Another one has more serious problems, she was in a car accident and she has no health insurance. She has no car insurance either, so now she will lose her license. How will she get to her job?

Someone else wants a girlfriend, he thinks then he'll be happy. He lives with his parents and battles depression. He's a little underweight, but it's just in his genes. He thinks it's the end of the world.

The everyday issues that consume people are really not that serious. If they are mine or yours, none of it really matters compared to the big ones that no one likes to think about. We're just too overwhelmed by our day to day lives to wonder what things might possibly be like on the other side of the globe.

Often what we think might be our biggest problems, would be outright luxuries to another people! I like to think that if I've got a roof over my head, clothes on my back, a pound or two to spare, fresh water to drink then hey, I'm pretty fortunate!

**********************************************************************************

We've got parties and plans and shopping and fun. We've got Starbucks and Disneyland and Hollywood and sun. We've got everything we want and even that much more. We've got famines and genocides and climate change and war. But we never think of THOSE things, life's too painful for that; to worry about people on the other side of the map! You see the bad stuff's only for those who live in foreign places and we'll never have to look upon the horror in their faces

So we'll stuff our face with muffins made with nuts grown in Brazil.
We drill holes in foreign places for our gas tanks we fill
We use ancient trees to wipe our butts.
build bigger homes to hold our stuff.
Is it possible we have enough?
ENOUGH!

Source: http://idreamofroses.blogspot.com/2010/02/personal-problems-in-privliged-society.html

We may idealize human intellect and enlightenment, but in practice, human social biology usually proves to be stronger than ideology. While most people today believe that their strength lies in the success of their perceived Utopian model of society, and that the ideas of a prominent persona are more important than his personal characteristics, their behavior is often indicative of the opposite. Being herd animals, changes usually happen when the majority of the human herd flocks behind a leader who is perceived as charismatic, strong, sympathetic and courageous.

The effect of charisma

In democratic societies, politicians seem to be very aware of this human behavioral phenomenon, especially during campaign time. A good example is the victory of Barack Obama in the American elections of 2008. We can all clearly see that the policies of the new administration, with its promises of 'change', barely show any significant differences – especially in foreign affairs – when compared to the much reviled Bush administration. To perceptive observers this has come as no surprise, since it was rather easy to read it between the lines of those 'historical' election campaigns. Still, people not only in the USA but even worldwide were under the spell of Obama's personal charm, eloquence and strong charisma, which consolidated his famous landslide electoral victory regardless of these simple facts.

Many people seem to believe that it was Gandhi's famous and impressive philosophy of non-violence (Satyagraha), which gave him the leverage to be able to rally the vast majority of the population of India behind him and make them take to the streets. They seem to forget that India's independence was immediately followed by war, strife and violence which still has not been resolved today. While one can easily maintain that India, Pakistan and Bangladesh owe their independence from British colonial rule to the persona of Gandhi, it is quite difficult to make the case that it was his ideology that won the victory. If this was indeed the case, then Satyagraha would have survived its charismatic founder, and would have been instated as the region's main philosophy. What we see instead, is that India and Pakistan have gone to war with each other three times since their independence, and can both boast nuclear destructive capability, not Satyagraha, as their source of power.

There is no doubt that Gandhi's non-violence was an incredibly effective strategy for liberation, but its success at the same time was entirely dependent on his leadership in that struggle. No wonder that this successful feat has not yet proven to be reproducible under the leadership of other activist figures in the world.

With the assassination of Malcolm X, who was able to inspire millions into taking action against overwhelming odds, his movement was effectively stopped in its tracks before it could be consolidated into a victory. His legacy now lives on as a powerful inspiration, rather than as an example of liberation. The Libyan struggle for independence under Omar El Mukhtar, who was able to mobilize the Libyan population against colonialism and oppression, was effectively maimed by the elimination of his inspiring leadership, when he was hanged at the gallows.

People need leaders, not ideologies

Almost every significant mobilization for change of a population in history has taken place under the charismatic leadership of a person. It is very difficult to find any examples in history of successful uprisings or revolutions that were not inspired by a leader who was considered to be a hero by the majority of the people. People need a leader, not an ideology.

Even the qualities that define these historical figures of change, are almost disappointingly simple. The leader needs to be someone of high intelligence, with deep strategic insights and communication skills which enable him (or her) to express the concerns of the people in a way that appeals to them. He needs to possess rhetorical qualities that can appeal to people of different levels of education and social background. He also needs to have personal traits that enable a majority of people to identify with him, instead of seeming alien or superimposed to them. His message needs to be simple and convincing, and contain a promise of change. Once this person has earned the love of the majority of the people, the awe-inspiring herd-behavior of the human race makes it easy for this leader to rally the people behind him, whether we are talking about national elections, a revolution or a popularity contest at a local school.

When we observe other herd animals, we can see that they always have some leading animals that are followed by the rest. In the savannas of Africa, we can see how these herd animals migrate in a splendidly concerted flow, without any confusion about the herd's direction, which can often be seen from an breathtaking aerial view in wildlife documentaries. In the skies of Europe, during the fall season, one can see the impeccable figures drawn in the skies by huge clouds of thousands of starlings, which seem almost surreal in their coordinated movements as they elegantly sway between the treetops. Since there seems to be no difference of opinion among them on whom to follow, these starlings never collide with one another. This requires an almost unfathomable level of coordination, but is mainly achieved by their complete acceptance of their leadership's commands.

The fallacy of negotiations

In the Palestinian situation there is little confusion about which stated principles have the potential to unite the majority of the people. Our common cause, which is liberation from oppression, is our common interest; this suffices as an ideology and is the common denominator of all existing Palestinian factions. Nevertheless the popular movement against zionist occupation and persecution is chaotically torn into many shreds. There is an abundance of opinions and ideologies, which concern themselves with end goals and final solutions, and end up leading to people sometimes being fanatically opposed against one another. What Palestine lacks is not a 'one-state' or 'two-state' solution, and not a progressive or conservative movement, but simply a leader who has the trust of the majority of the people. Coming from such a loved leader, people would most likely be prepared to accept any solution he would present, as long as he would promise to lead their struggle for liberation with full dedication.

While a significant portion of the population has been led to believe that negotiations are the way forward out of their dire situation, it is a matter of realism to conclude that this can never be successful. Again, history is our teacher. No overwhelming military or economical superpower has ever gone against its own interests simply because its adversaries were such smart speakers. It is therefore rather simplistic to expect the US-Israeli-European axis of racist colonization to steer off its course of total domination of the region, based on the communication skills of some intelligent or eloquent Palestinians. In fact, as long as they are aware that the representatives they are negotiating with are not backed by a massive majority of the population, they cannot even be blamed for not taking their so-called Palestinian 'partner in peace' seriously.

In truth, if they were certain that a leader had such a massive popular backing, they would most likely start a campaign of vilification against him. They would contend that he is an 'impossible partner in peace', based on whatever argumentation they would deem useful to prove their point to the masses in the West. Eventually, they would aim to physically eliminate him, as they have done with many promising Palestinian leaders, from all existing resistance groups.

The ineffectiveness of moderation

One can be sure that a population is in a state of confusion when a significant proportion of it, despite living under harsh oppression, puts its hopes in a moderate leader. No oppressed people in history ever won their freedom by choosing a moderate leader to represent them; even Gandhi was a radical, although his unique method was non-violence. Changes come about when a leader is massively hated and reviled by the adversary, and equally overwhelmingly loved by his own people. Therefore, rallying behind a leader who is deemed acceptable to the enemy, is by definition a crucial waste of time and effort. He has no choice but to balance between serving the occupier's goals and keeping his own people appeased, since these maneuvers are his only guarantee to keep his undesirable position at the negotiating table intact. Undesirable, not for the personal ambitions of that leader, but for the Palestinian cause. These 'negotiations at gunpoint' merely create an illusion of progress, while consolidating the domination of the zionist colonizer, day after day, even when negotiations are 'stalled', as has often been the case.

In Palestine, a leader with the necessary charisma is absent on the political stage. We have a variety of candidates; some of them are more interested in gaining popularity among Western politicians and masses, than among their own people, in the meantime deriving their position of power from the status and popular backing of their organizations. Others care so little about their public relations status towards the world community, that they lose the trust of a portion of their own people in terms of being representative to the outside world. None of them is massively feared or reviled in Israeli society on their personal merits, not in the way Ahmad Yasin and Yasser Arafat were. None of them is massively loved by an overwhelming majority of Palestinians, across the entire spectrum.
Palestine is full of heroes

Therefore, these painful and tragic decades have not really been spent waiting for a 'solution'. Palestine is waiting for her leader, who is radical, sincere, courageous, charismatic and not only speaks clearly in terms of the liberation of Palestine, but proves and displays his full dedication to achieving it. Once this leader emerges, only a minority of the people will still give priority to serving the goals of their factional leadership, party or even their ideology. Once this leader appears on the stage and unites the people, not even Barack Obama, Binyamin Netanyahu and the whole leadership of the European Union combined will be able to stop the Palestinians from claiming their freedom and turning it into a reality.

Are you disappointed by my view? Do you feel as if I have dashed all our hopes for the future, because no such leader exists? Then perhaps you have misunderstood me. The point I am trying to make contains a message of hope, despite all the cynicism. We just have to stop being impressed by people who wave around US dollars or Euros, or brag about their Western contacts, because these people ultimately represent nothing but a dead end street for the Palestinian cause. The leader who can really make a change, will have to be one who has the courage to be a truly independent Palestinian.

We need to start realizing that Palestine is full of selfless and charismatic heroes, although they are seldom seen on center stage, and are rarely revered by their surroundings, unless they have achieved the status of martyrdom – which effectively means they are not there to lead us anymore. We have to try and modify our cultural practice of celebrating heroes only when they are dead, and start embracing and supporting the powerless but dedicated and trustworthy Palestinian heroes who are still alive and kicking in every village and town.

Only then we will have started to prepare the ground for that rare person who will eventually grow to win all of our hearts, and whom we can trust to lead us towards our liberation. The 'Palestinian Gandhi' most likely already exists; all it takes is for us to start noticing him, and supporting him.

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

Ghassan Khatib

While the Palestinian Authority (PA) seems prone to agree to "indirect talks" with Israel without the latter undertaking any meaningful freeze of Jewish settlement expansion in the West Bank, the Israeli government is making only provocations, rendering the resumption — let alone success — of peace talks more unlikely, especially in the near future.

Israel lately undertook several measures that Palestinian officials insist reveal Israel's determination to perpetuate its military occupation of Palestinian land and eliminate the possibility of establishing a viable Palestinian state. One of these measures is a decision by Israel Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu last week to add two ancient mosques, the Ibrahimi Mosque in Hebron and the Bilal Ibn Rabah Mosque in Bethlehem, to Israel's so-called heritage list.

The two sites are located in the Palestinian heartland, which implies that Israel intends to annex the two shrines, a prospect vehemently rejected by Palestinians.

Prior to the Israeli decision, Western officials involved in efforts to revive the peace process indicated that the resumption of talks between Israel and the PA would occur in a few weeks. Tony Blair, the Quartet's envoy to the Middle East peace process, was quoted as saying that "substantial progress" had been made in US efforts to get the two sides to restart stalled talks.

PA leader Mahmoud Abbas who has been on an extensive tour in three continents to explain Palestinian grievances to his hosts, has spoken of the consolidation of a Palestinian culture of peace, telling the European Parliament that peace could only be achieved through negotiations, not violence. He seems to have toned down his earlier insistence that the resumption of peace talks with Israel take place only after Israel agrees to freeze settlement expansion.

