition in the form of trade and consular agreements. Israel, however, continued to construct settlements, making its neighbors understandably unwilling to give up more without a demonstration that they would be granted something in return.

Today, supporters of Israel cite the outdated 1988 Hamas charter, which called for the destruction of Israel, as evidence of Palestine's attitude toward a two-state solution, without considering the illegalities of Israel's own occupation. Israel has never presented any comprehensive formulation of a peace plan. Saudi Arabia, to the contrary, has done so twice: the Fahd peace plan of 1982 and the Abdullah peace initiative of 2002. Both were endorsed by the Arab world, and both were ignored by Israel.

In order to achieve peace and a lasting two-state solution, Israel must be willing to give as well as take. A first step should be the immediate removal of all Israeli settlements in the West Bank. Only this would show the world that Israel is serious about peace and not just stalling as it adds more illegal settlers to those already occupying Palestinian land.

At the same time, the international community must pressure Israel to relinquish its grip on all Arab territory, not as a means to gain undeserved concessions but instead as an act of good faith and a demonstration that it is willing to play by the Security Council's rules and to abide by global standards of military occupation. The Arab world, in the form of the Arab peace initiative that was endorsed by 22 countries in 2002, has offered Israel peace and normalization in return for Israeli withdrawal from all Arab territories including East Jerusalem — with the refugee issue to be solved later through mutual consent.

There have been increasing well-intentioned calls for Saudi Arabia to "do a Sadat": King Abdullah travels to Israel and the Israelis reciprocate by making peace with Saudi Arabia. However, those urging such a move must remember that President Anwar el-Sadat of Egypt went to Israel in 1977 to meet with Prime Minister Menachem Begin only after Sadat's envoy, Hassan el-Tohamy, Sadat's envoy, was assured by the Israeli foreign minister, Moshe Dayan, that Israel would withdraw from every last inch of Egyptian territory in return for peace. Absent a similar offer today from Israel to the leaders of Palestine, Lebanon and Syria, there is no reason to look at 1977 as a model.

President Obama's speech in Cairo this summer gave the Arab and Muslim worlds heightened expectations. His insistence on a freeze on settlement activity was a welcome development. However, all Israeli governments have expanded settlements, even those that committed not to do so.

No country in the region wants more bloodshed. But while Israel's neighbors want peace, they cannot be expected to tolerate what amounts to theft, and certainly should not be pressured into rewarding Israel for the return of land that does not belong to it. Until Israel heeds President Obama's call for the removal of all settlements, the world must be under no illusion that Saudi Arabia will offer what the Israelis most desire — regional recognition. We are willing to embrace the hands of any partner in peace, but only after they have released their grip on Arab lands.

Prince Turki al-Faisal is chairman of the King Faisal Centre for Research and Islamic Studies. He has been director of Saudi intelligence and ambassador to Britain, Ireland, and the United States.

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?

(in the photo: People in Johannesburg March in Solidarity with Palestine.)

I am writing to express my dismay and disappointment with both your attendance at the national conference of the South African Jewish Board of Deputies – a racist organization by any standards – as well as the content of your speech at that forum.

I am a naturalised South African of Palestinian origin. I spent more than five years in  Johannesburg, during which I earned a PhD from the University of Johannesburg and lectured at the-then Vista University in Soweto and Rand Afrikaans University in Johannesburg.

I would like to take issue with the manner in which you express your support for the two-state solution: "It is a solution that fulfils the aspirations of both parties for independent homelands through two states for two peoples, Israel and an independent, adjoining, and viable state of Palestine" (emphasis mine). Allow me, Mr. President, as a resident of Gaza, to express my shock with the fact that – only 8 months after the Gaza massacre, in which 1500 civilians, including 434 children, were brutally murdered – you still believe that there are two symmetrical sides. You even call it the "Israeli-Palestinian conflict!" Was that your belief in the 1970's and 80's; that there were "two-sides" to the South African "conflict"? Were there two equal parties, namely White and Black, with equal claim to the land and equal historical responsibility for the-then status quo? No doubt, this sounds like a bizarre interpretation of South African history and one which we Palestinians find equally astounding when applied to our history and our reality today.

Mr. President, these words of yours are even more disturbing, given your own involvement in the commendable struggle against the brutal, anti-human apartheid system and the notion of "independent homelands" which were based on the separation of human beings. Your struggle as Black South Africans, was morally superior to apartheid because it was inclusive where apartheid focused on separation; it was embracing where apartheid focused on division; it was life-affirming where apartheid was violent and murderous.

The South African anti-apartheid goal, adopted by anti-apartheid activists all around the world was unequivocal: the end of the racist system and ideology of apartheid. There could be no toenadering (rapprochement) with apartheid ideologues; no creation of homelands and puppet leaders: the system had to be dismantled in its entirety. Many South Africans supported by a sustained global anti-apartheid campaign, sacrificed their lives to bring down the Bantustansan euphemistically, called independent homelands by the apartheid regime.  Mr. President, Steve Biko, Oliver Tambo, Chris Hani, the Mxenges, the Slovosac to mention but a few anti-apartheid heroes must have listened to the speech to the JBD and wondered what happened to the universal values and human rights espoused by the ANC.

Comrade Jacob (if I may),

I would like to brief you on the nature of the powerful party, i.e. Israel – with whom your post-apartheid government still, amazingly, maintains exceptional diplomatic and economic ties.

Unlike the new post-apartheid South Africa, which you helped to create, in the State of Israel all human beings are NOT equal. There are fundamental artificially created and selectively rewarded  a level of of citizens in the state. Israel defines itself as a Jewish State. It, therefore, creates a bizarre distinction between "nationality" and "citizenship." Almost 22% of the citizens of Israel are Palestinians who are excluded from such a definition. Israel thus, by definition is NOT the state of its citizens, but rather that of "The Jewish People", most of whom, like the members of JBD whom you were addressing, have no birthright connection to it. The question which begs an answer is what the status of those Palestinian citizens in a Jewish state is? The answer is, as every single – to use a word you must abhor "non-white" South African knows: Racism.

The delegates at the national conference of the South African Jewish Board of Deputies, Jewish, but at the same time, South African citizens "enjoy full rights" in Israel, rights that apartheid Israel denies to us, the indigenous people of this land. They also call us "Israeli Arabs",  "Jerusalem residents", "Arabs of the territories", not to mention the refugees living in the Diaspora, whose mere mention always spoils any party, and whose right to return and compensation is sanctioned by International Law (UNGA resolution 194).

Israeli nationality, therefore, is non-existent. Instead, there is "Jewish Nationality". To make such a bizarre term comprehensible, think of "White Nationality" as opposed to South African. In your speech before the JBD, you state very eloquently that "(m)uch as we are conscious of who we are culturally and otherwise, it must not take away the national identity, as we should be South Africans first".

The International Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crimes of Apartheid, Article 2, Part 3, clearly defines apartheid as:

"[a]ny legislative measures and other measures calculated to prevent a racial group or groups from participation in the political, social, economic and cultural life of the country and the deliberate creation of conditions preventing the full development of such a group or groups, in particular by denying to members of a racial group or groups basic human rights and freedoms, including the right to work… the right to education, the right to leave and return to their country the right to a nationality, the right to freedom of movement and residence."