The latest Israeli provocations, however, with regards to the seizure of the two mosques, seem to have poisoned whatever atmosphere of optimism or modicum of goodwill US Envoy to the Middle East George Mitchell may have succeeded in fostering during his latest visit to the region. One Palestinian official intimated that Palestinian consent to resume stalled peace talks with Israel would be purely for show. "If we agreed to resume the talks under the present circumstances, we would be doing so solely to please and appease the Americans who apparently want to make an achievement of some sort, however shallow it may be."

Another official, Ghassan Khatib, who heads the Palestinian Government Press Office, voiced a similar view, saying that the resumption of talks with Israel would in no way mean that peace or justice were at hand. Speaking to Al-Ahram Weekly from his office in Ramallah, Khatib said peace talks would be "pointless" if the two sides didn't agree on three central points: a time ceiling to end the talks; the features and borders of the would-be Palestinian state; and the terms of reference — namely UN resolutions pertaining to the Palestinian issue, including the right of return guaranteed for Palestinian refugees uprooted when Israel was created more than 60 years ago.

Asked if he thought that indirect talks would be sufficient to resolve these defining issues, Khatib said that no amount of talks — direct or indirect — would be sufficient. "The problem lies not in holding more talks; the real problem has to do with Israel's refusal to end the occupation."

Khatib said the coming weeks and months would either witness more paralysis, which might precipitate violence, or a resumption of peace talks whose predictable failure would bring about the same. "My impression is that there can be no serious peace talks, let alone a peace agreement, with this rightwing [Israeli] government which, instead of facilitating the peace process, is actually poisoning the overall atmosphere by stealing more Palestinian land, seizing mosques and building more settlements."

This pessimism is shared by most — if not all — PA and Fatah officials. Ahmed Qurei, a former Palestinian prime minister and parliament speaker, told reporters recently that, "the prospects for a peace agreement with Israel are very dim," and that the "next five years will be very, very difficult." He said Israel was "still unwilling to bring itself to recognise the Palestinian people's right to freedom, independence and human dignity."

While some Palestinian leaders, including Ismail Haniyeh, the Gaza-based prime minister, are already calling for a new uprising against Israel as means of exiting the untenable present stalemate, some PA officials are entertaining a French proposal, which still needs to be refined, that would recognise an undefined Palestinian state within 18 months.

"We welcome these European declarations, especially those of France, which we consider to have adopted a new attitude amidst the current political stalemate," Nabil Shaath, a prominent PA spokesman, was quoted by the Maan News Agency as saying.

However, such a state without defined borders would, many Palestinians and their supporters contend, be a prescription for the liquidation of the Palestinian cause since it would enable Israel — perhaps under a rubric of land swapping — to consolidate its control of East Jerusalem and additional large chunks of the West Bank.

The PA has repeatedly said that it would never accept a state with temporary borders.

Doc Jazz

In December 2000, Doc Jazz released his first political song 'Intifada', which was listened to widely on the world wide web, and started his internet project 'The Musical Intifada'. Since that time, the collection of his self-written and -produced songs has grown to over 90 funky pop-songs, the majority of which have a political topic. In 2007, the Musical Intifada, which promoted all kinds of Palestinian music, ended its updates. Now, 9 years since the first beginnings, Doc Jazz has started a revival of his musical resistance, which was kicked off by a recent concert in Palestine in October 2009. May Ghoul and Rana Kareem recently interviewed the doctor, who in fact is a practicing surgeon, about his renewed musical endeavors.

Rana: Can you tell me about your profession and how you can manage it with your talent of singing and songwriting ?

Doc Jazz: Well, my profession is that I'm a general surgeon, and I guess my other hobby has nothing to do with that, nor does it have anything obvious in common with it. So maybe that's the reason why I find it to be quite manageable. In my free time, I sometimes get inspiration for songs, and then I sit down and write them and record them in my home studio. So there is no extra time involved in going somewhere or waiting for others, I do it all alone, and that’s how I have been managing to do it for years next to my full-time work at the hospital.

The exception to this was in 2007, on my album Front Door Key, which was produced by Forrest Thomas, and which featured a selection of highly skilled professional musicians. I learned so much from working with Forrest and the others, and it has greatly affected the quality of my home recordings.

Rana: What are you trying to achieve with your music?

Doc Jazz: I consider my music to be a form of resistance against injustice. But not all of my music has a political content, I would say that about 70 % of it does … I write about things that I feel. And since I am Palestinian and I feel very involved with the fate of my people, many of my songs deal with this issue. Often my music is about a news event that has really impressed or moved me, like the more recent rock-song "My Shoe (is 2 good 4 u)" which was about Muntather Al Zaidi who threw the shoe at Bush, or the ballad "Children of Gaza", about the Gaza massacre of 2008.

"Music can transcend divisions"

I believe that music can be a way to convey a message, that can be difficult to communicate through other means. So what I hope, is that people who hear my music get a feeling of why there is a Palestinian struggle for freedom, and why this struggle will not end except with their liberation. Music can transcend divisions based on social class, education, race and gender, so it can be a way to bring all people closer to the Palestinian cause. This is why I write most of my musical lyrics in English, to keep it accessible to people of all nations.

Rana: Why do you think music can be useful in that?

Doc Jazz : Many people don't have enough background information to have real access to political discussions and to political background analyses. For them it often means nothing, or they feel alienated by that kind of discourse. Music however is a language of feelings and emotions, so even though my lyrics sometimes can contain actual political content, there is also a chance that through the melody or the emotion in the song, they will feel with their hearts what I mean to say, instead of with their minds. So it's a way to broaden the audience for our cause, and let them know about the injustices being perpetrated against our people.

Rana: Do you feel this is successful, or not? 

Doc Jazz: The feeling of being successful with that varies a lot. Whenever you feel that even one person has responded to the music and felt either its message or its melody, or its beat, you feel successful. On the other hand, we live in times when people have such incredibly easy access to music, that it can be very hard to get your music heard. In the Netherlands I did not feel very successful with the music, although it has more than once reached media such as radio, newspapers and television … but there is a strong reluctance among the audience in the Netherlands to listen to music that has a message that people don’t really want to hear. It collides with the brainwashing they undergo from their childhood onwards, to support Israel through thick and thin. I have always felt I had more fans outside of the Netherlands than in the country itself, despite the attention of national media.

"My music covers almost all modern styles, from rock to rap"

And among pro-Palestinian activists in the Netherlands, the general interest in political music is already at a low level, and the ones who are interested in music seem to be generally more interested in more exotic and oriental forms and genres – either that, or hard-core hip-hop. My music covers almost all modern styles, from rock to rap, but it's basically pop music.

This and other factors led to me closing up the studio before I emigrated from the Netherlands to the Gulf, and I wasn't really planning on picking it up again. But there seems to be a renewed interest in my music, especially from Palestine, which has encouraged me to reinstall my home studio, and produce new songs again.

Rana: Good to hear that ! Do you have any new songs out yet?

Doc Jazz: Yes, I recently released a few new songs: one is in Arabic, and is called "Undhor!", which means "Look!". That one is a mixture of funk and a more traditional Palestinian beat, and is about to the anti-Wall struggle that is going on in flashpoints like Bil'in and Ni'lin. I have dedicated the song to the memory of a young man, Basem Abu Rahma, who was killed by the Israelis while trying to help an injured victim. People there are suffering harshly from a violent crackdown by the Israeli army against their non-violent protests, and it is insufficiently highlighted by corporate media, who are obviously doing their best to help Israel in protecting its artificial image as a 'modern democracy'. 

"The concert took place on October 4th, at Al Quds University"

Another one of my new songs is 'Song for Marwa' – this rock ballad is not about the Palestinian cause, but is dedicated to Marwa Al Sherbini, an Egyptian mother of a three-year old child and three months pregnant, who was stabbed to death in a German courtroom in Dresden by her neighbor, in front of her husband and child, in the beginning of July. She was suing him for harassment based on his hatred for Muslims. Her husband tried to help her, while she was being stabbed 18 times, and was shot down by the security guards in the courtroom! Anti-Muslim hatred is on a very high level in Western Europe, and since I was born there and have lived there all my life, I feel connected to the fate of the Muslims who live there, even though I myself have decided to leave the region. In my opinion, Marwa should never be forgotten. That's why I wrote the song. 

Rana: What are you planning to do with the music now?

Doc Jazz: Well if time allows it, and if inspiration comes along, I will probably continue to put out new songs, and I recently performed in Palestine as you know, which has always been a dream of mine and now has come true. The concert took place on October 4th, at Al Quds University. It was truly an unforgettable experience; the response from the audience was absolutely amazing. This concert was organized thanks to the interest of fans that live in the Jerusalem region, and who wished to hear me playing my songs live. It was extremely motivating! It definitely helped compensate the generally negative memories of my Dutch experience.  

Rana: It really was an awesome concert, such an amazing atmosphere!

Doc Jazz : That is so nice of you, thank you, and I hope it inspired and motivated you.

Rana: It definitely did! Wish you all the best of luck with your music, and I hope you will come again! Do you have a message to the people who listen to your music, or to the Palestinian people?

Doc Jazz: Yes, I want the people to believe in themselves again, in the same spirit as that of the first Intifada that started in 1987. They seem to be increasingly depending on others, and leaving their fate to be decided by others than themselves. But my message to them is: independence cannot be given to you, it can only start by acting independently. Otherwise you are only on the road to a new 'dependence'. This is the motto of my 'come-back'. And I hope that in some way or other, my music relays that message.

LINKS

Main website: http://www.docjazz.com

Music collection: http://www.soundclick.com/docjazz
Doc Jazz Facebook Group:
http://www.facebook.com/home.php#/group.php?gid=37006821380
Doc Jazz Fan Page:
http://www.facebook.com/pages/Doc-Jazz/24453805534

Links to songs mentioned in this article:
My Shoe (is 2 Good 4 u): http://soundclick.com/share?songid=7154112
Children of Gaza: http://soundclick.com/share?songid=7315684
Undhor!: http://soundclick.com/share?songid=7788173
Song for Marwa: http://soundclick.com/share?songid=7848161

Get the CD 'Front Door Key' (prod. Forrest Thomas) from the Palestine Online Store:
http://www.palestineonlinestore.com/art/docjazz

All 90 songs of Doc Jazz can be found through his website, at http://www.docjazz.com . Keep visiting the website, for further information about the upcoming concert in Palestine, and about new song releases. Questions or requests for further information can be sent by email to Maico Music, which manages the work of Doc Jazz, through maicomusic@gmail.com .

May Ghoul has a BA in English literature, and works at Al Quds University in Abu Deis. Rana Kareem has a BSc in Medical Technology from Al Quds University, and works at a health center in Ezariyya.

On the 25th February 2010, at the Court of Appeal, Royal Courts of Justice, The Strand, London, a hearing is going to take place of Al Haq vs The Secretary of state for Foreign & Commonwealth Affairs

The Al Haq case is lead by Phil Shiner of Public Interest Lawyers (PIL), a UK based lawyer specialising in international and national issues concerning environmental and human rights law.

Al Haq is an independent Palestinian human rights organisation founded in 1979. It monitors and documents human rights violations by all parties in the Israeli Palestinian conflict, issuing reports on it's findings and producing detailed legal studies.

The Al Haq case consists of a claim for judicial review before the high court of England & Wales challenging the government of the UK over its failure to fulfil its obligations under international law with respect to Israel's activities in the Occupied Palestinian territories.