This definition, in its entirety, clearly applies not only to the Palestinian people residing in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, but also those living in Israel itself. This is precisely the reason that the UN Special Rapporteur on the Human Rights Situation in the Occupied Territories, a fellow South African, John Dugard, concluded that "the 1973 International Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid appears to be violated by many practices".

If you were born to Palestinian parents living in Israel – a fate you have been spared, Mr. President – you too would be denied the rights of  "Jewish Nationality" and been forced to submit to institutionalized inferiority or choose to resist it.

Furthermore, ICSPCA (quoted above), Article 2, Part 4, makes it crystal clear that:

"[t]he term 'the crime of apartheid',' shall apply to "any measures including legislative measure, designed to divide the population along racial lines by the creation of separate measures and ghettos for the members of a racial group or groups The expropriation of landed property belonging to a racial group or groups or to members thereof.."

Comrade Jacob, the word apartheid never appears once in your speech before the JBD! A listener would never know that you were speaking to an audience who actively support apartheid in another country.

Did you know that racist laws used to forbid Black property ownership in white areas in apartheid South Africa are in force in apartheid Israel? Indigenous Palestinian citizens of Israel are not only prohibited from living on land owned by "Jewish institutions",  but are also not allowed by force of "law" to reside in any areas designated "Jewish" either.

I, myself, Mr. President, a resident of Gaza, like so many Palestinians, have legal title to my parents' land in Israel, but have no "legal" right to it because my parents' property, like that  of millions of other Palestinians', was taken away from us and given over to Jewish ownership. The facts are that Jews owned only 7% of Palestine before 1948; today 93% is considered "state land" and can only be owned by Jews or Israel.

This is only one example, Comrade Jacob, of the nature of the state your government deems "democratic"and "friendly" despite its past strategic ties with apartheid SA. In your presidential campaign, you were quoted singing "kill the Boer!" And yet, in your speech, you "unequivocally" condemn "all forms of violence from whatever quarter", particularly where civilians are targeted!

I fail to understand this contradiction. Is this a reflection of the difference between comrade Jacob and President Zuma? Do you, as president, think that Palestinians have no right to resist their occupation and dispossession? You even equate our resistance with the War Crimes and Crimes against Humanity committed by the Israeli Occupation forces in the West Bank and, in particular, in Gaza.

Is it too much, comrade Jacob, for us, representatives of Palestinian Civil Society organizations to ask your government to sever all diplomatic ties with apartheid  Israel, and endorses not to say lead the growing global Boycott Divestment and Sanctions campaign against Israel? Is that really too much to ask a democratic post-apartheid South Africa for?

Is this the embodiment of Fanon's prophecy about the "Pitfalls of National (Racial?) Consciousness?"  Is it because the Black Middle class which your government represents and which has taken power from the White Middle class is underdeveloped? Fanon, whom you  must have read while on the run from the apartheid police, says that this national middle class "has practically no economic power, and in any case it is in no way commensurate with the bourgeoisie of the mother country which it hopes to replace." Is this why you are prepared to kowtow to the South African Jewish community which "has been called one of the most tightly-knit in the world, overwhelmingly united in its support for Israel?"

Your government, Mr. President, turns a blind eye to the war crimes of its own citizens against Palestinians. The South African war criminal David Benjamin was allowed to freely move around South Africa and share his tactics of support and defence for the  Israeli Occupation Forces in its recent onslaught against the Gaza Strip with impunity. There are seventy other South Africans that are known to have links with the destruction of the Israeli Occupation Forces who enjoy the same impunity. It is left to individuals and civil society organizations in South Africa to take action against these criminals that should rightly be the task of the government.

Your post-apartheid government, Mr. President, unashamedly, supports the two-state solution: one for Palestinians (Muslim and Christians), and one for Jews. In other words, you support the re-birth of Bantustans, albeit in the Middle East this time. The two-state solution is a racist solution, comrade Jacob. If you did not accept it for yourselves in South Africa, why force it on Palestinians instead of supporting us as we demand the right to our homeland every single inch of it?

Mr. President,

A politics based on narrow-minded, selfish pragmatism was rejected by all anti-apartheid forces, locally and internationally during the years of the anti-apartheid struggle. What was promoted, instead, was adherence to universal principles of equality and dignity.

I truly hope you will reconsider. I know that it is my constitutional right as a citizen of the New South Africa – which I am proud of – to address you directly. I do so to express my deep disagreement and dissatisfaction with your government's Middle East policy and its continued support for the apartheid policies of the Israeli government, given that this support undermines and actively harms the Palestinian struggle for liberation and self-determination.

Sincerely,
Professor Haidar Eid
Gaza, Palestine

- Dr. Haidar Eid is Associate Professor in the Department of English Literature, Al-Aqsa University, Gaza Strip, Palestine. Dr. Eid is a founding member of the One Democratic State Group (ODSG) and a member of Palestinian Campaign for the Academic and Cultural Boycott of Israel (PACBI).

source: http://www.palestinechronicle.com/ and the author

The arguments against establishing a Jewish state in Palestine raised by anti-Zionist and non-Zionist Jews going back to the early years of the last century were well known and all have been proved correct. So it should not be a matter of surprise that Israel's legitimacy has not been accepted by the Palestinians and the other peoples of the region. It was advertised by Zionists worldwide as a colonial settler enterprise with pride, in fact, until such terminology fell out of favor. That it was established at a time when the rest of the world was engaged in a period of decolonization was even a further guarantee of its rejection and had it not been for the influence of its supporters in the US and Europe and the arms that flowed from that support, Israel, like French Algeria, would have become another episode in history. (And it is noteworthy that it was Israel's support for the French against the Algerian resistance that led to France being Israel's chief supplier of weaponry until 1967).

You are also well aware that to maintain Israel as the Sparta of the Middle East, the "Pro-Israel Lobby," has long held the US Congress in thrall, strangling what little is left of American democracy. Do you not recall writing how one president after another tried to resolve the Israel-Palestine conflict and how each one was forced by The Lobby to retire from the field defeated? And with each defeat, the theft of Palestinian land and the growth of the settlements continued. Who has paid the price for that?

As you have already assumed, I am against the existence of the state of Israel or a Jewish state by any other name which is based on the notion that a Jew from anywhere in the world has more of a right to live in what most of the world knew and accepted as Palestine than a Palestinian Arab who was born there or her or his family members. If that is not both immoral and racist, we need new definitions for those words. And yet you, apparently, do not find it so, and reject the opinions of those who do. (The notion that Israel or any country can be a homeland for a person not born there and who cannot trace a single relative that was born there is but another example of how Zionists have twisted the language to justify the unjust.)

Your desperation for an argument against the idea of a single state becomes apparent when you write that the French and the Germans did not agree to live together. Do you really believe there is any comparison to be made between the two situations. Are the French sitting on German land or vice versa?

I continue to be mystified at your continuing efforts to separate the settlers from those Jews living within the Green Line as if the majority of those in Israel proper are not as responsible for electing a series of professional killers as their prime ministers year after year, all of whom have expanded the settlements. There hasn't been a single poll of Israeli Jews that I have seen going back to 1988, in the early days of the first intifada, where half of those polled did not call for the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians from the West Bank and Gaza. How many settlers were there in 1988?

In your wonderful democracy, every able-bodied Jewish man or woman, with the exception of the chassdim, has served as an occupier in the West Bank or Gaza for the past 42 years. Are they not culpable? Yesterday, I watched on Al-Jazeera as Israeli soldiers fired waves of tear gas and some smelly green liquid on non-violent Palestinians who were marching to demonstrate the steel fence that cuts through their land at Ni'ilin and who then began targeting the Al-Jazeera reporter. Are we expected to embrace these young thugs wearing an Israeli uniform? Are those who hate them to be condemned and not the thugs and those who sent them there?

You repeatedly use the word peace but not once do you use the word justice. And that is what separates you and your fellow Zionists from the Palestinians and those who genuinely support them. The occupation bothers your conscience, your sense of idenity as an Israeli but how much does it affect your life? Ending the occupation no matter how it is arranged will bring you peace of mind and time to finish your memoirs. Now, try if you can, and imagine yourself as a Palestinian who has been under an Israeli jackboot all of his or her life. Would you be simply looking for peace, an absence of that Israeli jackboot, or would you be seeking and demanding justice?

Your conclusion expresses your confusion. You write that you want "Israel to be a state belonging to all its citizens, without distinction of ethnic origin, gender, religion or language; with completely equal rights for all," yet you assume there will be a "Hebrew-speaking majority" that will allow its "Arab-speaking citizens…to cherish their close ties with their Palestinian brothers and sisters…" If there is no distinction between one citizen and another, Jewish or Arab, how can you assume that the majority will continue to be Hebrew-speaking (or are you allowing for the possibility that Israel's Palestinian Arab population which already is largely bi-lingual will become the majority at which point Israel will no longer be a Jewish state?) If that is so, perhaps there is hope for you yet.

Hi,

Hope this may interest you.

Many readers have sent my thoughtful comments on my last

article. I am unable to answer them in detail. I am writing

my memoirs on top of my regular political and journalistic

work, and therefore can only answer laconically. Please

excuse.

Shalom, Salamaat,

uri

In a way, each of us has such a bed, into which we put everything new. Confronted with a novel situation, we tend to equate it with a situation we have known in the past.

In politics, this method is especially pervasive. It relieves us of the irksome necessity of studying an unfamiliar situation and drawing new conclusions.

Once, the pattern of Vietnam was applied to every struggle around the world - from Argentina to North Korea. Nowadays, the fashion points to South Africa. Everything resembles the struggle against apartheid, unless proven otherwise.

SINCE SENDING out last week’s article, "Tutu’s Prayer", I have been flooded with responses, some laudatory, some abusive, some thoughtful, some merely angry.

Generally, I don’t argue with my esteemed readers. I don’t want to impose my views, I just want to provide food for thought and leave it to the reader to form his or her own opinion.

This time I feel that I owe it to my readers to clear up some of the points I was trying to make and answer some of the objections. So here we go.

I HAVE no argument with people who hate Israel. That’s entirely their right. I just don’t think that we have any common ground for discussion.

I would only like to point out that hatred is a very bad advisor. Hatred leads nowhere, but to more hatred. That, by the way, is a positive lesson we can draw from the South African experience. There they overcame hatred to a remarkable extent, largely thanks to the "Truth and Reconciliation Commission" headed by Archbishop Tutu, where people admitted their past offenses.

One thing is certain: hatred does not lead towards peace. Let me be quite explicit about this, because I sense that some people, in their righteous indignation over Israel’s occupation, have lost sight of this.

Peace is made between enemies, after war, in which awful things invariably happen. Peace can be made and maintained between peoples who are prepared to live with each other, respect each other, recognize the humanity of each other. They don’t have to love each other.

Describing the other side as monsters may be useful in waging war, but singularly unhelpful in waging peace.

When I receive a missive that is dripping with hatred of Israel, that portrays all Israelis (including myself, of course) as monsters, I fail to envision how the writer imagines peace. Peace with monsters? Angels and monsters living side by side in peace and harmony in one state, hating each other’s guts?

The view of Israel as a monolithic entity composed of racists and brutal oppressors is a caricature. Israel is a complex society, struggling with itself. The forces of good and evil, and many in between, are locked in a daily battle on many different fronts. The settlers and their supporters are strong, perhaps getting stronger (though I doubt it), but are far - even in their own view – from a decisive victory. Neve Gordon, for example, has been left unmolested in his post at Ben-Gurion University, because any attempt to remove him would have caused a public outcry.

I ALSO have no argument with those who want to abolish the State of Israel. It is as much their right to aspire to that as it is my right to want to dismantle, let’s say, the USA or France, neither of which has an unblemished past.

Reading some of the messages sent to me and trying to analyze their contents, I get the feeling they are not so much about a boycott on Israel as about the very existence of Israel. Some of the writers obviously believe that the creation of the State of Israel was a terrible mistake to start with, and therefore should be reversed. Turn the wheel of history back some 62 years and start anew.

What really disturbs me about this is that almost nobody in the West comes out and says clearly: Israel must be abolished. Some of the proposals, like those for a "One State" solution, sound like euphemisms. If one believes that the State of Israel should be abolished and replaced by a State of Palestine or a State of Happiness - why not say so openly?

Of course, that does not mean peace. Peace between Israel and Palestine presupposes that Israel is there. Peace between the Israeli people and the Palestinian people presupposes that both peoples have a right to self-determination and agree to the peace. Does anyone really believe that racist monsters like us would agree to give up our state because of a boycott?

The French and the Germans did not agree to live in one joint state, though the differences between them are incomparably smaller than those between Jewish Israelis and Arab Palestinians. Instead, they set up a European Union, composed of nation-states. Some 50 years ago I called for a similar Semitic Union, including Israel and Palestine. I still do.

Anyway, there is no sense in arguing with those who pray for the disappearance of the sovereign State of Israel, rather than for the appearance of the sovereign State of Palestine at its side.

THE REAL argument is among those who want to see peace between the two states, Israel and Palestine. The question is: how can it be achieved? This is an honest debate and is generally conducted in a civil manner. My debate with Neve Gordon is in this framework.

The advocates of boycott believe that the main, indeed the only way to induce Israel to give up the occupied territories and agree to peace is to exert pressure from the outside.

I have no quarrel with the idea of outside pressure. The question is: pressure on whom? On the government, the settlers and their supporters? Or on the entire Israeli people?

The first answer is, I believe, the right one. That’s why I hope that President Barack Obama will publish a detailed peace plan with a fixed timetable and apply the immense powers of persuasion of the USA to get both sides to agree. I don’t think that this is politically possible without the support of a large part of Israeli society (and, by the way, of the US Jewish community).

Some readers have lost all hope in Obama. That is, without doubt, premature. Obama has not surrendered to Binyamin Netanyahu - indeed, it is quite conceivable that the opposite is happening. The struggle is on, it is a hard struggle against determined opposition, and we should do all we can to help Obama’s peace policy to prevail. We must do this as Israelis, from inside Israel, and thereby show that this is not a struggle of the US against Israel, but a joint struggle against the Israeli government and the settlers.