The Legal Basis for the Claim

Over the past 42 years, Israel’s occupation of the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, and the Gaza Strip, has aggressively targeted both the land and the people of the OPT. That the Palestinians are a people with the right to self-determination is undisputable under international law. Israel's denial of the Palestinian right to self-determination is comprehensive. Through its prolonged military occupation and violation of the territorial integrity of the OPT, its illegal settlement policy and denial of the Palestinians' permanent sovereignty over their natural resources, Israel has prevented the population of the OPT from freely determining its political status and freely pursuing its economic, social and cultural development. The right to self-determination is established in international law as giving rise to obligations erga omnes, whereby all states, including the UK, are bound to ensure its realisation. The UK has breached this obligation by failing to take meaningful action towards the cessation of Israel‘s policies in violation of the Palestinian right to self-determination.

Similarly, the UK has failed to fulfil the duty, confirmed by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in its 2004 advisory opinion, not to recognise or assist the illegal situation created by Israel's purported annexation of occupied East Jerusalem and construction of the Wall in the West Bank, a measure described by the ICJ as potentially "tantamount to de facto annexation." The prohibition on the acquisition of territory through the threat or use of force is one of the pillars upon which contemporary public international law is built, and is established as a peremptory norm of international law (jus cogens)  which is universally binding on states and from which no derogation is permitted. 

Al-Haq‘s claim is further based on the UK‘s failure to prevent Israel‘s persistent violations of fundamental principles of international law. The recent "Operation Cast Lead" in the Gaza Strip resulted in the death of more than 1,350 Palestinians, majority of whom were civilians, including more than 310 children, and the further wounding of over 4,000 more. Documentation gathered to date by Al-Haq‘s fieldworkers in the Gaza Strip includes prima facie evidence of war crimes amounting to grave breaches of the Fourth Geneva Conventions.

We are asking the members of public to come and show their support for the Palestinian people by attending the hearing.

When violations of international law are committed those people who have been violated need to know that cases on their behalf are being supported in the wider world.

If you would like to join us and attend this hearing, information is as follows,

Far from impulsive and unexpected, Hamas's shift reflects a gradual evolution occurring over the past five years. The big strategic turn occurred in 2005, when Hamas decided to participate in the January 2006 legislative elections and thus tacitly accepted the governing rules of the Palestinian Authority (PA), one of which includes recognition of Israel. Ever since, top Hamas leaders have repeatedly declared they will accept a resolution of the conflict along the 1967 borders. The Damascus-based Khaled Meshal, head of Hamas's political bureau and
considered a hardliner, acknowledged as much in 2008. "We are realists," he said, who recognize that there is "an entity called Israel." Pressed by an Australian journalist on policy changes Hamas might make, Meshal asserted that the organization has shifted on several key points: "Hamas has already changed–we accepted the national accords for a Palestinian state based on the 1967 borders, and we took part in the 2006 Palestinian elections."

Another senior Hamas leader, Ghazi Hamad, was more specific than Meshal, telling journalists in January 2009 that Hamas would be satisfied with ending Israeli control over the Palestinian areas occupied in the 1967 war–the West Bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem. In other words, Hamas would not hold out for liberation of the land that currently includes Israel.

Previously Hamas moderates had called at times for a tahdia (a minor truce, or "calm") or hudna (a longer-term truce, lasting as long as fifty years), which implies some measure of recognition, if only tacit. The moderates justified their policy shift by using Islamic terms (in Islamic history hudnas sometimes develop into permanent truces). Now leaders appear to be going further; they have made a concerted effort to re-educate the rank and file about the necessity of living side by side with their Jewish neighbors, and in so doing mentally prepare them for a permanent settlement. In Gaza's mosques pro-Hamas clerics have begun to cite the example of the famed twelfth-century Muslim military commander and statesman Saladin, who after liberating Jerusalem from the Crusaders allowed them to retain a coastal state in the Levant. The point is that if Saladin could tolerate the warring, bloodthirsty Crusaders, then today's Palestinians should be willing to live peacefully with a Jewish state in their midst.

The Saladin story is important because it provides Hamas with religious legitimacy and allows it to justify the change of direction to followers. Hamas's raison d'être rests on religious legitimation; its leaders understand that they neglect this at their peril. Western leaders and students of international politics should acknowledge that Hamas can no more abandon its commitment to Islamism than the United States can abandon its commitment to liberal democracy. That does not mean Hamas is incapable of change or compromise but simply that its political identity is strongly constituted by its religious legitimation.

It should be emphasized as well that Hamas is not monolithic on the issue of peace. There are multiple, clashing viewpoints and constituencies within the movement. Over the years I have interviewed more than a dozen leaders inside and outside the occupied territories. Although on the whole Hamas's public rhetoric calls for the liberation of all of historic Palestine, not only the territories occupied in 1967, a healthy debate has grown both within and without.

Several factors have played a role in the transformation. They include the burden of governing a war-torn Gaza and the devastation from Israel's 2008-09 attack, which has caused incalculable human suffering and increasing public dissatisfaction in Gaza with Hamas rule.

Before the 2006 parliamentary elections, Hamas was known for its suicide bombers, not its bureaucrats, even though between 2002 and 2006 the organization moved from rejectionism toward participation in a political framework that is a direct product of the Oslo peace process of the 1990s. After the elections, the shift continued. "It is much more difficult to run a government than to oppose and resist Israeli occupation," a senior Hamas leader told me while on official business in Egypt in 2007. "If we do not provide the goods to our people, they'll disown us." Hamas is not just a political party. It's a social movement, and as such it has a long record of concern about and close attention to public opinion. Given the gravity of deteriorating conditions in Gaza and Hamas's weak performance during last year's fighting, it should be no surprise that the organization has undergone a period of fairly intense soul-searching and reassessment of strategic options.

Ironically, despite the West's refusal to regard the Hamas government as legitimate and despite the continuing brutal siege of Gaza, demands for democratic governance within Gaza are driving change. Yet Hamas leaders are fully aware of the danger of alienating more-hardline factions if they show weakness or water down their position and move toward de facto recognition of Israel without getting something substantive in return.

Hamas's strategic predicament lies in striking a balance between, on the one hand, a new moderating and maturing sensibility and, on the other, insistence on the right and imperative of armed resistance. This difficult balance often explains the tensions and contradictions in Hamas's public and private pronouncements.

What is striking about Hamas's shift toward the peace process is that it has come at a time of critical challenges from Al Qaeda-like jihadist groups; a low-intensity civil war with rival Fatah, the ruling party of the PA; and a deteriorating humanitarian situation in Gaza.

Last summer a militant group called Jund Ansar Allah, or the Warriors of God, one of a handful of Al Qaeda-inspired factions, declared the establishment of an Islamic emirate in Gaza–a flagrant rejection of Hamas's authority. Hamas security forces struck instantly and mercilessly at the Warriors, killing more than twenty members, including the group's leader, Abdel-Latif Moussa. In one stroke, the Hamas leadership sent a message to foes and friends alike that it will not tolerate global jihadist groups like Al Qaeda, which want to turn Gaza into a theater of transnational jihad.

Despite the crushing of Moussa's outfit, the extremist challenge persists. The Israeli siege, in place since 2006, along with the suffering and despair it has caused among Gaza's 1.4 million inhabitants, has driven hundreds of young Palestinians into the arms of small Salafist extremist factions that accuse Hamas of forfeiting the armed struggle and failing to implement Shariah law. Hamas leaders
appear to be worried about the proliferation of these factions and have instructed clerics to warn worshipers against joining such bands.

Compared with these puritanical and nihilistic groups, Hamas is well within the mainstream of Islamist politics. Operationally and ideologically, there are huge differences between Hamas and jihadi extremists such as Al Qaeda–and there's a lot of bad blood. Hamas is a broad-based religious/nationalist resistance whose focus and violence is limited to Palestine/Israel, while Al Qaeda is a small, transnational terrorist network that has carried out attacks worldwide. Al Qaeda leaders Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri have vehemently criticized Hamas for its willingness to play politics and negotiate with Israel. Hamas leaders have responded that they know what is good for their people, and they have made it crystal clear they have no interest in transnational militancy. Their overriding goal is political and nationalist rather than ideological and global: to empower Palestinians and liberate the occupied Palestinian territories.

Unlike Al Qaeda and other fringe factions, Hamas is a viable social movement with an extensive social network and a large popular base that has been estimated at several hundred thousand. Given its tradition of sensitivity and responsiveness to Palestinian public opinion, a convincing argument could be made that the recent changes in the organization's conduct can be attributed to the high levels of poverty, unemployment and isolation of Palestinians in Gaza, who fear an even greater deterioration of conditions there.

A further example of Hamas's political and social priorities is its decision to agree in principle to an Egyptian-brokered deal that sketches out a path to peace with Fatah. After two years of bitter and violent division, the warring parties came very close to agreement in October. The deal collapsed at the last moment, but talks continue. There are two points to make about the Egyptian role: first, Hamas leaders say they feel somewhat betrayed by the Egyptians because after pressure from the Americans, Cairo unilaterally revised the final agreed-upon text without consulting the Hamas negotiating team. Second, many Palestinian and Arab observers think Egypt is in no hurry to conclude the Fatah-Hamas talks. They contend that faced with regional challenges and rivals (Iran, Turkey, Syria and Saudi Arabia), the Mubarak regime views its brokering process in the Palestinian-Israeli theater as an important regional asset and a way to solidify its relationship with Washington.

Despite its frequently reactionary rhetoric, Hamas is a rational actor, a conclusion reached by former Mossad chief Ephraim Halevy, who also served as Ariel Sharon's national security adviser and who is certainly not a peacenik. The Hamas leadership has undergone a transformation "right under our very noses" by recognizing that "its ideological goal is not attainable and will not be in the foreseeable future," Halevy wrote in the Israeli daily Yediot Ahronot just before the 2008 attack on Gaza. He believes Hamas is ready and willing to accept the establishment of a Palestinian state within the 1967 borders. The US
Army Strategic Studies Institute published a similar analysis just before the Israeli offensive, concluding that Hamas was considering a shift of its position and that "Israel's stance toward [Hamas]…has been a major obstacle to substantive peacemaking."

Indeed, it could be argued that Hamas has moved closer to a vision of peace consistent with international law and consensus (two separate states in historic Palestine, divided more or less along the '67 borders with East Jerusalem as the capital of Palestine, and recognition of all states in the region) than the current Israeli governing coalition. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu vehemently opposes the establishment of a genuinely viable Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza, and is opposed to giving up any part of Jerusalem–and Netanyahu's governing coalition is more right wing and pro-settlement than he is.

Hamas's political evolution and deepening moderation stand in stark contrast to the rejectionism of the Netanyahu government and call into question which parties are "hardline" and which are "extremist." And at the regional level, a sea change has occurred in the official Arab position toward the Jewish state (the Arab League's 2002 Beirut Declaration, subsequently reiterated, offers full recognition and diplomatic relations if Israel accepts the international consensus regarding a two-state solution), while the attitudes of the Israeli ruling elite have hardened. This marks a transformation of regional politics and a reversal of roles.

Observers might ask, If Hamas is so eager to accept a two-state solution, why doesn't it simply accept the three conditions for engagement required by the so-called diplomatic Quartet (the United States, Russia, the European Union and the United Nations): recognition of Israel, renunciation of violence and acceptance of all previous agreements (primarily, the Oslo Accords)? In my interviews with Hamas
officials, they stress that while they have made significant concessions to the Quartet, it has not lifted the punishing sanctions against Hamas, nor has it pressed Israel to end its siege, which has caused a dire humanitarian crisis. In addition, Hamas leaders believe that recognition of Israel is the last card in their hand and are reluctant to play it before talks even begin. Their diplomatic starting point will be to demand that Israel recognize the national rights of the Palestinians and withdraw from the occupied territories–but it will not be their final position.