It follows that any boycott must serve this purpose: to isolate the settlers and the individuals and institutions which openly support them, but not declare war on Israel and the Israeli people as such. In the 11 years since Gush Shalom declared a boycott of the products of the settlements, this process has been gaining momentum. We must laud the Norwegian decision, this week, to divest from the Israeli Elbit company because of their involvement with the "Separation Fence" that is being built on Palestinian land and whose main purposeis to annex occupied territories to Israel. This is a splendid example: a focused action against a specific target, based on a ruling of the International Court.

I think that far more can be done by a concentrated national and international campaign. A central office should be set up to direct this effort throughout the world against clear and specific targets. Such an effort could be helped by world public opinion, which recoils from the idea of boycotting the State of Israel, and not only because of the memory of the Holocaust, but will identify itself with action against the occupation and the oppression.

I have been asked about the Palestinian reaction to the boycott idea. At present, Palestinians do not boycott even the settlements, indeed it is Palestinian workers who are building almost all the houses there, out of economic necessity. Their feelings can only be guessed. All self-respecting Palestinians would, of course, support any effective measure directed against the occupation. But it would not be honest to dangle before their eyes the false hope that a world-wide boycott would bring Israel to its knees. The truth is that only the close cooperation of Palestinian, Israeli and international peace forces could generate the necessary momentum to end the occupation and achieve peace.

This is especially important because our task in Israel today is not so much to convince the majority of Israelis that peace is good and the price acceptable, but first that peace is possible at all. Most Israelis have lost that hope, and its revival is absolutely vital on the way to peace.

TO REMOVE any misconceptions about myself, let me state as clearly as possible where I stand:

I am an Israeli.

I am an Israeli patriot.

I want my state to be democratic, secular, and liberal, ending the occupation and living at peace both with the free and sovereign State of Palestine that will come into being next to it, and with the entire Arab world.

I want Israel to be a state belonging to all its citizens, without distinction of ethnic origin, gender, religion or language; with completely equal rights for all; a state in which the Hebrew-speaking majority will retain its close ties with the Jewish communities around the world, and the Arab-speaking citizens will be free to cherish their close ties with their Palestinian brothers and sisters and the Arab world at large.

One can't help but see malignant projects of gigantic companies committing forgery to steal the history of some nations in broad daylight.

As an example I would say Yahoo. For many years yahoo published pages on its websites and created online services where it has deleted Palestine from its charts, not just Palestine but the West Bank as well.

As an example, their UK website offers a daily horoscope for those who are interested to know what Yahoo believes their day or week is going to look like, despite the fact that the majority of people do not believe in this kind of speculation, it is still amusing to know how they are going to play with our minds. But for once I am going to read the horoscope of Yahoo, and tell the investors that they are entering a gambling game, beware of offending the players; otherwise you will notice a big hole in your pocket.

I looked at the list of countries should one has to fill his birthplace to hear the wisdom of Yahoo's fortune tellers, Palestine was not mentioned at all, and neither was the West Bank but surprise, surprise Israel is.

Yahoo never cared about Palestine before but I think it is about time that it does, for Yahoo has just acquired the Palestinian Maktoob portal founded by the Palestinian son of Nablus Samih Toukan. www.maktoob.com is considered the largest Arab online portal at a value of around $75M-$80M. This deal Yahoo is after to further its influence in the Arab World as a fast growing internet and mobile market will not be welcomed if it chooses to ignore the Palestinians who are still running the portal and will continue to do so according to the reported information.

The Maktoob portal is based in Jordan but owned and run by the Palestinians that Yahoo does not recognise, the majority of bloggers and business advertisers are Palestinians, even though many are not still based in Palestine but rather holding the most prestigious posts in the Gulf countries and owners and investors of the biggest businesses abroad on international level.

It has been reported that the new Yahoo division will be called Yahoo Middle East. And from now on Yahoo products will be made Arabic and content will be "Arabized" to serve 20 million users in the Arab world along with the original 16 million users of maktoob, thus "arabizing" the Yahoo Mail and messenger along with other services including the mobiles.

Yahoo is expecting to continue the strong commercial relationship with the companies that used to contribute to the success of Maktoob.com. Should this be the case I would say Yahoo should start the first step by respecting the Arab market that would feel offended by eliminating Palestine from every choice list created by Yahoo.

It has been said that Yahoo is concerned about freedom of speech in the region since it is known for its censorship online, while the Maktoob bloggers are concerned that Yahoo will bring with it its pro-Israel policies to the area.

I would advise Yahoo to rearrange its priorities and fix the way it is handling Middle Eastern issues and particularly Palestine. If Yahoo is intending upon digging deep into the pockets of the wealthy Arab business dynamos, it should start to show some respect and sensitivity to the people who are going to make or break its success, starting by acknowledging the fact that it can't hijack their history and remodel the geography of the area, otherwise it will face a great loss.

Author's note: This article was started and mostly completed in December 2008. Then the Israeli massacre in Gaza intervened, followed by an intensification of organizing efforts for the Batsheva Dance Company protests After that, it gathered dust in the Drafts folder while I moved cross-country. An extended, remix version of "People Not Places" was just dubbed "Greatest Hip-Hop Song for Palestine Ever" by blogger Will on Kabobfest. The text that appears below is substantially the same as the one completed last December.

Recently, I got an e-mail from someone about a Jewish Israeli-American rapper who uses the stage name, "Invincible" (pictured at left). The message was a forward of an e-mail from the International Jewish Anti-Zionist Network (IJAN) promoting Invincible's song, "People Not Places." One of IJAN's points of unity is "Challenging the privileging of Jewish voices in conversations and negotiations about Palestine." It is, at least partly, in this spirit that I proceed.

So, I listened to the song and read the lyrics. My first impression was of appropriation of Palestinian culture even though Invincible is not entirely insensitive to the issue of "Erasing the culture." It is said that imitation is the highest form of flattery but I wonder. There is a harmful, ongoing process of Jewish appropriation of Arab culture–"theft" is what some people call it.

For example, Israeli linguist Ghil'ad Zuckermann says "Modern Hebrew" is "a semi-engineered Semito-European hybrid language." He continues, "The formation of so-called 'Israeli Hebrew' … was facilitated at the end of the nineteenth century by Eliezer Ben-Yehuda … to further the Zionist cause. … it was not until the beginning of the twentieth century that the language was first spoken." Some words for this new language were simply invented but others were adapted or lifted from Arabic.

Consider sabr, the English transliteration of the Arabic name for the prickly pear cactus. As Farsoun and Zacharia, authors of Palestine and the Palestinians, note:

The prickly cactus bush called the sabr became a national symbol because it dots Palestine, marking the areas of destroyed villages. In Palestinian folklore it is known as a symbol of patience and perseverance. Like the enduring cactus, the Palestinians remained steadfast (samedoun or samedin) in their struggle despite great pressures threatening to separate and destroy the people's relationship with their land and cultural heritage.

To many Jews, though, the sabra (Hebrew for the same plant) is a metaphor for the idealized, tough Israeli-born Jew.

On food, Jana Gur writes:

The Zionist enterprise brought to Israel Jews from all over the world, each carrying memories of food they grew up on. At first, the ethos was rejection of everything that reeked of Diaspora and an eager, almost childish, embrace of the Levant. The infatuation with falafel and hummus, staples of Arabic cuisine, started there. … While not a single Israeli will claim that this chickpea and tahini concoction [hummus] is anything but Arabic, the status it has reached in Israel is unprecedented anywhere in the Middle East.

Gur's "not a single Israeli" remark is, perhaps, not so easy to sustain (see here and here). Or see the web site of Sabra Hummus (yes, that "sabra") where hummus is referred to as a "Mediterranean" food. (An Israeli company, the Strauss Group, owns a 50% stake in the company that makes Sabra Hummus and, therefore, Sabra Hummus is being boycotted by people of conscience).

In the aptly titled "Culinary Zionism: an ingathering of the edibles," Eythan-David Volcot-Freeman writes:

When asked to define "Israeli food," Diaspora Jews invariably point to hummus, falafel ["Israel's national snack"], and shawarma. … Presented with the same query, a sabra (native-born Israeli) would likely describe a typical Israeli meal featuring Middle Eastern hummus as a starter … The early halutzim (settlers) found inspiration in their Arab neighbors, whose lifestyle recalled that of the biblical Hebrews. Shawarma, falafel and hummus soon became "sabra" foods.

And here is a passage from "The Jewish Keffyieh":

"I hate the idea" confesses Hasan Nusseibeh, 27, a teacher at Al-Quds University. "They stole our land I guess it’s normal that they steal our Keffiyeh too", comments his little sister Sahar, a student. Their brother Munir reminds that this country dress is part of the culture of the region and that "Israelis are looking for new bonds with this ground". He believes that the "keffiyeh" is only another "effort" they're making in this sense. This young lawyer then enumerates the previous cases of cultural appropriation: traditional dress and embroidery, falafel and hummous. "Soon they'll claim that the Konafa (Arabic pastry) is Jewish!" jokes Ma'moun M. Kassem, responsible for an Italian NGO, who accuses Israelis of being "arrogant" and "thieves".

Pictured at the left is Naji al-Ali's character "Handala" in front of prickly pear cacti. Handala and the key he holds are symbols of the Palestinian refugee right of return. This particular image comes from a mural design for display at San Francisco State University. The mural was held hostage to the demands of Zionists that Handala and the key be removed and so they were.

Overall, Invincible's rap song "People Not Places" calls to mind Edward Said's critique of Orientalism–"A Western style for dominating, restructuring, and having authority over the Orient." Here, we have Invincible, an Israeli-American Jew, using a primarily Black spoken word form with the backing of an Arab instrumental track to speak out about the Palestinian Nakba or catastrophe.

In Orientalism, Gustave Flaubert's representation of an Egyptian dancer stage-named Kuchuk Hanem is described by Said: "she never spoke of herself, she never represented her emotions, presence, or history. He [Flaubert] spoke for and represented her." Have things changed so much since Flaubert's time?

Today, the Palestinian voice or 'cause' is frequently mediated through or represented by Jews like Invincible, Ora Wise, Anna Baltzer, Norman Finkelstein, Jeff Halper, Noam Chomsky, Joel Kovel, Michael Lerner, Gila Svirsky, Phyllis Bennis, Susan Nathan, Marc Ellis, Hannah Mermelstein, Daniel Barenboim, Uri Avnery, Mitchell Plitnick, David Wesley, etc. (on mainstream representations of Arabs/Muslims by the predominantly Jewish Hollywood, even by Jewish actors, see "Planet of the Arabs").

The problem is twofold: First, these folks don't typically content themselves with bringing their message to primarily Jewish audiences; rather, they crowd out Palestinian and other non-Jewish voices–they disproportionately occupy the finite social space devoted to 'Israel-Palestine.' And, thus, they enable–inadvertently or not–others who are uncomfortable having Arabs represent themselves. One result is a self-fulfilling prophecy I've personally heard too often: "People won't come to hear Arabs."

Commenting on an earlier draft of this section, a friend wrote "… its high time that more anti-Zionist Jews should step up to the plate. We always hear about the deep moral failings of 'the good Germans' of the Nazi era: where are all 'the good Jews'?" The "good German" is, of course, a trope for Germans who did not oppose the Nazis in the 1930s and 40s. My reply is yes, but the "good Germans" should have been working on/against other Germans not explaining to the French or Swedes that "we're really good people and not all Germans support the Reich's occupation policies." And, certainly, the "good Germans" should not have been displacing Roma/Sinti, Poles, Jews, and other victims of the Nazis and lecturing them and their allies on the 'proper,' philo-Teutonic way to oppose the Nazis.

Frankly, there is something perverse about the prominence in the US Palestinian solidarity movement of so many people who hail from and identify with the oppressor group, especially when one considers that Jews comprise less than two percent of the US population. Do/should we allow male "allies" to so dominate the discourse on sexism? How about White "allies" controlling discussion of anti-Black racism? I know of only one historical parallel and that is the early American anti-slavery movement. Dominated by Whites, it was conservative, reformist rather than abolitionist, segregationist, and had no room in it for the likes of articulate former slaves such as Frederick Douglass or Sojourner Truth. Needless to say, it was largely counterproductive and racist, too.

The second problem is that their presence and prominence allow Jews to strongly influence the agenda and the parameters of 'acceptable' discourse. This often, but not always, means a focus on the occupation of 1967 but not the occupation of 1948, a reiteration of the narrative of Jewish victimhood and the crucial importance of combating 'anti-Semitism', support for the "two-state solution," and a blackout of the BDS campaign. This is understandable as we are all creatures of our own backgrounds and experiences but it is not excusable. To paraphrase Said: For a Jew working on Israel-Palestine there can be no disclaiming the main circumstances of her actuality: that she comes up against Palestine as a Jew first, as an individual second. And to be a Jew in such a situation is by no means an inert fact.

Let us now examine Invincible's lyrics. In the first verse she says:

museum of the holocaust
walkin outside- in the distance-saw a ghost throwing a Molotov
houses burnt with kerosene-mass graves-couldn't bare the scene
it wasn't a pogrom-it was the ruins of Deir Yassin

Prior to this she contrasts "a land without a people for people without a land?" with "But I see a man standing with a key and a deed in his hand". It is clear that she means to expose hypocrisy by contrasting Yad Vashem with the massacre at Deir Yassin but why is it that a pogrom is not a pogrom if it happens to Arabs? As a rapper, words are her medium. Can it be that she does not know that "pogrom," usually applied to attacks on Jews, can also refer to attacks on non-Jews? Even former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert referred to Jewish violence against Arabs as a "pogrom." And since when are rappers bound by linguistic convention? If that is the issue then why not smash that Judeo-centric convention and liberate the word? If that was Invincible's actual intent then it is by no means obvious.

And why is it that the 1933-1945 pogrom(s) detailed in Yad Vashem are implicitly bearable/'bareable'(?) but the pogrom of 1948 against Arabs in Deir Yassin is not? Is it because Jews were the perps just three years after the end of WW II? And as one of my Arab sisters pointed out "ghost throwing a Molotov" is obscure. Why is that? Who's throwing Molotov cocktails at whom? Is all this, as Edward Said put it in "Zionism from the Standpoint of its Victims," some expression of discomfort with "treading upon the highly sensitive ground of what Jews did to their victims"?