There can be no viable, lasting peace between Israel and the Palestinians if Hamas is not consulted and if the Palestinians remain divided, with two warring authorities in the West Bank and Gaza. Hamas has the means and public support to undermine any agreement that does not address the legitimate rights and claims of the Palestinian people. Its Fatah/PA rival lacks a popular mandate and the legitimacy needed to implement a resolution of the conflict. PA President Mahmoud Abbas has been weakened by a series of blunders of his own making, and with his moral authority compromised in the eyes of a sizable Palestinian constituency, Abbas is yesterday's man–no matter how long he remains in power as a lame duck, and whether or not he competes in the upcoming presidential elections.

If the United States and Europe engaged Hamas, encouraging it to continue moderating its views instead of ignoring it or, worse yet, seeking its overthrow, the West could test the extent of Hamas's evolution. So far the strategy of isolation and military confrontation–pursued in tandem by Israel and the United States–has not appeared to weaken Hamas significantly. If anything, it has radicalized hundreds of young Palestinians, who have joined extremist factions and reinforced the culture of martyrdom and nihilism. All the while, the siege of Gaza has left a trail of untold pain and suffering.

If the Western powers don't engage Hamas, they will never know if it can evolve into an open, tolerant and peaceful social movement. The jury is still out on whether the Islamist movement can make that painful and ideologically costly transition. But the claim that engaging Hamas legitimizes it does not carry much weight; the organization derives its legitimacy from the Palestinian people, a mandate resoundingly confirmed in the free and fair elections of 2006.

To break the impasse and prevent gains by more extremist factions, the Obama administration and Congress should support a unified Palestinian government that could negotiate peace with Israel. Whatever they think of its ideology, US officials should acknowledge that Hamas is a legitimately elected representative of the Palestinian people, and that any treaty signed by a rump Fatah/PA will not withstand the test of time. And instead of twisting Cairo's arms in a rejectionist direction, Washington should encourage its Egyptian ally to broker a truce between Hamas and Fatah and thus repair the badly frayed Palestinian governing institutions. If the Obama administration continues to shun engagement with Hamas, Europe ought to take the lead in establishing an official connection. European governments have already dealt with Lebanon's Hezbollah, a group similar to Hamas in some respects, and they possess the skills, experience and political weight to help broker a viable peace settlement.

Like it or not, Hamas is the most powerful organization in the occupied territories. It is deeply entrenched in Palestinian society. Neither Israel nor the Western powers can wish it away. The good news, if my reading is correct, is that Hamas has changed, is willing to meet some of the Quartet's conditions and is making domestic political preparations for further changes. But if Hamas is not engaged, and if the siege of Gaza and Palestinian suffering continue without hope of
ending the political impasse, there is a real danger of a regional war.

This article can be found on the web at:

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20100125/gerges

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

WRITTEN BY Sami Awad, Director of the Holy Land Trust

What is Non-Violent Resistance?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Non-Violence in Palestine – Past and Present

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Logic of Non-Violent Resistance

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

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

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

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

Israel’s Response to Non-Violence

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

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

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

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

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

A new lesson from the noble Arab people of Egypt

Translated from Arabic by: Adib S. Kawar

Egyptian Arab sport gave a new slap to Zionist normalization projects towards Arab states that started 30 years ago, when the Egyptian Football union neglected a second invitation by the Zionist Football Union to the Egyptian Arab national team to play a friendly game in the Zionist entity against the enemy’s national team after Egypt won the African Nations Cup. The matter became clear when the technical manager, Captain Hassan Shehateh rejected the idea of playing with “Israel” as “impossible”, because the Palestinian Arab people’s rights are wronged, condemning just the idea that “Israelis” would think of inviting Egypt to play with them, or even suggesting the idea. 

Normalization with Arab states, which concluded settlement agreements, or what are called “peace treaties” are limited to the official level, while they completely fail on the popular level. The Egypt that signed the “Camp David treaty” and the economic agreements that followed it such as the: (QIZ), gas export to “Israel”, all professional  unions and syndicates in Egypt such as that of the medical doctors, journalists, lawyers and theatre professions: they even defy all forms of normalization, and are on guard of being involved in it, making certain that they give disciplinary punishment for those who violate these decisions, though they are few and are being looked at as deviant cases, as what was the case with the stage writer, Ali Salem, who visited “Israel” and was expelled from the Union of writers because of that. As was the case of and the editor in chief of the “Adimoqratiah” (The Democratic) magazine, Hala Mustapha, when the syndicate of journalists forwarded to her an ultimatum for receiving the Zionist ambassador in her office.

It is possible to claim that the syndicate was successful in what is a more important matter than that when considering normalization as forbidden (haram), and practicing it as a disgraceful behavior, which obliges those who do it to hide away, and not to announce it, or put them on the defensive when they try to justify it.

What the technical trainer, Captain Hassan Shehateh announced seems to be expressing what is going in the conscience of all football players in his team and reflects the nobleness of the Arab Egyptian people who were not satisfied with rejecting all Zionist normalizing offers, they even extended that to supporting the Palestinian Arab people, each in his own way, and what everyone can do, especially the Gaza people siege – contrary to the unethical ruling regime’s attitude. 

And if the memory of Arab citizens, as is the case of human beings all over the world, is apt to forget, they can never forget the effectual snapshot taken by numerous cameras of satellite TV channels and broadcast all of the world for the famous Egyptian team player, Muhammad Abu Turaikah, when he scored a goal during the final game in the African Nations Cup 2008, he raised his shirt over his head to show an inscription written in Arabic and English in support of Gaza, ignoring the warning forwarded to him regarding that from the organizing committee of the championship, or the campaign waged by the Zionist press, which demanded that he should be sued for his “crime” because his actions form a danger against its state!!!

It seems that in compliance with Zionist demands Google removed the unique image of Abu Turaikah from its web site.

It also seems that in spite of all the Arab popular rejection for its normalization projects, the Zionist entity did not show that it loses hope and continued its trials every time it is possible to try to create a change and impose a brea through, and did not miss trying to find a way to achieve a success for this aim, even in the field of sport. It is worthwhile to point to what the “Peres Peace Center”(!!!)  established by the present “Israeli” President, Shimon Peres, in 1996, which designed a number of sports projects on the internal level to “promote conciliation between young men and women, Palestinian Arabs and “Israelis” who live on the margin of economic and social life, through proposing super programs for them including  training programs in sports, teaching about peace, supportive teaching activities and joint social activities for Palestinian Arabs and “Israelis”. Among these projects are “sports school twinning for peace”, “youth delegations and missions” aiming at encouraging Palestinian Israeli cooperation and the spirit of group work, which grants the participants in the Palestinian Israeli sports schools programs “twins for peace” the chance to join in Palestinian Israeli teams in international games” – as stated in the center’s literature.

Relying on the above, the Arab nation should be aware of various matters, the most important of which are the following:

·       Keep eyes open for Zionist normalization plans that shall never stop or ignore these projects, whether their agenda is clear or concealed, and to uncover the masks of the latter, because it is the more dangerous and malicious, and not to relinquish this matter nor be lost when confronting it, and to have a strong, efficacious, continuous and organized spirit to confront it, to avoid temporary projects, or ones that have a focus that is emotional and incidental.

·       Moving to take control of the initiative on the axis of popular initiatives, unions and partisan activities in the Arab homeland and Islamic world, move from the squares of defense and emotionality to the squares of action, impact and involving “Israel” in practical programs, so that this colonialist foreign body shall feel that it shall always be under siege within the Arab homeland and Islamic world that rejects it, and to prevent any trials that it tries to do to break through the psychological barrier to achieve what it aims at, and keep Zionist ambassadors and other diplomats under “house arrest” in total solitude away from Arab communities that they are staying among. (If they are already there or still there).

·       Support the stances of frontal cases that have a popular position or an intellectual influence whether or not it shows an apparent hatred for normalization, refuse to lift the siege on the Zionist entity’s seclusion, or undertake initiatives to break the siege on the Palestinian Arab people whether they are in 1948 occupied Palestine (Palestinians of 1948) or in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, as shown now in the stance of Captain Hassan Shehatah or player Abu Turaikah.

·       Stress that there is something wrong in avoiding to connect normalization with the Zionist entity with the ravenous establishment of the dwarfed scanty Palestinian state as per what was proven by the long history of settlement projects with Zionists who hold a deep-rooted hatred for Arabs and Muslims as per the Egyptian writer Dr. Wahid Abdul Majid. Defining the result of this connection, especially on the cultural and popular basis – shall affect the continuity of the flame of resistance against the hateful entity in Arab hearts. Even if it is only on the popular basis on its lowest level, satisfied with expressing hatred towards it with the tongue and the heart. The result of ignoring the connection is not showing interest in breaking the psychological barrier under any consideration.

Dearest May, this is Samer; how are you and your family? I hope that you all are just fine. I am writing this note to tell you about a strange thing that I witnessed at the infamous Qalandia check point northern of Jerusalem, which is one of Israel’s new version of border crossing facilities designated to prevent West Bank Palestinians – holding Palestinian green colored IDs – from entering the city of Jerusalem without holding a special military permit; its also built to torment Jerusalem Palestinians – holding some kind of an Israeli blue colored ID – who are living outside the official Jerusalem Israeli municipality borders. It is enforced by a rather silly cement barrier which is literally slicing the Palestinian urban fabric, separating people and families.

I was the other day at that horrible place, crossing to Jerusalem city when I was stuck there alongside many people who were trying to do just the same; and to be completely honest sister; I hadn’t been there for a long time and I forgot what it feels to be at this place. Well it still horrible, even worse than before, we were literally trapped in some kind of a high-tech human cage. I felt so angry and helpless at that moment but without showing that to the poor people beside me, it was my first time since forever seemingly, but for most of them it was just daily business.

I honestly wanted to scream out of frustration, but I kept cool and notoriously calm which made people wondering about my reconciled status; I think that they had mistaken me for some foreign guy who is trying to live their experience for one day and won’t ever come back.

The reason why we were trapped at the cage-like gates is that the metal detecting machine was set on higher sensitive mode which made it “peep” for the slightest metal existence which is found on each and every one of us, that was the soldier’s story anyway, but a young man who is used to this daily fiasco said loudly that they are doing that on purpose to torment us and make our lives a living hell and if you asked me for my point of view dear sister, I would say that you are damn right my brother.

Furthermore; I have a belief that this place is some kind of a truth meter for the Palestinian people, suddenly all people’s differences are gone and all lies are neglected, just the bare truth is told to you at that particular point on earth. A harsh truth, the kind of truth that you never want to hear or listen to, “we are living in hell” an old man summarized the whole damn thing, and yes it was the case, we are living in tha,t dearest sister.

Well; anyway the damn machine was apparently fixed and silence has been restored to the place as if nothing had happened at this place, and I managed to cross to Jerusalem at last, but before taking the bus I just looked back at the place we were into a few minutes before and I stared at people’s faces who were trapped with me, they were angry and cursing their destiny, at that moment i just figured it out; I believe that we are living under the most evil and racist occupation ever; no other people have lived that humiliating experience so long as we have here.

I apologize for sharing this tale with you, but some things are to be told, especially if the tale is genuine human experience …..Salam.