Invincible begins the chorus with "my Ima misses people not places". Invincible's "Ima" (Hebrew for mother) is not unknown to me. Although her mother, Tamar, lives in the US now, she is a determined Israeli nationalist who does not shrink from interjecting her opinion at Palestinian solidarity events to support Israel and the "two-state solution" to permanently lock-in the violent theft by Jews of 78% of Palestine in 1947-48.

In an interview last Summer, Invincible said, "Recently my mom took a trip back home and her sister kicked her out of the house for protesting the Wall." But her mom is not above getting her own licks in. Just last month she chastised me for quoting Palestinians who dare to refer to "Israeli apartheid" and said that Palestinian calls for cultural and academic boycotts of Israel are "wrong." Further, Tamar, is a member of a Zionist synagogue that poses it's children with armed Israeli soldiers and supports a rabbi who gave a justification for torture from the bima.

So, Invincible's Ima seems pretty committed to Israel as a Jewish place even if she doesn't "miss" it. It is clear that Invincible does not let her mother's remark go unchallenged. As she (and Abeer) indicates, the places and the people cannot be so easily disconnected. But, perhaps, one lesson of this is that Invincible should consider focusing even more exclusively on challenging Zionism within the nerve center of Zionism–the Jewish community.

Certainly, as Israeli Jew, she potentially has entree to the Jewish community that few, if any, non-Jews, esp. Arabs, could hope to achieve. Anti-Zionist Jews can't expect gilded invitations from the Jewish mainstream but there are plenty of Jewish communal events to infiltrate and quietly subvert or to protest and disrupt. No doubt this, in part, explains her connection with the International Jewish Anti-Zionist Network but the organization appears afflicted by many of the shortcomings discussed by Gilad Atzmon concerning a not dissimilar Jewish group (see Atzmon's "'NOT IN MY NAME'  An analysis of Jewish righteousness").

Invincible, again in the chorus, tells us "You'll never be a peaceful state with legal displacement." True enough but why not openly and forthrightly interrogate the very "legality" of this "displacement" when in fact all of it violated international law whatever Israeli law may say? "You'll never be a peaceful state with phony legal displacement" works, doesn't it? Also, the implication is that the state will be peaceful when the displacement ends but how realistic or desirable is it that "Israel" would continue to exist if Palestinians were allowed to return?

In the second verse, Invincible tells us:

This aint about a Quaran or a synagogue or Mosque or Torah
The colonizer break it into acres and dunums

This denial of religious motivations in invading and occupying Palestine comes just a few lines after Invincible acknowledges performing a profoundly religious act at one of the most important sites in Judaism:

At the wailing wall I’m rollin a wish
Then stick it in between the hole in the bricks

Although in recent decades Islam has become more prominent as an important ideology in organizing the resistance of Jewish occupations of Lebanon and Palestine (Hizbullah and Hamas were both founded in the 1980s), it is true that–on the part of Palestinians–the conflict in Palestine is not mainly about religion. In "Zionism from the Standpoint of its Victims," Edward Said notes, "… Jewish colonizers in Palestine (well before World War I) always met with unmistakable native resistance, not because the natives thought that Jews were evil, but because most natives do not take kindly to having their territory settled by foreigners."

Conversely, the Zionist invasion and occupation of Palestine is very much "about" synagogue and Torah. "The colonizer" who broke it "into acres and dunums" was a Jewish colonizer on a self-consciously Jewish mission to suppress or remove non-Jews in order to build a Jewish country. As with the Molotov thrower discussed above, Invincible obscures the identity of the "colonizer"–the power of naming is foregone. This is a pattern Invincible repeats in the third verse:

200 year old Olive trees uprooted the groves
to build a wall now Their future enclosed

Who uprooted those groves? Who built that wall? Again, the power of naming is kept in check.

The 'secular Zionism' fairy tale is one that distracts folks from, as Ludwig von Mises put it, "the ideology that generates war"–in this case, Judaism. As noted elsewhere, in The Jewish State, Theodor Herzl, the key figure of modern political Zionism, claimed, "we [Jews] feel our historic affinity only through the faith of our fathers …" and the Jewish "Faith unites us." In The Origins of Zionism, David Vital writes "characteristically, on the day [in 1897] before the [first Zionist] Congress opened, a Saturday, Herzl attended the morning service at the local synagogue and was duly honoured by being called to the reading of the Law …" (p. 355). Also, Herzl described the reaction of his "only spiritual mentor and intimate confidant," the Chief Rabbi of Vienna, Moritz Guedemann, to Herzl's book, The Jewish State, as follows: "Guedemann has read the first proofs and writes me in rapture. He believes that the tract will strike like a bombshell, and work wonders."

And as the Chief Rabbi of Britain, Hermann Adler, said in a sermon published in the Jewish Chronicle in 1898: "Every believing and conforming Israelite must be Zionist …" Adler's successor, Hertz, gave a clear and strong religious imprimatur to the infamous Balfour Declaration before its issuance. After a visit to Palestine in 1925, Chief Rabbi Hertz affirmatively described Jewish colonization there as follows: "Religious zealots and fanatic free-thinkers alike rejoice in the redemption of the soil by Jewish labor, and look upon it as the holiest of human duties." In 1967, the immediate past Chief Rabbi of Britain, Immanuel Jakobovits, called "upon the Anglo-Jewish community to mobilise all its resources in the defence of Israel" which had just launched the Six-Day War. In 1977, Jakobovits wrote:

The origins of the Zionist idea are of course entirely religious. The slogan "The Bible is our mandate" is a credo hardly less insistently pleaded by many secularists than by religious believers as the principal basis of our legal and historical claim to the land of Israeli … Modern Political Zionism itself could never have taken root if it had not planted its seeds in soil ploughed and fertilised by the millennial conditioning of religous memories, hopes, prayers, and visions of our eventual return to Zion … No rabbinical authority disputes that our claim to a Divine Mandate (and we have no other which can not be invalidated) extends over the entire Holy Land within its historic borders and that halachically we have no right to surrender this claim.*

With reference to Jakobovits' "credo" above, in 1936, when asked about the basis for the Jewish claim to Palestine, Ben-Gurion told the British Peel Commission: "The Bible is our mandate." On the matter of Judaism and Zionism see also the 1942 statement declaring Zionism to be an "affirmation of Judaism" and signed by 757 Rabbis–"the largest number of rabbis whose signatures are attached to a public pronouncement in all Jewish history."

Returning Invincible's lyrics, am I the only one uncomfortable with Palestinians being likened to slow, passive marine mammals? Granted, it's not as bad as Israeli general and government minister Rafael Eitan likening Palestinians to "drugged cockroaches" (NY Times 11/24/2004) but, still, it is dehumanizing. From the third verse:

Disguising lies extincting lives like manatees
Callin it a transfer? Please-
More like a catastrophe!
Birthright tours recruiting em, confuse em into moving in

"confuse em into moving in"? Please. This comes across as another example of the victimizer cast as victim. Jewish victimhood of one form or another is a persistent theme and as Norman Finkelstein has observed:

… The Holocaust has proven to be an indispensable ideological weapon. Through its deployment, one of the world's most formidable military powers, with a horrendous human rights record, has cast itself as a "victim" state, and the most successful ethnic group in the United States has likewise acquired victim status. Considerable benefits accrue to this specious victimhood–in particular, immunity to criticism, however justified.

So, why is Invincible reinforcing one of Zionism's most potent weapons? The entire song is a narrative of a Birthright Israel trip. In notes, Invincible writes:

The song takes the listener on a journey through a haunted "birthright" tour where the buried Palestinian significance of each location comes to light. Along the route i expose the process of historic and continued colonization as being even deeper than land seizure and ethnic cleansing of Palestinians, but one that is invested in erasing the Arabic language, culture, and memory.

Is Invincible or the (at least partly autobiographical) protagonist of the song the only Jew capable of seeing through Zionist propaganda? Is she the only one who can "superimpose the truth"? Do those Jews who emigrate to Israel have no responsibility for their choices, no duty to learn, see, and refuse to become colonizers and instruments of injustice? How can it be that they are just confused?

If the Birthright Zionists are portrayed as passive in "People Not Places," they are not the only ones. Except in one instance, i.e. "their grandkids is the ones that's throwing rocks at borders," Palestinians are merely passive victims, not a resisting people with their own sense of agency.

It's time to bring this to a close. Some will no doubt object to my critique above. It may be argued that Invincible has the support of some Palestinians such as Abeer, who performs on "People Not Places." I would point out that even Gone with the Wind had Black actors. It's not for me to judge Abeer or, for that matter, Butterfly McQueen or Hattie McDaniel but I think the comparison bears some consideration.

The Billy Jack movies of the 1970s–starring Tom Laughlin, a White man playing an American Indian–also come to mind. As Amanda J. Cobb (Chickasaw) observes in Hollywood's Indians, the films:

… say more about white Americans coming to terms with their feelings about the Vietnam conflict than they do about the lives, experiences, or feelings of actual Native American people. These images have contributed to the conceptualization of American Indians not as distinct nations of people or as distinct individuals or even, in fact, as people at all, but rather as a singular character or idea, "the Indian" - an idea that helps whites understand themselves through "play." … Using the idea of the Indian, especially in terms of "playing Indian," time and time again is an act of cultural appropriation - an act that threatens the continuance of Native cultures and Native sovereignty.

Summing up, in the first part of this post I examined how Jews and, in particular, Israeli Jews have appropriated or stolen Arab culture. With that background, I situated Invincible's performance of "People Not Places" in the context of Edward Said's work on Orientalism. In the second part I took a closer look at the lyrics of "People Not Places" and argued, implicitly, that they validate concerns about cultural appropriation and Orientalism. It is my hope that this article will prompt a larger discussion about Jewish representations of Jews, Palestinians, and the Israel-Palestine conflict and also about the dearth of Palestinian self-representations of their own lives and issues.

Note
* Except as otherwise noted, the source for the preceding three paragraphs is Immanuel Jakobovits, The Attitude to Zionism of Britain's Chief Rabbis as Reflected in Their Writings, (London: Jewish Historical Society of England, 1981).

Thanks to LH, H. Samuel, LN, Khawla, and Joseph for their pre-publication comments on this post.

Michelle J. Kinnucan's writing has previously appeared in CommonDreams.org, Critical Moment, Palestine Chronicle, Arab American News, Electronic Intifada, Palestine Think Tank and elsewhere. Her 2004 investigative report on the Global Intelligence Working Group was featured in Censored 2005: The Top 25 Censored Stories (Seven Stories Pr., 2004) and she contributed a chapter to Finding the Force of the Star Wars Franchise (Peter Lang, 2006). Click here for information on how to contact her.

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

Indeed, the long delayed Fatah Congress, held in Bethlehem on August 4 has underscored the obvious: the all-encompassing movement which was meant to exact and safeguard Palestinian national rights has grown into a liability that, if anything, will continue to derail the Palestinian national project. This comes at a time when the Palestinian people are in urgent need of a collective response that is strong enough to withstand Israeli military pressure and coercion at home, eloquent enough to communicate the Palestinian message to a global audience, and astute enough to galvanize international support and sympathy to the benefit of Palestinian freedom and independence.

But what we witnessed in Bethlehem was a bizarre manifestation of the discord of self-seeking and self-imposed elites vying for empty titles, worthless positions and hollow prestige. The mockery started when hundreds of additional delegates were invited to join in the already bloated number of Fatah members with the hopes that their presence would bolster the position of this factional leader or that. Oddly, the meeting place was occupied Bethlehem. The delegates of the ‘resistance’ movement must’ve passed through Israeli checkpoints and metal detectors to reach their meeting place and talk of hypothetical revolutions and imaginary resistance. Excluded were Fatah members who didn’t pass Israeli screening. Perhaps, they were not ‘revolutionary’ enough for Israeli taste.

Then the show started. One would hope to take an iota of pride in the fact that the delegates were not participants in a typical meet of conformists as is the case in ruling party conferences throughout the region. But this would be self-deceiving. The heated discussions which evolved into screaming matches, were of little relevance to the struggles and challenges facing the Palestinian people at home and abroad. It was not the plight of Gaza, nor the cause of the refugees, nor the best method of garnering international solidarity that invited the ire of most respected members. The disputes were most personal. A so-called younger generation trying to exact greater representation in the movement’s 21-strong Central Committee and the 120-member Revolutionary Council from the so-called Old Guard.

Many news reports reduced the ongoing turmoil in Fatah to sound bites and half-truths. The old recycled gibberish of ‘moderate’ Fatah was once more juxtaposed to ‘extremist’ Hamas; the latter’s violence with the former’s investment in a pretend ‘peace process’, those who want to live in peace, ‘side-by-side’ with Israel and those who want to ‘annihilate’ the Jewish State.

“Now the Palestinians – like the Israelis and the international backers of Fatah – are waiting to see the results,” reported the New York Times. True, but Palestinians were waiting for entirely different reasons.

Fatah has changed over the years. It started as a resistance movement of well-intended members, mostly students and young professionals in the 1950’s and 60’s. The young leadership was motivated by various factors, chief amongst them were the plight of the refugees, the lack of a truly independent Palestinian leadership and the failure of Arab governments to deliver on their promises to liberate Palestine. Resistance was in fact the core of Fatah’s liberation program.

One of the movement’s founders once wrote: “It was not only the experiences and the errors of our predecessors which helped guide our first steps. The guerrilla war in Algeria, launched five years before the creation of Fatah, had a profound influence on us. We were impressed by the Algerian nationalists’ ability to form a solid front, wage war against an army a thousand times superior to their own, obtain many forms of aid from various Arab governments, and at the same time avoid becoming dependent on any of them.”

Over the years, whether out of political of military necessity, internal divisions or any other factors, Fatah grew into a melting pot encompassing romantic revolutionaries and poets, wealthy elites and shifty politicians. It was a strange balance, but a balance nonetheless, which kept suspicious Palestinians hopeful that the revolutionary elements in Fatah would eventually prevail. But following Yasser Arafat’s signing of the Oslo Accord with Israel, in 1993, the millionaires and their dubious politician allies won, turning Fatah into a giant company, feeding on the empty rhetoric of ‘peace’, financed by international donors, and operated by the movement’s ‘pragmatic’ elements, who allied themselves with Israel to preserve their gains, however insignificant. 