Rima Isam Anabtawi: Qalandiya Hell and Truth.. a response to Samer's letter

YA Samer.. this story took me back in time.. when I was working in the West Bank.. My apartment was in Ramallah and my office was in Beit Hanina.. as you know.. if there was freedom of movement I would be able to get from my flat, right off Radio Street to Beit Hanina.. would amount to .. what .. ugh maybe 15 minutes or twenty at the most, I often chose to walk after getting to Qalandya, that way I could cross the Ram checkpoint and the one a few kilometers away into the "green zone" The only other people walking were, of course, our elders, old Haji's who were not about to take a taxi or a service but had walked that way for half of their lives or more.. they chatted as they walked and I decided that it was just as easy to walk.

Day after day I had to take a taxi to the Manara, and then wait for a service (to avoid paying alot) to Qalandya and during that time you must call the DOT, or call friends to find our what was the status at this horrific, barbaric checkpoint… day after day, night after night.. I passed. There are so many stories of humiliation and degradations, that if you had to take it all at one time you simply would fall apart. Everything is controlled by this major checkpoint… and they open and close it as they wish.. one must be prepared to not be able to return, make alternative plans and stay in touch with your contacts in case of the "flying checkpoints”: Ones that they put up in a matter of an hour and keep there for a day or a night or for a week, and sometimes just a few hours.

Walking back into the Qalandiya one day I was so infuriated, so exhausted that I kept thinking.. I could just fill this briefcase with explosives and walk in and just throw this brieface into the mess of them and blow it all to smithereens. I don't think it is a matter of character, it is just simply unbearable to no end.

One afternoon on my way back I had to hurry to a meeting back in Ramallah, and as I walked in.. right along the side were lines of men, lines, long ones, of men, stripped of their shirts, blindfolded and handcuffed with the plastic pull chords, not only were their hands cuffed, their hand had then been attached to their blindfolds, so their heads were facing the sky. In pain, tortured right there in front of me.. I could not stand it, and I was not going to simply walk by and say alhamdulillah it is not me.. they were all me, they were all my brothers.. So, dressed in a suit, elegant business attire, I began to feel the rage.. and I walked to the end of a line which was growing larger and larger and fell to my knees, hands behind my back and my head straight up.. I was about to scream, to go insane, when suddenly I felt arms under my mine lifting me up, saying “please sister, please, they will kill you,” I kept protesting loudly to let me go.. if I am going to die at the hands of these barbarians, well they will take me too.. but the men would not have it, the older men.. just kept hold of me and dragged me all the way down in the mud, because I was refusing to get up, all of them praying and begging me not to get hurt, I was then screaming, “hurt me .. go ahead.”.. and then my screams turned into tears. I was crying so hard I was certain I was going to have a heart attack. The women came to comfort me, and I was still on the ground, banging the dirt ground and pulling my hair.. and I was cursing them.. and somehow this woman I knew .. walked up, and she took me aside and talked me down… actually she was a family member, and she somehow got a taxi, and still the men and women were not going to let me go anywhere until they were sure I was going to be okay and in a safe place. I must have blacked out from exhaustion.. because the next thing I knew, the taxi was dropping me off at the other office.. where I would work into the night.

As you know Samer.. one can either take it or they can't.. and it is amazing how our brains work with our bodies to cope..

I went back to work everyday through that damn hell. Weeks later it was the eve of the Eid al Adha and everyone was trying to get to where they were going before curfews which were different for each area. There must have been about 1,200 people or more in the various lines.. and they were moving as slow as they could, intentionally, and it was Feburary, it began to rain.. people were pushing forward and the damn "savages in so-called uniforms”… kept moving us back back back.. here we were cramped like sardines, and in mud to our knees because they cut the sandbags so we would have to wait in the filth.. and we were like sardines. I kept thinking at first, "what is wrong with us .. we could all just stampede right through them,”.. knowing full well though that many lives would have been lost. I realized after waiting for three hours in the same spot I began to count birds.. one by one as they flew by, count 1 2 6 15 and so on and on.. a simple way without much will to not go insane. Then here we were.. all pressed against each other, Muslims, Christians and others but all in a society where this kind of full body contact is 7arram, and not acceptable whatever your religion.. I was stuck between two men, I could feel their bodies, every part of them and I knew they could feel me as well.. my breasts were pressed so hard against them, (thank God we were so close because otherwise we would have all been hypothermic). It was sickening and maddening and infuriating, three more hours passed until I was let through.. I knew I only had about twenty minutes to get into Nablus and pass through the Huwarra checkpoint.. so I ran to the left down Nablus Road where larger vans and busses were waiting to fill up with people and I panicked – there was no longer a single person coming through the checkpoint or even heading in our direction.. all I could do was to hurry up and find a small van and ask the man, “how much will you take to drive me alone?” etc.. I was running out of time. He was like an angel.. he said, “get in.. we will talk about money later”.. I did. He said, “hold on”.. and flew out of there. Still behind me I was looking and no one was coming out of the checkpoint at all.. so I made a call to someone I knew farther back in the line.. only to find out that just after I turned to my left onto Nablus Road.. a young Palestinian man had been killed.. killed.. They grabbed him by the hair, and began to beat his head on those concrete barriers.. My friends were hysterical.. they just kept saying, "they did not even take him aside, they just grabbed him by the hair, pounding his head and face into the concrete.”

I had prayed Samer, prayed that I would not have to witness bloodshed at their hands because I would go for the kill.. period – and I can and I would, I was not worried about my dying.. that would have been fine.. lovely actually. I would rather die there so it made no difference, but I would not stand by and let any of my brothers or sisters lie hurt and bleeding.. because it is our blood.. all of us, our blood. I was weeping and the man driving this huge van was going as fast as he could.. He was also on his phone talking and I realized he was breaking down, in tears.. he had gotten the news and it was a member of his family.. wllahi. I found a thermos of coffee, and poured it and handed it to him, I did say, “If you need to go back, it is okay”.. We were both in tears, and trying to be strong.. We shared that coffee and my cigarettes.. He dry and warm, having laid out his large coat over me, because I was soaked in water. We talked to console each other.. Once we got close to Huwarra.. we decided to take the back way and realized I had about ten minutes left. We stopped for me to get out and walk to the checkpoint.. he and I looked deeply into each other’s eyes and it was like looking into your soul and having it look back. We needed no words.. just tears. 

Rima can be contacted by e-mail…rima.anabtawi@gmail.com

Palestine: The Enemy Within

By Stuart Littlewood*

"O wad some Power the giftie gie us
To see oursels as others see us!"

A few weeks ago, on the annual Robert Burns Night, these immortal lines from 1786 were being recited all over the world, but probably not in Palestine. The leadership there aren't blessed with the gift of seeing themselves as the rest of the world sees them… a bit like the Israelis that way. The consequences for the Palestinians are tragic.

Fatah especially would do well to learn the lines off by heart. The next two go

"It would from many a blunder free us,
And foolish notion!"

The poem addresses a louse, which seems appropriate enough.

We've heard a great deal about Fatah spreading security chaos, almost provoking a civil war, then collaborating with the US to recruit sinister battalions of "security" thugs with orders to crush all opposition, silence dissent, destroy Hamas and the welfare structure it provides, and force Palestinians to bend to Israel's will.

This vile scenario is topped off with unjustified arrests, torture and lack of due process. It sounds like Fatah's brave "security" forces have been trained in terror tactics by the Gestapo and are working for the enemy.

Who is the enemy these days? Palestine's external enemy we know about. But the 'enemy within' is always more dangerous.

Since I first visited the Holy Land nearly 5 years ago I have tried to keep my promise to tell the story of those wonderful people struggling under cruel occupation. So I added my voice to the many that campaign for justice and freedom. But what exactly are we giving our support to?

The endless ordeal of the Palestinian people and their terrible loss tugs at the heart-strings of millions here in the West, but efforts to win over public opinion are continually undermined by the infighting between Fatah and Hamas.

This 2-rump division and the violent squabbles are what Israel prayed for. Mr Abbas, Mr Fayyad and the Palestinian National Authority are the 'Acceptable Face' of Palestine but only because they are propped up by the psychopaths in Washington and Tel Aviv. Abbas and Fayyad have power but little or no legitimacy and it's not clear whom they represent, which again is what Israel prayed for. They rule the West Bank in a game of footsie with Israel and with funding and support from the US, but are silent to the media, and the Israelis love that.

The PNA's embassies in the West have nothing to say, and Israeli propagandists are laughing themselves silly. The London embassy is deliberately starved of resources. Who but a raving lunatic – or a knave – would gag their communications outlet in the world's media capital?

This part of the Palestinian story just doesn't sell.

Israel meanwhile continues its bombings and abductions and its land-grabbing and water thieving and house demolitions and settlement building and blockades and check-points and collective punishment and general harassment, even ruins youngsters' education and forces Gazans to rebuild their blitzed homes and factories with mud bricks.

It is obvious that Fatah must face down threats from the US, forge unity with Hamas and agree clear objectives based on what has already been set out in UN resolutions and international law. Both camps need to behave impeccably, hold new elections instead of overstaying their term, and co-operate if they are to earn respect inside and outside Palestine. They need to become squeaky-clean and media-friendly. Everyone needs to sing off the same hymn-sheet.

Every day they delay, more damage is done to the cause.

But instead, the Palestinian National Authority (a misnomer if ever there was one) presents such an appalling image to the outside world that the long-suffering people it is supposed to represent are actually losing the sympathy they deserve. If any progress has been made recently it's by campaign groups and students in the West creating awareness and putting pressure on governments and business, and no thanks to Palestine's leaders.

Hamas charter an obstacle to peace

Democratically elected Hamas is the 'Unacceptable Face' of Palestine, according to the White House and the rest of Israel's hirelings. But even those who dislike Hamas have a sneaking admiration for their courage and single-minded determination against impossible odds. How many of their critics could have emerged from what they have been through with colours still flying? We in Britain owe a duty to Palestinians to talk to Hamas as well as Fatah instead of welcoming onto our streets Israelis wanted for mega war crimes.

Islam is only a problem to the West when it is corrupted and distorted by fanatics. The teachings of Christianity and Judaism are also a menace when distorted, and we don't have to look very far.

But don't you think, Mr Meshaal and Mr Haniyeh, that the Hamas Charter is an obstacle to peace? Can you appreciate that ordinary Westerners, who could turn the tide of opinion, see the Charter as threatening and are easily persuaded not to back your cause, while the enemies of Palestine – especially the 'Friends of Israel' and their stooges in the corridors of power – gleefully use it to make mischief and stoke up hatred?

OK, the Charter dates from 1988 and is basically an Intifada rallying call by a resistance group that never dreamed of being catapulted into government 18 years later. But the puzzle is why it wasn't torn up promptly in 2006 and why Hamas didn't seize the occasion to re-invent themselves.

A new Charter removing the West's objections would significantly improve chances of a just settlement. Right-thinking people will respect your unwillingness to sacrifice national constants and your reluctance to accept Israel's claims of legitimacy, but after 42 years you might consider formally accepting the reality of Israel within internationally agreed pre-1967 borders, as set out in UN resolutions and international law. This would show that Hamas is at least evolving and now worthy of being considered a potential partner for peace, if not among the West's present crop of corrupted leaders then at least among the people they answer to.

Israel of course will continue to demand "recognition" but on what basis? On the 57 per cent of mandated Palestine generously allocated to the Jews by the UN in 1947? Or the 78.5 per cent they had illegally expanded to by 1949?

Or are we all supposed to recognise present-day Israel occupying/blockading 100 percent and determined to keep it all, including Jerusalem? Their relentless drive to dispossess the Palestinians totally must be halted. Until it is who can reasonably be expected to recognise Israel, especially the Palestinians?

Enforce the law first. Negotiate afterwards, on a level playing field

No-one should be asked to agree peace with an occupier's jackboot on his throat. The UN and the International Court of Justice have already spoken and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is simple enough to understand. Justice can only be delivered when Israel conforms to international law and complies with UN Resolutions, yet the international community still funks implementation and takes the coward's way, urging "negotiations".

What is there to negotiate? Is international law negotiable? Or human rights? Is the US entitled to re-write these laws and conventions to suit its Israel lobby?

Negotiations should not even be mentioned until all outstanding legal issues are dealt with and a level playing field is prepared. That, one would have thought, is the unshakable precondition for any talks.

The question is, when will the US see to it? Answer: not until its pro-Israel lobby is purged, or the rest of the world runs out of patience and overrules America.

The same goes for the UK, where 'Friends of Israel' and their stooges now run foreign policy.

That stooge extraordinaire Tony Blair is now to step up his efforts as Middle East peace envoy by doing things "bottom-up" – more months/years of negotiations to improve freedom of movements, change living conditions, encourage investment, etc – which has been a recipe for failure for decades. The Israelis will love that too. Top-down enforcement of international law is what's needed before anything useful can be achieved.

Saeb Erekat, the PNA's chief negotiator, is urging the Palestinians to call for a new UN resolution that recognises a Palestinian state on the 1967 borders and builds upon the position established by numerous previous resolutions. That's more like it!

But good ideas and fine words are not enough. Palestine's 'acceptable' and 'unacceptable' faces, both ugly as sin, must dissolve seamlessly into a single, likable, honest face that inspires confidence. The quarrelsome rumps must vanish for ever.

* Stuart Littlewood is author of the book Radio Free Palestine, which tells the plight of the Palestinians under occupation. Read other articles by Stuart, or visit Stuart's website.

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

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

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

Variety and diversity

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

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

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

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

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

The voice of the people

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

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

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

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

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

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

Regaining our voice

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The coup d'etat government of Iran must step down and the constitution must be rewritten according to the wishes of the people. That is what the people of Iran are demanding on the 31st anniversary of their 1979 revolution.

For the eighth straight month, hundreds and thousands of Iranians filled the streets of their country, to reclaim their lost revolution. Their voices were calmer and more confident, despite the larger presence of security forces on the streets (who were surprisingly less aggressive against the protestors than in November of 2009). No burning cars or buses, no overturned police cars, and no takeover of police kiosks was seen today.

There was also no roughing up of the security forces or throwing stones at them. The people have gained too much experience and self-confidence to be turned back now.

A YouTube video, taken by the demonstrators, shows a protestor calling on an unenthusiastic security policeman to return and talk. Green is the color of this revolution. Eyewitness accounts tell of a young girl who refuses to relinquish her green winter scarf to a security officer, and of a passerby who offers to give the officer her green underwear instead. New chants were also heard today, the most significant of which were: "Referendum, referendum, this is the people's slogan"; and "Political prisoners must be freed".

The health and progressive maturity of the Iranian green movement can easily be recognized by these few slogans alone.

How do you suppose the "freedom and democracy"-loving West greets such a clear and confident display of maturing democratic energy in Iran and the Middle East? A quick look at the headlines of the mainstream western media will leave you dumbfounded.

Monstrous photos of staged government rallies are splashed across the entire spectrum of the Western media. Many Iranians attest that the government rally was imported, in comfy buses, from across Iran. The BBC (which most Iranians listen to or read), the Independent, the Associated Press, Reuters, the Washington Post, CNN, and the New York Times, have obsessively focused on the perpetually bogus Western discussion of a "nuclear Iran". Such a response to an unparalleled, grassroots, democratic, movement in Iran begs this question: "is the West really interested in democracy in the Middle East? Or are the Western powers more interested in submerging the Middle East in wars and chaos, to more easily suck out its oil?"

The U.S., together with other Western powers, finances illegal military occupations over 50 million inhabitants of the Middle East (Iraq, Afghanistan, Palestine). Did you know that every single U.S. occupying soldier costs $390,000 per year to maintain? But wait, the U.S. still has money to prop up the fabulously corrupt government of Pakistan, too. That government turns a blind eye while Obama butchers Pakistanis mercilessly, using dreaded drone attacks. A green and democratic Iran will have a tremendously positive impact on the entire region, inspiring millions to toss out their archaic U.S. puppet regimes. Yes, we can!

However, the U.S. armed forces have permanently poisoned the region with URANIUM bombs. They have been killing millions. They enforce military dictatorship over many more millions. They have already given $300 billion to Israel as it savagely bombs and starves Palestine. (Gaza's crime was to try and democratically elect its own government, remember?) This is all being done by the commander in-chief of two military occupations in the Middle East, Mr. "peace-loving" Obama himself. He hardly bothered to wipe the blood off his hands when he picked up his Nobel Peace Prize. Seeing the tremendous leap forward by the people of Iran towards a democratic future, Mr. Obama continues his old warlike rhetoric against Iran. Simultaneously, he tightens the deadly grip of sanctions on the people of Iran, as they fiercely fight for democracy in their own land. Then he dares to say that he supports freedom and democracy. Freedom and democracy my ass, Mr. President!

Mr. Obama: Take your hundreds of thousands of high-tech soldiers out of the Middle East. Stop drone attacks on the people of Pakistan. Stop funding the most racist state in existence today (Israel) before you ever dare to speak of "freedom and democracy" for Iran.

You, Mr. Obama, are all about oppression. You send armies to enforce the most violent, unsustainable way of life on earth. If the people of Iraq and Afghanistan and Palestine and Iran don't stop your death machine, then your own destruction of the planet will stop you. Let us hope it will not be the planet that collapses under the weight of your massively toxic and brutal way of life. Let us hope the people will prevail and save the Earth.

Egyptian plain-clothes policemen detain a demonstrator in Mahala, April 2008. Photograph: AFP/Getty Images

Pro-democracy protests in Iran top the news agenda, but similar tensions in Egypt pass unreported

WRITTEN BY JACK SHENKER – Here's a thought experiment: pick a random Middle Eastern country led by an unpopular autocrat whose legitimacy is being challenged by a growing wave of public dissent. Add in widespread allegations of electoral fraud, and increasingly violent confrontations on the street between protesters and security services — clashes that have left many civilians dead. Now imagine this politically volatile state is a major player in the area, and that change at the top could have an explosive effect on the geopolitical dynamics of the entire region. How much press coverage do you think it would receive in the west?

For the sake of convenience, let's keep things manageable by narrowing that down a bit. How many news articles do you think such a country would generate in the British broadsheets over the years 2008 and 2009? If you guessed at 7,098, well done: you're spot-on. Pub quiz aficionados may also wish to jot down the figure of 3,305 — an equally correct answer.

Confused? So are many Egyptians, who have seen their intense and sometimes deadly struggle against the repressive regime that rules them almost completely sidelined by the international media. Not only has their country attracted less than half the volume of newsprint lavished on Iran in the past two years, but the vast majority of Egypt-focused articles tend to concentrate on matters relating to tourism or archaeology, whereas nearly all the Iranian coverage is political in nature. 

Cool disinterest

When you boil the figures down to hard news, the chasm between the media's fetishising of Iran and their cool disinterest in Egypt yawns even wider. In June 2009 — the month when disputed Iranian elections brought thousands of anti-government protesters into conflict with riot police and left blood running through the streets — Iran was featured in 742 articles. In April 2008 — the month when an attempted Egyptian general strike brought thousands of anti-government protesters into conflict with riot police and left blood running through the streets — Egypt made an appearance in 28 pieces, almost none of which mentioned Mahalla (the town at the heart of the unrest).

Of course, this sort of content analysis is highly subjective and open to interpretation. Moreover, the circumstances in Iran and Egypt are by no means identical, and could hardly be expected to inspire a perfectly matching number of column inches. Yet popular feeling against the Mubarak oligarchy here is just as real as anti-Ahmadinejad sentiment in Iran, and the potential for monumental political upheaval just as substantial.

There is no space in this forum to detail all the ways in which the unelected political elite of the Arab world's biggest country consistently reject democratic freedoms, subvert the rule of law to protect their hegemony, and encroach on the human rights of that country's citizens day in, day out. A brief perusal of this week's country report on Egypt by Human Rights Watch would provide a taste, however — the organisation helpfully points out that despite the media frenzy over the number of post-election arbitrary detentions in Iran, Egypt's estimated tally of detentions without charge is 150 per cent higher.

Nor is there room to describe the full breadth and strength of the grass-roots reaction these injustices have triggered in Egypt, from the spread of a strike wave so large it has been labelled "the largest social movement the Middle East has seen in half a century" to the astonishing trend of local communities not only facing down the bullets and tear gas of riot police, but doing so with such vigour that fleeing security officers have been forced to bunker down in their own headquarters to protect themselves from the masses. 

Expensive lobbying

I would urge anyone who rejects the premise that Egypt is as unstable as Iran to take a look at the spine-tingling photos and videos of demonstrations against Hosni Mubarak in Mahalla back in April 2008, including the iconic image of hundreds of angry Egyptians bearing down with their feet on a flattened poster of the president. They are eerily reminiscent of the scenes accompanying the fall of dozens of 20th-century dictators, from Saddam Hussein to rulers of the former Soviet-bloc countries. And yet they have barely been seen outside Egypt, in common with the face of Mohamed ElBaradei — the Nobel laureate who is spearheading the opposition movement against Mubarak, yet whose unexpected leadership challenge has also been largely ignored in the west.

Whichever way you splice the figures, the disparity in media attention between Cairo and Tehran is inescapable. You can draw only one conclusion: western media outlets apply vastly different editorial judgements to these two countries and, as a result, readers at home are consuming a heavily skewed diet of Middle Eastern news. The issue is not, as some have suggested, why Egyptians remain so placid in the face of oppression from their political masters. They don't. The question is why nobody cares.

The short answer is that Mubarak and his acolytes are grossly misunderstood in the west, partly as a result of highly effective lobbying by professional outfits in London, Washington and the other corridors of power. The Egyptian government is listed as a client by two top K Street lobbying firms, the Podesta and Livingston Groups.

Although the exact cost of their services is confidential, the fact that Podesta charged up to $13m over ten years to help the Turkish government persuade movers and shakers on Capitol Hill that there was no such thing as an Armenian genocide suggests the Egyptian regime is shelling out an awful lot on polishing its image. Meanwhile, one-third of Egyptian children are suffering from malnutrition.

The deeper answer, though, is that Mubarak's PR people are able to do such a good job because the vision they project of the ruling National Democratic Party (NDP) ticks all the boxes when it comes to western policymaker wish-lists. Mubarak, they insist, is a force for stability in a tempestuous neighbourhood. Without him, the Muslim Brotherhood would sweep to power and light the fuse of Islamist revolution across the region. He is also praised for being a financial reformer, a gutsy friend of the free market who has dragged Egypt kicking and screaming into the global economy and has dazzling growth rates to show for it.

All this is false. As has been argued time and again by independent analysts, think tanks and some better-informed journalists, the Muslim Brotherhood is a vastly complex and diffuse organisation that forms only one part of a wide-ranging Egyptian opposition movement. There is no reason to think it would command majority support in the event of genuinely fair elections. Meanwhile the presumed existence of this Islamist Sword of Damocles gives Mubarak carte blanche in the international arena to arrest and torture his opponents and render dissidents invisible.