That is why “Palestinians (were) waiting”, perhaps with the hope that Fatah would once more revert to its founding principles, with a coherent national project, stipulating unity of purpose and clarity of aim. It was not that Palestinians were hungry for violent resistance and eager to blow things up, but they longed for a Fatah that would once more institute resistance as an idea, as a culture, with all of its manifestations, infused as necessary. They wanted Fatah to go back to the basics, own up to the struggle of its people, as opposed to the quisling rhetoric that turned Palestine into a collection of political tribes, each armed with NGO’s, newsletters and bloated bank accounts in various European capitals.

One wants to decry this shameful episode in the history of the Palestinian struggle, but one ought to remember that history has a way of repeating itself. The faltering Fatah that was once established to represent the aspirations of the downtrodden Palestinian refugees is now facing the same historical imperative that other failed movements have faced in the past. If Fatah fails to reclaim itself as a true national liberation movement, an umbrella that unites every facet of Palestinian society, then it will soon splinter and eventually dissolve, if not entirely disappear. But true challenge will remain; whether those who will carry the torch will learn from the “experiences and the errors of (their) predecessors.” Time will tell.

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

On 25 June, the Portland Indymedia website published an article entitled 'Rose City Antifa: Statement on Anti-Semites and their Collaborators' [1]. Rose City Antifa is part of the Anti-Racist Action Network.

Since its creation in 1999 during the protests against the World Trade Organization in Seattle, Indymedia has been an essential source for community organizing. However, this 'Statement on Anti-Semites', and the list of irresponsible comments attached to it, is an example of enabling unscrupulous individuals to divide and weaken the community Indymedia was founded to serve.

The statement refers to a talk by Valdas Anelauskas, a Lithuanian immigrant who describes himself as a 'radical conservative'. The talk was a critique of the 'Frankfurt School', a Marxist theory of psychology. The anti-war activists who invited him to speak in Portland have a long record of inviting liberal speakers – this is the first conservative they have hosted. They organized a protest against a recent American Israel Public Affairs conference, which took place during the Gaza massacre. This is when the allegations of antisemitism began.

Following Anelauskas's presentation, those who organized the meeting were denounced as 'fascist collaborators', One of the ringleaders was tried in his absence by anonymous contributors to Indymedia. The organizations he has been involved in for decades were 'called on' to 'call him out'. The co-op where he works was told to fire him or face a boycott campaign, though it is illegal to dismiss employees for their opinions. The statement ended:

       'This statement is a beginning; other fascist collaborators should not consider themselves to have been let off the hook in any way. No compromise and no half-measures!'

Strong stuff. As if someone was signaling to German bombers above Portland.

The statement makes no distinction between words and violent acts, implying that Anelauskas's ideas are so dangerous, those who invited him should be ostracized for life. Anelauskas is a rarity, an extreme right-wing intellectual. He does not advocate violence. He does not deny the Holocaust. Unlike the Zionists who started the campaign to shut him up, he opposes the Iraq war. He presents us with a clear choice: are the feelings of American Jews more important than the lives of Arab children? Portland anti-fascists have answered loud and clear, staking their place in the modern American left.

Rebuttals of the Antifascist statement have not been given equal prominence on Indymedia, and some have been disappeared. It's straight out of the Moscow Trials: respected activists are publicly denounced on the basis of hearsay, and people accept it. Just as in Stalin's Russia, apologies and confessions don't help, they just encourage the persecutors. Here is a statement by one of the Portland accused – "I don't deny the horrors of WWII including the Holocaust and the many forgotten details of that time", and here is the antifascist response: 'This itself is a classic Holocaust-denial strategy'. That's right, affirming that the Holocaust happened is Holocaust denial.

The only people who identified themselves a members of minorities in the Indymedia comments disagreed with the antifascist statement. One African-American said he is opposed to campaigns against thought crimes, and that arguments, even ethnically-based ones, don't hurt him. In reply, the antifascists treated him differently from white people arguing the same thing: they were condescending rather than abusive.

Recently, The Israel Project, a Washington DC think-tank, issued a report on the right language to use to manipulate the public. Its chapters include "Gaza: Israel’s right to self-defense" and "Talking to the American Left"; killing babies and political correctness. It recommends using leftist phrases, such as 'call out antisemitism' and 'oppression'. This is what the anti-racists do. This does not imply a conspiracy, nor they have been infiltrated by Zionists: they help them without doing so consciously.  Here is a good example from the Indymedia comments on the antifascist witch-hunt:

       'As a former Portland resident who is tired of leftists who have come to accept antisemitism, I want to thank you for your actions'.

Notice the lack of specific examples, and the use of personal feelings as a weapon of argument. 'Antisemitism' could mean any criticism of Israel. When the Republicans at the Oregon Commentator website reproduced the Indymedia statement approvingly, the antifascists were nonplussed, not understanding that it is quite logical for right-wing Zionists to welcome the aid of left-wing antifascists. As a conservative diplomat wrote:

       "The tactics of [X] plumb the depths of dishonor and indecency and include character assassination, selective misquotation, the willful distortion of the record, the fabrication of falsehoods, an utter disregard for the truth, and the substitution of political correctness for analysis".

Can you guess what 'X' stands for? Anti-Racist Action? No, the Israel Lobby.

Anti-Racist Action's latest antics include postering a Portland neighborhood with the photo and address of an anti-immigration guy they disagree with, then trying to provoke a fight when he appears in public [2]. Their tactic is obvious – start with unpopular right-wingers, then move on to their more liberal opponents: first the 'Nazis', then the 'Nazi-enablers'. Pick us off one by one. Sound familiar? ARA is more of a danger to the progressive community than the insignificant or imaginary 'fascists' they 'confront' and 'call out'. Their messianic certainty recalls the worst excesses of the seventies left. ARA has nothing to do with combating genuine threats, and everything to do with increasing its own power. If they asked us to agree with them, the antifascists would be implying that we are able to judge which ideas are dangerous, and avoid them, but are unable to listen to them safely.. If you can judge which arguments are wrong in advance, then you
 are also capable of listening to them without the danger of being misled by them. It is illogical to say 'I am smart enough to work out which ideas I am not smart enough to be exposed to'. So the  antifascists cannot ask; they must demand: 'defy us, or capitulate'.

Those who realize the need to stand up against intimidation are forced into a corner. We are now obliged to defend Valdas Anelauskas and the decision to invite him. The danger of doing this is overwhelmed by the danger of not doing it, and handing a victory to the self-appointed thought police. The ironies are almost funny – we have antifascists who use totalitarian tactics, anti-sexist men brimming over with macho aggression, and anarchists who want to be cops. Anti-Racist Action opposes the 'capitalist court system': it's too fair. It doesn't accept hearsay, for one thing.

What can you do to counter this threat to community and freedom? Listen to individuals further to the right than you have up until now; they don't bite. I enjoy listening to Valdas Anelauskas: he is so right-wing, he makes Michael Savage sound like Karl Marx. When you hear that someone is a 'Holocaust denier', don't believe it – find out for yourself. Hold meetings in your community to discuss Israel, race, and other issues, and state in advance that any allegations of antisemitism will be ignored. Invite controversial speakers from left and right. Never apologize. Say no to intimidation and censorship.

1. 'Statement on Anti-Semites', http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2009/06/392268.shtml?discuss
2. 'Rogue of the Week', Willamette Week, http://wweek.com/columns/rogue/#35..36