When it comes to the economy, despite more money than ever flowing into Egypt, no less than 90 per cent of the population has become poorer in real terms on Mubarak's watch. And the number of Egyptians living below the poverty line has doubled.

Unstinting western support for the despotic, corrupt cabal of Mubarak's cronies, against the will of the people, is not a force for stability; it is a recipe for disaster. Yet western backing for the NDP and the relentless promotion of Mubarak as a "moderate" continue, to the tune of $2bn a year from Washington — more money than any other recipient of US aid bar Israel. 

Colour stories

So much for the western policy framework. What is scary is the extent to which the stance of the western media mirrors the values of our political masters, following blindly when they should be thinking sceptically, leaving battles shrouded in darkness where they should be shining a light.

Against a backdrop of immense turmoil, what topics has the international press chosen to write about in Egypt over the past couple of years? Artificial hymens, Beyoncé concerts and the pyramids have all figured high on the list, alongside a multitude of other cultural "colour" stories, designed to put a smile on your face over breakfast.

The slightest hint of opposition activity in Iran is guaranteed acres of coverage, whereas the equivalent in Egypt is permitted a mention only if it fits the preconceived notion of Egypt as a relatively tranquil space, disrupted only by the strange and often comedic fallout from an ongoing war between secular and religiously conservative values. Hence debates over the niqab and the slaughtering of pigs make the grade, whereas policemen shooting unarmed civilians dead, or hundreds of thousands of workers going on strike over the impact of government-backed neoliberal reform projects, are left buried in obscurity.

What is so disheartening is not that foreign editors have to use filters, both consciously and subconsciously, to sift through all the news coming out of a country and decide what is fit to print. Rather, it is that the filters they use, even in the supposedly liberal media, seem to provide cover for and chime so closely with the policy stance of western politicians — which is in turn aligned with Mubarak's propaganda. Allowing dictators to set news values when it comes to coverage of their countries isn't just a disservice to readers; just as the media take their cue from politicians, so politicians let their priorities be shaped by the media.

This helps create an endlessly reverberating media/politics echo chamber, sounding skewed descriptions of the state of affairs in Egypt that are constantly affirmed by politicians and journalists alike. All this feeds back into the very problem that fuels it. Were the British public to be more conscious of political realities in a destination that more than a million of them visit on holiday each year, the British government might be a bit more wary of showering Mubarak with public praise. As it is, journalists, diplomats and politicians treat him with kid gloves. This is "churnalism" at its most destructive.

Conspiracy theorists can look away now. As a journalist who reports for British newspapers from Cairo, I am only too aware how difficult it is to assess the news value of stories from far-flung places, and how inevitable it is that the tone of coverage gets coloured by the political landscape at home. But it is precisely because of this, because it is so much smoother to follow the herd, that it is imperative for the media to question their governments' perspective on what matters. Because, by working in Egypt, I have also been made aware how often dramatic events here are sidelined by the press while equivalent developments in Iran provoke banner headlines — simply because western governments have thrown in their lot with one totalitarian leader and pitted themselves against another.

The end result is fact-distortion and myth-making. As Bertrand Russell put it:

If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinise it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way.

It may be easier to let the timbre and beat of international journalism follow the well-worn groove of political consensus, but that doesn't make it right. Those reading and watching at home deserve better. So do those who have died in pursuit of justice and freedom, wherever they may be.

source: http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/the-staggers/2010/01/western-media-egypt-iran (thanks Rima for the tip).

We knew then that we were all alone.

Do you know what it is like to see your father being beaten to death?

Do you know what it is like seeing your mother being raped?

Do you know what it is like seeing your unborn child forced out of your wife's tummy with a knife?

Do you know what it is like when you hold your child in pieces?

Do you know what is like when a human is degraded out of his humanity?

Do you know what it is like watching your life being shattered and being raped of your dreams?

Do you know what it is like being oppressed and being deprived of your freedom?

I am sure you don't because if you did, you would have never called me a terrorist.

Are we terrorists because we said "NO MORE?" Are we terrorists because we refused to be sub-human? Are we terrorists because we retaliated? Are we terrorists because we interrupted your joy of watching us bleed? Or are we terrorists because our love for Palestine is simply so deep?

Did I hurt your feelings? Did I make you cry? Did I turn your stomach with disgust? Or should I just let you watch me bleed?"

we should never forget that turning a blind eye to oppression and watching from the sidelines is itself oppression.

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

1 THE REQUIREMENT OF A NEW DISCOURSE

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2 THE REQUIREMENT OF NATIONAL UNITY

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

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

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

3 THE REQUIREMENT OF STRATEGIC THINKING

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This is an approach that emphasises bargaining and compromise.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yossi Peled

The Israeli military may be much less effective in winning wars than it was in the past, thanks to the stiffness of Arab resistance. But its military strategists are as shrewd and unpredictable as ever. The recent rhetoric that has escalated from Israel suggests that a future war in Lebanon will most likely target Syria as well. While this doesn’t necessarily mean that Israel actually intends on targeting either of these countries in the near future, it is certainly the type or language that often precedes Israeli military maneuvers.

Deciphering the available clues regarding the nature of Israel’s immediate military objectives is not always easy, but it is possible. One indicator that could serve as a foundation for any serious prediction of Israel’s actions is Israel’s historical tendency to seek a perpetual state of war. Peace, real peace, has never been a long-term policy.

"Unlike many others, I consider that peace is not a goal in itself but only a means to guarantee our existence," claimed Yossi Peled, a former army general and current Cabinet Minister in Benjamin Netanyahu’s right-wing government.

Israeli official policy – military or otherwise – is governed by the same Zionist diktats that long preceded the establishment of the state of Israel. If anything has changed since early Zionists outlined their vision, it was the interpretation of those directives. The substance has remained intact.

For example, Zionist visionary, Vladimir Jabotinsky stated in 1923 that Zionist “colonization can…continue and develop only under the protection of a force independent of the local population – an iron wall which the native population cannot break through.” He was not then referring to an actual wall. While his vision took on various manifestations throughout the years, in 2002 it was translated into a real wall aimed at prejudicing any just solution with the Palestinians. Now, most unfortunately, Egypt has also started building its own steel wall along its border with the war-devastated and impoverished Gaza Strip.

One thing we all know by now is that Israel is a highly militarized country. Its definition of ‘existence’ can only be ensured by its uncontested military dominance at all fronts, thus the devastating link between Palestine and Lebanon. This link makes any analysis of Israel’s military intents in Gaza, that excludes Lebanon – and in fact, Syria – seriously lacking.

Consider, for example, the unprecedented Israeli crackdown on the Second Palestinian Uprising which started in September 2000. How is that linked to Lebanon? Israel had been freshly defeated by the Lebanese resistance, led by Hizbullah, and was forced to end its occupation of most of South Lebanon in May 2000. Israel wanted to send an unmistakable message to Palestinians that this defeat was in fact not a defeat at all, and that any attempt at duplicating the Lebanese resistance model in Palestine would be ruthlessly suppressed. Israel’s exaggeration in the use of its highly sophisticated military to stifle a largely popular revolution was extremely costly to Palestinians in terms of human toll.

Israel’s 34-day war on Lebanon in July 2006 was an Israeli attempt at destroying Arab resistance, and restoring its metaphorical iron wall. It backfired, resulting in a real – not figurative – Israeli defeat. Israel, then, did what it does best. It used its superior air force, destroyed much of Lebanon’s civilian infrastructure and killed more than 1,200 people, mostly civilians. The resistance, with humble means, killed more than 160 Israelis, mostly soldiers during combat.

Not only did Hizbullah penetrate the Israeli iron wall, it had also filled it with holes. It challenged, like never before, the Israeli army’s notion of invincibility and illusion of security. Something went horribly wrong in Lebanon.

Since then, the Israeli army, intelligence, propagandists and politicians have been in constant preparation for another showdown. But before such pending battle, the nation needed to renew its faith in its army and government intelligence; thus the war in Gaza late December 2008.

As appalling as it was for Israeli families to gather en masse near the Israeli Gaza border, and watch giddily as Gaza and Gazans were blown to smithereens, the act was most rational. The victims of the war may have been Palestinians in Gaza, but the target audience was Israelis. The brutal and largely one-sided war united Israelis, including their self-proclaimed leftist parties in one rare moment of solidarity. Here was proof that the IDF still had enough strength to report military achievements.

Of course, Israel’s military strategists knew well that their war crimes in Gaza were a clumsy attempt at regaining national confidence. The tightly lipped politicians and army generals wanted to give the impression that all was working according to plan. But the total media blackout, and the orchestrated footage of Israeli soldiers flashing military signs and waving flags on their way back to Israel were clear indications of an attempt to improve a problematic image.

Thus Yossi Peled’s calculated comments on January 23: "In my estimation, understanding and knowledge it is almost clear to me that it is a matter of time before there is a military clash in the north." Further, he claimed that "We are heading toward a new confrontation, but I don't know when it will happen, just as we did not know when the second Lebanon war would erupt."

Peled is of course right. There will be a new confrontation. New strategies will be employed. Israel will raise the stakes, and will try to draw Syria in, and push for a regional war. A Lebanon that defines itself based on the terms of resistance – following the failure to politically co-opt Hizbullah – is utterly unacceptable from the Israeli viewpoint. That said, Peled might be creating a measured distraction from efforts aimed at igniting yet another war – against the besieged resistance in Gaza, or something entirely different. (Hamas’ recent announcement that its senior military leader Mahmoud al- Mabhouh was killed late January in Dubai at the hands of Israeli intelligence is also an indication of the involved efforts of Israel that goes much further than specific boundaries.)

Will it be Gaza or Lebanon first? Israel is sending mixed messages, and deliberately so. Hamas, Hizbullah and their supporters understand well the Israeli tactic and must be preparing for the various possibilities. They know Israel cannot live without its iron walls, and are determined to prevent any more from being built at their expense.

Ramzy Baroud (www.ramzybaroud.net) is an internationally-syndicated columnist and the editor of PalestineChronicle.com. His latest book is "My Father Was a Freedom Fighter: Gaza's Untold Story" (Pluto Press, London), now available on Amazon.com.

BACKGROUND:
In April 2002, Israel launched Operation Defensive Shield by invading the Palestinian
refugee camp of Jenin, south of Nazareth. In this operation which lasted about 8 days and followed a suicide bomb attack on the Israeli town of Netanya. Israel deployed 30,000 reserve soldiers against a camp population of 33,000 refugees. It sealed the camp and refused to allow journalists and human rights organisation from entering leading to a rapid rise in rumours that a major massacre had taken place. Various casualty figures circulated ranging from 50 to 500 Palestinian civilians and fighters were killed. On the Israeli side, 23 IDF soldiers died. By the end of this operation, more than 10% of the camp was levelled. The UN fact-finding mission was never allowed in.

THE DOCUMENTARY:
Mohammad Bakri joined a non-violent demonstration during the invasion at which a
fellow actor standing nearby was shot and wounded by the IDF. This inspired Bakri to secretly enter the camp soon after the Operation ended and to interview its residents, young and old, some of whom witnessed some of the killing. The result of his work is Jenin Jenin a documentary which tells the story of the Palestinians of Jenin who would otherwise not have been heard by the international media due to the sealing of the camp. The documentary has no narrator, no voice-over, no guide and no commentary by the film maker. Jenin Jenin is dedicated by Bakri to its producer Iyad Samoudi who
was killed by the IDF in the Jenin Governorate shortly after the filming was completed.

THE COURT CASE:
After three screenings in Israel, the Israeli Film Ratings Board banned the film. The Tel Aviv and Jerusalem Cinematheques showed the film despite the ban. Bakri took the ban to the Israeli Supreme Court and won. On appeal, the Supreme Court ruling was stayed, but in August 2004, it reaffirmed its ruling stating that the Film Rating Board has "no monopoly over the truth"

In February 2005, five IDF soldiers who took part in Operation Defensive Shield filed a suit for defamation of character against Bakri. These five soldiers were neither mentioned nor shown in the film. The Judge in the Petah Tikva District Court dismissed the soldiers' case stating that although the film did slander the IDF generally, the five soldiers were not personally slandered. The soldiers' attorney said later that he would consider appealing to the High Court of Justice.

In January 2010, Haaretz reported that Attorney General Menachem Mazuz, who is
retiring from his post in this month, stated his support for the five soldiers in their appeal.

After a meeting with the fibve soldiers and their families, Mazuz acknowledged that
Bakri did not defame the general public but only a particular group. If the Supreme Court accepts that position, then it would enable each soldier to open criminal proceedings against the filmmaker. Mazuz's joining this civic process with the soldiers individually, raises the question, according to Bakri of "why such a decision has come so late?"

IN DEFENSE OF BAKRI:
Jenin Jenin was awarded Best Film at The Carthage International Film Festival
International Prize for Mediterranean Documentary Filmmaking and reporting.

Mohammad Bakri will be awarded the Free Speech Bear Award at this year's
Berlin Film Festival: The Berlinale.

The Mohammad Bakri Defense Committee insists that "the importance of this case
reaches beyond Bakri as an individual" highlighting the repression of Palestinian self expression.

Choosing to show the Jenin residents' story is not grounds for censorship.

The Committee further adds that "for his artistic integrity and his focus on the
experiences and narratives of his fellow Palestinians, Mohammad Bakri faces the
potential of financial ruin in the face of spurious legal charges and dubious claims of
defamation".

Against the backdrop of an illegal occupation of 4.5 million Palestinians in The West
Bank and East Jerusalem, and a further 1.5 million in the Gaza Strip, the voice of
Mohammad Bakri rises against the attempt, within Israel, to silence his artistic
expression. At personal risk to himself and to his family, Bakri has been fighting alone, amongst all filmmakers, to encourage debate, free choice, and independent artistic creativity. As one of the greatest actors and filmmakers in Israel-Palestine today, Bakri represents the struggle of his people to attain freedom, justice and equality.

In a rare tribute to this personal conviction, it was decided to honour Mohammad Bakri with the Free Speech Award at the Berlinale 2010 through Panorama which showcases new films by established directors. Panorama was established by the well known German Film Director Wieland Speck in 1992. It is in his revolutionary spirit that the award will be presented to Mohammad Bakri.

The jury include: Hiam Abbas (The Lemon Tree), Naomi Klein (The Shock Doctrine),
John Grieson (Fig Tree), Udi Aloni (Forgiveness).

(editor's note: Bakri's site is down, but you can send donations to his defense expenses here: Al-Jisser Group
P. O. Box 255
New York, NY 10013)

“We don't have to engage in grand, heroic actions to participate in the process of change or resistance. Small acts, when multiplied by many people, can transform the world”

“If we remember those times and places–and there are so many–where people have behaved magnificently, this gives us the energy to act, and at least the possibility of sending this spinning top of a world in a different direction. And if we do act, in however small a way, we don’t have to wait for some grand utopian future. The future is an infinite succession of presents, and to live now as we think human beings should live, in defiance of all that is bad around us, is itself a marvelous victory.”

Professor Howard Zinn (1922-2010) 

 Hundreds of people from around the World have signed an Online Petition http://www.petitiononline.com/ssfpcrc/petition.html in the opening days of an international effort to achieve basic Civil Rights for Palestinian Refugees in Lebanon.

We Petition because we believe that alongside Statehood, and the exigency of lifting the criminal siege of Gaza, immediately granting the right to work and the right to purchase a home to Palestinians in Lebanon, after 62 years of indignity and degradation, is a fundamental imperative of basic morality and justice.

We Petition because as British journalist Robert Fisk wrote in the UK Independent on January 16, 2010 after a camp visit: “ The Sabra and Shatila Palestinian Refugee Camps are repulsive, obscene, outrageous, filthy, stinking slums and a place of such squalor that the gorge rises that human beings even live there.” The reason why Lebanon’s 12 Palestinian Refugee camps are the worst of the 58 camps in the Middle East is due primarily to the fact that unlike occupied Palestine, Jordan, and Syria, Palestinians in Lebanon do not possess the most basic civil rights

We Petition because many of us are from countries that continue to aid and abet this degradation, for which like each of our fellow citizens we bare personal responsibility and feel shame, as we contemplate the founding principles of our nations that we cherish being sullied by silence and inaction.

We Petition because Lebanon’s Palestinian refugees are today, as has been the case for 62 years, systematically deprived of basic rights guaranteed by the United Nations Charter, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and because the Palestinian refugees are the only refugee population in the world excluded from the international protection accorded by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) Statute and the Refugee Convention. At the end of 2008, at least 7.1 million Palestinians, representing 67 percent of the entire Palestinian population (10.6 million) worldwide were displaced persons. Among them are 6.6 million refugees and 427,000 IDPs. This makes Palestinian refugees and internally displaced persons (IDPs) the largest and longest-standing case of displaced persons in the world today.

We Petition because the Lebanese government, in particular, as well as the broader international community, have the obligation to respect and ensure the full range of civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights of Palestinians living in Lebanon, without discrimination. These rights include the rights to work, to education, to the highest attainable standard of health, to adequate housing and an adequate standard of living.

We Petition because we want to twin with every Palestinian Refugee in Lebanon and to pay heartfelt condolences to the families of every Lebanese who died during the several aggressions launched against them. Each Petition signature links with our cherished friend, Badriah Haij of Shatila Refugee Camp, now ill and preparing for death and to meet the Prophets. Sixty two years ago she walked for two days into Lebanon at Maron al Ras from her village of Al Amoka near Safad, Palestine. Badriah’s fervent death wish, and that of her daughter Zeinab and her siblings, is to have someone bring a handful of dirt from her family homestead for her children to sprinkle into her casket in Lebanon until, as Badriah believes, her remains will be returned to Palestine and she can rest in peace. Each signature links with Master Ali Hamise a young man of 11 years old who happened upon a delegation of visiting Europeans and Americans recently and they engaged the ill glad youngster near the garbage pile on Rue Sabra. Ali stunned the visitors with his knowledge of Palestine as he recited much history and the names of nearly 150 destroyed villages in occupied Palestine that he insisted must be rebuilt “so people can go home.” “How could da kinder know all that?” a crusty German gentleman asked.

And each signature links in solidarity with more than 7 million Palestinians in the Diaspora, many forced to disperse to survive and whose Right of Return is inerasably engraved in international law.

We Petition because International law requires that civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights must be accorded the Palestinian Refugees in Lebanon without discrimination. Lebanon, like all Countries, must ensure that any discrimination against her hosted Palestinian Refugees is eliminated. The discretion given to countries in the extent to which they must ensure economic rights for Refugees does not justify restricting access to the right to work on the basis of preserving the right to return, as some in Lebanon have argued. Lebanon is obliged not to interpret the distinction between nationals and non-nationals to undermine their obligations under international human rights law.

For example, Lebanese Presidential Decree 11614 of 1969, as modified by Decree 296 of 2001, prohibits people who do "not carry a citizenship issued by a recognized state" from securing legal title to housing and land in Lebanon. This draconian legislation specifically targets Lebanon’s Palestinian Refugees although they are not specified in the Decree. It means that Palestinian refugees, because virtually all stateless people in Lebanon are Palestinian refugees, and most Palestinian refugees are stateless: “No real right to housing, land or property of any kind may be acquired by any person that does not carry a citizenship issued by a recognized state, or by any person if such acquisition contradicts with the provisions of the constitution relating to the prohibition of Settlement (tawteen)." Article 1 of the amended Decree 296.

This law is in direct violation of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) ratified by Lebanon on November 24, 2008, as well as other treaty obligation and numerous provisions of customary international law.

We Petition because the legal prohibition on Palestinian refugees in Lebanon registering legal title to housing and land greatly diminishes their chance of enjoying security of tenure outside the camps, leaving most of them with little choice but to remain in the camps and gatherings. Lebanese law also prevents Palestinian refugees from inheriting housing or land, and from registering real estate, even if they have been paying for it in installments for years.

We Petition because we believe Lebanon’s Parliament will heed a sincere broadly based international urgent appeal to fulfill the unique Lebanese role in the region and exhibit its gifted people’s deeply ingrained humanitarianism. And because courageous Lebanese officials working for the enactment of legislation granting civil rights to Palestinian Refugees urge us to do so, that they may demonstrate international support for and expectation of, correcting this grave injustice that has also diminished Lebanon’s standing among the community of Nations. To its great credit Lebanon’s new Parliament appears ready to seriously consider the enactment of basic civil rights for its Palestinian Refugees including the right to work and the right to own a home, have a recognized ID document and to move freely inside Lebanon and outside the camps without fear of harassment or arbitrary arrest.

We Petition to give Lebanon’s Palestinian refugees a feeling of hope and power that many are in danger of losing and to convince them that ultimately power rests with the people themselves and, as has often happened in history they can use it as blacks, women and the anti-war movement have done in American history and that the anti-war movement must reconstitute and do again.

To paraphrase one of my Professors at Boston University, the late Howard Zinn, who later was also the inaugural speaker at the Boston University School of Law Seminar-Forum, which he helped me establish during the Vietnam war, (in order to bring guest speakers on social issues and enliven our law school curriculum, top heavy as it was, by way too much Corporate Taxation, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Estate planning etc) however dire the conditions, however many will advise in all sincerity that those in power will not allow even the most basic civil rights for Palestinians in Lebanon we cannot give up the game before all the cards, including those from a multitude of supporters around the world, have been played.

The obstacles may seem invincible and also our opponents in their determination to hold onto the status quo. But that apparent power has, again and again, proved vulnerable in history to human qualities less measurable than entrenched political power such as moral fervor, determination, unity, organization, sacrifice, wit, ingenuity, courage, and persistence. No rational analysis and calculation of the imbalance of power need deter people who are persuaded that the cause for civil rights for Palestinian refugees in Lebanon is just.

Please join us!

Sign with us!

Distribute with us!

Post with us!

Make history with us!

Let’s do this together!

Please support the enactment of basic civil rights for our Palestinian sisters and brothers in Lebanon in the sure knowledge that when we succeed, and succeed we shall, you will personally have improved the World.

Contact: palestinecivilrightscampaign@gmail.com

Website: www.palestinecivilrightscampaign.org
Palestine Civil Rights Campaign-Lebanon

PLEASE SIGN HERE!

http://www.petitiononline.com/ssfpcrc/petition.html

"Affixing my name to this petition expresses my wish to personally "twin" in solidarity with one of Lebanon's Palestinian refugees as they and their Lebanese hosts continue to work and prepare for their Return."

Franklin P. Lamb, LLM,PhD
Director, Americans Concerned for
Middle East Peace, Wash.DC-Beirut

Board Member, The Sabra Shatila Foundation and the Palestine Civil Rights Campaign, Beirut-Washington DC
Shatila Palestinian Refugee Camp
Beirut Mobile: +961-70-497-804
fplamb@gmail.com